5 Minutes with Jack Daniels | Runner's World

5 Minutes with Jack Daniels
Barefoot running has become a big trend among runners. What are your thoughts about it?
Jack Daniels: I am definitely positive about it. I would not hesitate to have some of my runners do some running without shoes. In fact, I have encouraged it when we had a nice golf course to run on. On smooth grass and soft artificial tracks, I really think running without shoes is nice.
What are your experiences with barefoot running?
More From Runner's World
Daniels: I practiced a lot of barefoot running when I taught at a college in Hawaii; I got good enough to run 5 miles on a concrete sidewalk and had no problems.
What do you think about the shoes runners wear nowadays? Do you, like some advocates of barefoot running, believe that non-minimalist shoes can lead to injuries rather than preventing them?
Daniels: I have little doubt that for some people some shoes lead to injury, but you could probably say the same thing for running barefoot — so much depends on how much running you are doing and how fast you are running.
With the eyes of a coach who wants his runners to be faster, would it be possible to make athletes run faster without shoes?
Daniels: Yes, and not only my runners, but all of them. I personally think all world records on a nice artificial track can be broken barefoot.
How about running barefoot on the road?
Daniels: On the road, it may be a different thing. I have done some tests on a treadmill with shoes and barefoot, and the barefoot running was more costly (cost more energy to run at the same speed), but I think that was because the treadmill was very hard like a road and you have to use leg muscles to absorb the landing shock. On a nice track, the material absorbs the landing shock so your muscles do less work.
Shouldn't the lack of weight from shoes equalize the cost of energy?
Daniels: No. We know that each 100 grams of weight added to running shoes increases the cost of running about 1 percent, which is 1 minute in a marathon and 12-15 seconds in a 10K. I have also measured energy expenditure wearing shoes of different weight (again on a treadmill). As the shoe was lighter, the cost was less, but when the shoe was very light, the cost started going up again because very light shoes have limited shock-absorbing characteristics, so the muscles start having to work more (like with barefoot on a treadmill).
In other words, barefoot running makes only sense on a track?
Daniels: If you're talking about running faster, yes. I really believe that minimalist shoes or barefoot would be ideal on a nice shock-absorbing track surface.
What do you think about the advocates who say barefoot running is healthier?
Daniels: There is definitely some relevance to that. I did also some tests to look at pronation of the feet with shoes of different design and the least amount of pronation occurred while running barefoot.
What do you think about minimalist shoes like the Vibram Five Fingers? Do you see this as a temporary trend or will we see more of these kinds of shoes in the future?
Daniels: Richie Boulet, the husband of my runner Magdalena Lewy Boulet, has a running store in California. He sells more Vibrams than any other shoe. I imagine the major shoe companies will start making them soon because they just want to sell as much of anything that they can sell. I know a guy in Flagstaff who runs in Vibrams every day. What else can I say? I think barefoot is good, but a person must be gradual in how much to do, otherwise there will be injuries. It's the same with a 50 mile per-week runner who decides that next week he'll run 100 miles. He's asking for injuries.