Are Women naturally more Intelligent than Men?

It was an interesting day. During the morning I fitted Carmen with new Pocket Rockets and she exclaimed "Oh these are great". It was not her first pair of T Rockets and she has plans for another pair soon. It made me think that in the few years that I have been promoting the T Rocket range of sandals, women, generally have been more receptive than men to the thesis of natural movement (meaning zero elevation, midfoot striking, and so on). I wondered why? Perhaps women are less threatened by novelty, perhaps men are too macho in their mindset? Of course I am generalising but it is true that I have found women to be more inquisitive and open to the concept of minimal footwear.

Later in the day I was pleased to meet my friend Dr Bernhard Zipfel for a light lunch. While Dr Zipfel is the Collections Curator (palaeoanthopology) at the University of the Witwatersrand  he is also a  T Rocket wearing podiatrist and is known as the "evolutionary podiatrist" amongst his colleagues. During lunch and without any prompting Bernhard asked me if I had noted any difference in the response of men and women to T Rockets. Indeed I had, I replied adding that it had occupied my thinking earlier that very morning. We chatted about women being more predisposed towards open flat sandals for regular leisure wear. Perhaps this means they are more willing to wear sandals for outdoor athletic pursuits. But I wasn't sure. Perhaps women are simply more intelligent, I said. And yet again perhaps there is an inbred male need to play the role of a defender (or even aggressor) and this does not sit comfortably with open sandals.

Well, the argument about women being more intelligent took a little knock later in the day when I went to run our local Thursday night time trial. After running barefoot from my home to the sports ground I sat on the field putting on my sandals while the crowd assembled for the start of the time trial. There was muted chatter. At this point a women turned around and looking down at me, still sitting and the grass and tensioning my P Rockets, she said: "Did you have a wardrobe malfunction?" What an inane, neolithic and unnecessary utterance! I was speechless and simply stared back with a benign and featureless expression. I know that some people have struggled to accept that not everybody runs in motion control shoes but to still embrace such sarcasm was in my opinion almost prehistoric and definitely not very intelligent. And on top of it coming from a women .... I was devastated.

And so while I still argue that many women have figured out a few things about running that many men have not, I will not generalise! There are still a few that are trapped in their own cerebral intransigence, and even seem to harbour some resentment to minimally shod runners. These few include both men and women.

Stress fracture or not?

Confessions of a reckless runner! I have had 2 stress fractures in my running career. One many years ago when, after no training and a bottle of red and a dare I agreed to enter a long run the next morning and try and beat some older dudes. We did it but I got hurt!

Then three or four years ago I developed a 2nd metatarsal stress fracture after going out too far and too thin, too soon. Like any good runner at the first sign of a stress fracture I kept running until the metatarsal was completely ruptured (displaced fracture) and only then did I manage to give it the few weeks break that was needed for repair. Sometime thereafter I confessed to another runner that I had been a bit obsessive and he said: "but you're a runner, that's what runners do" and I felt a little better.

So when my foot got swollen and sore two weeks ago after a bit of intense running, I knew immediately that it looked and felt like a stress fracture. While I was quite sure that I had not upped my miles significantly my friend, Mr Fred Richardson said bluntly: " You've been hammering it". And so after a bottle of red and feeling a bit remorseful I posted the pic below and the blunt retort was "the left foot is swollen".

Being aware of the signals, including a stress reaction, I was pretty sure that this was a stress fracture. General pain across the top of the foot, pain when moving, and swelling were sure signs. After a few days I was sure that I would find the "hot" spot - the fracture. Notably, with maturity beyond even my advanced years I was wise enough to stop running but I didn't stop walking around barefoot, believing implicitly that some movement created faster and more robust heeling than immobility. The thought of going for scans and x-rays crossed my mind but previously when I had spent a fortune on these interventions I had still dismissed the expensive evidence and returned to running with careless abandon. Because of this I was not prepared to waste money on medical advice I knew I would ignore.

As predicted, after a few days my pain started to become localised. But it did so in strange places as marked below:

This was confusing! There were tender spots all over my foot and these were not indicative of a stress fracture - what was the culprit - I wondered morbidly if I had two or more stress fractures! Certainly the prospect of a 1st met stress fracture was very unusual as was a fracture of the navicular or cuneiform bones in the ankle. I was dismayed. I really couldn't work out what the issue was. I also had pain around the outer/lateral ankle bone (malleolus) at the point where a few tendons wrap around it (tibialis). I was stumped in more ways than one.

After a week of no running I started extending my walks and at this point I convinced myself that if I was suffering from a stress fracture it should prove itself and turn into a proper fracture. I'd get an-x-ray and would know the prognosis. And if it was not then I'd simply carry on with impunity. I constructed my own convoluted "win win" scenario ... or so I thought.

Simultaneously I started massaging my foot with anti inflammatories and I used my thumbs fairly aggressively to pummel the hot spots, leaving me purple and bruised. During this period of self abuse it suddenly occurred to me that many foot problems emanate from the calf muscles (too tight) especially the deeper calf muscle known as the soleus. And so I worked my thumbs into my lower leg until I found the KNOT!

At the same time I started doing some stretching of both the calf and the plantar. These were very tight and I knew I had to do some deeply invasive stretching. Simply place the foot against an upright surface, with toes extended upwards and manoeuvre the knee forwards, thus stretching everything from the calf to the toes (perhaps even the glutes).

Importantly this started to yield results and after 8 or nine days since the injury occurred I ventured forth on a gentle 3km run,  then two days later on a 5 km, and then more. Now two weeks later to the day and hour, I feel back to normal and am not suffering the indignation of another obsessive "too soon too much" outburst. It was simply a little soft tissue damage. Sorted!

Feet happy again in the old Pocket Rockets. But it does confirm that a little problem can refer to a far wider area and cause a disproportionate amount of distress.

The Non-Definitive Guide to Running a Barefoot Marathon (Hint: Plan not to do this)

OK so you want to run a barefoot 42? Well, that's the first mistake. You must definitely not have this as a goal. Do not put it on the radar screen. If you profess to want to run a barefoot marathon you will start to obsess about your feet, you will fear the possible damage, and the insults, and generally your mental condition will deteriorate to the point that you will not succeed. So the first point is this. Tell yourself,  "I do not want to run a barefoot marathon", then go and run a few barefoot miles. That's the start.

I am not an expert. I have run only one barefoot marathon. That is unimportant. If you ask someone that has run 100 barefoot marathons they will give you all sorts of misleading advice. They will say it's easy, you wont take any strain, and so on. They will say these things because they have forgotten what it was like to run their first. So I am writing this before I too am sucked into the vortex of memory loss and delusion.

The first part of the plan is clear. You DON'T want to run a barefoot marathon and you must believe this implicitly. The next part is to make sure that your conviction holds true for at least 3 years or more. This can be achieved in a number of ways. Upon waking every morning you can repeat to yourself  "I do not want to run a barefoot marathon". Alternatively you can adopt a more aggressive mantra along these lines, "People that run barefoot are mentally deficient delinquents with no sense of style or occasion" (you may choose your own expletives if you please).

By now the plan should be taking shape. You have given yourself at least 3 years grace. During this time progress as quickly as possible to the thinnest most unprotective footwear you can find. And if you can't find anything in your local Nike shop then go home and fashion something out of old carpets or car mats. Do not worry about what any of the experts tell you. If you get a sore foot keep running. This may exacerbate your stress fracture turning it into a full-blown displaced fracture but this is a small and insignificant inconvenience. Remember that when the fracture heals it creates a stronger portion of the metatarsal. This is "strength" building of the highest order.

After 2 or 3 years you should be comfortably running in your minimal footwear and perhaps even doing a few barefoot miles here and there. But the bottom line remains - you do not want to run a barefoot marathon. By this stage you will know that you do not want to run a barefoot marathon because your irregular barefoot runs will be fraught with drama. You will find glass embedded in your feet, toxic thorns  (we have these around here) will sink into the soft flesh at the base of your toes and cause painful swelling. Your feet will ache at times and you will doubt your chances of full recovery. Indeed there will be moments of  such intense pain  -- when you land, full stride on unseen prism shaped stones -- that you'll be reduced to infantile tears.

But this is nothing because you know you do not want to run a barefoot marathon. However your 3 years, your holiday, your sabbatical are now coming to an end. This is the time for some stealth planning. By this I mean you need to make plans in such a way that you yourself do not fully realise the implication thereof.  Make plans that even you cannot unravel, Stealth Plans. Oblique strategy!

Firstly find an accomplice, or in my case two. Find someone to do a few longer barefoot runs with. Preferably choose someone that will ridicule your motivations because in a contrary manner this will only strengthen your resolve at a deeply subconscious level. Your brain knows you are not a barefoot runner and you secretly despise those that are, but you need to sow the seeds of a different theme in your subconscious. And the mocking from your accomplice will help. In my case I solicited a second accomplice to actually run with me on my marathon attempt. The main purpose, as I saw it, was to deflect any insults and derisive outbursts from the bling-shoe parade.

Trevor, my accomplice registering for the Cape Town Marathon

At this time you should be comfortably battling through a few barefoot runs each week. It is better to take these longer runs on the worst road surface you can locate. This will prepare you in a rather perverse manner. Do not try and run barefoot everyday. Rather run far and then switch to minimal shoes for a day or two before going barefoot again. This allows the feet to get tougher.

The next part of the Stealth Plan (remember, you are an unsuspecting participant), is to locate the marathon you don't think you should run, certainly not barefoot. The most important thing is surface condition so do not choose an event in a derelict, decaying and generally decrepit town. Another important variable is weather. Make sure the experts are not expecting a blizzard and that the early morning temperatures for the race will not cause frostbite in your lower extremities. Then do not enter it. Not until the very last moment. In my case, at the last minute, the entry cut-off was extended by a week. This was a windfall. I had a whole new week to not enter. You do not want to enter until the last moment because as soon as you pay your fee, the Stealth game is up. Whoops? Am I going to run this barefoot? Yes dude, you are! You are now trapped in your own web of deceit.

After 3-4 years of not wanting to run a barefoot marathon you will now have a week or two to evaluate your sudden change of stance. A pitiful evaluation nonetheless. These will be taper days and you will be unable to squeeze in any last minute furtive sprints around the block. But importantly that morbid dread will only corrode your stomach for the short time remaining until the race start and not a full 3 years.

Race registration

And so to the race, or rather the day before. You should be barefoot all the time, not to run, but to walk and play. Do not lie in bed and do not lie in a bath. In fact do not shower or bath before your run. Keep your feet hard. Your plans for the race should also include all sorts of escape tricks. Carry some phone numbers, some spare cash and if you can, carry some back-up footwear or have it stationed at places on the run. Running barefoot puts different stresses on your lower legs and abdomen so take some electrolytes to prevent the chance of cramping in strange places.

Now the race itself. The first thing that will strike you is that you cannot easily run amongst a big start crowd. Barefoot runners need at least 3 or 4 meters of clear road ahead so that you can see, anticipated and avoid small yet dangerous items. Move to the side of the group if you can. Besides some clear road ahead,  you will also need some leeway to the left and the right. Yes, your lurching to avoid those dangerous items means you need space. Alternatively find some people that wont mind you crashing into them as you weave erratically from time to time.

Messing around before the start

Another big difficulty is predicting your time. This is your first barefoot marathon and as such it is littered with unknowns. How fast, how far, how tired, how sore ... you don't even know if you'll finish. My suggestion is to not take a watch. It will be of little use. Your running will be mindful, as you focus intensely on each stride and foot placement. You will determine your pace through a complex algorithm incorporating feel, expected feel, surface, expected surface, heat, need for reserves, possible issues, and more. Your brain will do this for you. Not your watch.

Runners spread over a wide area. Not sure where the start is!

And on the day, if you're lucky enough, you will feel light and strong. The regular outbursts from the spectators will motivate you. "Look a barefoot runner, that's amazing!"  Your feet will connect truthfully to the ground and the contact will inspire you, each positive step followed by another. The tactile joy of sensory messages filling your brain. And your eyes will fixate on the road ahead and slowly you will escape to a separate reality of primal motion. If you're lucky enough you will lose a sense of time as you fixate on cadence, stride length and foot placement. The distance markers will pass but you will not see them as the self absorption becomes complete. Passing the halfway mark you might be lucky enough to notice that you're OK, and if nothing has gone wrong you may still have a very good run. And your focus will return to the road, that 3 meter horizon and the breathing .... always breathing.

And if you're lucky enough you may get some long hills that allow you to work a little harder, measured effort. And still more spectators, and other runners calling out "well done!" This will inspire you to move more deliberately. You will know that the long time spent conditioning both your legs and your core, your feet and the toughening of the soles, will be worthwhile. You will feel compelled to run cleverly, efficiently and as you pass those that are slowing into the final 10km you will start to move with a little more resolve and a little more passion.

And if you're really lucky you will finish with a big glow of satisfaction and exuberance. You will feel invincible and know that the skeptics are wrong. The pure delight of unhindered running will resonate in your mind as you relive the full distance.  You will probably think a little more deeply and reflect on the fact that you have now run a barefoot marathon. And once noticing that it is done you may very well decide that planning not to do this was better than no plan at all.

Trevor and I drank beer afterwards. Quite a lot.

Reluctant to move on!

T Rocket Hominid Sandal Review in Barefoot Running Magazine

Find the latest issue of Barefoot Running Magazine here:
http://issuu.com/davidrobinson0/docs/barefoot_running_magazine_issue_12_

A full independent review of T Rocket Hominid sandals on page 146.

Mindful Running

I looked at my sandals. Nothing stirred in my mind. Nothing. I wanted to run. No goal, no objective. Just run.

My sandals were unmoved. And my mental vacancy equally intransigent. There was no common ground, no meeting point. The sandals, resolute in their obstinacy and my reluctance slowly hardening into rejection.

The sandals would stay in the cupboard. I would run barefoot. My feet would be free and in some perverse fashion my sandals would be avoided, confined .... punished.

Fred had told me it is called Mindful Running. Surprisingly there is now a term to describe heightened self-awareness running. This was what I was doing and the fewer encumbrances the better.

The first few paces on the tar were cold and hard. My feet were rigid and heavy and the ground seemed to drag on every step.

Slowly on the incline a little lightness came into my stride and my limbs accepted that movement was now mandatory.

Sometimes it takes a little longer, sometimes not, but the lazy protestations of the human form eventually succumb to the rigours we impose on our bodies. Especially in the case of running.

The tar was of varying consistency. Seldom polished and often as course as a quarry pit. It was an endless game to find the ideal foot placement, an endless engagement of my mental acuity. My focus was unwavering. It was me and foot placement, leg movement, motion, caution and correction.

But every now and again the sweet-spot struck. It rose up from underfoot, the perfect connection. Flow. The sweet-spot on mother earth, a bountiful gift. This was the narcotic, the prize. The perfect placement. The flawless form. Having sensed the "opiate", I sought and fought for more.

Lightness in my stride encouraged me to lift myself up and down from the asphalt to the grainy brick sidewalks. Musical chairs. Musical feet. I looked for variation and ran a "crooked mile". It was fun. A building site sailed by, debris spilling into the road. My game was enchanting. Obstacles created feedback loops and decisions were instantly rewarded. I was awake, intuitive, prescient.

Fred had told me this is the goal. Mindful Running was responsive, sensitive and in-tune. The world had receded, my interface was one dimensional, the absorption complete. I was aware yet oblivious.

And that was the exact point I realised something was working it's way into my foot. Dammit. Not again? A shard of capricious glass? Such perfection and in a moment reduced to such hopeless incapacitation.

Hobbling to a stop I looked underfoot. My penetrating gaze revealed nothing in my foot.  But I knew it was there. Something had attacked me. My David. Mindfulness turned to irritation and tetchiness. Later, at home, after some mindful minor surgery I removed the stubborn glass chip from my foot and thought I'd best find some cheap food after a quick shower.

Driving to the local KFC I was struck by the contradictions. Only a few minutes had passed since I was in Mindful Running nirvana. Only a few minutes earlier I was light-years from the commercial pursuits of our daily desperate gyrations, and now I was back in the fray. Only a few minutes earlier I had levitated across the overbuilt urbanscape. A Goliath in earlier stature and now in virtual supine subservience I clutched the simian steeringwheel. Cars, traffic, fast food, toxins, obsession, disregard, and bad radio. And so the iPod. Another contradiction. So nice. So demeaning. Mark Knopfler was in there singing ..... "can't get no antidote for blues". Can't get no antidote for .... shoes, I thought.

And then Golden Earring, Forty Five Miles. Perhaps forever.

My reflections were mindful, my reality still separate. The contrasts and contradictions were overwhelming and terrifying.

Everything needed was undesirable. Everything desirable was unneeded. Every forced action forced an unfortunate consequence. I couldn't play the game differently.

The food was not right. The car was too much, the waste overbearing, the consumption vulgar, the noise intense and the untruth ... well, the untruth is frightening. I was in it and part of it.

I thought of my next Mindful run, knowing that it needed to be very soon. And knowing that Fred, was right.

Ascetic

That in the end
I may find
Something not sold for a penny
In the slums of Mind.

That I may break
With these hands
The bread of wisdom that grows
In the other lands.

For this, for this
Do I wear
The rags of hunger and climb
The unending stair.

-Patrick Kavanagh

Copyright © Estate of Katherine Kavanagh

Extracts from the Barefoot/Minimalist Shoe Survey 2014

Barefoot/Minimalist Shoe Survey 2014: Highlights

In this summary I have documented a few aspects of the survey above that I thought are interesting. This is a personal extraction and others may not find the same highlights noteworthy. I also generally refrain from making a comment on the highlights I find interesting – I merely state them. The sample of the survey is said to include barefoot/minimalist footwear enthusiasts.

1.      Females with a minimalist interest tend to be a little younger than males even though males outnumber females 3 to 1.

2.      Footwear type used most often is highest for barefoot (higher than I would have thought!). Sandals as a category (flipflops and sandals) comes in at 12%.

3.      Years going barefoot. Notable polarisation here with many in the “more than 20 years” group as well as a very big representation for the “less than 3 years” group at 33%. This suggests the activity will grow if this trend is maintained.

  

4.      Interestingly those that prefer barefoot, sandals or flipflops tend to have the same propensity for running (approx. 45%- 55%) while those that prefer going barefoot are more likely to also hike and walk barefoot. (I looked at running, hiking, walking.)

  

5.      Women were more likely to “never” go barefoot compared to men. When going barefoot women also tended to do so for less time than men. Women more so than men see the “ground/surface” as a problem when barefooting.

6.      Main reason for barefooting. Notably high representation of “medical” reasons. Are previous injuries and ailments a factor?

    

7.      Benefits of going barefoot. Notably high proportion saying “happier” as well as a few saying “sexy”. Thus for this group of people there are clear emotional benefits.

8.      32% said they’d “never” worn minimalist shoes. This is strange. Presumably these are dedicated barefooters but one would expect them to wear minimalist shoes if and when they do wear shoes. 

9.       Cost of minimalist shoes is a problem for over 15% and is second only to “fit or comfort” 17%.

10.   Men are more likely to consider themselves (in rank order) Normal, Nature lover, Athletic, Eccentric, Artistic while for women the self-assessment is Normal, Nature lover, Artistic and Eccentric. (Athletic is thus the male differentiator).

11.   Other findings from the survey are largely self-explanatory and do not warrant further comment.

Survivorship Bias: Are running injuries far more prevalent and damaging than we realise?

Of all the medical research papers that I have perused over time it would appear that the consensus view of running injuries is that every runner is injured at least once, possibly twice, every year. This figure varies depending on the paper you read.

But it struck me that all of these investigations into running injuries were conducted amongst those actually claiming to run, even if temporarily injured. This indeed is the first possible hint that we may be dealing with a “survivorship bias”,  a bias in the sampling that could seriously distort our understanding of the true incidence of running injuries.

So what is a survivorship bias, you may ask? The Wikipedia definition is:  

Survivorship bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. Survivorship bias can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because failures are ignored, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property, rather than just coincidence.

The research of running injuries typically looks only at those currently running (even if they're temporarily side-lined with injury).  These are the "survivors". We need to ask about those that have given up. A true reflection of running injuries therefore should include an analysis of past runners - those that used to run. It should not be limited to the survivors that are "active" runners.

Let me take this hypothesis one step further. Below is a very interesting chart showing the cumulative number of Comrades runners (finishers and non-finishers) over the period 1984-2013. The number of subjects is very large making the data set fairly robust. At first glance a couple of very interesting observations arise from this chart. 1) At the age of 40 there is a sharp decline in Comrades runners. 2) The proportion of non-finishers appears to increase after the age of 40 and especially in the 45+ group where they account for about a third, or more, of starters. 

My first impression when I saw this chart was that it reveals the possibility of a “survivorship bias” in much of the running injury research I had read. My reason for this observation is that the drop-off in numbers after the age of 40 is very sharp and somewhat unexpected. One would expect this drop-off to be more gradual and perhaps closer to the blue line I have inserted in the chart. This raises the question: “Why were these runners quitting Comrades?”.  Of course there could be a thousand reasons but the obvious possibility is that they are injured. And my anecdotal experience would suggest that this is a distinct likelihood.

OK. So there are a lot of long distance runners that stop running. In this instance they stop running Comrades and they do this around the age of 40 and we suspect injury is a factor. So what? What does this imply, if anything?

Well it changes everything. It means that any injury research amongst runners, and especially those over 40, should look not only at runners but also at runners that have quit running. This is the survivorship bias we know about. When assessing the incidence and nature of running injuries I believe that we will uncover significantly different results if the samples of observations include the group we could call “lapsed runners”. My belief is that we could expect the rate of injury to be much higher than currently revealed because we focus only on survivors at present. The “survivors” that are still running and volunteering for medical research are far less likely to be injured than those that have quit.

As a counterpoint you may well posit that my hypothesis about quitters, injuries and survivors is a mere rumination and has no empirical foundation. And yes, you may be right. But my anecdotal experience tells me otherwise. I constantly meet people that “used to run” but due to deteriorating knees, hips, ankles and other damaged impact zones have given up. They quit running. They give up because it’s too painful to run or because they simply can’t run at all. Often their running demise is passed off glibly (and incorrectly) as “old age”.

The survivorship bias in the research and understanding of running injuries leads me to my next point, another hypothesis. It is that traditional running shoes as we know (heels, anti pronation, toe lift, etc) are far more dangerous than we assume. And it is these self-same shoes that tend to be one of the "constants" across this group of lapsed runners more so than running style, training habits and so on. My belief is that over-built running shoes can give a wonderful temporary illusion of prowess. They are hugely seductive at both a brand and tactile experiential level. But the key is that this “veneer” of prowess is temporary. Running shoes may enhance athletic appearance in the short term but in the longer term the insidious, gradual, granular and cumulative damage will eventually reduce many runners to non-runners. Based simply on the aforegoing data I would suggest that running shoes are pretty certain to limit your happy running years. It seems like 10-15 years may be a reasonable interval of active running after which the chances of being side-lined are greater than the chance of continuing to run. And so I believe that running shoes are not only highly likely to injure you but that this will manifest most strongly only after an extended period of time. And this simply makes it so much easier for the aging injured runners to pass off their dilemma to some other spurious cause … such as “getting old”!

It is because of the long term gradual deleterious effect of traditional running shoes (call it slow poison) and a survivorship bias that our current medical research fails to deliver good reliable information. In turn we merely perpetuate damaging choices and behaviour.

That is my comment on survivorship bias and running injuries. I have no empirical evidence and I have conducted no statistically significant research. But I do recognise a flaw in data and research methodology when I see it, and I do know what runners and ex runners say when I talk to them.