Berlin Marathon 2011: Live

Berlin 2011: Magnificent Makau 2:03:38!

Patrick Makau has broken the world marathon record.  He raced to a 2:03:38 on the streets of Berlin, breaking Gebrselassie's world record by 21 seconds.  It was a terrible day for the Ethiopian emperor - he stepped off the road soon after Makau launched a big surge at around 27km, and while he did resume running, he was not a factor and it seems that he bailed some time later.

The questions will begin again - it is Geb's second DNF if two marathons, after New York.  On that occasion, he retired, and questions will now be asked again.  It's a sad way to go if it's true - two DNFs and the loss of his world record.

But today, it was Makau all the way.  Below are the splits (for the men - I lost track of the women's race as the men's world record became more and more apparent), and my comments as the race unfolded.

For a more detailed breakdown of the race, including a comparison between Makau 2011 and Gebrselassie 2008, click here

But briefly, halfway was reached in 61:45, which projects a 2:03:30, and that was more or less the pace from the start.  Makau and Geb were in the group, 11 strong, until around 25km when things began to fragment.  That's when Makau, perhaps sensing a weakness is Geb, pushed the pace, and under the pressure of his surge, Gebrselassie stepped off the road.  He seemed to be clutching his stomach - it was either a stitch, stomach cramp, or maybe asthma.  We'll find out later.

But the pace of the Makau surge was brutal - 14:20 for the 5km segment from 25km to 30km, and that's what took Makau from being in with a shout to having a real shot at it.  He did pay for that surge later in the race, and when we compare the splits later, you'll see that Makau got slower and slower from that point onwards.

But he had enough of a 'buffer' in hand - he was 49 seconds ahead of Gebrselassie's time at the same point in the 2008 record, and 45 seconds ahead of the pace required to break the 2:03:59.  So even though Makau did slow over the final 5km in particular, he had the record in the bag, and went on to break it by 21 seconds.

That's the short version - below is my coverage of the race as it unfolded, and here is the more detailed breakdown for those interested.

And thanks for following our live coverage of the race!

Splits


Men                                                                  Women

5km - 14:36 (2:03:13 pace)                           5km - 16:37 (2:20:14)
10km - 29:17 (2:03:34)                                  10km - 33:16 (2:20:22)
15km - 43:51 (2:03:21)                                   15km - 49:50 (2:20:11)
20km - 58:30 (2:03:25)                                 20km - 1:06:32 (2:20:22)
Half-marathon - 61:43 (2:03:26)                Half-marathon - 1:10:11 (2:20:22)
25km - 1:13:18 (2:03:43)                               25km - 1:23:15 (2:20:31)
30km - 1:27:38 (2:03:15)                                
35km - 1:42:16 (2:03:17)                              
40km - 1:57:15 (3:03:41)                          
Finish - 2:03:38                                                Finish - 2:19:44

Apologies - in all the drama of the men's world record, I missed a few women's splits, and the truth is, Kiplagat was just churning out consistent kilometers.  I'll see if I can update the splits later.

The men's race deserves more analysis, and so I'll have a closer look at that in a follow-up post


Commentary

Comments in reverse order - most recent at the top

Finish

WORLD RECORD!

2:03:38

Makau has done it, he has held on to break the world record by 21 seconds!  That was a hard effort at the end, Makau was fighting over the final 5km but he did it, and did it in style.  Even vaulted the advertising wedges in the finish straight to do it!

More analysis to come, including a comparison of this race with Geb's 2008 record.  Check in shortly!

40km

Makau is hanging on to world record pace - the last 5km was run in 14:59, and Makau only needed to run 15:20 to get this record.  So he is on course for a 2:03:41.  He has slowed slightly - the last interval was easily the slowest of the race!  But he has a buffer of sorts, and the last 2.2km are a race against the clock!

In 2008, Geb reached 40km in 1:57:34.  Makau reached it 19 seconds faster (1:57:15).  But remember, he was 49 seconds ahead at 35km, and so he is "losing ground" to the virtual figure of Gebrselassie on the road!

6 minutes of running is all that stands between him and the WR.  It's going to be a great finish!

37km

Makau is still on course for a big world record.  It's looking more and more like he is not just going to edge it, he is going to smash this record!  He's looking at a sub-2:03:30 time, and this is history in the making!


5km to go, and Makau needs to run it in 15:20, this is a world record on the way!

35km

Makau is on course for the world record!

Makau is out on his own now - it's a tough, tough ask to race the final 10km at world record pace.  You'll recall that Gebrselassie had James Kwambai with him in 2008.  The time at 35km is 1:42:16.  In 2008, Geb covered it in 1:43:05.

So Makau is still ahead, and he is holding onto the pace he needs.  To put it into context: At 30km, Makau was 47 seconds ahead of Gebrselassie's split from 2008 (1:27:38 for Makau vs 1:28:25 for Geb).  Now he is 49 seconds ahead, and so the world record is on!  Makau has run these 5km as fast as Geb did in 2008 (14:38)!  But the section 35km to 40km is where Geb really picked it up 3 years ago!  Does he have enough in reserve to do this?  Fascinating finish in prospect!

32km

With 10km to go, Makau needs to run 29:49 to break 2:04 and the world record.  It's definitely on, the only question is how Makau recovers on the run from that 14:20, and whether those first 20km were just too quick?

30km

It's Makau's race now - he's out in front with two pace-makers for company, probably over a minute clear of Gebrselassie.  The last 5km were run in 14:20, which is incredible - that was the acceleration that pulled Makau clear of Gebrselassie, just before the Ethiopian stepped off track.  That was very, very quick and now the race, and possibly the World Record's, is Makau's to chase.  His projected time at 30km, by the way, is 2:03:15.

The big question is what the surge takes out - Makau now has to consolidate - it may be "only" 12km to go, but the potential for time losses here are enormous.  He needs to run just inside 3 min/km to get that world record.  That is definitely doable, and this could be a great race to the line against the clock!

Gebrselassie is up and running again.  One of the pacemakers has dropped back and is now pulling him again.  He seems to making ground on those runners between himself and Makau.  He is 1:10 down on Makau, and we'll check that again at 35km to see if Geb has really recovered.  Quite extra-ordinary developments with Geb stepping off the road and now seemingly back, running still well under 2:04:30 pace!

27.2km

Gebrselassie has STOPPED!  He was dropped by Makau and he has stepped off the road, clutching his stomach, bending over and cearly in trouble!  Maybe asthma - he seemed to gesture that he was unable to brath.  Either that or a stomach problem.  Cramp/stitch maybe.  He is crouched over.  Now he is back running again, but he's lost big ground.  What a great pity!

Gebrselassie is now running again, and doesn't seem to be going too slowly.  It is very peculiar because he really did look to be in trouble there.  He was either struggling for breath, or had some kind of cramping or stitch pain.  But to reverse that and resume racing a minute later...very interesting.  We'll get you a split of the gap shortly, and keep an eye on it.

25km

The men have now begun to slow - the last 5km were run in 14:48.  It's the first time that a 5km split has been outside of the pace required for a world record (that's 14:41, by the way).  The projected time is now 2:03:43.  However, I can tell you that if they maintain the 14:48 pace for the rest of this race, they will finish in 2:04:12.

The TV coverage keeps flashing a projected finish time of 2:03:05, which is never going to happen.  not sure where that projection comes from.  Makau and Geb playing games shadowing one another!  A taste of things to come?  The last 10km might be very slow if they start racing and playing tactical battles

On the women's side, no change.  Kiplagat ran the last 5km in 16:43.

Halfway

The men's halfway split is 61:43.  Easy maths - it projects a 2:03:26.  The world record is now a definite possibility (it was at the start, of course).  The key will be after 30km, when most of those pace-makers drop out, and we're left with Makau and Gebrselassie.  Then we'll see if the early pace is costly.  If the pace is going to drop, it's going to be 25km to 40km.  Fascinating race developing though - the possibility of Geb vs Makau needing a 29-min final 10km to break the WR is mouth-watering.

Kiplagat has reached halfway in 1:10:11, 19 seconds ahead of Radcliffe.  If both keep going at this pace, they'll run 2:20:22 and 2:21:10 respectively.  That's probably a "par" for Radcliffe, given the build-up and hear she has had.  For Kiplagat, it's a good comeback after failing to finish Boston.

20km

Still no sign of slowing - after hitting 15km 12 seconds faster than the WR split from 2008, they ran a 2:58 and a 2:55.  So not surprisingly, they hit 20km in 58:30 . The 2008 split at 20km was 58:50, so they're 20 seconds ahead of that.  That's a big improvement - it projects a 35 seconds breaking of the world record.  The last 5km, incidentally, were done in 14:39, so they're holding faster than WR pace.  Every split so far has been faster than the WR pace.  It's still an 11-man group.

Kiplagat has continued to roll - 16:42 for the last 5km, so a small slowing in the pace.  She is 17 seconds ahead of Radcliffe, who has now dropped back to around 17 min/5km pace.  Unless there's a dramatic change of fortunes for one (or both), the women's race is developing into a victory for Kiplagat by just over a minute.  She's on for a 2:20:22 still.

15km

The men have actually sped up on the last interval - 14:34 giving them a 43:51 at 15km.  For comparison's sake, when Geb broke the world record in 2008, he hit 15km in 44:03.  They're actually saying that they ran the 15th kilometer in 2:45, which is unbelievably fast.  I'm more inclined to call that an error in the distance markings than a real time!  But it's very fast.  It now projects 2:03:21, so they're setting up an incredible day.  Or a big meltdown over the final 10km!

On the women's side - a big development - Kiplagat is nine seconds ahead at 15km.  Radcliffe has dropped off the pace somewhat.  Kiplagat has run with amazing precision.  The last 5km were 16:34, for a 15km split of 49:50.  Radcliffe came through in 49:59, so that's interesting.  Kiplagat meanwhile, has produced splits of 16:37, 16:39 and 16:34, and she's on course for a 2:20:11.  Will keep an eye on Radcliffe to see if she's going back, or holding that gap.

10km situation

The men have hit 10km in 29:17, so that's 14:41 for the last 5km.  The projected time now is 2:03:34.  There are still 11 men there, five of them pace-makers.  The other four (excluding Geb and Makau) are running many minutes faster than their bests, so that group could get very thin very quickly once the pace-makers start dropping off.

The commentators are saying that it's unusual for Gebrselassie to misjudge the pace.  I remember the Dubai race a few years ago where he went through 10km in a mid-28 time, projecting 2:02.  And I think the same happened the next year.  So it's not entirely unusual.

In the women's race, Radcliffe and Kiplagat have already opened up a sizeable lead over Mikitenko.  Their 10km split was 33:16, a last 5km of 16:39, so they're rolling along at the same pace.  Projects a 2:20:22.

5km reached

The men hit 5km in 14:36.  That's 2:03:13 pace, so fast, but that's normal for the first split.  There are eleven men in the lead group, five of them pace-makers. Gebrselassie and Makau are there.  They've requested 62 minutes to halfway, so if they get that, they'll be on course for a world record, and a race between Makau and Gebrselassie at that pace will be fascinating.  Early days yet.

Nice slow-motion shot of the elite runners feet landing - notice how they're heel-striking?  Gebrselassie in the yellow shoes - used to be a very clear forefoot striker on track.  It's a quick transition to mid-foot though, so the definition of "heel-strike" is disputable.  Flat at best.  But it sure isn't a fore-foot strike...

The women are on course for a 2:20:14 at 5km - 16:37.  The split was Kiplagat's, with Radcliffe listed at the same time.  So far no coverage of that race.

Shots of Geb training in Ethiopia now.  Nice touch for the human side of the race.

Pre-race

They're saying there are 30 pace-makers in the race today.  Not all for the elite men, but for various groups.  Of course, the build-up to this race included discussion of the role of pace-makers given the IAAF's recent decision that they will not recognize women's records set in mixed races, because this allows women to be paced by men.

I appreciate the reason for this, but I can't help feeling that if men are able to be paced to 30 or 35km, then women should receive at least the same benefit.  Of course, women's running lacks the depth of the men's race, and so they can't find six or seven women to get to 30km in the 1:40 required for a 2:20 marathon.  So women are either advantaged (by having men as pace-makers all the way to the finish), or disadvantaged (by having no pace-makers, or pace-makers to only halfway, for example).  There doesn't seem to be a middle ground.

But there's no question that the men get a large benefit - when the current record was broken by Gebrselassie, he was surrounded by men for 30km and then had Kwambai for "company" over the final 10km.  It's impossible to quantify the advantage this would provide, but it's fair to assume that it does help for a variety of reasons, both physiological and psychological.

To me, the best solution would be to allow men to do a pace-maker job for women, but only up to 30km.  Enforce something similar to the Ironman triathlons, where there is a "no drafting" rule that prevents athletes from riding in groups.  Why not have a rule that says after 30km, any men who are pace-making for women must drop back by a minimum of 50m?  They can still finish, but may no longer support and set the pace for the women.  Seems like the most reasonable compromise, given that it is a tricky situation, where either of the current situations creates advantages and disadvantages.

Anyway, enough of that, the race is about to start...

IAAF World Champs: USA's hat-trick on a day of surprises

IAAF World Champs report Day 6:  The USA claim three on a day of surprises

Six finals, and four nations won medals today, as the USA delivered a hat-trick of titles in what was a day of mild (and big) surprises.

The USA's medals came in the form of Jesse Williams in the high jump (least surprising - he was the world leader after all), Lashinda Demus in the 400m hurdles (mildly surprising, though she was second in Berlin and is a class act, always competitive), and then Jennifer Barringer-Simpson, in the biggest surprise of all, in the women's 1500m in a very peculiar race.

Also claiming gold were Ezekiel Kemboi of Kenya (Steeplechase), Dai Greene of Great Britain (400m hurdles) and Olha Saladuha of Ukraine in the triple-jump.

A short summary of the track finals is below, along with YouTube clips of some, for those who missed them!

Kemboi explodes, celebrates and entertains for Kenya's fourth gold

Ezekiel Kemboi of Kenya defended his 3000m steeplechase world title with an incredible explosion of speed in the final 200m, opening up such a huge lead that he actually won the race in lane 7 by the end.  The sprint was on after a slow race, yet Kemboi got so far clear that he had time to celebrate pretty much from the final barrier, and drifted out into lane 7 doing so!  Brimin Kipruto got silver, holding off a fasting finishing Mahiedine Mekhissi-Benabbad on the line.

This was always going to be a fascinating race.  Earlier in the year, France's Benabbad had delivered a huge warning to Kenya that their dominance in the Steeplechase would be challenged in a big way in Daegu, when he ran away from a strong field, including Kemboi, to win the Paris Diamond League event.  On that occasion, Benabbad ran 8:02, and won by five seconds from Kemboi, and it was a performance that gave the Daegu final an added dimension - not only would it see great competition, but it might bring out a great tactical battle.

Kenya, of course, had four athletes in the race, by virtue of the fact that Kemboi was defending champion.  The other was Brimin Kipruto, who had missed the world record by 1/100th of a second earlier this season, having been led by Paul Koech in a great Diamond League race in Monaco.  Koech had been left out of this race, and so it was expected to be a Kipruto-Kemboi battle against Benabbad.  And given Benabbad's great finish in that Paris race (he put five seconds on the field in the final lap), I fully expected Kenya to send one of their two "lesser" runners out and make this a super fast race, given that Kipruto and Kemboi had run 7:55 or faster earlier this year.

That didn't happen. Then again, Bennabad didn't seem to be quite as strong as he had been in Paris, because he ran the whole race about 5m off the Kenyans, never in among them, which was surprising.  The early pace was set by Ramolefi, but it was slow - 2:47 to the first kilometer.  That was followed by 2:46, by which time the east Africans (three Kenyans and two Ugandans) were in front, and Benabbad and Tahri, also of France, just behind.  Down the back-straight, it was Kemboi and Kipruto who went clear, and only a massive late charge by Bennabad got him bronze, and in truth, he nearly caught Kipruto from behind (when you watch the video below, look at how far behind Benabbad is coming into the final straight, and watch how close he comes to catching Kipruto - he makes up about 2 seconds in 80m!  That kind of speed was however "wasted", and Benabbad, in my opinion, ran a strange race to allow that gap to appear in the first place.  I was surprised that he wasn't more attentive throughout the race, given his Paris victory and his obvious speed)

But Kemboi was untouchable today.  He was beaten into second by Kipruto in that Monaco race, running 7:55.76, but this was a championship race, and he has been remarkable in medal races in the last eight years.  Here is the list of performances:  2nd in 2003 World Champs, 1st 2004 Olympics, 2nd 2005 World Champs, 1st 2006 Commonwealth Games, 2nd 2007 World Champs, 1st 2009 World Champs and 2nd 2010 Commonwealth Games.  The only blemish was a 7th in Beijing, but other than that, Kemboi has been a 'guaranteed' silver or gold!

The video below shows the final 500m and watch for the Kemboi kick as they clear the third-last barrier at the end of the back straight.  It's so good, as mentioned, that he had time to start celebrating after the final jump, 50m from the line.  He danced over the line, and continued to celebrate, stripping off the vest and dancing, perhaps the Kenyan equivalent of Usain Bolt's "chicken dance" from Beijing!  Kemboi is a great entertainer, the sport needs it.  In all, it was a magnificent performance - that final 200m was as impressive a sprint as anything I've seen.

In case you missed it, here is a clip (not English, but the quality is the best I could find on YouTube now).  It really is worth a watch.

Jennifer Barringer-Simpson wins the 1500m title

The biggest surprise came from Jenny Barringer Simpson, who won gold in the women's 1500m in what was a strange race for a number of reasons.  For one, none of the favourites came through.  A fall with 550m unfortunately took out one of those favourites, Morgan Uceny of the USA.  Even more strange was that the big favourite, Maryan Jamal of Bahrain, began drifting away from the front of the race as early as 450m to go, was completely out of contention with 250m to go, and trailed in last place, fully 17 seconds behind the winner.  And yes, she shut down once out of contention, but her "challenge" was notable because, well, it was completely non-existent in the final 300m (she was seemingly bumped with about 450m to go, and perhaps that affected her finish.  She certainly has developed a habit of producing massively inconsistent performances though)

The USA would have had high hopes for this race, but most of them were with Uceny, who had been winning Diamond League races this season.  Barringer-Simpson was, not to be unkind, "the other American", though her 1500m credentials are impressive, including a sub-4 PB back in 2009.  It's jsut that she hadn't really showed that kind of form this year.  And so when Uceny went down in a pretty spectacular tumble with 550m to go, it seemed that the USA's chances took a drastic turn for the worse.

Not according to Barringer-Simpson - she ran a perfect race, always in contention, avoiding the barging and congestion that comes with a slow pace.  She moved out into lane two with about 150m to run, and as the final straight unfolded, she was right there, with clear track in front of her, and she took advantage.  Hannah England was a strong (and delightedly surprised) second, and Natalia Rodriguez of Spain (another pre-race favourite) faded somewhat having led into the final straight to come third.

In the end, the pace was slow, which made it all the more peculiar.  The first lap was 68.78, followed by a 65.16, leading to the congestion that would ultimately end Uceny's challenge in the fall.  The pace was ramped up with 500m to go, when Rodriguez went to the front.  She led through the bell, and all the way to about 40m to go, when Barringer-Simpson swept by. 

The final 300m were covered in about 46s, which is fast, but not spectacular - final laps of under 60 seconds have been run before (sub 45s for final 300m), off more or less the same pace.  But in the end, it was a race of attrition, a wide open race to begin with, that opened up repeatedly during the final, and Barringer-Simpson was there, deservedly, to move through and claim gold.  The race is below if you missed it

Men's 400m hurdles - Dai Greene for Great Britain

Great Britain have had a good, though perhaps slightly disappointing World Champs until tonight.  They would have been very positive about their chances for gold with Jessica Ennis in the heptathlon and Mo Farah in the 10,000m, but ended up with silver instead.

Tonight would have rectified their predictions somewhat - first came Hannah England's silver in the 1500m (surely an unexpected medal), and then Dai Greene delivered by claiming the men's 400m hurdles gold with a storming final 80m.  It's perhaps not a huge surprise - Greene was always going to be in contention, and looked strong in the semi-finals, but he was not an overwhelming favourite.  He beat Javier Culson into silver, while LJ van Zyl of South Africa claimed bronze, holding off a fast finishing Felix Sanchez.  Bershawn Jackson and Angelo Taylor finished sixth and seventh, which is significant because it's the first World Championships since 2001 where a medal has not gone to the USA in the event.  Greene's medal also has historical significance - it's the first medal for GBR in the event since 1991!

The time was also relatively slow - 48.27s.  There was some wind, of course, but it's interesting to note that this was the slowest winning time in the 400m hurdles in the history of the World Championships, dating back to 1983.  The 400m hurdles has been this way all season, in fact - since LJ van Zyl's world leader back in April, very few sub-48s performances have been seen.  Like the women's 1500m, the 400m hurdles is wide open leading into London.

Women's 400m hurdles - Demus runs a perfect race

"Slow" is not a word you'd use to describe the women's 400m hurdles final.  In fact, it was the third fastest race in history, as Lashinda Demus of the USA picked up the gold with a brilliant 52.47 performance, holding off Melaine Walker, the Jamaican defending champion who started out in Lane 8 as a result of her relatively poor semi-final performance.

Walker had a great race, actually, running a season's best of 52.73s (anything sub-53s is rare - only 15 women in history have done it), but Demus was just better.  They raced into the final hurdle together, Demus slightly ahead, but Demus had the stride pattern perfect, hit the hurdle at speed, and extended the margin to win, improving on her silver from Berlin two years ago.  The race is below

IAAF World Champs - Rudisha delivers and Kirani James "arrives"

IAAF World Champs: Rudisha, James and Zaripova get gold

Day 3 of the IAAF World Championships brought more success for Kenya, in the form of David Rudisha's anticipated gold in the men's 800m.  It was their third gold of these championships, but may be tempered slightly by the result of the Women's steeple where they would have been hoping for another gold, but left instead with one bronze courtesy Milcah Cheywa, who was denied by Yuliya Zaripova of Russia.  Russia had a great day with two golds - Zaripova's and Chernova's in the heptathlon, where she denied Jessica Ennis a much anticipated gold medal.

Other golds on the day went to Germany (men's discus), Brazil (women's pole vault) and Grenada, with perhaps the race of the day coming in the men's 400m, where Kirani James, the exceptional 19 year old (or he will be on Thursday) beat LaShawn Merrit in a great final 100m to claim gold.  Having been identified as one for the future, James ushered the future in immediately by delivering on his promise, and setting up a great rivalry with Merritt ahead of London next year.

Short event summaries below.

Men's 800m - Rudisha delivers

The 800m event has traditionally been regarded as one of the most open and unpredictable in the World Championships.  As recently as 2009, there were probably a dozen men all capable of winning gold and if you ran the final five different times, there was a chance that you'd get five different winners!

That was then, this is now - David Rudisha, so disappointed to fail in 2009 when much was expected of him, has since matured into a world record holder and dominant world beater.  As a result,when he stands on the start line in any race on the global circuit, the thinking is usually how fast will he run, and competitively speaking, by what margin will he win?

The World Champs are a little different - the lack of pace-makers means that the race has to be won either tactically (which can see normally unheralded runners emerge in frantic final 200m sprints - watch the 1500m races to see this happen!), or it must be run from the front.  So the question ahead of today's 800m final was not only whether Rudisha would come through the test (most expected it), but how would he run in order to avoid the numerous tactical pitfalls of the event?

Those who "guaranteed" victory on the basis of Rudisha's superior times alone perhaps overlook the difficulty of running sub-1:43 as a solo effort from the front, and even with Rudisha's dominance in terms of his PB compared to other athlete's, the field is competitive enough that a race finishing in 1:43 would be close until at least the final 50m - tension or tightness would be punished.   So this was going to be an "anxious" race for the world record holder.  The general expectation was that he'd avoid the bunching and boxing of a slow race and lead from the front.

In the end, that's exactly what he did, and he ran the 800m final a lot like a middle distance race.  That is, he started fast (23.81s for the first 200m), got into the lead, then controlled the pace in the middle of the race (27.52s and 26.66s for the next two quarters) and then picked it up again with 25.92s over the final 200m (see figure right) to win gold going away from the chasing field.  This kind of pattern is what you usually see in 1500m and mile races, and that he did it so strongly in an 800m race (under pressure from behind) is testament to Rudisha's quality, and his obvious capacity to run faster when needed.

It was enough for a gun-to-tape victory, in a controlled manner that is possible only when you are completely in command of the event and the competition.  The time of 1:43.91 was made to look comfortable, and the way the race was constructed suggested that it was.  In second, a late charge by Abubaker Kaki (1:44.41) made good on the expectation that he would be Rudisha's biggest challenger, though in truth, he was never truly challenging.  Yuriy Borzakovskiy claimed bronze for Russia.

Rudisha delivered on the expectation and if he stays healthy, it's difficult to see an 800m gold medal going anywhere other than Kenya for the next few World Championship cycles.  The once-unpredictable event has become "routine" (but not quite a forgone conclusion), and that's a measure of the quality of David Rudisha.

Women's 3000m steeplechase - front-running championship record to Zaripova

Speaking of dominant front-running performances, gold in the women's steeplechase went to Yuliya Zaripova of Russia, in another gun to tape victory.  She hit the first hurdle in the lead and never surrendered it, reeling off a 3:00, then 3:04 and a final kilometer in 3:03 for a world-leading time and personal best.  In doing so, she went one better than in 2009, where she had been outkicked by Marta Dominguez of Spain (as Yuliya Zarudneva back then).

The challenge came initially from Kenya, but one by one they dropped off, and it would be Tunisia's  Habiba Ghribi who claimed silver with a strong final 800m.  The dominant athlete of the year so far, Milcah Cheywa on Kenya, who has basically wrapped up the Diamond League title for the event, would come third to claim consecutive bronze medals in World Championships.

It was, in one sense, a surprise, because Cheywa has dominated in 2011, going unbeaten until today.  In  another sense, perhaps it was not.  The Kenyans, for all their depth and complete dominance in the men's steeple, haven't quite managed to dominate the women's discipline.  Yet.  Rather, Russia have been the championship performers, and currently hold the championship record from 2007, the Olympic gold, and the world record (in the Beijing Olympics).  The steeple is clearly an event they have identified as a gold medal prospect.

Having watched Kenya's women in the 10,000m, and knowing the caliber of athlete they have over 5,000m, I suspect that it is only a matter of time before the same is true in the steeple.  For now, the event is perhaps more "open" as a result of its relative newness in athletics, and I expect that to change soon, once athletes of the caliber of Vivian Cheruiyot, Linet Masai and Sally Kipyego start to run in it as well. Once athletes with 14:30 5,000 caliber begin to turn to the steeple, I'd expect the performances to leap ten seconds forward and sub-9 clockings will become common.  Cheywa then, is the first great steepler from Kenya, but those who follow, I expect will surpass that level.  It will be interesting to see if the rest of the world "follows" or whether we see the same situation to develop as for men's steeplechase.

But right now, Russia lead the way, and Zaripova leads the world.

Men's 400m - Kirani James delivers on his promise in the race of the day

Kirani James of Grenada became a name to watch when he ran a world-leader a few weeks before the World Champs.  His talent was undisputed, and only two days short of his 19th birthday, everyone was saying that no matter what happened in Daegu, he was a name to watch in the future.  Well, that wasn't enough for Kirani James - he was ready for success now.  And so he won the gold in the 400m in a time of 44.60s, with a late charge to catch and pass LaShawn Merritt (44.63s, only 0.03s behind).  It was a race reminiscent of the great finish between Amantle Montsho and Allyson Felix yesterday, but with one difference - this time, the charging athlete did overhaul the leader to win.

For Merritt, it would have been a disappointment in the sense that he was 10m from defending his title, but he may be satisfied nonetheless.  A 21-month ban for a drug infringement (Extenze - improve your manhood) meant he was in Daegu as a wildcard, his drug ban ending so recently that he didn't even have the opportunity to race in the USA trials.  He leaves Daegu knowing there's work to do, but in possession of silver and the world lead from his first round heat.  Third went to Kevin Borlee of Belgium, one half of the identical Borlee twins, in 44.90s (Note - the initial post said Jonathan - my apologies! That's the trouble with identical twins! My mistake!)

James has a combination of power and relaxation, and today he came under pressure from Merritt with 180m to go.  Despite looking a little more ragged than he has in previous races, he responded without losing his form, and becomes the third youngest world champion in history (Ismael Kirui and Eliud Kipchoge were younger).  If he continues to improve, he's the man to beat for a long time to come.  At the very least, his rivalry with Merritt over the next few weeks and into London will mean the 400m is an event to watch.

Other events

In other events, Robert Harting won the men's discus.  The only reason I mention this is that in Berlin, this provided one of the highlights of the Championships, because Harting's celebrations involved picking up Berlino and spinning him around.  Berlino, the greatest mascot ever seen in athletics (and who should have been imported to Daegu for a week).  Ok, that was a little tongue in cheek, but Berlino was a highlight and added a bit to the entertainment value of the Berlin Champs.  There's a video at the bottom of this post.

Jessica Ennis did NOT win the heptathlon, which was a bit of a surprise. It had gone mostly to plan for the British athletics icon until the javelin, when a large underperformance saw Russia's Tatyana Chernova leap ahead and then defend her points lead in the 800m to claim gold.  Sebastian Coe was the invited dignitary for the medal ceremony, and he was no doubt expecting to hand gold to Ennis, who is one of Great Britain's stars in the build-up to the London 2012 Olympics.  A disappointment for Ennis then, and one wonders whether this increases or decreases the pressure on her.  She'll take heart knowing that it was really just one very weak event that cost her the points, and she has the opportunity to bounce back in a home Olympics.  It certainly adds intrigue to the event for London, and perhaps reduces the pressure on Ennis (though not by much).

The women's pole vault was won by Fabiana Murer of Brazil, with a 4.85m clearance for a South American record.  Silver and bronze went to Martina Strutz of Germany (4.80m, a national record) and Sveltana Feofanova of Russia, respectively.  Completely out of the medals was Yelena Isinbayeva in sixth.  Her comeback hasn't gone quite according to plan, though London will surely be the goal.  This result, as it has done in many events, perhaps asks more questions than it answers ahead of the Olympics.

Tomorrow is a rest day (bizarrely - I don't recall a rest day in an IAAF Championships before, so beats me why).  It sees the 20km walk. The next big track action comes on Thursday, and I can't understand why this rest day has been introduced.  If anyone knows, please let us know in the comments!

Ross


And lastly, here is Berlino.  The Daegu mascot is trying, but these are big shoes to fill!  Enjoy the athletics on Thursday!

IAAF World Champs - Kenya's day

Day 1 belongs to Kenya...entirely.  As in all 100%, 6 out of 6

The day 1 medal table at the IAAF World Championships makes for extra-ordinary reading.  There's only one team on it - Kenya.  It a display of unparalleled dominance, Kenya took every single medal on offer.  It helps that the medals were available in the longest distance running events, the marathon and the 10,000m events for women.

But it was dominance like we haven't seen on a given day - first, second and third to kick off the day in the marathon, and then first, second, third and fourth to end it in the 10,000m.

Both races were testament to team dominance, but were punctuated by individual superstars, as first Edna Kiplagat re-inforced her emergence as a marathon star, and then Vivian Cheruiyot underlined her status as an all-time great in the making.  Both where also characterized by a battle between Kenya and Ethiopia.  In the end, it was no contest.  Kenya has always been a distance powerhouse, and in recent years, their women have begun to achieve the dominance we used to see from their men.

Today, they exceeded it, with arguably the most dominant day for any nation in the history of the sport.  Only six medals were on offer, of course, and there have been days where a nation has won more golds or more medals.  But six out of six, 100% success, is the kind of start to the championships that mean that even if they win nothing else (and with Rudisha in the 800, Chemos in the Steeplechase, the men's steeplechase, the men's 1500 and Vivian Cheruiyot in the 5,000 to come, this seems impossible), Kenya have already had a successful 2011.

Women's marathon - the biggest threat to Kenya was a Kenyan heel-clip!

The women's marathon was won by Edna Kiplagat in 2:28.43.  Priscah Jeptoo took second, while Sharon Cherop took bronze.

Cherop also nearly took her team-mate out of the race.  With about 15 minutes left to run, Cherop and Kiplagat cut across one another and they clipped legs.  In truth, it was nobody's fault, but Kiplagat went down fairly hard.  Cherop sportingly waited, and they helped Kiplagat back into a rhythm and she went on to win the day.

It was that kind of day for Kenya - the rest of the world was unable to keep up, and the biggest threat they faced turned out to be from within!  For a more detailed analysis of the race as well as press conference footage (and this will be the source of the best insight you get on all the events in these Championships), check out the Letsrun.com analysis of the marathon.

Women's 10,000m - another sweep, led by Cheruiyot

Then came the women's 10,000m.  This was a race billed as a clash between Vivian Cheruiyot and Mesert Defar, but it never materialized.  It was also expected to produce much drama, as track 10,000m races often do, particularly the 2009 title, where Meseret Defar tied up with 50m to go, then Melkamu looked to have won it and even began celebrating before Linet Masai pipped her for gold.

The drama was absent this time, but there was another "d" - Dominance.  Kenya utterly dominated this race, and would claim the top four places.  After the early pace was set by Shalane Flanagan, the Kenyans took over just before 4,000m in the form of defending champion Linet Masai who just maintained a steady pace of around 3:05/km.  The field was progressively cut down, and eventually, Defar was dropped with 2km to go.

That was a big surprise - her 5km season's best of 14:29 earlier this year would have suggested a better display than she produced, especially given that the first 5km of this final was run in 15:47.  Things must have turned for the worse since that performance, because with 8km to go, she was gapped and she would eventually not even finish the race.

At the front, only Meselech Melkamu resisted, the lone presence among four Kenyans.  Five reached the bell together, and then Cheruiyot went ahead and wound the pace up.  Only Sally Kipyego stayed in contact (not Masai as the commentary said until about 10 min after the race!), and Melkamu was in third, seemingly poised to break the Kenyan sweep.

But with 100m to go, Melkamu was reeled in and passed, first by Masai (who deserved a medal for her efforts - she led for almost the entire final 6,000m) and then by Priscah Cherono.  It meant Kenya went 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The pace in the end wasn't all that spectacular - Cheruiyot ran the final 400m in about 61 seconds, to clock 30:48.98 (second half is 15:01, which is quick).  Cheruiyot picked up a personal best, and her first gold of these championships.  Based on the form of the Ethiopians, few would bet against her winning the 5,000 later in the week.  We've seen faster races, and we've seen faster final laps, but we've rarely seen such complete dominance of a day and two events.

Kenya must be a happy place to be in the village tonight!

Other action - big guns on course, so far

In other action, the men's 800m went more or less to plan.  David Rudisha and Abubaker Kaki both completed comfortable front-running victories in their heats.  Their next stop is the semi-final, where it should be a lot tighter, but they look good bets to reach the anticipated head-to-head in Tuesday's final.

Usain Bolt rocketed out of the blocks in his 100m heat, and then "jogged" to a victory in 10.10s.  With Powell, Rodgers, Gay and Mullings all out (that's the four fastest men by time), Bolt was already the favourite, but as far as "routine" 10.10s performances go, Bolt made his look pretty spectacular.  The semi-final and final are tomorrow night.  Don't bet on a record, but don't bet against Bolt winning either.

Other events to look out for tomorrow are the men's 10,000m final, where there's a chance that the gold will NOT be going to Kenya or Ethiopia.  Mo Farah is a big favourite, but the big danger will be Kenenisa Bekele.  He hasn't raced in more than a year, and so no one really knows what to expect from him.  In one sense, you'd think it foolish to bet against a man who has actually never lost a competitive 10,000m.  But on the other, you'd be foolish to bet on a man who hasn't raced in so long!  Bekele is a big unknown, and that should be a fascinating race!

Follow us on Twitter for quick thoughts and updates

That's it for Day 1.  Please join us for coverage throughout - the action in Korea takes place at a really inconvenient time here in South Africa, as it happens right in the middle of the work day.  I'd wake up early to watch, but missing work might be a bit challenging...on some days, anyway!  So I may miss a few things live, but will try to bring you as much analysis and reporting as possible, even if it is delayed.

The twitter account will be active though, with regular thoughts and updates, and so if you want to stay abreast of the super-condensed Science of Sport analysis, follow us on Twitter!  It's already produced the debate that inspired the last post on Oscar Pistorius' performances!

For the rest, Letsrun.com are in Daegu, and their great post-race analysis and pre-race previews are highly recommended, so keep that page as a favorite for the next week!

Join us tomorrow!
Ross

30km World Record: Does it bring the 2:02 Marathon any nearer?

Does 1:26:47 for 30 km = 2:02 over 42 km?

Given the slew of comments and discussion on the whole barefoot running issue, we thought we would move to another controversial (and recurring) topic:  The 2:02 marathon.   If you missed the debate on barefoot running, we really encourage you to read the post and the comments, because dare we say that together they represent some of the best discussion on the topic anywhere.


But as we try to leave that topic behind (for now - Prof Daniel Lieberman has just been confirmed as a speaker at the UKSEM conference in November, along with Ross, so more to come.  Also, more on this conference soon!), let's move on to marathon running once again, and specifically Moses Mosop's world records at 30 km and 25 km at the Prefontaine meet in Oregon on 3 June.


The what record?


Yes, you could be forgiven for taking a second look at that, because the both 25 km and 30 km are hardly ever contested, falling outside the "traditional" 5, 10, 21.1, and 42.2 km distances.  But there is even a record for 50 km, incidentally set by Thompson Magawana en route to a Two Oceans 56 km marathon course record in 1988.  These more obscure distances are on occasions contested, and this was the case a few weeks ago in Oregon at the Pre meet.  It was a special event on the Friday night, and the last time we can recall one of these obscure records being challenged was back in January 2009 when Josh Cox tried to break the 50 km record by continuing past the finish line of the Rock 'n' Roll Marathon in Phoenix that year (he fell eight seconds short, by the way!)


Mosop debuted at Boston this year and lost to Mutai by only four seconds---2:03:06 compared to Mutai's 2:03:02.  So he burst on the scene with the fastest debut, and with a time almost a minute faster than the world record in a race that garnered heaps of controversy as the Boston course is not certified due to the point to point nature and elevation drop.  Our readers will recall plenty of discussion about that back in April, and you can check that here if you missed it - in the end, it was the wind that drove the times as fast as they were, not the course profile, but the times won't stand because of the profile.  For his efforts there he will be partly remembered but probably mostly forgotten, because who among you can recall the 2nd place finisher (and pacer) in Berlin 2003 when Paul Tergat ran 2:04:55 and won by only one second?


The marathon debutante:  Full of potential but bound to bust


What he demonstrated at Boston was that, at least for the moment, he must be taken seriously as a candidate to break Geb's current marathon record of 2:03:59.  Fast debuts are a funny thing, because immediately people peg the runner as a serious contender going forward, but they often fail to replicate their amazing first-time performance.  Until 3 June Mosop was in that category, but after his 30 km record, which was pretty much a solo attempt, he ups the ante and has shown that he has good form and potential.  Thirty km is not 42.2 km, however, and he still must prove himself in a Big City marathon this Fall or next Spring if he is to maintain his status as a potential record breaker.  But let's take a look at his 30 km record run and peer into The Science of Sport crystal ball for now!


The ever-important negative split


Below you will see a graph of Mosop's 15 km splits in the attempt, and the most notable aspect is that it was a huge negative split.  He hit 15 km in 43:54 and then went 61 s faster for the second half.  We have written about it plenty here, most recently about the 800 m distance.  That race is unique, but in longer races an even or negative split is optimal.  That is based on an analysis Ross did as part of his PhD that looked at the pacing strategies over various track distances, and found that the fastest performances over events 1500m or longer are almost always run at even paced with an "end spurt" in the final kilometer.  


In fact, out of 67 world records over 5,000 and 10,000m, only ONCE has the fastest kilometer of the race NOT been either the first or final kilometer - it is remarkably uniform that at the top level, at the limits of performance, you start quickly, settle down, then speed up at the end.  The result is an overall even pace and a U-shaped curve.  The granularity of the one km splits is farther down, but here we see his 15 km split:

To provide a comparison, Geb ran a near even split from 21 km to 42 km in his record in Berlin - he passed the 21 km mark in 1:01:48 and then hit 42 km in 2:03:27.  So a one minute negative split even over 30 km is quite a big one, and suggests that Mosop possibly could go a bit faster by adopting a more even pacing strategy.


Is 2:02 possible?  You decide!


What we did next was look at his km splits as recorded by his coach Renato Canova and posted in the LetsRun.com forum.  We then drew some lines on the graph to show the pace for the current marathon record (2:03:59, black), 2:03 pace (blue), and 2:02 pace (green), to show you where he was relative to those speeds during is 30 km attempt.  


It's pretty striking, actually, and at the very least shows Mosop's form right now.  But we all know that form can be a precarious thing and very transient.  It would be amazing if Mosop can produce this kind of form in which ever Fall marathon he chooses (Moses, if you are reading, we hear Chicago is nice in October!), but we would not be at all surprised if he cannot reproduce this level of performance.


But if you check the graph here of his one km splits, it's telling.  Yes, we know that 30 km is not 42.2 km, but perhaps most telling is his huge surge around 18 km, where he put in two very fast splits of 2:45 for the 18th and 2:46 for the 19th km.  The telling part is that he did not appear to pay for that later because he maintained a faster pace from there until the end, when he clocked a 2:47 for his last km. 

Again, we understand fully that 30 km is not 42.2 km, but taken together with his performance in Boston back in April this record has meaning.  We can't say for sure if it translates into a 2:02:xx marathon time, but until Mosop's next race it places him firmly in the pool of contenders.  Given the wind in Boston we might call his and Mutai's performances there flukes or outliers, because remember nearly everyone ran faster than "normal" and many set personal best times.  And it is possible that Mosop's performance there gave him the confidence to run at these paces, but again he will need to prove himself at this next level in a Fall and/or Spring race.


So Mr. Mosop, we now look to you and Geoffrey Mutai as the two most likely candidates to break the world record, especially given the untimely death of Sammy Wanjiru.  For now, as fans all of can wait with anticipation for the Fall marathons.  It's a big ask---it always is, breaking a record, especially one with such small margins for error as the marathon record.  But he should take confidence in this performance on the back his Boston race.  Given the right conditions, course, and pacers, on paper now he has a chance at besting 2:03:59, although going sub-2:03 might be out of reach for now.


On the horizon


Meanwhile it is nearly Tour de France time, and we are excited to see what the race will bring.  Controversy is on the list of deliverables, but there is likely to be good racing, too, and you can expect our regular analysis and commentary in July.  And let's not forget that the IAAF World Championships are in August.  There is plenty to talk about with Caster Semenya and also the regular analysis of who is and who is not on target for their Olympic campaigns for London 2012!


Jonathan

Barefoot running, shoes, and born to run

The barefoot running debate: Born to run, shoes & injury: the latest thinking

One of the more interesting, and certainly topical presentations at the recent meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine in Denver was a symposium on barefoot running.  It was led by Irene Davis and Daniel Lieberman, both advocates for barefoot running and top scientists in this field.  Lieberman in particular is something of a 'legend' in the field, and two years ago, he gave the prestigious keynote address at the ACSM meeting.

Since then, the area has moved on, thankfully.  Most recently, Lieberman's group did some fascinating work on the barefoot running concept in runners accustomed to shoes or running barefoot, and that's the focus of this post, along with some thoughts on the concepts underlying barefoot running.  A lot of the time, I'll play devil's advocate, because I believe in Lieberman's findings, and the theory behind barefoot running is sound.  But there are some "loopholes", and I'll end with those.

Not just a fad, and certainly not only for the niche

There are more than a few people who have dismissed barefoot running as a fad.  And many will have labeled it a niche concept, practiced by a very small percentage of runners.  That's only partly true.  If you think that barefoot running has nothing to do with you, think again.  You may not have discarded your shoes, but the truth is the the shoes you are running in have already been influenced by the concepts that drive the barefoot running movement.

That is, the last decade, which has seen more and more evidence come out AGAINST shoes, has also seen a shift in the shoe industry.  Gone are the heavy, bulky motion-control shoes, replaced by shoes that are now marketed to simulate barefoot running.  Nike were apparently the first to do this, though I remember Adidas bringing out "feet you wear" in the 1990s.  But it was the Nike Free that was the first "barefoot shoe", and Irene Davis, in her ACSM presentation, told the story that a famous college coach in the USA was responsible for this because he told a Nike rep who had come to watch his team train that his runners were more comfortable being barefoot. 

The rep rushed back to HQ, reported on the athlete's preference, and it heralded the shift.  Now, almost all the companies are focusing on the 'minimalist concept' of shoes.  There are even new companies (Vibram, Newton).  Of course, there are a few stubborn survivors, but the whole market has shifted, there is no doubt about it.  Why?  Because of the current thinking around running, and the role of footstrike, and our feet, in injury risk during running.  So we're all affected, even if we run in shoes, and here's the theory.

The Born to Run theory - our survival was dependent on being endurance running champs

Barefoot running is fascinating because it has made such a big impact in the mainstream.  And a big part of that is the book "Born to Run", by Christopher MacDougall.  It traces the story of the Tarahumara Indians, and contains chapters dealing with the work on barefoot running - Irene Davis and Lieberman have starring roles.

The fundamental premise behind barefoot running is the theory that we are designed for distance.  Lieberman's first big impact on sports science was his research called "Endurance running and the evolution of homo", where he presented the anatomical evidence that humans are the world's best distance runners.  Let's face it, as sprinters, we're pretty lousy.  Even the super fast Usain Bolt runs half the speed of most big mammals for about a quarter of the duration!  Therefore, if our survival as hunter-gatherers depended on our ability to chase and catch prey, we were pretty much doomed by our lack of speed.  That comes about as a result of many factors (I have a colleague doing research into the muscle and metabolic differences between humans and other animals), but that's for another day.

Compounding this is that we didn't have projectile weapons until fairly recently, so we had to catch our prey up close.   But fortunately, our survival didn't depend on our sprinting ability.  What it did require was endurance ability, and that's where we are the champions.

Thermoregulation, endurance success and persistence hunting

Some of the most important reasons we are so good at endurance relate to thermoregulation.  We are bipedal (which makes us slow), but the linearity is good in terms of helping us lose heat and absorb less from solar radiation.  We are small, we have less hair, and most importantly, we can sweat.  This allows us to exercise at fairly high workrates without reaching what is now known to be a critical body temperature that would force fatigue on us.  This is true, incidentally, of animals, who also stop exercise at a very narrow range of temperature.  And animals can't really lose heat WHILE running - they have to pant, which is not possible during exercise.  So running at the same speed, we have a big thermal advantage.

All of this combined leads to the theory of persistence hunting, where humans are able to hunt by outrunning the intended prey over hours, rather than seconds.  There are a few good videos showing this - the hunter selects to hunt at the hottest part of the day, and then identifies the biggest animal and runs after it.  Over seconds, it's a no contest, but the hunter just continues to run, driving the animal out of the shade and into the sun.  This continues for hours, but eventually, physiology wins the day and the animal reaches that critical temperature.  If you have ever seen what happens at this point, you'll know the scene - the animal staggers as if drunk, losing motor control and eventually, it just stops completely, lying down for the hunter to make the kill.

What's the relevance of all of this, you may be wondering?  Well, this leads to the theory of barefoot running, because Lieberman and others argue that humans are designed for distance - it was essential and the "normal" state.  By extension, wearing shoes is "abnormal", and so we must return to what we were intended for - long distance running WITHOUT shoes.  And that's where the evidence comes in!

Shoes and injury

One of the main lines of evidence is actually a lack of evidence.  That is, there is not a single study that has shown that shoes reduce the risk of injury.  In fact, there is now evidence that the risk of injury is unchanged, maybe even higher in the expensive shoes.  Injury rates haven't come down even a little bit since the 1970s, the period which has seen the explosion in the running shoe industry - back in the 70s, the shoes resemble today's minimalist shoes, but about 70% of runners were getting injured, the same rate as today.

There are studies showing that runners who run in the more expensive shoes are more likely to get injured, even when you correct for distance and previous injury history.  There is also evidence that prescribing shoes according to the shape of the foot (high arch gets a neutral shoe, flat foot gets a motion-control shoe) does nothing to the risk of injury in a sample of 2,000 in the military.

So all in all, it doesn't look great for shoes.  There are a couple of confounders in this line of thinking, which I'll address at the end, but the lack of evidence for shoes doesn't hurt the idea that maybe the foot is best, and we should be discarding the shoes and trusting our feet.

The evidence for barefoot running

But what the theory needs is evidence.  And some of that has come from Lieberman, and was published in Nature last year.  He looked at barefoot and shod running with the important realization that familiarity (which may determine "skill") would have an important effect on how their mechanics (and hence impact forces) might be altered. He therefore tested two groups, one which was habitually shod, and another that was accustomed to running barefoot.

Below are some graphs showing the key concepts, and this is really the best evidence for what Lieberman and Davis are saying, so it’s worth explaining carefully (these graphs came up in all three presentations, it is really the only research so far, but it's very compelling).

So the first graph (above) shows the force measured during a single ground contact period in a person who is barefoot and heel-striking. I’ve highlighted the key point on the graph – the impact transient, a spike in the force up to around 2.5 times body weight within the first 50ms of ground contact. That impact transient represents a sudden increase of force, and the rate at which it is applied (which is basically the slope of the line from contact to that peak) as well as the size of that force are associated with injury, in particular stress injuries of the tibia (Irene Davis spoke of this at length in her presentation).

Shoes - spreading the load

The concept of shoes is that they spread that impact out, absorbing some of the force and reducing both the size of the impact transient and also the rate of loading. That’s what the graph below shows. The top panel is the barefoot situation where you land on the heel, as shown above, and the bottom panel shows what shoes do.   I’ll show more data shortly.

 Forefoot running - the body's cushion, removing the transient

The barefoot condition in someone who is forefoot striking is shown next.  Here, the impact transient has disappeared – the forefoot landing allows the impact peak to be absorbed by the calf, ankle and Achilles tendon and the result is a smoother profile, and significantly reduced loading rates and forces.

 The problem - not all barefoot running is equal, and the consequences are extreme

So that’s great news, right? It says that barefoot running is the way to go? In theory. The problem is that making that transition from wearing shoes to running barefoot involves significant risk, and Lieberman's research shows why.  And if you’re not careful, then you actually end up INCREASING the loading rate and the impact force, because you run “badly” without the protective elastic shoe dissipating that force as was shown in that middle graph above.

So below are the two key graphs. First, a graph of impact force in three conditions. Start in the middle – the yellow bar is the impact force running in shoes, while heel-striking, which is what most people do.  In fact, Lieberman found that 100% of people who were accustomed to shoes would land on the heel when they had to run in shoes.  

Now move right – that green bar is the force for people who run barefoot, but who are “good at it”, and have become accustomed to it.  Lieberman found that in this group, the regular barefoot runners, about 90% land either on the forefoot or midfoot.  As explained, their impact forces are significantly lower. 

But those who are not accustomed to running barefoot are the key group, shown in blue.  83% of runners who usually run in shoes would land on their heel even when running barefoot, at least at first.  And shown by the blue bar, their impact force is very slightly higher.

But that’s not the major difference. That comes when you look at the impact transient and the initial rate of loading, shown below.

Now you see that if you run barefoot and are NOT ACCUSTOMED to it, you land on the heel, as shown by the blue bar (again, 83% of his normally shod runners did this).  And the result is an impact loading rate that is SEVEN times greater than running in shoes with the same landing.  If the theory is that this impact transient, and the rate of loading, is related to injury risk, then what this is showing is that people who are accustomed to shoes who then run barefoot (perhaps following unqualified advice in a magazine) are exposing themselves to higher risk of injury as a result of massively increased loading rates.

So that’s the first problem – the purported reduction in injury risk (which is probably real) is dependent on the technique.  If you get it, and land on the forefoot, the impact transient and loading rate are lower (see the green bar above).  But if you get that wrong, the consequences may be severe (further research is required on this).

Learning - skill will improve and mechanics will be adjusted.  But not without risk...

Now, we’re pretty amazing machines, and I can assure you that most people will be able to learn how to run barefoot effectively. That is, with a little practice, they’ll begin to make the adjustments that move them from that high risk group who heel-strike to a more cushioned forefoot strike.

You can experience this for yourself if you take off your shoes and run – within 50m, you’re already starting to make those adjustments, because running barefoot on your heels, well, it hurts.  So we "feel" the ground, more than we want to at first, and over time, we adjust our mechanics and shift to a forefoot landing.  That's why a comfortable majority - 90% - of people who are accustomed to running barefoot will land on the forefoot.

But that brings us to injury risk number two – the adjustments you make to help cushion the landing have consequences. They transfer the impact forces and loading to the posterior muscles, those muscles at the back of the leg. You land with your toes more pointed away from you, and so your calves are contracted, and catching body weight every landing.  You may reduce the impact forces, but those forces that are left are being applied to very specific muscles.  Muscles that may have never been asked to do that kind of work.

The eccentric load on the Achilles tendon and calf muscles is enormous. Your feet and ankles are working much harder, doing what is probably their job, what they are designed for, but they haven’t done it for many years, perhaps a lifetime! The end result is that the strain on the muscle and tendon systems is just enormous, and people break down very quickly.

This is the same outcome as you get from introducing things like Pose and Chi running either too quickly or incorrectly.  Your mindset is "land on the forefoot" and that's a pretty tough skill, and it's a pretty challenging demand to cope with for muscles that have for years not been asked to do it!  My own personal experience reflects this - I was regularly running upwards of an hour in shoes, no pain.  I went running in Vibrams, and did 30 minutes consisting of 1 min jog, 4 minutes walk.  And for three days, I could barely walk, my calves, hamstrings and glutes were so tight - it was typical DOMS from eccentric loading that muscle was unaccustomed to.

I know a few who have experienced the same thing.  And if they overcome the initial stiffness, there is a big risk waiting a week or two down the line, because the constant load on unfamiliar muscles is a huge factor that sees a lot of people get calf or Achilles injuries when trying to run barefoot.

It shows that a) running in shoes requires next to zero eccentric work in those muscles (relative to shoes), and b) when you start barefoot running, you may have to go way back to basics, beyond beginner level, in order to undo what 20 to 50 years of shoes may have caused. 

Making the switch - the practical problem

And herein lies the key - the shift to barefoot running is theoretically sound.  Lieberman and Davis have a compelling case.  But practically, it may be too big an adjustment for some to make.  People have different abilities when it comes to learning a skill, and skill is what it will take to shift out of the shoes.  It also takes different mechanics, possibly muscle strength, and so out of 100 people, it is quite conceivable to me that you'll get a range of responses.

Some will respond brilliantly, and will be able to run big distance barefoot and have no problem.  Some will really battle, and may have to return to beginner level, but they'll learn it.  Eventually.  Whether they have the mindset or willpower and discipline to do it is another question.  Irene Davis presented her recommendation, which started with taking someone up to 30 minutes of barefoot walking, followed by progressive introduction of jogging.  She started at 1 min jog, 9 min walk for 30 minutes.  That eventually worked its way to 9 min jog, 1 min walk.  Which is all good and well, but if you're running 40 to 80 miles per week, the idea of going that far back...not likely.

Then out of our 100 people, I do think there are some who just will not succeed barefoot.  Perhaps they have a structural problem somewhere, perhaps 20 to 40 years of shoes have caused changes that simply cannot be reversed.  Perhaps they have muscle weaknesses elsewhere, and barefoot running is not sufficient to overcome those.  One of the problems I have in this debate is that those who are advocating barefoot running are basically treating it as medicine (if you have a condition, take a drug.  If you have an injury, take barefoot running...).  The problem is that this is not done with any idea of dosage, "contra-indications" or exclusion criteria, and some might just not be able to do it, which makes 'one-size fits all' advice unhelpful.

The point is that there should never to a single approach to an injury problem.  I think there's no doubt that someone who is chronically injured may have their best chance in trying barefoot running.  But this cannot come at the expense of a holistic view (and I must emphasize, Davis is not guilty of this), and so I'd put barefoot running forward as part of a solution, something to try, and if you are one who succeeds, then go with it.  But if not, then look elsewhere, and don't worry, it's not as simple as some are suggesting.

High performing runners - barefoot may just not be practical

The other group that I have to mention is high-performing runners.  Not necessarily only the elite, but even those who train for a fast marathon, or Ironman, or even high mileage 10km runners.  They are doing 120 to 200 km per week, and a lot of it is fast running.  Much faster than persistence hunting would have required - obviously, there is no data, but it's unlikely that humans have ever tried to cover 200km in a week, a lot of it at 7 min/mile or faster, even getting down under 5 minutes/mile for long periods.

If you are doing this kind of distance, then there is a real question over barefoot running.  Some will argue that the reduction in loading rates and impact transients makes it more likely that you can succeed barefoot, especially at high mileage.  But there's a confounder here too - muscle fatigue.  The third presentation in the symposium showed some really interesting evidence that the loading on the joints and bones was HIGHER as muscles fatigued.  This stands to reason, of course - muscle absorbs much of the impact force, and so tired muscle loses that ability, exposing the joints.

So those who are training for performance may struggle because of a muscle fatigue issue - the muscle is working differently, and harder in certain muscles, when barefoot, and that may be limiting.

The bottom line - individualized approach, but sound theory

On the whole, barefoot running, or at least minimalist shoes, is a sound concept. Lieberman’s theories regarding our ability to run are solid, and I do believe that the days of bulky, motion-control shoes are numbered. I think that barefoot running will be very difficult to implement, if not impossible, for some people and probably doesn’t work in the extremist view that some people are offering for it.

I believe that it may be PART of the solution for SOME of the cases of injury. For SOME, it may be ALL of the solution, the solve-all. For others, it will be completely ineffective, and for other still, it will be the cause of their problems.

Recommendations

So if I had to give some recommendations, speaking now both as a scientist and a coach:

• If you are are injured, or struggle with chronic injury problems, then give barefoot running a try.  It may be especially helpful if you have knee problems, or any anterior injuries (anterior shin pain, for example), because going barefoot will switch the load. 
  
  The benefit (in a backward kind of way) of starting injured is that you're pretty much compelled to go back to beginner level and build up, so your chances of staying beneath that "injury risk line" are better!
  
  
• If you are not injured, but fancy trying it, then by all means, go for it, but be very careful.  I would suggest the best way to approach it is to think of barefoot running as a training modality.  Just like you'd go to Pilates to improve core strength, or spend time in the gym on upper body or leg, think of barefoot running as a session. 
  
  There is some evidence for this, incidentally.  Pieter Bruggemann (of Oscar Pistorius testing fame) actually did a study on the Nike Frees, and found that just using them in the warm-up improved lower leg strength, balance and agility within five months.  So this points out one way to do it - do warm-ups either barefoot or in minimalist shoes.  Or do five minutes at a time, building very, very slowly, so that you don't affect your other training but gradually develop the strength.  If you find that you enjoy it and don't seem likely to be injured, then push on.
  
  
• If you are a high-mileage runner, then think carefully about tinkering with barefoot running, or about changing your technique to land on the forefoot.  For one thing, if you are a competitive runner, or even aspiring runner (going for PBs, that is), then you're the person most likely to overdo it!  It's part of what makes you competitive!  So again, I'd advise that you consider incorporating barefoot running into the programme as a training aid, because it will help your feet, calves and ankles.  But as with any training aid, phase it in very slowly.
  
  
• If you are constantly battling calf, hamstring, foot or ankle problems, then consider barefoot as treatment, but take the most conservative guideline you can think of and halve it - do 50% less than what that says.  The rationale is that someone with a hamstring injury can't just avoid strengthening the muscle - it's part of the rehab.  So for chronic calf and ankle/achilles problems, running barefoot may be exactly what you need.  But you are the kind of runner who has to start with five minutes of walking, not running, and hold back massively.  If you can succeed, then hopefully this will help your return to running in shoes, and maybe, eventually, minimalist shoes.

Then, no matter which category you fall into, golden rule - try not to control your landing.  You shouldn't be thinking about how your foot hits the ground.  Just "listen" and "feel" the contact, and your body will gradually adapt it for you.  The mistake that is made is to think "forefoot" and this leads to excessive loading, as explained above.  You will occasionally land on the heel, but the natural response is to cushion the landing.  The danger is trying to catch the landing, so just relax and focus on not reaching, not pointing, not catching.

Conclusion

And I’d end my opinion on barefoot shoes by just cautioning its advocates to avoid making the same mistake you are accusing the shoe industry of having made for many years. The shoe industry, it is said (with good reason) advocated for many years that shoes were the “answer” – one size fits all (pardon the pun), and that simply putting someone in the right shoe would prevent or cure injury. Now, the barefoot movement is in danger of making the same error – learn from the past and recognize that individuals need individual solutions. So don’t put everyone in a barefoot box.

Ross

P.S.  A footnote...(pardon the pun)

The devil's advocate view

Just to end, I want to point out three counter-arguments to three arguments made by Dan Lieberman in his talk.  Mostly, this is to give you some ammunition when you get overwhelmed by a barefoot advocate who is arguing it as the sole solution, the be-all, end-all of running.  It's likely far more complex, and here are some responses...

1.  Shoes are abnormal, barefoot running is normal

Lieberman said this often often in his talk.  He says that when we see a guy running barefoot, maybe we should think of him as normal and ourselves as abnormal.  And it may well be true.  But the problem is that "normal" doesn't imply good, and "abnormal" is not necessarily bad.  Think back 100 years, life expectancy was about 50.  Go back another 50 years, and you expected to live to your 40s!  People died young all the time, particularly mothers during childbirth.  Today, it's up near 80 in a lot of countries.  You might say that in 1911, you were abnormal if you lived to 80.  Today you'd be normal.  Is "normal" wrong, or just different?  It tells nothing of what is good or bad.  Sometimes "normal" changes as part of progress.

The key is that in this case, normal is meant to convey that our feet should be doing what they're designed for.  And that may be true, but it's still short on evidence.  We can't discard things that are "abnormal" just because they're unnatural...

2.  Our ancestors were great runners, and being barefoot is the reason

This is key to the debate, because it is being suggested that hunter-gatherers, minus the state of the art shoes, were great runners.  And therefore, the lack of shoes is the reason.

So two things.  First, I'm not necessarily convinced that all of them were great runners.  Let's take a group of 100 people today.  There may be 50 who can run at a reasonable level - the finish marathons, half marathons, in the top half of the field.  They get injured maybe once every two years, but if they're good about training (strength work especially), they keep going.  30 of our runners might really struggle.  The do 5 hour marathons, get injured often, but can get through on isolated occasions.  10 might be absolutely incapable of running - they get injured in the warm-up and just cannot finish 5km, let alone marathons.  And 10 are the best runners.  One of them is Ryan Hall, an elite.  Nine are good, competitive runners.  They push the limits and get injured, but recover well, and they are the "runners".

Now apply this to the Kalahari, or the Tarahumara.  Is it not possible that in a village of 100, there are 10 "runners" who are the best, 50 others who are good enough, and that they provide the running for the community.  Maybe there are 40 of those 100 who just suck at running!  They become artisans, doing the building or hut construction, maybe they become fishermen!  But they can't run.  I simply do not know the answer to this one - I don't know, for example, whether 70% of Kalahari hunters get injured every year.  Maybe 2 in 3 Tarahumara get injured, take a few weeks off, and then return to running.  Not knowing this means I'm less convinced by the argument that being barefoot is better.

Then the next point - why is it that we've identified being barefoot as the key difference between us and our ancestors?  We look at them, and we say they were great runners who rarely got injured (a point I'd question, as explained above).  Then we make the next deduction, and we say "they didn't wear shoes, that must be why".

Well, I can think of plenty of reasons why they may have been injured.  For one, they didn't sit at a desk 9 hours a day.  They didn't have Playstation and TV and computers.  I mean, I've been sitting down for 90 minutes typing this - my posture and core muscles have been asleep.  But that wasn't true for Kalahari - they climbed trees, slept on uneven surfaces, walked, were physically active.  All of this may lead to improved strength, especially in the stabilizers - the core and glutes.

That may well be as much a reason for their apparent ability without injury, and barefoot running may only be part of it.

3.  Injury rates haven't changed, so the shoes clearly don't work.

The argument here is that injury rates were 70% in the 70s and 70% in the 2000s.  So, despite shoe technology, which is hugely different, we still get injured just as much.  And sure, this is true, and when viewed together with the other evidence about shoes, I think it's a good case.

But just remember that the people who are running in the 2000s are not necessarily the same as those running in the 70s.  When I think of running in the 70s, I think of Amby Burfoot - small, wiry, probably ultra-economical (sorry Amby!  Thanks for reading!).

When I think of running in 2011, I think of Oprah Winfrey... sorry Oprah.  Simply, the people who run marathons today are not the same kind of runner.  They are heavier, slower, and probably do less training but then still run the marathon distance.  When viewed this way, it's perhaps not surprising that 70% are getting injured.  If anything, it suggests that shoes may be helping, because many of the runners of 2011 are walking/jogging/running injury risks!

So if you're going to attack the shoes, then I'd rather do it on the basis of the evidence that they don't change mechanics/pronation, that they don't alter risk in controlled studies, not because of this historical comparison!

That's all folks.  I know it's a lengthy piece, thanks for reading.  It really is just an overview (this is the summary!).  For more on this, check out the featured series on running technique and shoes here!  I discuss a bit more of that evidence on shoes, which I just touched on in this post.

Ross

PPS:  Thank you for all the comments in the discussion below.  I will do my best to respond, but bear with me if it takes some time!