One Minute of Greatness

With the Leadville 100 now less than one week away, I find myself somewhat paralyzed when it comes to stringing words together coherently to resemble anything remotely sensible.  If all goes well, I’ll plunk out one more post before heading to Colorado later this week.

Instead of writing, I’ve spent the better part of my time over the past couple of weeks looking for inspiration.  Obviously, the Olympics have been very timely in that regard, as it’s hard to watch athletes accomplishing their dreams – especially in extraordinary circumstances like Oscar Pistorius - without feeling that absolutely anything is possible. 

I’ve also found myself curiously drawn to one 60-second commercial that’s part of the “Find Your Greatness” campaign recently launched by Nike.  It celebrates not the Olympians – although it uses the London theme rather brilliantly throughout the piece - but everyday athletes looking to push their own boundaries.  It finishes with the profession that greatness isn’t reserved for a select few on the world’s grandest stages, but rather that “Greatness is wherever somebody is trying to find it.”

I’ll certainly be looking for it in the Rocky Mountains about six days from now … and I can only hope that a little bit will be there for me to find.

“Find Your Greatness – London 2012” by Nike (click to play):

Get updates as soon as they're posted! Click here to subscribe to Running and Rambling. 
Check out the Running Life book for a collection of our most popular columns.

Read more...

Responsible Dysfunction

Admin note: reading over this post afterward, I feel like I somehow channeled my inner Abe Simpson: I don't understand what's going on, I can't figure out this confounded technology, and I just wish someone would sit me down and explain things in a nice, simple manner. I'm not usually prone to ranting, but that's kind of what this post seems like in retrospect: a long, rambling airing of grievances that may serve no purpose other than to demonstrate how mentally discombobulated I can become. When exactly did I become a cantankerous old man?

**
One of the saddest paradoxes of socially conscious consumerism is this: more people would probably make thoughtful purchase decisions if it weren’t so darn-near impossible to stay properly informed.

Put another way: if you ever want to fall down an Internet rabbit hole, try Googling something like “socially responsible shoe companies”, or “eco-friendly corporations”, and start clicking your way through the mind-bogglingly vast, infuriatingly disjointed world of corporate watchdog agencies.

When I posted my plea for good sources of information on responsible businesses, I had no idea the quest would get so complex – or that so many promising avenues would lead me to dead ends. This isn’t a knock against everyone who gave me websites; I’m very grateful for all of your assistance. Rather, it’s an indictment of just how confusing and fruitless the queries of a conscientious shopper can become.

It becomes obvious that the term “responsible” is far too broad, requiring an immediate narrowing of your search into very specific categories. Are you interested in which companies treat their workers fairly, or those who prevent animal mistreatment? How about those who contribute to worthy social causes, or who work for change with repressive governments? And what about preserving our natural resources, eliminating toxic by-products, and minimizing our carbon footprint? Every one of these considerations introduces a whole new squadron of players.

From Patagonia website

There are dozens of “corporate accountability” websites, and literally hundreds of “eco-awareness” sites that try to hold companies accountable to certain manufacturing guidelines or business practices. The trouble is that there aren’t any uniform criteria for what qualifies as “responsible” – and nearly all of these agencies seem to be working independently of one another. Even worse is that many of the larger, more recognizable agencies aren’t overly forthcoming with information geared towards the general public.

For example, the Fair Labor Association is one of the major players dedicated to (among other things) eliminating sweat shop practices by major manufacturers. They write annual reports and investigate complaints of substandard workplaces – but I dare you to find out from their website which companies currently do well, and which act poorly. The most recent annual report online is from 2007, and their tracking charts are incomprehensible. Even typing a specific company’s name into the search engine doesn’t pull out any tangible information.

From FLA website

Here’s another: let’s say you wanted to support responsible businesses by investing in stocks or a mutual fund comprised entirely of socially responsible companies. One of the most popular indexes is the Domini 400, created by a New England-based group called KLD. It consists of publicly traded American companies that have met certain standards of social and environmental excellence … so wouldn’t it be great to see which companies are included in the 400?

Well, you can’t – at least, not without ponying up some cash. You have to buy a paid subscription to KLD in order to receive their index lists – and if you just want a simple yes/no about one particular company, you have to e-mail a general “info” mailbox and sit around waiting for a reply. Even if you buy today’s list, you won’t be notified of future additions or removals from the index – for that, you have to pay an additional fee to subscribe to a daily constituents list.

What’s worse is that KLD’s criteria for including companies on the “responsible” list is influenced more by reputation and Internet buzz than by doing actual inspections or any other investigative legwork. Some companies have an enormous target on their backs – like Nike, who has been dismissed from and later reinstated to the index - even as they use the exact same factories and labor force as companies like Timberland, who is widely recognized as one of the most socially conscious companies around. Under these circumstances, a company may benefit more from hiring a sharp PR agency than to whole-heartedly commit to social responsibility.

From Patagonia website

(Tangent #1: I don’t mean to pick on KLD specifically – they’re probably no better or worse than most other agencies. They just happened to be the subject of a very insightful New York Times piece I found, which you can read here for a more detailed account.)

(Tangent #2: The story of Nike’s relationship with social watchdog groups could be a whole series of posts, if not an entire book. They’ve actually made tremendous changes since their much-publicized failings of the mid-1990s, and now they’re often listed among the most eco- and socially-conscious companies in the world by some agencies. Other groups still consider them the corporate devil for various reasons, some of which are probably legitimate. And that’s about as far as I’m going to wade into that particular quagmire.)

I mean … this shouldn’t be so difficult, should it? Let’s say you’re thinking about plunking down $100 for a pair of shoes, and want to know if Company X has a solid sense of corporate responsibility: I’m no closer to having a good resource to give you than I was when I first started digging into this stuff a few weeks ago. All we’re really left with is to Google something like “Company X corporate responsibility”, which 98% of the time will direct you to Company X’s own website.

From Patagonia website

To their credit, most companies do a great job highlighting their commitment to the environment, their charitable giving, and their various global partnerships. What you won’t see, of course, are any complaints or reports of irresponsible business practices leveled against them – so it’s hard not to feel like you’re only getting half of the story.

That’s why it’s especially impressive when a company not only does an honest assessment of itself, but openly discusses its shortcomings and limitations in a particular area. That was also supposed to be the introduction to some new videos from the Patagonia company – who, suffice it to say, are continually impressing me as I learn more about them - but for now, we’ll call this a stopping point and feature The Footprint Chronicles separately. The new segment has enough talking points to be the subject of its own discussion, which is what we’ll do in an upcoming post.

Read more...

Nike Free Everyday+ 2 Shoe Review

"I'm running free, yeah ...

I'm running free."
- Iron Maiden, "Running Free" (video after post)

*Admin note: It was virtually impossible for me to review a running shoe called the Free and NOT think of that classic Maiden song. If you're a hard rock fan of a certain age, you've already got the chorus stuck in your head just by reading it. For the rest of you, the video follows the post.

**
Just about every runner has a Nike story.

The company has been so ubiquitous in the development and expansion of the sport of running that you’d be hard pressed to find someone who has never worn Nike shoes. They are the 800-lb gorilla that every other shoe company must contend with, and they’re a force of nature within the running community.

Given their size, Nike also makes an easy target for criticism, some of which has become high-profile over the years. In the 1990s, the company was widely criticized for human rights concerns within its Asian workforce (an especially interesting point for me, in light of this recent post), and for environmental negligence. While some of those concerns (especially the labor ones) have persisted into the 21st Century, Nike has done a respectable job of cleaning up its act when it comes to social responsibility.

For example, the environmental organization Clean Air-Cool Planet ranks Nike third among 56 companies for its climate-friendly business practices. Nike has also created innovative products such as the Trash Talk shoe, constructed from materials gathered from the factory floor during manufacturing. Perhaps their most successful initiative, from a community and environmental standpoint, is the Reuse-A-Shoe program, which recycles old running shoes whose materials are then used for basketball courts, running tracks, and playground surfaces.

So while the company may not be perfect, they’re certainly making strides in the right direction. And through all the controversy and reform efforts, their shoes have continued to sell like crazy, indicating the mighty influence Nike still wields among shoe consumers. Therefore, when Nike trends in any particular direction, the entire industry takes notice.

In many regards, that’s exactly what’s happened with the whole barefoot renaissance that’s taking place. I’ve already written about how the company who more or less invented the modern running shoe has also been at the forefront of the barefoot movement, but it bears emphasizing how large a role Nike played in the development of it all.

It was Nike who listened to feedback from its sponsored coaches (most notably Vin Lananna at Stanford) and athletes who found improved comfort and performance while running barefoot. It was Nike who spent millions on research to develop footwear that allows the foot and ankle to function naturally in the framework of a traditional running shoe. And it was Nike who promoted the benefits of barefoot running to mass consumer markets. It’s impossible to prove - but if a smaller, niche company had come out with a “barefoot running shoe” several years ago, chances are it would have been roundly ignored or ridiculed by the rest of the industry; since Nike did it, every other company was forced to respond.

Can your shoe do this?

Before we get to this specific shoe, I’ll try to clear up some confusion in regards to Nike terminology. The original Nike Free series that debuted in 2005 now has several versions on the market, classified by numbers like 3.0 and 5.0. The scale reflects “degrees of freedom”, or how closely the shoe mimics barefoot running. 10.0 would be a standard running shoe, and 0.0 would be running barefoot (or in purely minimal footwear like Vibram FiveFingers).

Since the transition to a more barefoot pattern can be problematic, some runners found it difficult to train in Nike Frees on a daily basis; that’s where the Free Everyday+ comes in. With this shoe, Nike attempts to combine the feeling of natural movement, but maintain the cushioning and support of an everyday trainer. It’s a neutral cushioned shoe that would sit somewhere in the upper half of Nike’s numeric scale. The Everyday+ 2 is the second generation of this particular series.

The Free series’ biggest departure from standard running shoes is in its flexibility. The midsole - and a good portion of the outsole - is made of Phylite material that is very lightweight and pliable, while the bottom of the shoe features deep flex grooves (both lateral and horizontal) to allow motion in all directions. The composite rubber outsole is highly durable and provides adequate traction for any kind of road running.

Groovy!

Given that the Free Everyday+ 2 is a transitional shoe as opposed to a true barefoot trainer, there are still several comfort features that Nike retains from its traditional running models. There is a soft midfoot saddle that wraps around the rearfoot for a secure fit, a molded sockliner matching the curvature of the foot for comfort and support, and a segmented crash pad in the midsole for shock absorption. There’s also a Nike Zoom unit in the heel for added cushioning; this is the only model in the Free series to feature air cushioning in the heel. These features don’t add significant bulk, however, as the entire shoe weighs in at a fairly lightweight 9.9 oz.

Upstairs, I was pleasantly surprised by both the form and function of the shoe’s upper. From a design standpoint, it’s got a serious old-school vibe to it, like a throwback to the days of the waffle trainer. It also has some smart features from a performance standpoint, such as a large forefoot area to allow natural foot movement, and an extremely breathable mesh for ventilation and comfort.

Old-school cool

If you’re wondering what the “plus” means in the name Free Everyday+ 2, it indicates that the shoe is compatible with Nike’s sensor technology – another feature that is missing from the rest of the Free series. Nike+ allows runners to measure and monitor their progress in conjunction with separate equipment such as the Nike+ SportBand, Nike+ iPod sport kit, or Nike+ iPhone 3GS. It’s pretty cool gadgetry to play around with, if you’re into that sort of thing. Since I tend to gravitate towards low-tech applications (have I mentioned that I like running barefoot?), I didn’t spend a lot of time with this feature to test its accuracy or reliability.

I have, however, put a lot of miles on these shoes since I received them a couple of months ago. They’ve been a great accompaniment to the barefoot mileage I’m running; on days when my ankles were feeling a little sore, or my feet were still too raw from asphalt friction to go barefoot again, I’d put 8 to 10 miles at a time on these shoes very comfortably.

It seems like Nike hit pretty close to the intended target with the Free Everyday+ 2: it’s a comfortable, durable trainer that would be a good transition shoe towards barefoot running, or a good alternative for barefoot runners who want to maintain a higher weekly mileage while giving their feet time to recuperate between barefoot workouts.

The Nike Free Everyday+ 2 sells for $92 from the Nike Store as well as various online retailers.

**
Iron Maiden, "Running Free" (click to play):



See other product reviews on sidebar at right. If you have a product you’d like reviewed, contact me at info@runningandrambling.com.

Read more...

Natural, Minimal ... or Plain Ol' Naked?

As a general rule, even the most dedicated barefoot runners aren’t completely barefoot people. Most of them aren’t even completely barefoot runners.

Alluring as the idea of living every single moment of our lives barefoot and carefree might be, life in the modern world is a far different reality. We have jobs, or go to churches, or attend formal gatherings where showing up barefoot is considered inappropriate. We eat in restaurants or shop in stores that have strict policies requiring footwear. Or we live in climates where exposing our toes to cold winter weather puts us at risk of frostbite.

Runners who embrace the concept face even more challenges and potential problems; although we extol the virtues of barefoot running, the process isn’t nearly as simple as just throwing away your shoes. You have to build up a tolerance of the activity very slowly, and there are about 100 different ways to injure yourself by progressing recklessly. And even if you do everything correctly and become a proficient barefoot runner, there will still be occasions when you would rather have something on your feet for the sake of comfort or protection.

In other words, even the most hardcore barefoot runners wear something on their feet sometimes, either while running or in everyday life. (It’s worth noting that for all the mystique of the Tarahumara runners who helped inspire the recent barefoot craze, even they strap on a thin rubber outsole for most of their running.) So it would be great if there were some sort of compromise: footwear that allows the foot to function as if it’s still bare, while providing just enough fashion and/or insulation on top for us to assimilate with the rest of society.

Five or ten years ago, our best option would have been a thin pair of flip-flops, which aren’t exactly the height of either formality or warmth. Fortunately, the landscape is different today, with several companies offering exactly the type of products that barefoot practitioners are looking for. The growth of this market has drawn an interesting mix of companies into competition with each other; some are longstanding industry giants, others are small family-owned enterprises. Some of the giants have created small offshoot companies specifically for the barefoot market, and some of the tiny family businesses have grown into major players.

Additional factors complicate the mixture even further: there are actually two separate categories of footwear aimed at the barefoot consumer; one is referred to as “minimalist”, and the other is called “natural” or “transitional” footwear. Sometimes the companies who make minimalist shoes refer to them as “natural footwear”, and most of the companies who make natural footwear call them “barefoot” shoes. Confused yet?

So what’s the difference between minimalist footwear and natural footwear? Who are the major players in the industry? Which kind should you use? That’s why I’m here to help. The following information will give you a basic overview, and I’ll have specific reviews of all of these products in the weeks to come.


Minimalist footwear

As you might guess, minimalist footwear means just what the name implies: the absolute minimal covering you can get by with short of leaving your feet naked. Typically, the underside of this style of shoe is very thin and flexible, made of some kind of fabricated (and usually puncture-resistant) rubber just a few millimeters thick. There’s no heel, no midfoot cushioning, no arch support, and nothing to give the shoes structure; in fact, most shoes of this variety can be rolled upon themselves like a sleeping bag.

There’s a lot of variation in this category of footwear, however, with some models designed for running, and others for everyday use. Some of the more prominent players are:

Vivo Barefoot: A small subdivision of Terra Plana, which is itself an eco-friendly offshoot of the very successful Clark brand footwear. They emphasize socially responsible manufacturing and have the most extensive product line among minimalist shoemakers. Some of their styles are formal enough to be worn to church or at the office, while others are perfect for casual get-togethers. They don’t have a running-specific model yet, but are developing a line of performance shoes scheduled for release in spring of 2010.

Vibram: I won’t take up much space with this, as I’ve already written extensively about Vibram. They’re a good example of a family business that hit the big time, and the FiveFingers is the industry standard for minimalist footwear for runners.

Feelmax: This small Finnish company is just beginning to make inroads among American consumers. Their styles have a casual athletic-shoe look to them, including one model (the Osma, pictured) that could easily pass as a traditional running shoe. Like a good pair of sneakers, they can be used for exercise or casual wear.

Feelmax Osma

Feelmax went above and beyond the call of product reviews, providing me two different shoe models - the Niesa in addition to the Osma - and two pairs of socks. And since I’ve really liked their products so far, I’ll just get this joke out of my system now so I’m not tempted to say it during one of their review posts: Feelmax sounds like the name of a condom company to me.

(There, I feel much better. We can move on now.)

Soft Star: A classic Mom-and-Pop business from the Pacific Northwest who have been making moccasin-style footwear for 20 years, and found themselves sucked into the barefoot vortex thanks to their philosophy of allowing the foot to function naturally. Although their moccasins were originally intended for casual indoor/outdoor use, many barefooters have used them for running, especially in cold climates.

Sanuk: There's absolutely nothing dressy or performance-oriented about these shoes. Sanuks are made for one simple reason: to make you feel like you're just chillin' at the beach. They channel your inner hippie/surfer soul while allowing your feet to tread upon the Earth naturally, dude. I figured that any brand whose name translates to "happiness" was worth a closer look.


Natural footwear

Natural footwear is the terminology most commonly used to describe traditional shoes that have been modified to more closely replicate the biomechanics of the bare foot, while still providing most aspects of normal shoe construction (like cushioning) that consumers have come to expect.

It’s this category of footwear that has attracted the heavy hitters of the shoe industry, although it must be a kind of balancing act for many of them. Think of it this way: if you’re a shoe company, it doesn’t make much business sense to tell people they’d be better off barefoot. Nor does it help your credibility if you say that all those years of technological innovation really haven’t helped decrease injury rates or improve performance very much.

Consequently, the companies have entered this category in search of two primary groups of runners:

1) Those who regularly run barefoot or minimalist, but on some days would prefer a traditional shoe that enables them to maintain the biomechanics of barefoot running.
2) Those who have used traditional running shoes for years, and want to progress towards barefoot running gradually. For this reason, you’ll sometimes hear this category described as “transitional” footwear.

That last group is particularly important, given the tendency of new barefoot runners to get injured by doing too much too soon, when their legs aren’t ready to make such rapid and dramatic adaptations to the barefoot running form. Compared to traditional running shoes, natural footwear has a lower heel angle, less midfoot cushioning, and more forefoot flexibility. They represent a great intermediate step for someone looking to safely shift towards minimalist or barefoot running.

With that in mind, here are some key players:

Nike: You’ve heard of this company, right? They’re a little hole-in-the-wall outfit from someplace in Oregon, I think. Nike has actually been experimenting with the “barefoot shoe” concept for more than 15 years, beginning with the Air Huarache shoes of the early 1990s. It’s ironic that the company who almost singlehandedly kicked off the running shoe boom is now focusing so much effort on restoring the feel of natural running, but that’s exactly what’s happened. There are now several different lines of Nike Free footwear; the one I’ll be reviewing next week is the Free Everyday 2.0.

Newton: A relative newcomer to the athletic shoe market, Newton courts the high-performance athlete with its Gravity shoe (pictured). They’ve made a significant impact on the triathlon community, and corralled several professional triathletes into their stable. They even provide instructional videos on their website explaining midfoot running form.

ECCO: Better known for their high-end dress shoes, ECCO is making a strong push in the natural running market with its BIOM Project performance shoes. They offer two different models representing increasing degrees of transition towards minimalist running, and their production process is unique in several noteworthy ways. Like everything else ECCO makes, the BIOM is a first-class shoe born from an extensive background of research and expertise.

ECCO BIOM

MBT: Short for Masai Barefoot Technology. Self-described as the “Anti-Shoe”, MBT is something of a wildcard in this category. The shoes are heavy, and bulky, and purposely designed to keep you unstable. MBT primarily makes dress shoes, as well as a few athletic models that are, per the company’s own instructions, not intended for running. They seem to be the polar opposite of what barefooters are looking for, but many people swear by their positive effect on injury prevention and overall health.


Plain Ol’ Naked

Of course, hardcore barefooters will tell you that none of these shoes are the same as running with naked feet – and they’re right. As much as shoes will try to replicate the form, function, and feel of the human foot, they’ll never make a product fully comparable to the original. (Which is probably a good thing.) And for an extremely small percentage of the running community, that’s all that needs to be said.

For the rest of us, the worlds of minimal and natural footwear are definitely worth exploring, especially as they continue to expand and evolve in response to the growing demand. Over the next several weeks, I’ll be doing precisely that kind of exploration.

Read more...

Wonderfully Made

(Admin note: this one got a little carried away. Two separate stories, without much common ground unless you’re really reaching. I reached, and mashed them both together here. You can be the judge of how it all came together.)

*
“The human foot is a masterpiece of engineering and a work of art.”
- Leonardo da Vinci

“For you created my inmost being;
You knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”
- Psalm 139:13-14 (New International Version)


When I was younger, everyone wanted to fix my feet.

Shortly after I learned to walk, my parents noticed that my toes turned inward so much that I often tripped over myself. My pediatrician observed that my femur and tibia (thigh bone and shin bone, for the anatomically challenged) were excessively rotated towards each other, and that my ankles rolled inward as well. He recommended an orthopedic specialist, who prescribed a lot of bracing and splinting.

Healthy bone development became an indelible crusade of my youth. As a toddler, I slept with a rigid brace that kept my legs in a spread-eagle position, with a metal crossbar to hold them in place. Once I became more active, I wore leg braces like a young Forrest Gump. And when the braces became intolerable, I used various types of orthotics in all of my shoes.

I also had to do a nightly stretching routine that included sitting with my legs crossed – what used to be called Indian style, but now is “criss-cross applesauce” at my daughter’s kindergarten (we’re much more PC nowadays, I guess) – for as long as I could tolerate. I couldn’t tolerate very much at all; a few minutes at a time would be excruciating.

**

Around that same time, a man named Bill Bowerman was pouring molten rubber onto a waffle iron, experimenting with designs for what would become the first modern-day running shoe. Nike’s Waffle Trainer debuted in 1974, triggering the biggest running boom in American history, and inspiring countless other companies to turn their efforts towards grabbing a financial share of one of the most rapidly expanding consumer markets ever seen.


Over the ensuing years, most advances in running shoe technology were geared towards augmenting the apparent shortcomings of natural biomechanics. They cushioned our heelstrike with air pillows or gel chambers or elastic grids. They prevented our pronation with rollbars and medial posts. They limited our ankle motion with stability devices or rigid platforms. The underlying philosophy was that our feet were ill-equipped to sustain a habit of regular running, and that in order to make such an activity comfortable, a shoe had to compensate for the deficiencies of the human foot.

But what if they’re trying to fix something that wasn’t broken to begin with? Barefoot runners, as well as a growing number of podiatrists and orthopedic doctors, will tell you that’s precisely what’s happening.

Think of it this way: if you were engineering the perfect weight bearing structure, you’d create an arch. If you wanted to include ideal shock absorption, you’d allow that arch to flex slightly upon impact, with cords of variable tension supporting the structure on all sides. For dynamic energy transfer, you’d create it with several interlocking components capable of movement in multiple directions. For durability, you’d make the building blocks out of the hardest, strongest material you can find.

Well, guess what you’ve just designed? The human foot! 26 bones and 33 joints crafted together to form a perfect arch, held together by more than 100 muscles, tendons, and ligaments all working in harmony. And yet, for the better part of 40 years, the prevailing philosophy within the running shoe industry is that God somehow made us imperfect or broken, and they took it upon themselves to fix us.

Even worse, when we strive to correct what doesn’t need correcting, we often end up causing more problems than we solve. Any adjustments made at the foot and ankle are compensated at some point higher up the kinetic chain – most frequently in the knees, hips, and low back area. It’s quite telling that while all of the protective and comfort features of modern footwear haven’t decreased the overall injury rate among runners in the past 30 years, our rates of lower back disorders are higher than ever. (That’s something of an oversimplification – for example, there are certainly other factors involved with back pain – but there’s no arguing about which direction the numbers of both injury groups are trending.)

Thankfully, shoe manufacturers have begun to recognize the value of doing less; that maybe the best solution to injury prevention isn’t to create the perfect corrective device, but to eliminate many of the features that had already been attempted. The result is a whole new category of “minimalist” or “natural running” footwear that allows the foot to maintain its normal biomechanics. Several shoe companies have embraced this movement, including some of the biggest names in the industry.

Vibram is far and away the leader in this regard, with its revolutionary Five Fingers, which is little more than a protective layer of rubber on the soles of your feet. Running in Five Fingers is a transformational experience; they enable you to mimic barefoot running almost precisely, without the threat of puncture wounds from broken glass or rusty nails. Danish company ECCO, famous for their luxury dress shoes, has a running shoe called the BIOM which promotes the natural motion of the foot in a high-performance trainer. The Newton company bases its whole product line on the premise of maintaining barefoot biomechanics as closely as possible.

Even Nike has gotten in on the act. The shoe giant invests heavily on research and collaborates with some of the best coaches in the sport to analyze the foot’s natural motion. The resulting product line is called Nike Free – whose initial ad tagline, ironically, was “Run Barefoot” – with the goal of combining the normal biomechanics of barefoot running with the cushioning and support of an everyday trainer. It’s almost like the process is coming full circle, back to the time when running shoes were little more than protective covering for the soles of your feet.

(Admin note: all of the shoes mentioned above will be reviewed here in the near future, starting with the Vibram Five Fingers next week.)

Of course, you can always run barefoot as well - just like people did for centuries before the sneaker was invented, and like an increasing contingent of modern runners are demonstrating every day. So perhaps our feet aren’t broken, after all – and if we let them work in the way they were originally designed, we won’t have to deal with bigger problems further down the road.

**

Fast-forward about 35 years from the baby thrashing in his crib against a metal contraption intended to fix what was thought to be broken. I have a son now - and when he was a toddler, his ankles rolled so far inward that the medial malleoli (the bony prominences on the inside of each ankle) nearly touched the ground. He frequently stands with one leg turned inward so far that the toes point backwards. He has a hard time sitting cross-legged.

Discussing these findings with his pediatrician and a local orthopedic surgeon, I had two separate but very similar conversations:

Me: Is this something we should be concerned about?

Doctor: Does it cause him any pain, or prevent him from doing anything?

Me: No.

Doctor: Then we should just leave it alone. Things tend to work out on their own.

It seems that conventional wisdom in the medical community is almost the exact opposite today than it was when I was a child. Instead of trying to fix things that look like they’re imperfect or broken, we let the body work the way it was designed. We resist the temptation to correct God’s creation with technology, and in most cases, we therefore avoid causing bigger problems down the road.

On some level, I inherently knew this premise even as a youngster. I ravaged against the metal brace so fiercely that my parents soon gave up on it. (To this day, my dad’s main recollection of that experiment was how the noise of me banging the hell out of my crib nearly drove him insane, and how many holes I smashed into the drywall with the metal rods. Needless to say, he wasn’t a big fan of the brace, either.) Likewise, the walking braces were quickly abandoned due to noncompliance, and when I moved out of the house as a teenager, one of my first defiant acts of freedom was to throw my orthotics in the garbage.

I still managed to play sports as a kid, and maintained an otherwise healthy active lifestyle. Later on, as I evolved into a runner and triathlete, I latched onto motion control and anti-pronation shoe models for several years, but eventually bid those particular crutches good-bye as well.

To this day, my thigh bones still turn inward, my shin bones still have an unusual curvature to them, and I still can’t sit cross-legged for more than a few seconds. Whether I would have been better off following the doctors’ instructions for all those years, I guess I’ll never know.

There’s one thing I know for certain, however: God didn’t make me broken. And of all the reasons I could give for venturing into the world of barefoot running, there’s a simple one that speaks the loudest to me: I’m doing it just the way He intended.

Read more...