Barefoot Running - A Help or Harm?

Barefoot running has become popular in the running world in the last few years.  Advocates of barefoot running feel that since our bodies were evolutionarily designed to run long distances, it must be better for us to run barefoot as nature intended us to do.  So, what does the science tell us about barefoot running - is it really good for us, or does it set us up for further injury?


Let me ask first of all, were we actually designed to run long distances in the first place?  The theories are actually pretty convincing in this regard.  Some humans in the world still use our design for its proposed main evolutionary purpose of persistence hunting (check out my previous blog post on this, along with David Suzuki's documentary on it, here).


As for whether running bare foot is good or bad for us, a recent review summaries the research currently available on the topic.  The review is extremely detailed and I will be the first to admit that I am not a biomechanics expert - for those who want the in depth discussion, I encourage you to read the full article.  However, I would like to share the bottom lines of the article with you, as the question of barefoot running has become relevant for many people who run and aren't sure what is best.

The bottom lines are:

1.  There is still very little known about barefoot running and its relationship with injury and performance; whether barefoot running prevents or promotes injury is still unclear.   As the authors note,

The current promotion of barefoot running is

based on oversimplified, poorly understood, equivocal and in

some cases, absent research, but remains a trend in popular

media based solely on an evolutionary/epidemiological hypothesis

and anecdotal evidence.

2.  Barefoot running is not an instinctive skill, but likely to be one that requires practice to master.  Optimizing the foot strike is one key component to efficient barefoot running, and is different than the foot strike in a running shoe.  It is also not clear whether every runner is capable of optimizing barefoot running. 

3.  The actual running technique is probably more important than whether or not the runner is wearing shoes. 

So in summary:  A lot more research needs to be done to establish whether barefoot running is actually a good thing, and it is premature for the practice of barefoot running to be a disseminated practice for athletes. 

Follow me on twitter! @drsuepedersen

www.drsue.ca © 2013

Read more...

The World's First All-Diabetic Professional Athlete Team!

Here's an inspirational story to make you smile today: The recent BC Superweek's cycling race included an all diabetic racing team!

Anyone who lives with diabetes or cares for people with diabetes knows that managing diabetes in the context of exercise can be a challenge.  Managing diabetes in the context of a gruelling multi-day race is nothing short of impressive and admirable.

The attitude of this go-get-em team reflects exactly how we guide and teach our patients with diabetes:  to learn adapt their diabetes medications to fit their lifestyle, rather than have to change or restrict their lifestyle to fit their diabetes medications or insulin regimen.   Learning how to adjust certain diabetes medications or insulin doses to fit differences in activity levels and eating patterns from day to day can be a very freeing and satisfying experience!

Dr Sue Pedersen www.drsue.ca © 2013 drsuetalks@gmail.com

Follow me on Twitter for daily tips! @drsuepedersen 

Read more...

Born to Run!

This week, I'd like to share with you a really cool documentary that I just watched, called The Perfect Runner, on The Nature Of Things by David Suzuki.  I think it gives a very real context to the obesity endemic that we currently face.

The Perfect Runner is about the bipedal (walking on 2 feet) nature of humans, and the contrast to most other land animals who walk on 4 feet.  They describe how humans are very unique in that we were designed for endurance running, whereas most other animals were designed for sprints.  They show video footage of the last of 'persistence hunters' in the world, essentially, humans who hunt animals by chasing them, and catching them successfully - it's true!

This is how persistence hunting works:  Running creates heat generated from muscle energy, and the only way that an animal can release this heat is by panting.  Thus, after a sprint, the animal's body temperature starts to climb, and they have to stop to allow themselves to cool off again.  However, if they are chased long enough, there is not enough time for them to cool off between sprint burts.  Contrast this with humans - we are able to sweat, so we can keep our body temperature the same while we run, and therefore, we can run for much longer periods without having to stop.

So, the persistence hunter basically jogs after the animal for hours, and ultimately it gets such a high body temperature from the repeated sprinting without having enough time to cool off, that it just stands there and watches while the jogging human throws spears at it from a few feet away.  Pretty powerful stuff.  Scientists believe that we were all persistence hunters in the past, until we invented tools and arms that allowed us to hunt from a distance, with progressively less effort involved to catch our prey.  (Fast forward to the current time, where Homo sapiens can often be spotted in the wild, catching our prey at a drive through window.)

What this documentary really impressed upon me was just how different our current environment is, compared to how we were meant to live.  We were evolutionarily designed to exercise for hours on end to chase our food, and now we not only don't have to chase our food, but we don't have to move much at all in our daily activities of life if we don't make a conscious choice to do so.

Our toxic environment is perhaps the most formidable opponent that humankind has ever encountered.

Dr Sue Pedersen www.drsue.ca © 2013 

Follow me on Twitter for daily tips! @drsuepedersen

Read more...

Health Benefits of Nordic Walking!

Think those people who look like they are walking outdoors with ski poles look a little goofy?  Well, think again - those people are taking strides towards better health.

It's called Nordic Walking - quite simply - walking with poles.  It was originally developed in Scandinavia as an off-season ski training activity, and didn't become an official sport until 1997.

A recent review looked at studies of Nordic walking in over 1,000 study participants, and found beneficial effects on blood pressure, heart rate, and exercise capacity.  They also noted that studies have shown that compared to walking briskly without poles, Nordic walking burns about 20% more calories.    Health and quality of life benefits were also found in people with a wide range of chronic diseases, from cardiac rehab patients, to fibromyalgia, emphysema, peripheral arterial disease, and pain in general.

So why would Nordic walking result in better heart health and higher calorie burn than walking without poles?  Simply because, by using the poles as you go, you are engaging your upper body muscles, increasing your cardiac and respiratory response, and boosting your energy burn.

So, add a pair of poles to your exercise regimen and enjoy the health benefits!  Remember to speak to your doctor before making any changes to your workout routine.

Dr Sue Pedersen www.drsue.ca © 2013 

Follow me on Twitter for daily tips! @drsuepedersen

Read more...

Burn and Earn - What Happens To The Freshman 15?

In follow up to last week's post about whether we should be paid to move (and if so, how), a new study just looked at what happens when first year college students get paid to go to the gym.

This American study randomly assigned 117 first year college students to receive pay for going to the gym, vs not receiving pay for their efforts.  Weekly pay for the paid group ranged between $10 to $38.75 USD, with higher pay each week if they were consistent in their attendance.

After 3 months, they found that 63% of students in the paid group met their attendance goals at the gym, with only 13% of students who were not getting paid meeting those goals.  However, weight increased in both groups, with no difference in the amount of weight gained in each group.  Both groups gained about 1kg (just over 2 lb) during the three months of the study, which is a typical rate of weight gain during the the first year in college (contrary to the popular belief of the Freshman 15,  the average university student gains only a few pounds in the first year).

So what does this teach us?  Well, besides showing that cash is a strong incentive (money talks!), it is worthwhile to consider why both groups gained weight, and the same amount of weight at that.  The study didn't monitor what type of exercise was done at the gym - they just had to be there for 30 minutes.   So if a person goes to the gym and stretches for 30 minutes, there won't be much calorie burn.  Secondly, while exercise is important for overall health and weight maintenance, weight management is 90% about the food intake, and 10% about the exercise.  So if a student walked for 30 minutes on a treadmill (burning about 150 calories), and picked up a Kit Kat from the vending machine at the front door (about 260 calories), the balance is still in favor of weight gain.

There are some interesting online/app sites that use cash incentives to help motivate gym attendance, where you pay if you don't meet your gym attendance goals, and you get paid if you do (the amount of money paid by those who don't attend is divvied up to those who do).  If any of my readers has tried this, I would love to hear your feedback!

Thanks to the Canadian Obesity Network and the Obesity + Alert system for the heads' up on this study!

Dr Sue Pedersen www.drsue.ca © 2013 

Follow me on Twitter for daily tips! @drsuepedersen

Read more...

Should We Be Paid To Move?

There's been a lot of discussion as to how our society can be changed to encourage more active living, and a recent review focuses on various ways to encourage active living that result in either financial savings, or even pay the person, to follow the more active plan.


I'd like to poll my readers about some strategies that have been looked at in research trials (as discussed in this review) - please comment on this blog post at the bottom to tell me what you think would work or what wouldn't:


1.  Would you cycle to work more often if you were paid, let's say, $5 per day by your employer, to do it?

2.  If public transport was subsizided, would you use it more often? (you'd be walking to and from public transport locations, thereby increasing exercise)

3.  If a $2 toll booth was installed on the road between your home and work, would you opt for a bicycle, the bus, or walking instead? This was done in Stockholm, Sweden, and resulted in 25% less car journeys.

4.  What if you were paid not to use a car park? In California, this resulted in a whopping 39% increase in active communting.

5.  If bicycles were free in your city, would you use them more often?  This is true in some cities, including the city I love and once called home, Copenhagen, Denmark (pictured above) - check out the CityBike system!


At the end of the day, we need to change our society to promote a more active lifestyle - the question is how to do it.....


Dr Sue Pedersen www.drsue.ca © 2013 

Follow me on Twitter for daily tips! @drsuepedersen

Read more...

Exercise and Food - Choose Your Own Adventure

Check out this article in the Chicago Tribune by Calgarian columnist James Fell.  He does a great job of describing how eating as a reward for exercise can hamper weight loss efforts.

Which adventure will you choose?

Dr Sue Pedersen www.drsue.ca © 2013 

Follow me on Twitter for daily tips! @drsuepedersen

Read more...