The Great Barefoot Running Hysteria of 2010

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Personal experiences and outcomes

  • Many report mixed results: some resolved chronic knee pain, shin splints, “bad ankles,” plantar fasciitis or need for orthotics after moving to barefoot/minimal or forefoot running; others got severe calf/Achilles pain, locked calves, or weeks-long injuries after even one short run.
  • Several long-term adopters run or hike high mileage (ultras, AT sections, daily 6–10km, marathons) in minimal shoes or barefoot with few joint issues, but still get typical overuse problems (hip bursitis, PF flare-ups) when ramping volume too fast.
  • Some love minimal shoes for daily life (zero-drop, wide toe box, very flexible), claiming stronger feet and no more orthotics; others find thin soles “hell” for long hikes and switch back to more cushioning.

Technique, adaptation, and partial use

  • Recurrent theme: forefoot/midfoot strike and overall form matter more than shoe marketing metrics like heel–toe “drop.”
  • Many say barefoot or very thin soles instantly reveal bad heel-strike habits and encourage lighter, lower-impact gait.
  • Strong emphasis on gradual transition: start with a few minutes or 50–100m, often on grass/soft ground, and build over 6–12 months. Rapid switches led to calf/Achilles problems and time off.
  • Several runners now use barefoot strides or short weekly barefoot sessions on grass as a form drill while doing main mileage in regular shoes.

Footwear evolution and performance

  • Thread notes that the “hysteria” settled into a broader “natural running” trend: zero-drop, wider toe boxes, and more neutral shoes from various brands, often with more cushioning than early minimal models.
  • Current elite trend is toward thick, carbon-plated “super shoes,” with linked studies and anecdotes citing ~2–3% running economy gains and better post-run recovery—though some “non-responders” are noted.
  • Some argue shoes are secondary to pose/stride, yet others point out clear performance differences and ask why elites don’t race in Vibrams if shoes were “meaningless.”

Evidence, appeal to nature, and safety

  • Debate over “appeal to nature”: some see reverting toward barefoot/natural as a reasonable heuristic in a complex system; others criticize lifestyle movements built on thin evidence and charismatic books.
  • Several note research challenges: long-term gait and injury studies are hard; current data is limited and sometimes dramatic but not definitive.
  • Risks and constraints mentioned: urban glass, sharp objects, hookworm/plantar warts, cold weather, hygiene concerns, and unsuitability of abrupt barefoot adoption.