Basic HTML Version
company Cirque du Soleil illustrates this idea. “I was
approached by Cirque du Soleil about 12 years ago because
they had about 30% of their actors not participating at any
time because of injuries. They asked me if I could help. As
part of the show, they had a surface of beams about 30cm
apart, and the beams were covered with a very compliant
surface. So if you landed on the beam, the surface would be
very hard. If you landed on the surface between the beams,
the surface would lower by about 2cm. So they were
changing the impact frequency from high to low. The actors
who were running round, jumping, didn’t know where they
would land and because they didn’t know, they couldn’t pre-
activate their muscles. When the muscles aren’t pre-
activated, they’re not prepared to dampen potential high
vibrations. So we changed the surface to a very hard surface,
and three weeks later the injury rate was down to a normal
2 to 2.5%. That’s muscle tuning.”
Mr Nigg first published a paper regarding cushioning in
1981, which threw doubt on the benefit of cushioning in
athletic footwear. Most footwear brands, however, still
include substantial cushioning and use it as a marketing tool,
as Mr Barthold pointed out. “I think one of the great things
about this barefoot debate is that it has actually forced
athletic footwear companies to be a little more self
analytical,” he said. “I think you can make footwear a whole
lot more simple and a lot lighter, which would be an
enormous benefit for the athlete. The role of the footwear
industry is to try and make the lightest shoe possible, within
a protective package; so I think a ‘less is more’ philosophy is
actually a very positive thing for us to be aiming for.
“From a materials perspective, what was not possible a
couple of years ago is very possible now. So we’re in this
brave new world where we are going to be able to build a
much lighter, much more minimalist shoe that is far more
functional, by my definition of that.”
Another interesting point raised during the UKSEM debate
was that of professional athletes. Being concerned about
what elite athletes do is comparable to “worrying about
what supermodels wear,” Mr Lieberman said. “Does it really
matter? We evolved to run at speeds that make animals
gallop, no faster. Worrying about what elite athletes do is a
problem for elite athletes, but it doesn’t affect the vast
majority of people.”
Studies into barefoot running will hopefully reveal more
hard evidence in the near future but, until we know more, it
seems there are pretty strong arguments for both sides of
the debate. Ross Tucker, the sports consultant who chaired
the debate, summed up the pros and cons of barefoot
running succinctly: “For some people, I do believe that
barefoot running may be the answer to their injury
problems,” he said. “I think there is enough the re to suggest
that some individuals who struggle in shoes will fare much
better without them. However, we don't fully know who they
are, and more importantly, why they benefit.
“By extension then, there may well be people who simply
cannot adapt to barefoot running. In fact, I'm certain this will
be the case. And these individuals may never take fully to
barefoot running.”
39
THE NATURAL WAY?
MARCH/APRIL 2012 | www.footwearbiz.com