Walk a Mile Without a Man’s Shoes

Barefoot pavement
Picture courtesy Pixabay

Barefoot, or minimalist, footwear took off in 2009, loosely, with the Vibram FiveFingers.  Almost overnight, fanatics in the running world embraced the minimalist movement and Vibrams suddenly captured over 2% of the market – which is a lot when you’re talking an industry with about $48billion in annual revenue.  While the vast majority of elite and semi-elite runners maintained their devotion to previous styles, the trend was born and has kept pace with the running world.

Chris McDougall July 2010 TED Talk – courtesy TED

A Minimalist Messiah

Much of the craze around minimalist running gloms around Chris McDougall, an American author, journalist, and exercise enthusiast who published the 2009 memoir cum travel journal, Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen.  The book was a travel log of the Tarahumara Indian tribe of the Mexican Copper Canyons written in conjunction with a personal examination of his own running activity.  He was fascinated by the tribe’s ability to run hundreds of miles each week with few issues while wearing nothing more than thin slips of rubber as “shoes”.

Being a journalist, he researched modern athletic sneakers and wondered why the industry, which is only about 50 years old, seemed to make heavier and thicker soled shoes every year and yet the rate of sport’s injuries only seemed to increase.  His conclusion was complicated, but boiled down to an advocacy for increasing the natural stride by diminishing the disconnect created by modern shoes.

The shorthand: running barefoot allows the foot to run; let the foot do its magic.  While McDougal never intended to lead a movement, Born to Run became known as the Barefoot Manifesto and the movement took off.

vibram graniteMaking the Most of the Minimalist

So-called “barefoot shoes” offer the closest feel to running truly barefoot. Soles provide the bare minimum in protection from potential hazards on the ground. Many have no cushion in the heel pad and a very thin layer (as little as 3-4mm) of shoe between your skin and the ground. Others offer a bit more cushioning.

Most significantly, all feature a “zero drop” from heel to toe. (“Drop” is the difference between the height of the heel and the height of the toe.) This encourages a midfoot or forefoot strike. Traditional running shoes, by contrast, feature a 10–12mm drop from the heel to the toe.

Courtesy REI Expert Advice

foot strikes
Courtesty Mud and Adventure

It’s a Striking Question

While McDougall may have kicked off the avalanche, he wasn’t the first to challenge the running paradigm.  Much of the science behind McDougall’s claims came from the paleoanthrobiologist and Harvard Professor Daniel E. Lieberman AB, MA, PhD.  Lieberman, and his team, studied the gait of ancient and modern man and found, among other things, a major difference came from the modern tendency to run with a leading heel strike as opposed to a forefoot strike.  He found: “most forefoot and some midfoot strikes (shod or barefoot) do not generate the sudden, large impact transients that occur when you heel strike (shod or barefoot)”.

In effect, modern footwear has led us to walk on our heels which is out of sync with how the skeletal and musculature originally developed.  In theory, a different kind of running style might lead to a more natural impact pattern and fewer injuries.  Publicly, Lieberman was quick to note that he’s not advocating for a certain style of running but merely reporting his analyses.  (not so)Privately, Lieberman is a barefoot marathoner and enthusiast and is often called the Barefoot Professor.

The main difference between the forefoot and heel strike involves how force is exerted through the body.  Simply put, when we run heel->toe (cowfooted) there are two impact points: when we plant our heel; when our midfoot strikes.  This initial, sharp heel-strike, and the overall style, exert different kinds of pressures to the knees and ankles and, according to Lieberman, are not in line with how these mechanisms naturally developed.

heel strike
Heel striking

However, when we run mid-foot or forefoot (foxfooted), there is a far smoother impact transition which engages muscles in a more natural rhythm and doesn’t included that very sharp and extra initial impact.

heel strikes
Forefoot striking

More Walking, Less Talking

The science, and controversy, behind minimalist running is immense.  For every Vibram’s Lawsuit (which cost them $3.75m for overstating health benefits of their minimalist shoes) there are umpteen stories of Zola Budd and Tegla Laroupe who have competed and won in the Olympic, Goodwill games, and New York marathons while barefoot.  While the pendulum has swung away from the 2012 minimalist heyday, it hasn’t returned to the heavily stuffed and “ankle-locked” shoes of the 1990s.  Likely, there is a balance to found between the two extremes, allowing the foot to work as it naturally developed grown and maximizing its potential through science and industry.


In full disclosure, I’ve been wearing minimalists shoes for about four years (except when with my fiancé who won’t be seen in public with me if I’m wearing “those ugly things”).  Part of my attraction to minimalism is pure contrarianism, ¿who is Nike to tell me how to walk?  And, part comes from my attraction to a more “natural” approach to movement.  I’ve run 5 and 10k races and am working toward a minimalist marathon.  I’ll always be more of a finisher than a contender, but I look forward to crossing many a ticker-line wearing toe-shoes and a smile (and probably pants, but ya never know).


Orange you Happy I didn’t Say Banana?

The Common Cavendish – courtesy wikimedia

With over 140 million tonnes produced every year (FAOStat), bananas are the fourth most cultivated fruit (technically a berry) on the planet.  When most Americans think of a “banana” — nine iches, yellow, shaped like a boomerang (of course a boomerang, ¿what else?)– they’re thinking of the Cavendish.  But, the Cavendish is only one of more than a thousand cultivars of two wild species, Musu acuminata and Musa balbisiana.  The variety of bananas (and the genetically similar plantain) is mind-boggling, ranging in colour from bright red to darkest brown, from just a few inches to over a 18, and every taste, tang, and consistency imaginable.  There are even bananas with seeds so dense they can chip a tooth.

By far, the Cavendish is the most cultivated banana variety on the planet.  Exploding in popularity in the 1960s, this variety represents 99% of the banana export market.  Due to its thick protective rind and slow ripening process, the Cavendish is almost uniquely designed for export from the warm equatorial countries where the banana thrives.

Sri Lankan Bananas
Bananas in Sri Lanka – courtesy Sudu-araliya-mal

Big Mike and His Long Reach

Back at the turn of the 19th century, however, the Cavendish was merely a curiosity in a British hothouse, obscure and unknown.  The unopposed king of the banana Empire in the late 1800s and into the new century was the Gros Michel (‘Big Mike’).  A shorter, but much sweeter, smoother, and, by many accounts, far superior banana to its slender cousin.

The Gros Michel was so tasty, that between 1900, when United Fruit (later renamed Chiquita) introduced it and 1910, US consumption rose from 15 million to over 40 million bunches a year.  Gros Michel built United Fruit into such a powerhouse, they become a major force of governmental and industrial influence throughout Central and South America.  The term Banana Republic was, in part, coined as a description of the Honduran plutocracy surrounding the banana industry.

Panama Disease
Panama Disease – courtesy @Bananaresearch

The Cavendish Dervish

The might of the Gros Michel hits its heyday in the mid 1920s and dwindled into death and obscurity by the 1950s.  No, it wasn’t fickle American stomachs or stricter wage laws, it was the fungal pathogen Fusarium oxysporum or, more commonly, Panama Disease.

Panama Disease is a highly invasive, strangely resilient plant disease which feasted on the Gros Michel.  Through a mechanism not entirely understood by even modern scientists, the fungus gums up the cells and internal pathways of the plant, leading to slow dehydration and internal rot.  Panama ignores most herbicides and can live dormant in soil for decades, making it easy to trek from field to field, or even country to country through muddy boots, shared farm equipment, or poorly cleaned transplants.  In a short 30 years, Panama wiped out over 100,000 acres of Gros Michel and cost the industry nearly $2.3 billion.  The Gros Michel become functionally extinct, with the banana industry near to follow.

Into the suddenly empty ring stepped the Cavendish.  Though less resilient to other diseases, and unpardonably less sweet to gourmets, the Cavendish happily withstood Panama.  Standard Fruit (later, Dole) introduced the Cavendish and soon eclipsed United Fruit as the industrial banana powerhouse.  Fast forward to Today, and the Cavendish banana is so popular in the US, it outsells both apples and oranges combined.

banana peel.jpg

¿Headed for the Big Slip?

With the Cavendish crowned and Big Mike a slipnote in Panama Disease history, the future of the banana is secured, ¿right?

Not so much.  Many feel the the world’s favorite yellow fruit may be sundowning.  For all its potassium and health benefits, the banana is a surprisingly delicate fruit.  Or, rather, a delicate clone.  The banana we know is actually a hybrid mule, sterile and only able to reproduce asexually.  Almost every banana you eat is a close genetic clone to the ones they produced in the 1960s.

While a huge benefit to the fruit industry, as it assures near uniformity of texture and taste, asexual reproduction leads to genetic rigidity and difficulty in breeding.  It also means that a single disease, say one from a certain famous canal, might just evolve into a strain which could wipe out the entire Cavendish variety just like the Gros Michel.

And, it already happened in Taiwan.  A strain of the Panama, Tropical Race 4 (TR4), reduced the country’s Cavendish exports from nearly 400,000 tonnes in the 1960s to just a few thousand today.  Furthermore, a study in PLOS Pathogens reports TR4 is rooting itself into Asia and spreading out slowly and inexorably toward India and China, the leading global banana producers (26% between the two).

While the US might just be forced to suffer a higher cost for bananas or switch to the variety of readily available apples, many other countries are not so fortunate.  Of the 140 million tones of bananas annually produced, only ~18% are exported (India and China, for example, export nearly zero).  The vast majority are eaten by low-income, subsistence farmers.  The UN estimates that some countries make up to 30% of their daily nutrient intake from the banana.  In addition, heavy banana-exporting countries like Ecuador (93% of its total exports) will be devastated by a global blight.

Certainly, the banana industry has access to far more robust agricultural and scientific research than the 1960s, but the world’s hesitance to accept genetically engineered food has lead the industry to focus on the murky prospect of breeding programs – a risky, longterm bet at best.  Fortunately, unlike the first Panama epidemic, the world caught the disease early and is fighting to quarantine and curtail its outbreak.  But, global banana production is five times higher than in 1960.  It’s a much steepier slip if we can’t avoid the peel.