WefGed

12/01/2022

Nike Vaporfly ban: why World Athletics had to act against the high-tech shoes
Kenyan runner Eliud Kipchoge last year became the first person to run a marathon distance in under two hours. But instead of being a pure celebration of human performance, the achievement (though not technically an official world record) led to criticism of Kipchoge’s shoes, an advanced design of the Nike Vaporfly. It represented an intensification of concern that the Vaporfly design was turning the humble trainer into an unfair form of performance enhancement.

Now Kipchoge’s Vaporflys have been banned from competition in a recent move by running’s governing body, World Athletics. Despite this, other versions of the shoes will still be legal. The new rules also set a maximum sole thickness and a limit to the number of internal carbon plates that are used to help manage the runner’s energy. In addition, any new design of shoes has to be made available for anyone to buy four months before they can be used in competition.

Eliud Kipchoge completing the world’s first marathon run under two hours in his Nike Vaporflys. Christian Bruna/EPA
These amendments are arguably a balanced and pragmatic approach that addresses some of the problems that new technology can pose to competitive sport. In this case, all of running’s world records will remain, but a firmer line has now been drawn before footwear design advances further.

But this outcome could still be criticised because Nike’s competitors now only have until spring to respond to the Vaporfly’s design, otherwise their shoes will not be legal for the upcoming Tokyo Olympic & Paralympic Games. Either way, it will likely still affects the sport at both a professional and amateur level.

We know that the kind of technology that the Vaporfly incorporates can give runners an advantage. A study published in 2017 demonstrated that such shoes were 4% more efficient than several of their competitors.

But the influence of any new form of sports technology should still ensure that the sport remains fair and accessible to everyone. A review published in 2015 proposed that sports technology could be considered inappropriate if people can’t access it, afford to purchase it, or safely use it.

These kind of issues have occurred before in several other sports. In 2009, the world of athletics debated whether Paralympian Oscar Pistorius could (and should) compete against able-bodied runners because it was argued that his prostheses were performance enhancing. (He eventually ran in the 2012 Olympic Games.)

Likewise, once full-body and specially textured swimsuits started rapidly rewriting swimming’s world records, their adoption was challenged and eventually outlawed. In that case (like that of Kipchoge’s Vaporflys), athletes who couldn’t get hold of the swimsuits were left at a competitive disadvantage if they had sponsorship or endorsement with brands that didn’t produce the equipment.

There are other concerns too. Some athletes can also feel coerced into using new technology – whether it is optimal or not – for fear of being left behind. Likewise, a sport can be deskilled or somehow made easier by allowing new technology. This was why the unique string pattern on tennis rackets known as “spaghetti stringing” was ultimately banned in the 1970s because it made it easier to control and create spin on the ball.

Impact on amateurs
All of these ethical concerns require consideration when competitive rules are constructed and work together with any scientific measurements to ensure the most robust regulations are created. Yet, while this debate usually centres on elite athletes, Nike’s Vaporflys could also profoundly change what recreational runners will be able to achieve themselves.

While running shoes now have functional limits placed upon them for major competitions, the rules will be unlikely to apply to amateurs who run or race for mere enjoyment. It’s not inconceivable that the gap between amateur and professional could narrow slightly if elites cannot use the same shoes as everyone else.

This situation could already hypothetically occur, in that a recreational jogger with a lower-limb amputation could use a highly effective bionic limb to run. Yet a Paralympian can’t use much more than a composite spring when racing under current International Paralympic Committee rules.

Ultimately, the proposed gains of the Vaporfly shoes will not suddenly turn recreational donkeys into racehorses. But at an elite level it is possible for a top athlete to suddenly become uncompetitive if they don’t keep up with the kind of innovation Nike has demonstrated. Irrespective of the World Athletics decision, running has moved from being a footrace to an arms race.

12/01/2022

Curved shoe tips make it easier to move – but research suggests they may also weaken foot muscles
Evolution dictates that the human body adapts to cope with stresses present in the environment. The removal of stress from our environment means we cease to use that adaption. This is why your muscles grow in response to stress at the gym but shrink when you spend too much time on the couch. Comfort is the opposite to stress – and, in many cases, it can be the source of many illnesses and health conditions.

A new study, published in Scientific Reports, suggests the same might be true when it comes to the type of shoes we wear. The researchers found that our comfortable shoes (namely shoes that had a curved tip at the toe, like running shoes) make it easier for us to move – but the trade-off for this comfort is that we develop weaker muscles in our feet. This muscle weakness may lead to injuries, such as plantar fasciitis – a common condition that causes inflammation and pain around the heel and arch of your foot.

Shoes are necessary, as they shield us from stresses in our environment, such as exposure to random objects, such as twigs or glass, that may inflict cuts or bruises. They also keep our feet warm and dry. But humans didn’t always wear shoes. In fact, it was only about 30,000 years ago that our ancestors discovered there may be some survival advantages in avoiding skin perforation from sharp objects or burns resulting from exposure to extreme temperatures.

So they invented minimalist foot coverings, primarily made of plants or animal skins. Although these coverings shielded us from dangerous exposures, they certainly weren’t designed for comfort and so the stress to our muscles, bones, joints and tendons remained largely the same.

A key factor in our evolved ability to walk and run is the ability of our toes to bend backwards as we lift our bodies upwards and forwards. Our toes, which are shorter than our ape-like ancestors, help us use less energy when walking and running. There is less muscle work required to stabilise and control the movement of smaller toes.

The researchers of this latest study have found that the upward curved toe part of our modern cushioned shoes holds our toes in a position which means they move less during walking and running. Known as the toe spring, the front of our shoes help us to roll forward with less effort, removing much of the stress of the activity from the feet. The researchers suggest that this may mean the muscles in our feet and toes have to do less work to stiffen our arch and control our toes during movement.

To obtain these results, the researchers had 13 healthy adults (aged 19 to 33), who always wear shoes, walk in four different pairs of sandals in which the toe springs (the curved tip of the shoe) were set at 10, 20, 30 and 40 degree angles (keeping the toes increasingly bent backwards). They then measured the movement of the toe joints in each condition using markers placed on the foot and compared it to when the participants were walking barefoot. The total range of movement at the toes decreased with increasing toe spring angle and therefore, so did the total amount of work required at the joints.

A pair of running shoes.
‘Toe springs’ remove stress from the feet. Vacharapong W/ Shutterstock
The role of foot muscles is to support the arch and stabilise the toes. Modern shoe-wearing populations demonstrate smaller and weaker foot muscles and a higher prevalence of flat feet compared to people who are habitually barefoot or wear minimalist shoes, which are designed to replicate being barefoot, and include less cushioning and reduced or no arch support.

It’s this increased comfort and reduced effort that causes muscular changes, and which may also link shoes with toe springs to plantar fasciitis. The plantar fascia is a long and broad elastic tissue that runs the length of the sole of your foot. It becomes injured from repetitive strain associated with constant deformation of the arch.

It’s thought that the decline in foot muscles which help to maintain arch stiffness is partly responsible for the overload of this structure. Plantar fasciitis is the most common running injury associated with the foot. Findings from one study suggest it is more common in people who run in shoes compared to those who run barefoot. Other research also suggests that running shoes may contribute to other common injuries.

There is evidence emerging from case studies suggesting barefoot running on a grass can help to relieve the symptoms of plantar fasciitis. Research also shows people who spend most of their time barefoot or using minimalist foot coverings have larger and stronger foot muscles.

Although, there is no definitive evidence that modern shoes cause plantar fasciitis, it is worthy of further investigation given the mounting evidence pointing in that direction.

Going barefoot or wearing minimalist shoes can help people to build stronger and healthier foot muscles, as they promote the foot’s natural movement. But if you do ditch your comfortable shoes, it’s important to remember to gradually increase time spent walking in this way. It may also be wise to reduce comfort in other ways, such as moving more and sitting less. This will help to condition your whole body in way that is more suited for movement.

12/01/2022

Flip flop: the un-Australian history of the rubber thong
The shoe known in Australia as a “thong” is one of the oldest styles of footwear in the world.

Worn with small variations across Egypt, Rome, Greece, sub-Saharan Africa, India, China, Korea, Japan and some Latin American cultures, the shoe was designed to protect the sole while keeping the top of the foot cool.

Australians have long embraced this practical but liberating shoe — but history shows we can’t really claim to it as our own.

Read more: The erotic theatre of the pool edge: a short history of female swimwear

Geishas, workers, soldiers
Japan is often cited as the pivotal influence, perhaps because the culture features not only the thong’s closest ancestor (the flat-soled zori, traditionally made from straw) but also the chunky geta sandal, famously worn by geisha for centuries in an effort to keep trailing kimono hems out of the mud.

Antique Japanese artwork of umbrellas and traditional footwear.
Umbrellas and Geta by Ryūryūkyo Shinsai, circa 1816. Wikimedia Commons/Metropolitan Museum of Art
In the late 19th century, Japan started to export aspects of its culture to diverse corners of the world. An early example was the Hawaiian “slipper” or “slippah”, a thong-like version of the zori with roots in the footwear of Japanese plantation worker immigrants in the 1880s. The slipper rapidly became part of the Hawaiian sartorial code (as in Australia, the shoe suited the relaxed outlook and beach lifestyle).

The popularity of the shoe may have spread after US soldiers, stationed in the East Pacific during the second world war, brought back souvenirs — but that claim is contested.

During the 1940s the technology for mass-producing synthetic rubber was developed, and this undoubtedly increased dissemination and influence of the humble flip flop. However, it was not until around the same time Hawaii became the official 50th state of the USA in 1959 that thongs became a globally recognised symbol of leisure.

Downunderfoot
Despite the thongs’ strong identification with Australia, details of its exact arrival here are not easy to pin down.

From 1907 onwards, for example, advertisements described “Japanese sandals” with “flexible wooden” or jute soles, although the few illustrations that exist do not depict shoes with a thong fastening.

In 1924, Melbourne’s The Herald discussed criticism levelled at Melburnians for walking with a “flip-flop movement, bringing the back of the heel down too heavily on the ground, causing jarring to the body and fatigue”.

Heels were suggested as a remedy for women with this complaint. Nearly a century later, podiatrists still recommend avoiding thongs for long term wear. (These days, they’re not fans of heels either.)

Thongs were standard beachwear by the 60s. Australian Women's Weekly
In 1946, department store David Jones promoted “Olympia”, a Greek-inspired thong sandal with additional ankle straps. But it was not until around 1957, when Kiwi businessmen Maurice Yock and John Cowie both claimed credit for what they termed the “jandal” — a portmanteau of “Japanese” and “sandal” — that Australia’s connection with the flip flop became more established and, at the same time, questioned.

In 1959, Dunlop in Australia imported 300,000 pairs of thongs from Japan. They started producing them internally in 1960.

Thong in bin, foot in plaster cast.
A Safety Council of Australia poster consigning thongs to the bin. State Library of Victoria
Read more: Take a plunge into the memories of Australia's favourite swimming pools

As Australia’s tourism boomed during the 1950s and 60s, so too did its sartorial image, with thongs taking centre stage as the footwear of choice for an egalitarian, laid-back society.

So widespread did they become, in fact, that by the mid 1960s bans were being sought by state governments to avoid frequent injuries at the workplace — especially construction sites.

Woman stands on huge float, in shape of thong.
Kylie Minogue came by thong to the Sydney Olympics. Could it be more Australian? AAP/David Longstreath
In the name of professionalism, in 1978 the Queensland government decreed that schoolteachers not be permitted to wear thongs to work. This year, they have been banned for wear at Australia Day citizenship ceremonies — a decision reflecting a wish for greater “significance and formality” to be represented at official events.

But the rubbery love affair endured, perhaps shown most ardently when Kylie Minogue made her entrance as part of the Sydney 2000 Olympics atop a giant rubber thong carried by lifeguards.

Dressing up, dressing down
Thong-related concerns have not been limited to Australia.

In 2005 members of an American college women’s lacrosse team wore them to the White House to meet President Bush. There followed a furor over whether this brazen act was disrespectful, a distraction from the women’s achievements or signalled a casual shift in attitudes to leaders (and fashion) in the years after the Clinton s*x scandals.

Group of young women meet the US President Bush, some are wearing thongs with formal dresses.
The Northwestern University lacrosse team (and their flip flops) go to Washington. Wikimedia Commons
Since the late 1990s it has been possible to buy more formal heeled versions. Although these were widely mocked as expensive aberrations of the style, they looked to making a Kardashian-led comeback in recent times.

Branded versions are also available, with couturiers like Hermès selling a very unassuming flip flop for a cool A$600.

There is a poignant irony in the fact that thongs are the most popular kind of shoe in developing countries, precisely because of their cheap manufacture (often made from recycled rubber tyres) and consequently, very low purchase cost.

This practice of appropriating “ordinary” or “working class” clothing — transitioning it from the practical to the fashionable — is nothing new. We’ve seen it with singlets and boilersuits. Clogs are another footwear example.

Thongs worn on a seaside pier.
Australians take their thongs seriously. You can tell because they don’t call them ‘thozzas’. Shutterstock
Rather than a form of fashion whimsy, Australians take their thongs seriously. Even the naming of them — after the structural make-up of the shoe’s fastening rather than the onomatopoeic “flip flop” used by other countries — flies in the face of the Australian preference for shortened diminutives and nicknames.

That shows true commitment, but also that thongs are not really so dinky-di, after all.

12/01/2022

12/01/2022