There have been many questions over the years as to whether barefoot running poses a greater advantage or more risk to runners.
There've been many enthusiasts of outdoor activities who say, and firmly believe, that barefoot running is very beneficial and less traumatic for the runner.
As to whether any of this information is accurate or not is up for debate.
However, there is no question that there have been several ultra-athletes who have competed in extreme events (over 50 mile long running events), and have placed in the top five overall, if not won the event.
Why are these runners so hyped up on barefoot running you ask? Well a lot of these ultra-athletes believe that traditional running shoes simply are not made to endure long arduous events.
In addition to that, they believe that runners over the years have relaxed or changed their technique altogether, hence running poorly.
This poor technique along with the ill support for the feet has led to more injuries over the years than ever before.
Even in the "so-called" technological age where equipment is supposed to be superior that has not helped to reduce these duplicated injuries.
Barefoot runners have a more spring like technique when they run; it's compared to how you would sprint.
In other words they push off on their toes and land on their toes.
This type of running absorbs a lot more of the shock and trauma that a normal runner would encounter, and allows the runner to run for longer periods of time.
Some of the equipment that barefoot runners have (as opposed to running totally barefoot) is Vibram five finger shoes.
Basically the Vibram shoes are a glove for the feet.
They have little pockets for each one of the toes, and they fit the runner's foot snugly.
An alternative to Vibram would be the Nike free line of shoes that are similar to the Vibram and have less rubber in them that allows the runner more freedom in their stride.