Vibram shoes named in lawsuit: The danger of barefoot running

Vibram Five-finger named in lawsuit - zealousness, unfiltered advice creates more problems than it fixes

I received this link from a reader yesterday, which explains how Vibram USA Inc and Vibram FiveFingers LLC are part of a lawsuit where it is being alleged that they made "deceptive and misleading statements about the benefits of barefoot running".

It is alleged that the company, which makes the now famous Five-Finger shoe (pic on the right) have made deceptive claims about their health benefits, and this is leading to increased injuries among runners who make the switch.

The problem - the "skill" of barefoot running was not recognized

There is even some research as part of the lawsuit - the American Council of Exercise is carrying a report of this study, which finds that many people who make the switch continue to land on their heel.

Why is this potentially bad?  Well, the graph below, taken from a study on the ACE website, shows the loading rate in three conditions - barefoot (blue column), in Vibrams (purple) and in normal running shoes (green).

What should be immediately clear is that when you look at runners who land on the forefoot (shown by the cluster on the left) the loading rate is lowest when barefoot and highest when forefoot.

However, when you look at runners who land on the heel (right cluster), their loading rate goes in the other direction - here, the barefoot runners who heel strike have loading rates that are about double those of shod runners who are landing on the heel.  This is the effect of the big cushion under the heel of modern running shoes, and it serves to dampen the impact and reduce the loading rate significantly.  Vibrams lack this cushioning, on so fare only marginally better than the pure barefoot condition in heel-strikers.

Those of you who have followed this barefoot running debate will immediately recognize that this finding of impact force differences is not new at all.  In fact, it was found by Daniel Lieberman in a paper published in Nature about 2 years ago.  Lieberman's differences were even more striking - he found that if you run barefoot and land on the heel, then your impact forces are seven times higher than if you land on the heel in shoes.

The graph below is one that I redrew using Lieberman's data and put on this website when I reviewed the barefoot running phenomenon last year.

Now, having said all this, it's important to find the balanced, evidence-based view and be transparent about some "limitations" in these studies.  The first is that the link between loading rates and injuries is not as tight as many would think.  Certainly, higher loading rates have been associated with certain conditions (bone stress injuries being the main one), but the precise aetiology of how injury develops is far more complex than simply saying "if you reduce loading rate, you won't get injured".  Truth is, you might just get a different injury, especially if you start running on the forefoot because you see these graphs!

Then secondly, I'd like to see the study above published in a peer-reviewed journal, only to see the methods in a bit more detail.  Lieberman found a pretty large difference (7-fold) whereas the latest study finds a 2-fold difference between shod and barefoot runners when heel-striking.  That, plus the exact percentage of runners who continue to heel-strike, as well the 'training' they did for the two-week training period, would be of interest to me in order to understand exactly what is being measured in the laboratory.

On that note, Lieberman found that 83% of habitually shod runners were still heel-striking when barefoot.  The ACE study is saying 50% are still heel-striking, even two weeks into running with the minimalist shoes.

Now, that flies in the face of the popular literature, which tells us that when you run barefoot, you switch automatically to an apparently amazing cushioned forefoot running style.  That doesn't seem to happen, though, and the vast majority of people seem to take a lot longer to make this transition than the books (Born to Run is the main one) suggest.

The skill component

In fact, I believe this leads to the most intriguing question of all - understanding the skill of barefoot running.  The ACE study, mentioned above, had the runners do a 2-week "familiarization" period in the Vibrams, where they were asked to run for 20 minutes a day in an attempt to get them accustomed to it.  It's easy to criticize this period as too short and insufficient (all the stuff those who've already made up their mind can say - no study is perfect, remember).

But this two-week adaptation period may partly explain why Lieberman found that 83% of his shod runners were heel-striking when barefoot, whereas the ACE study found that "approximately half" were heel-striking.  Perhaps two weeks of familiarization was responsible for the shift of more runners (1 in 2 rather than 1 in 6) to a forefoot strike, as they 'learned' how to run.

The real question, however, is why the other 50% didn't make this adaptation?  And whether they would given more time? Are there some runners who would never succeed?  Who are they, and what distinguishes them from those who do succeed?  I strongly suspect that some people CANNOT adapt to barefoot running, that they don't have the necessary "skill" to improve the way they run barefoot and change what is years of shod-running-induced motor patterns.

Of course, this is an unanswered question, but I think it's the most important one that needs to be answered right now.  Just as one would not expect anyone who picks up a tennis racquet or a golf club to even become competent at playing it (especially later in life), I don't think it should be expected that simply making the transition to barefoot running will be sufficient either.  Everyone can improve, certainly.  But can they good enough to overcome or avoid what are some pretty clear "risks" associated with the transition?  Remember, in running, unlike tennis or golf, it's not good enough to simply improve over time, because if you don't improve enough, you get injured, so there is a "minimum required improvement" to make the transition to barefoot or minimalist running viable in the first place.

Coaching - sound in theory, but another risk in practice

Here, one can begin to introduce the concept of coaching, that barefoot running (or any running, for that matter) should be taught as a skill.  And certainly, this would help.  In the same way that my tennis or golf game will improve faster if I'm guided, running ability will too.  However, I don't think this will overcome what, for some people, may be a "skill deficit" that will prevent them from succeeding at barefoot or minimalist running.  Again, this is an unanswered question, at least for now.

The other issue, which I raised above, is that there is substantial risk associated with making any change in running technique.  This distinguishes running from, say golf, where wrong technique means lots of lost balls and frustration.  In running, failure to find that apparently elusive "correct running technique" equals disaster.  And what makes it even more tricky is that there's no feedback until the injury - unless you have fancy high speed cameras and force plates to analyse how you run, the first sign of the mistake is often injury.

So if you are going to advocate that people should run barefoot and then coach them so that they learn the right way to do it, then you'd better be certain that you'll make them good enough to avoid the risk - there is a minimum threshold, and if a runner fails to reach it, you've led them to injury, despite good intentions.  And it's not fair to runners to say "Run barefoot" and then blame the runner for their failures.

It's not simply about forefoot landing - even more danger lurks there

To illustrate this, the one thing that many will take out of this study is that it's the forefoot landing that will make the difference.  That is, if you land on the forefoot, you'll be fine.  And in theory, this is borne out by the evidence shown in the two graphs above.

However, in reality, it's a little more complex.  One of the authors of this ACE study is quoted as saying "Buying these Vibrams and continuing to land your heels is probably worse than wearing shoes because the Vibrams don’t have any cushioning. … People may need very explicit instruction and time spent practicing how to land on the ball of the foot. Otherwise, they may be doing themselves more harm". 

I think this is advice is probably MORE DANGEROUS than not saying anything, because as soon as you give an explicit instruction, you put the runner into the compromised situation where they are now focused on a forefoot landing. How do this achieve this?  They planar flex - point the toe away from their body, and drop more than three times their body weight down onto a contracted calf muscle in a compromised shortened position, about 400 times every kilometer.  That's a recipe for disaster, and so the most common problem associated with barefoot running is Achilles and calf related injuries.

Therefore, you can't "instruct" a runner to avoid the risk.  If anything, you instruct them into risk.  Bad idea.  The key, I believe, is to let the skill be acquired gradually, using a few drills to guide the athlete without ever changing their technique "manually", so to speak.  But here again, nobody really knows what works and what doesn't.  We don't even know what constitutes "good technique", and so to simplify it down to which part of the foot hits the ground first is also wrong.  And that's why it's reckless to advocate anything.  At this stage, everyone is learning, and so advocacy has no place, in my opinion.  It's all about education for now.

Extremism:  the media are more to blame than Vibram

Final point re "responders" and "non-responders".  Because we don't yet know who belongs to each group, I think it's reckless and irresponsible to treat them all as potential responders.  The prudent thing to do would be to assume the "worst case scenario", that everyone is a non-responder who needs serious time and intense work and lots of practice.  And then start from this point, and if a runner adapts faster, so be it, that's good news.  Instead, the media and advocates of barefoot running assume that everyone should make the switch because everyone will benefit.  And the bodies left behind will be dealt with later.  It's just too aggressive, too extreme.

And on this note, the media have propagated the myth far more even than the shoe companies like Vibram have.  Vibram are trying to sell shoes, and so they make claims as part of marketing strategies to differentiate their product from their rivals'.  That's normal.  And I can't comment on the specifics of the lawsuit - maybe they're guilty.

But I do know that the media have done a poor job of providing education on this topic.  With a few notable exceptions, they have allowed themselves to become a platform for the advocates of barefoot running without providing the necessary education.  Lieberman's paper illustrates this - he titled that research study "Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners".  The word "habitually" was in there for a reason.

But when the media got hold of that study, they reported only that barefoot running was excellent because it reduced loading rates 7-fold.  This study "proved" the benefit of barefoot running.  Quickly, the "extremists" (my pet hate in all matters of sports science) jumped on this said "It proves our point" and the study's other findings were lost in the aggressive or uninformed interpretation of the data.

This is an eerily similar thing to what happens when it comes to dietary advice.  Recently, I've been involved in debate back here in SA about paleo diets, low carb diets, high carb diets and the like.  And once again, it's a situation where people seem to become over-zealous, finding a cause for which they appoint themselves the spokesperson.  Their success, which is either isolated (1 in 100) or common (1 in 2, perhaps, but never 100%) becomes their proof, and they start telling the world there is only one way to succeed.  "Follow me to change your life" is the message, whether it's barefoot running or eating like a caveman supposedly did.  They thus make the mistake they accuse others of making, by lumping everyone into the same group.

And here, those who succeed become loud, outspoken (and dare I say, obnoxious), whereas those who fail slink away into the background and remain quiet about their failure.  So those who tried barefoot running and got injured disappear, those who succeeded often find a soapbox, write a book, and shout about it.  Those who try low carbohydrate diets and fail revert back to routine with minimal fuss, whereas those who succeed feel the need to tell the world.  They dismiss any research study finding that challenges their position as "corrupt", "incompetent" and "garbage", and so debate goes nowhere.  Once again, this happens because of aggressive advocacy, when it should be about education.

Prescribing a treatment for a condition we don't understand, without knowledge of risk or benefit

Which brings me to the final point.  The big issue, I believe, is that people have become carried away with barefoot running as a way to treat injury and potentially improve performance without really appreciating how it might work (or, importantly, that it may not).

The result then is that barefoot running has taken on the characteristics of a medicine or a drug - it is dispensed by "experts" (who often change their names to "Barefoot X") as a "treatment", but unlike drugs, there are a few key things missing:

• We don't know which conditions (injuries) the treatment will be effective for.  And by definition, this means we can't say when it will be ineffective
• We don't know what the correct dosage is
• We don't know how to phase the dosage in over time for different people
• We don't know whether the "treatment" is effective for everyone, or whether there are responders and non-responders
• We don't recognize the possible "contra-indications".  When you take a powerful drug prescribed by a doctor, he knows to check for certain conditions - pregnancy, allergies etc.  For barefoot running, nobody has thought about this
• What is the effect of other factors on the success of the 'treatment'?  For example, how does fatigue, terrain, muscle weakness, flexibility, strength etc impact on the success of the outcome?
• As a result of all of the above, we are in a very poor position to quantify the risks, and the "cost-benefit" of barefoot running.

The point is, all the answers, which are pretty important, that you can read on the package insert when you get prescription medication, are unknown for barefoot running.  Yet it is still prescribed 'recklessly'.

And for this, I completely blame the polarization of the debate that allows extremist views to develop and thrive.  It's perfect for the media and the 'zealots' who try to force their success on large groups of people without being open to the other side.  And there are some who are more moderate - I apologize for lumping everyone together.  But there are many who are not.  They base their 'prescription' of barefoot running on their own success story, or at best, a group of runners who they have succeeded with, and suddenly, the entire running community is being told to take this "drug".  It works.  Maybe.  In some people.  If they get it right.  Possibly.  That's not good enough.

And what's worse is that when it doesn't work, when they get injured, then it's their fault.  To return to the medication analogy, this is like giving a drug out to a sick patient and then hoping they get the dosage right.  And even if they follow the instructions to the letter, they may fail, and then it's their doing.  They must have done something wrong.  That's not a viable drug.  It's not a viable "product", and until that is recognized, I would caution all runners to be a little more prudent about how they advise others, and about following advice they receive.

The golden rule in science should be that polarization should be regarded as highly suspicious.  There are very few things that are known with absolute certainty, and when you're dealing with incredibly complex human physiology, the individual differences that make us who we are, what we're good at, how we run and what we eat, for example, are so vast and complex that nothing can be polarized without being wrong!  So when someone says "It's all about training, genes don't matter", they're just as wrong as someone who says "It's all about genes, training is irrelevant".

Similarly, barefoot running is not "the answer", but nor is it bad.  Carbohydrates are not evil, but nor are they the best option for some people, as evidence is now showing.  An individual approach is the only accurate way to go - it's not great for the media who love the sensation, and it's not great news for the gold-diggers who want sensation to sell books, but that's the reality.

Barefoot running - where does it leave us? Opinion and exploration

And so for barefoot running, where does that leave us?  Again, this is my opinion, based on the evidence and my own current research (I have two research studies underway, looking at various aspects of what I've discussed in this and other posts - results in a year or so!).  However, I'd say the following:

In a group of 100 runners, every single one will benefit from barefoot running as a training method.  It changes muscle activation patterns, strengthens muscles and tendons that we don't activate nearly as well in shoes, may be an effective form of rehabilitation, and it's really enjoyable.  So I would say that everyone should incorporate some barefoot running into their training programme.  Whether it's a 2 minute warm-up, an easy 30 min jog once a week, or some sprints after training, I'd say try it out and feel the difference it makes.

However, it's probably not for everyone.  Practically, theoretically, logistically and for many other reasons, some people will not take to barefoot running well enough for them to become 100% barefoot runners.  However, for others, it may well work.  It may prove to be the answer to your prayers, and the secret to injury-free running for life.  That's fantastic, and so you should embrace it and do it with enjoyment.  But don't believe that because it helped you, it must be used in the same dosages by everyone else - they may not have the same "condition" as you, they may have an entirely different history and thus set of contra-indications, and your enthusiasm, however well intended, will cause more problems than it solves.

You may sit on one of the poles - either north or south, either a responder and great barefoot runner, or a non-responder, and classic shod runner.  Which is perfect for you, but remember, between those poles, there's a world of people who are different, and so your extreme position in the complex spread of physiology shouldn't produce an extreme advocate for anything.

Ross

10,000 hours vs training debate: No scientific limits making it impossible for any individual to become an elite athlete with practice?

Dear Anders Ericsson...a request on behalf of sports science to stop telling people that the world is flat

The 10,000 hours vs genetic debate, and correcting Prof Ericsson's mistruths 

So last night, I was (un)fortunate enough to be involved in a radio debate with Prof Anders Ericsson on the concept of talent vs training.  For those who don't know, Ericsson is the father of the 10,000 hour concept, where he prescribes that ANY individual can become an elite athlete if they engage in the required hours of deliberate practice.  He sets that number at 10,000 hours, which is really more marketing than it is science, and I had the chance to "debate" this on air last night.

Unfortunately, the debate ended before I was able to adequately respond to some of Ericsson's claims, and so this is a post to do just that - respond, put the sports science side of the debate across.  I address the article to Ericsson somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and I don't mean to appoint myself on behalf of sports science, but the truth is that someone has to point out that the books, the popular media, and Ericsson are misrepresenting the evidence (either deliberately or ignorantly).  And besides, Ericsson did ask in the radio interview (see below).

The debate was a glorious seven minutes long (I was told it would be much longer), and it involved two opportunities for Ericsson to state his case, and two for me to try to explain the physiology of elite athletes.  Going in, I was under the impression we would debate the points, but that never really happened, mostly because I didn't think it was going to be cut short at 7 minutes.

You can listen to the podcast here.  Just click "Listen Now"  The interview portion starts at 9:00, as the section before is an interview with Chrissie Wellington (this provides some context for some of my comments in my first response).

A stunned reaction

I was, throughout the interview, stunned at what I was hearing.  And it's not as though I'm new to this particular debate - I've recently written two review articles on this topic with a colleague of mine (a geneticist, because unlike Anders Ericsson, I don't like the idea of commenting about a field that I'm not an expert in - he's a psychologist, but he was throwing physiology around with abandon, as you'll hear and read later).  These articles will be published in peer reviewed journals later this year, I'll let you know when.  There are also the two articles (PART I and PART II) that I wrote here on The Science of Sport last year, and then I presented on this at the UK Sports and Exercise Medicine conference in London last November.

I have also read the books - Bounce, Outliers, so in theory, I've heard it before.  But I was just absolutely stunned that Ericsson was saying some of the things he did - you can hear this in my reaction in the podcast as I start my response to both questions!  What he says is just ludicrous, empty and baseless, and I can only think he's misinformed, or has some other agenda to push.  Maybe he is writing a book...

Truth is, you don't even need research, you just need common sense and a tiny bit of experience with elite athletes in training groups.  For example, if any of you have ever run with a training group, you have seen and felt the reality of "individual responses" to training - you know that 1,000 hours of identical training will not produce an identical result in ten different people.  There are examples all over the place that show that practice is not sufficient for elite performance, and there are as many examples of athletes who have succeeded on far, far less than this (there are even cases in chess, where, dare I say it, performance is a little less complex because there's no risk of overtraining, injury, etc)

Also, Ericsson's theory that it is the training done during the adolescent years that matters is not only wrong (look how many talented young athletes fail at senior level despite accumulating far more hours than their peers by the age of 18, and how many endurance athletes only take up the sport in their 20s and become world class in a few years despite zero training when adolescents), it's also very irresponsible, because it compels parents, teachers and coaches to start training young athletes too soon and that's detrimental to the person (see Cote et al for review).

The statements - no scientific evidence showing that genes or physiology limit performance?

In his second response in the podcast, Ericsson makes the following statement in response to my argument that the scientific evidence suggests without doubt that elite athletes and champions are BORN AND MADE:

"I would argue here, and reading all the reviews, and we've had reviews where every scientist from the exercise physiology field and sports psychology.  And I find it kind of remarkable that Ross is making these claims because I've never seen them made in print in any peer-reviewed publication" - 13:55 in the podcast

He goes on to say the following:

"I have to say that I'd be very interested to see Ross finding any scientific studies that support the kind of claims that he was making at the beginning of the programme" - 15:01 in the podcast

Outside the scope of knowledge - don't tread where you shouldn't unless you have a guide

Before I continue, just have to mention that I have provided a list of peer reviewed publications as references at the end of this post - they are both review articles (Ericsson made the claim that he's read ALL the reviews - clearly he's missed these ones), and they are original research studies that show the importance of genetic factors and physiological variability to training.  Clearly, he's never read these either.  I'd excuse this on the basis that Anders Ericsson is a psychologist, so one would not expect him to have a firm grasp of sports science, performance,  physiology and the genetic literature, but the fact of the matter is that he's making claims in those fields, so therefore it's fair-game to challenge his knowledge and understanding of the literature and the sports science performance fields.

And I must just make this point - I don't for a second think we should create intellectual "silos" where you can ONLY comment on your field.  I think that would be foolish because it's the process of thinking, the scientific approach to a question that matters more than the actual content.  And I'd like to think that the biggest advances in our understanding often come from thinking outside the "constraints" of what we know, and by integrating research from different fields by different experts.

In other words, someone may be trained as a physiologist, but it's their application of the scientific approach, allied to some small physiological understanding, that may allow them to contribute to the field of biomechanics of barefoot running, for example.  Key to this are two things:  a)  you must be dilligent about doing your research, and b) find someone who IS an expert to assist.  That's why when in writing review articles on talent vs training and elite performance, I partnered with a geneticist (Malcolm Collins) who does understand the field at the depth that is required to put scientific statements out there.  Similarly, I'm now doing barefoot running research, where my interest is the physiology, but we have a team that includes an engineer and biomechanist, so that I don't have to tread where I'm not capable.

Responding to Ericsson - one example of "limited" physiological response to training

In any event, during the debate, I tried to respond to Ericsson, and there are four things that I think are essential to understand here:

1.  It is true that genetic "proof" has yet to be provided.  But elite sporting performance is too complex, and genetic factors too varied to ever "prove" the link Ericsson seems to require.  Consider this:  height is a pretty straightforward characteristic, and it's known to be highly heritable (tall parents = tall children).  In fact, 80% of the variance in height is known to be genetic.  However, studies have found that it takes an astonishing 300,000 genetic variants to account for only 45% of this variance.  That's just height - how much more then would it take to explain something as complex as sports performance? 
   
   The reality is that the field of genetics is young, and with time, more evidence will emerge.  But there's a massive difference between something being "proven" (where I agree with Ericsson) and saying that it is absent (which is what he implies).  Genetic evidence is not absent - most physiological factors that are known to limit performance have been associated with genes (including injury risk, aerobic capacity, muscle fiber type), and others can be easily related to heritable factors (think height for basketball, limb proportion, bone mass etc).  When Ericsson suggests there is no evidence, it is because he is ignorant of the evidence.
2.  Ericsson's own work disproves his theory - his studies have tried to explain performance level as a function of training, yet research he has been involved in shows that only a very small part of performance can be explained by practice.  Only 28% of the variance darts performance is explained by the number of hours practiced!  That's astonishingly low, and it means that time spent in practice is a very poor predictor for performance.  The question you should be asking is what accounts for the other 72%, and could some of it be innate?  It's definitely enough to throw out the deliberate practice, 10,000 hour theory, because Ericsson is clearly predicting that most (or all, in some of his articles) of performance is explained by training.
3. You cannot prove that practice is necessary AND sufficient to produce champions or elite performers based on retrospective studies.  They're weak, because there are so many other ways to explain the findings.  For example, Ericsson's famous violin study showed that the expert performers did the most practice, and he concluded that the practice turned them into experts.  However, it's equally possible, in this study design anyway, that the children with the innate violin ability were encouraged by others and their own success to practice more.  Retrospective studies are poor ways to show that practice makes perfect.  You have to do prospective studies.
4. Prospective studies have been done.  Most notably, Bouchard published a study in 2011 (reference below) in which he found that the response in VO2max (a measure of aerobic capacity and adaptation to training, and ultimately performance) of a large cross-section of the population to a standardized training programme was enormously varied.  Some individuals improved by less than 5%, others improve by 30%.  And here's the key point - it is possible, using genetic techniques, to identify which genetic polymorphisms (think of them as variants of genes) are responsible for this huge difference. 
   
   It turns out that Bouchard's work has provided some pretty important findings:
• About 50% of an individual's starting VO2max and 50% of the "trainability" in VO2max is heritable
• 21 Genetic polymorphisms have been associated with 50% of the training response to VO2max
• If a person carries NINE OR FEWER of these genetic variants, then they are low responders and improve VO2max by only 200 ml/min.
• If a person carries NINETEEN OR MORE of these variants, then they are high responders and improve VO2max by over 600 ml/min

In other words, genetic factors very clearly impact on what we start with, they impact on how we adapt to training, and therefore, by extension, they impact on where we get to.  Our physiology has a ceiling, and it is in part, genetically determined.  This is clear for VO2max, and it's clear for other factors that are known to affect performance.  Skeletal muscle, for example, is known to be BOTH heritable and trainable.  Running economy differs enormously between individuals as a function of factors such as height, limb proportions, muscle mass, and other factors that are known to be genetically determined.  And so unless you have the right skeletal structure, height, limb proportions, you cannot have the running economy required to run a 2:08 marathon.  It's physiology, limiting performance, and related to factors that we are born with.  To deny this is to say that the world is flat when you are staring out of a spaceship window at the globe.

Further, as one of you commented on Facebook yesterday, biomechanical factors such as the muscle's moment arm exert huge effects on performance, and so characteristics that we are born with determine the level of performance that we can attain.  I would point out the most obvious example of this is basketball, but there are countless others.

A pointless polarization of the debate

Ultimately, however, the idea that elite sporting performance can be explained by one factor is foolish.  That's why when Ericsson makes the claims he does, in the field of physiology, it's so absurd, and potentially damaging because people believe it at face value, and they implement sports systems and strategies that buy into this flawed concept.   It's quite clear, from what we observe in athletes, what we study in laboratories, what we know from geneticists, that there is a significant contribution of all kinds of factors to performance.  Physiology matters, but so does practice.  Psychological factors are crucial, but so too are financial and economic considerations.

The dominance of Kenyan runners, for example, will never be found to be due to ONE factor.  Those who are looking solely at genes are doomed to failure, but so are those who want to say that it's purely an altitude, diet, socio-economic, lifestyle, or incentive-driven phenomenon.  All these factors contribute, and the environment interacts with the genes to produce a champion.  I've said this before, but training should be defined as the realization of genetic potential.

Every single person improves as a result of training - some, as Bouchard has shown, improve by very little in a variable like aerobic capacity.  Perhaps they are better suited to skill-based sports.  Some improve enormously, and those who do are more suited to endurance sport.  Then there is injury - this is vital and completely overlooked.  We know that certain genes are associated with different performance characteristics, and there are genes that are associated with injury.  Some people will never even reach 10,000 hours because they are susceptible to injury at five hours per week of training and cannot do more - they'd need 40 years to get good enough if that's all it took.

So the point I'd like to conclude with, before I list some more points for Anders Ericsson to consider, is that we should not polarize the debate.  We should recognize that there are many paths to elite performance, and that a one-size or one-number fits all approach is foolish.  We should learn what we can from those who succeed, including that they are dedicated and practice a lot, which is obvious.  And we should learn why people fail.  And we should avoid generalizations and simplifications that help us sell books to motivate people.

Training is the realization of genetic potential - practically, that means that every single one of you reading this, discussing this, can improve through training.  That's the motivation. But will we all become Olympic caliber athletes in any sport we choose?  Keep dreaming.  The world is not flat, Prof Ericsson.  Please stop telling people it is...

Ross

By way of an "Appendix", here is a little more on Ericsson's views, because I don't want to take him out of context in a 7 minute radio interview...

Ericsson's first entry into this field was his work looking at skill acquisition in activities such as music - his seminal study of violinists showed that expert performers engaged in at least 10,000 hours of training whereas those violinists judged merely as "good" or "average" did about 8,000 and 5,000 hours respectively.

But then Ericsson moved beyond education and skill acquisition and began to tackle sport.  He wrote a review article in the New York Academy of Sciences Journal in 2009, in which he states the following:

"the distinctive characteristics of exceptional performers are the result of adaptations to extended and intense practice activities that selectively activate dormant genes that are contained within all healthy individuals’ DNA." - Ericsson et al, NYAS, 1172: 199-217, 2009

So in other words, he is now going to tackle genetics.  He is saying (and I want to be careful here about taking this out of context), that exceptional performers become exceptional because they practice, and this training activates dormant genes, and these genes are present in ALL healthy individuals' DNA - his word, my emphasis.

Right, so this is fine, if he sticks to "performance" in skill-based activities.  I would disagree with him - studies on chess show clearly that some people get good very quickly, others never improve to Master level no matter what they do.  The same is true of darts, tennis, golf, any activity.  But nevertheless, let's assume that he is referring to his study on musicians and things like mathematical ability.

But he doesn't stop there. He then tackles physiology, and writes the following in the same paper:

"From this evidence it would appear that VO2max/kg (aerobic capacity) would not be a good candidate for a factor that was constrained by heredity"

This comes from a section in the paper where Ericsson, a psychologist, tackles the PHYSIOLOGY of elite performance and comes to this incredible conclusion that there is no evidence that aerobic capacity is constrained by genetic factors.  If you read the study, you will discover that Ericsson arrives at this conclusion based on THREE studies - one review, and two other studies, one of which actually finds the opposite to what he concludes. 

I have explained above the recent work that shows clearly that genetic factors influence VO2max, and admittedly, this review precedes that series of studies.  But there were still others that had found a) huge inter-individual differences between people in response to the same training and b) accounted for large parts of VO2 as being heritable.

Ericsson's approach to the physiology side of this argument is simply not good enough when physiologists can cite dozens of physiological systems or factors that are known to affect performance, and when geneticists can show associations between these systems and our genes.

And yes, I agree that this area is not yet developed - it's so "young" a field that it will take time to understand the genetic complexity.  But even here, there's a difference between something being absent and something being proven.  Neither side will "prove" their argument, but I think it's pretty clear that evidence shows conclusively that BOTH genes and training make champions.

And finally, here are some references that Ericsson may have missed:

Duffy L, Baluch B. Dart performance as a function of facets of practice amongst professional and amateur men ana women players. Int J Sport Psychol. 2004;35:232-245.

Vaeyens R, Güllich A, Warr CR et al. Talent identification and promotion programmes of Olympic athletes. J Sports Sci. 2009;27:1367-80.

Elferink-Gemser MT, Jordet G, Coelho-E-Silva MJ et al. The marvels of elite sports: how to get there? Br J Sports Med. 2011;45:683-4.

Phillips E, Davids K, Renshaw I et al. Expert performance in sport and the dynamics of talent development. Sports Med. 2010;40:271-83.

Huijgen BC, Elferink-Gemser MT, Post WJ et al. Soccer skill development in professionals. Int J Sports Med. 2009;30:585-91.

Gobet F, Campitelli G. The role of domain-specific practice, handedness, and starting age in chess. Dev Psychol. 2007;43:159-72.

Gibbons T, Hill R, McConnell, A. et al. The path to excellence: A comprehensive view of development of U.S. Olympians who competed from 1984-1998 United States Olympic Committee. 2002.

Baker J, Côté J, Deakin J. Expertise in Ultra-Endurance Triathletes Early Sport Involvement, Training Structure, and the Theory of Deliberate Practice. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2005;17:64-78.

Oldenziel K, Gagne F. Factors affecting the rate of athlete development from novice to senior elite: How applicable is the 10-year rule. Athens 2004: Pre-olympic Congress Sport Science Through the Ages: Challenges in the New Millennium. Athens. 2004.

Hodges NJ, Starkes JL. Wrestling with the nature of expertise: A sport specific test of Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Römer’s (1993) theory of “deliberate practice”. Int J Sport Psychol. 1996;27:400-24.

Helsen WF, Starkes JL, Hodges NJ. Team sports and the theory of deliberate practice. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1998;20:12-34.

Bullock N, Gulbin JP, Martin DT et al. Talent identification and deliberate programming in skeleton: ice novice to Winter Olympian in 14 months. J Sports Sci. 2009;27:397-404.

Roescher CR, Elferink-Gemser MT, Huijgen BC et al. Soccer endurance development in professionals. Int J Sports Med. 2010;31:174-9.

Vaeyens R, Lenoir M, Williams AM et al. Talent identification and development programmes in sport : current models and future directions. Sports Med. 2008;38:703-14.

Tucker R, Collins M. Athletic performance and risk of injury - Can genes explain all? Dialog Cardiovasc Med. In Press.

Collins M, Raleigh SM. Genetic risk factors for musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. Med Sport Sci. 2009;54:136-49.

Doping in cycling: Science, the law, and PR, and insights on Pistorius

The complexity of science vs law vs PR: Implications for anti-doping and Oscar Pistorius

I've finally emerged from the "bubbles" that were the trip up Kilimanjaro, which was followed almost immediately by a trip to the USA where I spent a week with the SA Sevens team for the IRB Series tournament in Las Vegas.  It was another harsh reminder that the best preparation and hardest work can sometimes fail because on the day, things don't work and other teams are better...competitive sports is a ruthless world!

In any event, those tournament weeks are always something of a "bubble", inside which I miss many interesting sports stories.  The jet lag and 9 hour time difference don't help, but the bubble has finally burst and I thought I'd share one or two links, and some short insights on stories that have broken since late January.

Cycling and doping: Three big stories

To begin with, three big stories in the world of cycling and doping.  In no particular time order, Jan Ullrich, Tour de France champion and many time runner-up was sanctioned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and all his results since 2005 annulled.  He of course retired years ago, so the two year ban is more symbolic than practical, but it ends one of cycling's more high-profile chapters.  Ullrich, for his part, responded on his website, apologizing for his dealings with Fuentes, but not entirely accepting the court's opinion.  You can read his full statement here.

This decision was preceded by perhaps an even more significant one - the US Attorney Andre Birotte Jr announced that the federal investigation into Lance Armstrong would be ending.  The announcement was strategically timed to garner as little media coverage (in the USA) as possible, coming the Friday before the Superbowl.  There has however been some reaction to it, mostly dealing with the timing of the decision (the investigation had been a 2-year long struggle up to this point), and perhaps more importantly, the legal vs ethical issues surrounding doping.

Those who have kept up with the case will be well aware that doping in sport is not a federal crime.  As a result, the investigation was not about whether Armstrong doped or not, it was built predominantly around fraud, conspiracy and other charges related to the violation of Armstrong's team's contract with the U.S. Postal Service.  Those who are proclaiming "innocence" are thus choosing to stop short of the point, at least as far as doping goes.

The result of this is that the federal investigation may have been dropped because of a simple balance between "cost" (time and financial) and "reward".  There has been no explanation for why the investigation has been dropped, and nor is there likely to be, leaving most to speculate and wonder what the reasons are.  One of the outcomes is that the ball is now firmly in the court of the anti-doping authorities, such as USADA, who can continue to pursue the case of doping against Armstrong.

There were reports, since confirmed, that USADA had been in contact with the investigators to gain access to the evidence they had collected as part of the criminal case.  Travis Tygart, the CEO of USADA, issued this statement following the US Attorney General's annoucement:

"Unlike the U.S. Attorney, USADA's job is to protect clean sport rather than enforce specific criminal laws. Our investigation into doping in the sport of cycling is continuing and we look forward to obtaining the information developed during the federal investigation."

Time will tell whether that evidence is forthcoming, and how it is acted upon, but certainly, the announcement that the investigation was ending is not the same thing as drawing a line under the issue.

Sports Illustrated yesterday carried this article expanding on the USADA investigation, for those interested in reading more.

The Contador verdict

Then third, and most relevant to cycling today (since he is the only active cyclist of the three), was the decision, finally, of CAS on the Alberto Contador case.  The end result of over two years of deliberations and court proceedings, protestations, accusations and cow slandering?  Four thousand pages of argument and counter-argument, a 98-page verdict, and a two year ban for Contador, which is really only 6 months, because it has been backdated to when the case began.

There are far better summaries of this case than I can provide in a short time.  For perhaps the best, read Matt Rendell's excellent analysis here.  He tackles issues of strict liability, the Contador defence (veal solomillo and clenbuterol, at 32 Euros a kilogram, apparently), and the UCI/WADA argument, which was built around the likelihood that the clenbuterol came from the infusion of plasma as part of Contador's alleged blood doping during that Tour de France.

This defence is particularly intriguing to me, because it has evidence supporting it, and therefore can be "proved" (in so far as "proof" seems to exist in these cases).  That evidence was described by Prof Michael Ashenden, one of the leading biological passport scientists.  He reported to CAS that Contador's reticulocyte percentages during the race were abnormally high, which would be indicative of EPO use, because that switches on red blood cell formation (for more on the biological passport, reticulocytes and how all this works, read this article that I wrote last year).  Contador's hemoglobin levels were also abnormal, compared to his biological passport history, leading the UCI, WADA and Ashenden to suggest that they were consistent with blood doping.

Ultimately, the CAS tribunal ruled that a blood transfusion was "very unlikely to have occurred", though I'm not sure why they came to this strong decision.  It was perhaps related to the biological passport's own internal requirements for a "strike", which I explained previously.  It was Ashenden's testimony, the legal back-and-forth it caused, its ultimate dismissal and then the CAS judges refusal to allow Ashenden to have a final session of questioning that was leaked to the press after the hearing, so unhappy were the WADA/UCI lawyers.

The legal battle - how law undermines the openness of science

All of which brings me to my main opinion/insight on these matters.  The fact of the matter is, as anti-doping becomes more sophisticated, it becomes more and fraught with the burden of scientific "proof". The reality is that science is open, it asks questions and only answers some of them!  It is rarely black or white, and the problem with this is that legal teams, armed with scientific experts of their own, can always, without fail, cast doubt on scientific findings.

To me, the findings of abnormal reticulocytes and hemoglobin concentration points very strongly to a likelihood of transfusion.  It doesn't prove it - the biological passport cannot prove anything in that way, and it has been designed like this to protect cyclists against false positive tests.  However, it points there, and so when a tribunal, dealing with the same evidence I'm seeing, concludes that a transfusion is "very unlikely to have occurred", I'm left mystified at their thought-processes.  At worst, they can conclude that a "transfusion is possible, but cannot be upheld given the physiological complexity of blood parameters".  But to dismiss it as "very unlikely"...?

A declaration like that ("very unlikely to have occurred") is definitive, it is black and white.  Science is grey, and so the two, science and law, seem to be very uneasy bedfellows.

Science being picked off, one by one, by the law

I have long held this opinion.  It began as a healthy skepticism of lawyers, and it was the Oscar Pistorius-CAS decision that pretty much condemned me to have zero confidence in the manner in which the law evaluates scientific evidence.  That decision was, to be blunt, a complete joke, and the CAS was manipulated by Hugh Herr and the rest of the Pistorius team, because they were able to exploit scientific "uncertainty" to win a legal verdict.

Then yesterday I read this absolutely brilliant piece by Lionel Birnie, in which he explains how the law attacks science and undermines it exactly because it is open.  As I was reading it, I found myself thinking "This piece could just as well have been written for the Pistorius case".  Science's greatest strength is its weakest point in anti-doping cases (and in cases like those of Pistorius).  Here is a section of Birnie's piece, which I highly recommend:

It seems that a lot of people love to put their faith in the law and yet are sceptical about science. The law is man-made (and therefore flawless) whereas what we know about science keeps changing (and therefore cannot be trusted). This applies to sport just as it does to many areas of life.

Science is attacked for its greatest strength – the fact that it cannot prove or disprove everything. Science is exploratory. It is open-minded and willing to accept that there may be another possibility, however slim the idea may seem. Science is never so arrogant as to presume it knows everything. 

When dealing with anti-doping cases, the law is exploitative in the sense that it seeks out areas where science is on shaky ground. It looks for loopholes and unpicks them ruthlessly. You could argue that science sees the dots and tries to work out how they are connected, while the law picks them off one by one. 

We have seen in many anti-doping cases how the defence lawyers work through the argument line by line, clause by clause, trying to prove or disprove.  And that is why we end up with such division among sports fans who are struggling to work out who the good guys are and who are the baddies.

So many jewels in that piece alone - "Science is open-minded and willing to accept that there may be another possibility", and "science cannot prove or disprove EVERYTHING".  Case in point - dehydration and performance.  There are scientists who maintain that any dehydration will compromise your performance.  There are others who argue that we can lose 2 to 8% of our fluid with no negative effects, and they cannot reconcile those two opinions, as simple a question as this may appear.  Science is full of areas of contention, and doping is perhaps one of the most complex.  The case of Pistorius is equally complex - the evidence certainly pointed to an advantage, but clever scientists, backed by even smarter lawyers, are able to "pick them off one by one".

Direction dependent - the verdict depends on who gets the final scientific "disproving" say

Therefore, what we had with Pistorius was a case of science trying to "join the dots" and create a picture that he had an advantage, while others picked off those points to cast doubt on this finding.  The key is to realize that this could have happened in either direction.  That is, it could have been designed in a way that said that Pistorius was clear to compete unless the IAAF could show that an advantage existed.  Then, the IAAF would have had the initiative and would have been able to cast doubt on evidence suggesting there was no advantage.  As it was, the question was asked in the other direction - the starting point was that Pistorius had an advantage, and this could be disproved (legally) by picking off the evidence.

Therefore, the decision you arrive at depends entirely on the direction from which you approach it, at least in terms of how the science is evaluated.  In anti-doping, this start point is determined by the concept of "strict liability" - the athlete has to show that the positive test was not the result of doping.  For Pistorius, the burden was with the IAAF to prove that the advantage existed, and so Pistorius' team were able to deflect every scientific finding with enough doubt to get the verdict, despite the scientific evidence (which didn't meet CAS' legal standard, clearly, though there were other factors in play here too)

Enter public relations

Lionel Birnie's great insight didn't end there, however.  He also recognized that it is a third party, Public Relations, that ultimately wields the biggest stick in cases like these.  He writes:

The court of public opinion is where the phoney war is fought. Over the past 18 months, while science and the law have been carefully preparing their arguments for serious scrutiny, the public are teased along as if they’re watching a Punch and Judy show.

PR is flashy. It comes up with catchy phrases that capture the public imagination and it wins hearts and closes off minds.  It is hardly surprising that most people will be turned off by the idea of wading through pages of legal and scientific argument. It is difficult, it strays well outside our areas of understanding and it makes our brains hurt.

Once again, this is so accurate for the Contador case, it's accurate for Armstrong, it's accurate for Pistorius (thanks Nike and about a dozen other sponsors).  Last year, Prof Peter Weyand, one of the researchers who did join the dots to see the advantage Pistorius had, wrote to me after I published his explanation of his research, and expressed frustration at how the general public do not want to wade through the complexities of the scientific argument.

He is 100% correct.  I share this frustration, and when I read drivel like the recent Outside magazine or New York Times pieces on Pistorius, it's tremendously frustrating because one half of the scientific team (Herr) are making idiotic claims that have no basis in evidence or reality, while the other half (Weyand) are being circumspect and scientifically cautious.  Public relations looks at this with glee, because it's so easy to back the extreme view, however false or inaccurate it may be.  That fuels the fire, and the public are watching, to borrow Birnie's phrase, "a Punch and Judy show".

The general public, and therefore the general media who cater to them, do not want to peel back layer after layer of scientific explanation to truly understand a case.  They want simple answers, black and white, and science is incapable of providing them.  PR, on the other hand, thrives on simple answers.  Backed by legal complexities, it's not difficult to see why so many people are confused, and therefore choose to hear one message over another without necessarily understanding it.

The fight against doping - the danger of crippling complexity

So, for doping, there is a real problem.  Anti-doping is becoming so complex that it may end up crippling itself in the court of law.  The more dots there are to join (the role of science), the more points there are to attack (the role of law).  The end result is that the cost of prosecution will sky-rocket, it will become increasingly difficult to enforce test results, and the public, ultimately the "paying" customer, will be turned off by the complexity.  Enter the PR firms.

There is an anti-doping future, then, which exists on the internet and is waged by PR firms and athletes, who build mountains for anti-doping authorities to climb.  All of this is a call to action, though it beats me what the solution might be.

The end result for Contador is that he'll be able to race in the Vuelta this year.  We still don't know if he did anything wrong - having dismissed the Contador argument of contaminated beef, having dismissed the UCI/WADA argument of a blood transfusion, the CAS tribunal ends up concluding that a "contaminated supplement" is more likely the source, and therefore grounds for a ban (read part 2 of Rendell's excellent analysis for more on this).

Contador's results have been annulled, and so Andy Schleck is your Tour de France champion from 2010 (a hollow victory).  It could have been worse, of course - I was actually surprised that CAS did reach the decision it did, I fully expected Contador to be cleared, and so perhaps there is some hope left.  Whether such a long, and expensive process, changes the anti-doping game in the future remains to be seen.  Your thoughts welcome, and I realize that there is so much to the verdict and the argument that I haven't covered, but I highly recommend Rendell's pieces, both Part 1 and Part 2 on the judgment.

 The "upside down" VO2max protocol

The other interesting story, one that has garnered some great discussion on our Twitter account, is the recent study that found that VO2max is increased when you do a reverse protocol that starts out at a high power output and decreases (as opposed to the normal progressive increase to fatigue).  The implication of this finding is that the VO2 "max" concept is incorrect, which is something many already knew, but it calls into question the idea that oxygen delivery or use is limiting during maximal exercise. After all, if VO2max can be increased and then maintained simply by doing something different, despite maximal effort, then how was it the limitation in the first place?  The implication of your answer to this question is rather important!

The study is therefore a hook for the idea that something else regulates performance, though it doesn't establish precisely what that is.  There is the suggestion that the brain is in control, and that's so obvious many people will dismiss it as "too easy".  But there are many reasons to suggest this, and I'll cover these in a blog post as soon as I can.  The bottom line, regarding this study at least, is that it's fairly obvious, and not as outrageous as it may seem.  But the reaction of people who see it tells the story of sports science and the VO2max theory, which has long been full of holes, but remains entrenched among many as the explanation for maximal performance.  This is akin to proclaiming that the world is flat.  Someone has to point out that it is round, and as obvious as this may be (the idea that the brain is command is equally obvious), this study adds to that realization.

Perhaps even more important are the implications of this.  People make the incorrect leap that it's about "mind over matter". The idea that the brain controls exercise is not the same as saying that our mental capacities determine performance.  This is obvious.  It's not "mind" over matter, but "brain" over matter - it's still physiology, so let's not get too carried away with the idea that we can "believe" ourselves into being elite athletes.  Certainly, psychology is crucial, and belief is essential, but the physiological limits still exist, and the regulation of performance is still physiological!  Can we do more with the right mental approach?  Of course, but that's a parallel area of performance management.

More to come...

Ross

Barefoot Kilimanjaro: Mission Accomplished - Video diaries

Barefoot Kilimanjaro: Mission Accomplished - The Video Diary

On Saturday, 29 January, at 12.45 South Africa time, our entire team of six barefoot climbers (that's me on the right - pics of the whole team coming soon!), and four support crew (in shoes) reached Uhuru Peak, at 5,895m, the summit of Mt Kilimanjaro and the highest point in Africa.

The trip, as I explained recently in my "pre-expedition" post, was both for the challenge and for charity.  There will no doubt be much more said in the coming days - I will post a series of pictures and talk you through my own personal experience with my feet as soon as I can - but for now, we are all proud of achieving it and very grateful and thankful for all the great support we have received.

"Crazy with a capital C"

Before leaving, I wrote a post and tweeted to say we were on the way with the goal of reaching the summit entirely barefoot.  What was striking to me was the number of disbelieving replies that came in soon after.  They ranged from "hahaha - that's ridiculous", to "I hope you're kidding", to "Crazy with a capital C", and perhaps most intriguingly, someone who felt that it was "disrespectful to the mountain" to attempt to walk barefoot.

My take was different - back in November, when I was first asked "Is it possible?", the obvious answer was "yes".  I remember saying at the time that it needed a lot of research, and possibly some creative solutions and planning, but of course it was possible.

It would be wrong to say "anything is possible", because that's the stuff of fairytales, but this was so clearly possible IF we played the preparation cards right, that it was a project worth doing only to show that sometimes, when we stop at identifying the problems, we limit ourselves so significantly to "conventional wisdom".  I was taken aback by the strength of the sentiment AGAINST our goal.  I mean, sure, there would be challenges - the cold, the risk of frost-bite, the altitude, the terrain - but those are challenges that can easily be overcome through good planning, and I couldn't understand that it was dismissed as "impossible" without thinking through those solutions first.

We as a team make no claims about this, physiologically or otherwise.  You'll see a lot of hype around people who do "unusual" things.  Firstly, I don't believe we did anything "unusual", at least from a physiological point of view - it's perfectly explainable, the difference is that it goes against conventional ideas.  But ultimately, we were five very normal guys and one girl who did something that was eminently possible all along.  The fact that it was THOUGHT to be crazy, ridiculous (pick your synonym) is merit-worthy, but it's not a physiological feat that demands anything other than acknowledgement of what is possible.  No "awe" or "wonder" here, just basic planning and principles.  Challenge beliefs - it's amazing what becomes possible!

I realise that walking up a mountain barefoot is "odd".  But if I may speak personally, apart from the great charity that it supported, the most appealing thing to me was to show up conventional wisdom by doing with 100% success rate.  I was not alone - many of the team were motivated by the 'nay-sayers' and I can honestly say that when all six of us got to the summit, with no drama, there was a feeling of vindication mixed with the happiness.  All it took was planning and preparation with intelligence, foresight and discipline. 

Clinical and "easy" thanks to the 80% done BEFORE

Ultimately, to be perfectly honest, we were clinical, precise and got to the summit relatively easily.  I'd go so far as to say that probably 80% of expeditions to Kilimanjaro have MORE problems and issues than we had, despite being entirely shod.  Perhaps being barefoot forced on us a more stringent approach, but it worked, and that should, I would hope, shake a paradigm or two.

It's never "easy" of course, and I don't wish to downplay the whole effort.  But the 80-20 principle is in play - I believe that the success of any "performance" is determined 80% BEFORE the performance ever happens.  It is the result of the months of preparation and training, and the actual achievement is only 20% of the challenge.  The team on this trip was super strong - 5 months of barefoot training, including a month of cold-weather preparation, plus real discipline about the altitude, meant that by the time we took our first steps in the Rongai Rain Forest, we had done pretty much all we could to prepare.  The remaining 20% was about adapting, learning on the go, and making sure we stuck to the plan.

We had the best support possible - Sean Disney of Adventure Dynamics International was, in my opinion, THE key player in the team, and he planned the route, controlled our pace, and guided us expertly throughout the five days to summit.  If you're interested in this climb (or others around the world), that would be my first port of call, and it obeys the # 1 principle - get the best people on board.

My personal account - bad timing complicated the climb, but still doable

Speaking personally, I made life difficult for myself by getting frostbite on Friday 13 January (I'll always remember the date!).  My timing, in hindsight, could not have been worse.  The frozen areas of skin formed blisters, and the blisters decided that they would start peeling on January 23rd, which was the very first day of the hike.  So as I climbed in altitude, my feet lost more and more skin, and by the end of day 3, in Mawenzi Tarn, I had no skin left underneath (the pic on the right is from the Tarn - the color is because I threw Friar's Balsam at it to try to dry out the soft, raw skin.  I don't think it really helped, but just doing something helped me in other ways!  I'll show you a pic of what my feet looked like at the summit in tomorrow's post!)

So I lay in my tent that afternoon, January 26th, full of anxiety, not thinking I had it in me to do another two days to reach the summit.  But I decided to go hour by hour, for even one more day.  Get to Kibo Huts, the final base before the strike for the summit, and see whether that would be the motivation and source of one big, final effort for the summit.   That worked, and then it was summit day, and another "hour by hour" exercise, all the way to the top.  In the end, it worked, and yes, it was difficult, but the pictures made it look worse than it was, and had it not been for the frost-bite and blisters it caused, I think it would have been a relatively clinical and "easy" week for me too.

I'll explain a little more of what I felt during those last two days when I show you some pictures, and that will perhaps come tomorrow.

But for now, here are some videos - I tried to do a daily video diary.  They're fairly short, only a minute or two, but they show where we are on the mountain, how the ground looks, what we're doing day by day and how I'm progressing.  If there are any questions, I'm happy to answer them in the comments, and as I said, I'll do a picture diary tomorrow, with more detail about the feelings and emotions as I dealt with my own little issues on the final two days!

NOTE:  To all readers receiving this in email - the YouTube clips may appear as solid, black blocks in your emails.  Please CLICK HERE to be taken to the site to watch videos.

Day 1: Rongai Rain Forest - a relatively sedate start

Day 2: The longest day

This was a super long day - 8 hours 51 in total, but with a long break for lunch.  Also a challenging day, the gravel and rocks were difficult and was probably largely to blame for the loss of skin in my case!  But it was a good day, an optimistic day because it showed us what we were in for - we got a taste of the terrain, the temperature and altitude.  Probably just what we needed.

Day 3: Mawenzi Tarn

A short day, but a key day for me personally.  By the end of this day, my skin was largely off and I had doubts about making it to the summit.  The team coped brilliantly though, and so this was the day I grew 95% confident that we would get 5 people, at least, to the summit.  The other great thing about this day is that I was finally convinced that the cold would NOT be a factor in our summit - the African sun was just too strong and would prove decisive in minimizing the frostbite risk.  That became crystal clear today.

Day 4: To base camp at Kibo Huts

Perhaps the toughest day for me, mentally, because it took us 5 hours from Mawenzi to Kibo, where we'd be based for our "strike" to the summit.  For me, this was tough because it was not the final big effort, but it was difficult enough to be a real challenge.  Difficult terrain and a relatively long day.  The team again handled it well, and if I was 95% confident yesterday, I was 98% confident today.

Day 5: The summit 

This is a really short video of us arriving at the summit.  Interestingly enough, this was not the greatest moment of the trip.  In fact, the summit was actually a little bit of an anticlimax for me, because my "peak" had happened about 45 minutes early, at Stella Point.  That was the moment when I KNEW, with 100% certainty and beyond any doubt, that all six of us would make it.  It was a huge release, and that was the single best moment for me. The summit was still amazing though, don't get me wrong!  Big celebration!

Day 5: Descending

This video didn't quite work out - the day before, we'd checked out the climb and run down a section of the steep slope (it's about 40%).  It's a real rush - you slide with every step, and churn up shale and dust big time.  I tried to do it on the way back to Kibo, but by this stage (almost 9 hours of walking, most of it above 5,000m), I was pretty stuffed!  And the lack of perspective from the way I filmed it doesn't do justice to the speed of the descent, so it didn't quite come off!  It was still really fun to do though!

Day 5: In the tent

I nearly didn't put this video up - I filmed it only minutes after getting back to base camp.  I was tired, a little cold, and quite drained.  I didn't realize quite how tired until I watched myself - I look and sound shattered!  But it's from the moments after the mission had been accomplished, just some thoughts!  A longer clip, but with the key message, so bear with me!

Picture diary to come

That's all for now - I'm working through all my pictures, and I'll get a nice story out of that, mostly where I can talk you through the challenges of terrain, cold and altitude, and how we progressed.  It also tells the story of my feet quite nicely, but that's for another time!

In the meantime, for more thoughts from the other team members, and very importantly, to make donations to the Red Cross Children's Hospital Trust (a great cause), please visit the official site of the barefoot Kilimanjaro trip!

Chat soon
Ross