Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Barefoot Running Debate

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Kevin Kirby, Jan 21, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JB1973

    JB1973 Active Member

    zimmy you are kinda doing my head in.
    the point most people are making is that mcdougall (and others) is peddling fiction as fact.

    JB
     
  2. Zimster:

    I agree with Craig. The question of evolution is not relevant to this issue. While I agree we are a product of our ancestors, we are also, very importantly, a product of our environments and habits, which our ancestors did not share with us.

    I don't believe that our ancient ancestors sat behind a computer for 6-8 hours a day, were 50 pounds overweight, drank caffeinated-sugared drinks during the day, tried to run only on the weekends to lose weight, read Born to Run, and then decided that their injuries were caused by them weaing their Nike Air Shoes to run.

    We are very different animals now compared to a 1,000 generations ago. I am very suspicious of anyone who guesses about how our ancestors lived to explain observations that are occurring in the bipedal humans of 2010 when there are much better scientific explanations that are readily available to the intelligent individual who isn't hung up on evolution as being at the root of all of the woes of society.
     
  3. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    To further expand on this....

    We have the Kerrrigan et al research that was widely claimed on barefoot running websites that it showed that running shoes cause osteoarthritis. It did not show that. It was not even a study on osteoarthritis and the methods were so flawed it not worthy of any conideration. What have my views on evolution have to do with the barefoot running community claiming running shoes cause osteoarthritis based on this study?

    Then there was the Liebermann et al research in Nature that we discussed earlier in this thread. This was touted on barefoot running websites that this 'science' further proved barefoot running was better and there were les injuires from barefoot running (or something to that effect). Liebermann himself had to publish a disclaimer on his website to distance himself from those silly conclusions. His study was not about what was better and was not about injuires - his study was just about the differences. I have seen several biomechanists totally dismiss his methodology. What have my views on evolution have to do with the barefoot running community making claims about the results of this study that even Liebermann denied the study showed?

    Then we have the increasing number of reports of stress fractures occuring in those using the Vibram Five Fingers. These are being dismissed by the barefoot running community (in general) as being due to training errors. Yet when a runner gets an injury in a shoe, its the fault of the shoe and not a training error. What have my views on evolution have to do with the barefoot running community having double standards on this issue?

    Then we have etc etc ... its all about the misuse, misrepresentation, misunderstanding and misquoting research.
     
  4. Cam:

    You are right on with this one.:good:

    My thoughts exactly. Both McDougall and Lieberman are being sponsored by Vibram.....no conflict of interest there.... Lieberman's research and website are sponsored by Vibram....I'm sure neither of these two will say anything negative about "barefoot running" as long as they are on Vibram's payroll.:rolleyes:
     
  5. CamWhite

    CamWhite Active Member

    Now if I could only find a lost tribe of gorgeous, Amazon super-marathoners that run effortlessly in stilettos, because it stimulates their libidos, and dance all night - imagine the possibilities!
     
  6. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    Hi Zimmy
    We started this discussioon earlier...
    I have highlighted one part which I am (still) interested in you response to...
    Care to comment?
     
  7. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    That is correct... clever wasn’t it? I saw similarities in the nature of the reasoning with the expositors from both camps (barefoot & evolution).

    Wasn’t shouting brother – just making sure you realised the core topic of discussion. I believe forum etiquette states that using caps is equivalent to shouting.

    This is correct – bipedal & erect right from the start. I did provide evidence for this.


    Now, this is something I have not covered... & for good reason. It will diverge too far away from the topic i.e. barefoot running. Please keep in mind I can & have asked similar related questions in regard to evolution – with no acceptable answer in return (over the years). However I did give a hint to your question in post # 417. The answer does not violate the principles of causation – unlike that of evolution i.e....

    "Getting back to your view of causation (i.e. proximate, ultimate). My perspective on this topic (& that of Origins) does not violate the principle of causation. That being... the cause of all subsequent causes must itself be uncaused. That meaning... there must be a cause which is the cause of all subsequent causes but is not itself caused (an eternal entity) by some other cause... otherwise the chain keeps going back (i.e. traversing through eternity – illogical??... as there cannot be an infinite regress of causation). This principle of causation trouble Einstein due to the following...

    The common evolutionary perspective is that there was some form of a Big Bang. Just to prove I’m not making this up, one of the greatest scientific minds on the planet – Professor Stephen J. Hawking (wrote the number 1 scientific book of all time – "A Brief History Of Time") said that almost everyone believes that the universe, in fact time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang. Here is something interesting... if you have a beginning, by definition you must have a beginner (this troubled Einstein). Einstein tried to find ways round it but Edwin Hubble confirmed he was on the right track... that being... there looks to be a beginning. But who or what was the “beginner”? Thus the evolutionary (materialist) perspective on this (confirmed by Dr Dawkins) is that... this grand, glorious, enormous universe came out of nothing that we know... for nothing that we know... by nothing that we know... because of nothing that we know. I just don’t have enough faith to believe in this “hypothesis”. To believe life can come from non-life is a medieval concept... & shouldn’t be used as the basis of their premise by intelligent researchers in fields such as this. I subsequently believe that evolution has actually hindered research."


    Yes, I have heard this so many times before has part of the reasoning behind evolution. I agree we do share a large percentage of genome similarities... but what does this prove. Think about it for a minute... even if it is as high as 98% (figure in question)... that 2% difference in relation to the massive volume of genetic material is substantial i.e. millions of base pairs equivalent to millions of words/information. But putting this aside... look at the apparent differences this mere 2% has on the form & function of the two (or few) subject matters (i.e. primates & Homo Sapiens). I don’t know about you, but when I look in the mirror in the morning I see a trim, taunt handsome individual :D which is by far different than that of a chimpanzee (at least I like to think so). When I see people walking down the street towards me I think I can pick out which is a human & which is a chimp that has escaped from the zoo. When I see runners... (see post # 422)... I think everyone gets the picture.

    Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). For want of a better analogy; think of the Brooks Beast as opposed to the Brooks Glycerin. They both have characteristics (gimmicks if you prefer) of biomogo, DRB accel, HPR plus, POD tec & many other (the Glycerin even has this thing called DNA now :eek:) similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different shoes have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer (maker)! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

    To follow your logic here, even mice have 70% to 90& of their gene structure in common with humans. From memory I think the banana looks pretty good also!

    [​IMG]

    You are lead to believe that there is “an overwhelming number of facts” but it is not so. The ironic thing I find between the barefoot standpoint & that of the evolution standpoint is that they both use similar tactics to substantiate their message/faith... that of misrepresentation & twisting of the facts (either intentionally or unintentionally) as a result of biased presuppositions when analysing the subject matter (I have already provided evidence of this). I have read plenty on this topic zimmy without delving into the above cited book (thank you anyway).


    If you knew much about this topic &/or have an interest in this area you would realize why this is & has been very hard to do. To the point where there has even been a documentary made about it. As I have already said in my first post on this thread, there has been discrimination present – particularly in academia circles. Here are but a few examples:

    - Dr Robert Gentry:
    Robert Gentry (nuclear physicist) became the acknowledged expert on radiohalos, & published papers in a number of leading scientific journals, including Science, Nature, & Journal of Geophysical Research. However, when his creationist views became known, his contract with Oak Ridge National Laboratories was cancelled.

    - Dr Guillermo Gonzalez:
    Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure & promotion to associate professor by Iowa State University, despite apparently easily meeting their criteria. The university's stated criteria for promotion to associate professor says that "For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required & would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals". Gonzalez exceeded this by 350%, with 68 such papers, including papers that had surprisingly high numbers of citations.
    However, Dr Gonzales co-authored a book in 2004 which revealed his support for intelligent design, and two of his colleagues have admitted that his views on intelligent design were a factor in denying Gonzalez tenure.

    - David Bolhuis:
    David Bolhuis, a teacher from Hudsonville, Michigan was told that the Michigan Science Teachers' Association had unanimously selected him as the High School Teacher of the Year. However, the American Civil Liberties Union protested, as Bolhuis had been "teaching about" both creation & evolution. Subsequent media pressure resulted in the decision to not give Bolhuis the award. (I wish I had him as a science teacher).

    - Dr John Ashton:
    The April 2007 issue of Chemistry in Australia included an article titled "creationist’s view of the intelligent design debate", written by Dr John Ashton, chemist and Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI), publishers of the journal.
    The outcry against the article by evolutionists, which included effectively calling Dr Ashton a liar, sweepings dismissals of creationism, but little if anything in the way of actual rebuttal, resulted in the RACI removing mention of the article from their web-site.

    - Letters to the editor of Science:
    After failing to get a letter published in the journal Science, Dr Russell Humphreys wrote to the letters editor asking if the journal had a policy of suppressing creationist letters. She replied that "It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism". This was despite the journal's policy of publishing letters to include "the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view".

    There are many others zimmy that you naturally would not hear about... because you are not meant to hear about it. I personally know of PhD research scientists who keep their creation views to themselves for fear of discrimination.

    Due to the length of this already long post & the sanity of the reader: I have already provided reasons & evidence as to why I believe that the second sentence in the above quote is a fallacy (i.e. see post # 411). How about you provide some evidence to substantiate your views regarding the first sentence of the above quote.

    Here where the problem lays zimmy... biased presuppositions when analysing the subject matter of barefoot running. I’ve said it, others have said it... you do not need to use the evolution paradigm to study & understand this topic. Unless one is in need to pad up the shaky barefoot perspective with a commonly unquestioned (yet ambiguous) hypothesis (evolution). The way I see it... two shaky hypotheses do not make a stable & balanced viewpoint.

    Correct! “Prediction”... here lies the problem.

    On the contrary... You heavily relying on the relevance of evolution on this topic are beyond me. Look & study the evidence that lies before you, at & in the present time... not on the historical guess work of others interpretation of the 'evidence'. Follow where the evidence takes you zimmy.
     
  8. zimmy

    zimmy Member

    Since the environment which we have created for ourself in many ways is very different from our past environment in which we evolved, I would think that the current rate of human evolution in general is quite high. The tendency to become obese in our present environmental conditions, for example, seems seem to be heritable. Obesity also reduces fertility in woman. So this may create evolutionary changes (a reduction of the frequency of genes predisposing for obesity).

    At the same time, as I said earlier, we may be loosing some of our ability to run because the selective pressure favouring this trait may no longer be present. Selection for other traits which are genetically correlated with running ability (as a result of pleiotropic gene action and trade-offs) may thus create indirect selection against running ability.

    However, as long as running is not directly correlated with fitness (in the evolutionary sense) there should not be any evolutionary response to any changes in surfaces on which we run. Two or three generations of recreational running is also far too short for any significant evolutionary response to occur. So you might say that shoes perhaps fill in the gap instead. But you could equally well turn the argument on it's head and argue that shoes in fact constitute a further environmental change. As far as I know there is no hard scientific evidence supporting either point of view.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2010
  9. Tipsytoes

    Tipsytoes Member

    slogging through the last few pages, my spinning brain has become convinced of two things: :wacko:

    1. Ben-Hur and Zimmy are the same person

    2. Someone has confused Lamarckism and natural selection.
     
  10. Just popped in to stir the pot
    :good:

    And also LMAO.

    This, and craig Ts comments, are the crux of the evolutionationary type argument for me. We DID evolve barefoot. However we evolved with this along with a huge cluster of other factors not least much superior physical fittness and non uniform terrain.

    There was a documentary a while back which put a group of westerners in a tribe of very primitive folk to live as they did. Needless to say they failed horribly because their bodies were so adapted to western culture. Couldn't eat the food. Couldn't take the climate. Couldn't keep up with the physical demands. Doubtless they would have adapted in time but not by just adopting one element of the tribal culture!

    If we take the primal thing to its logical conclusion...

    http://barebackrunning.blogspot.com/

    The truth is we cannot expect our bodies to perform as our ancestors bodies did when all the circumstances, apart from taking our shoes, off remain the same.
     
  11. Ian Drakard

    Ian Drakard Active Member

  12. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    1. Allow me to assure you that BEN-HUR & zimmy are not the same person. However, I do realize that this is nearly as hard to prove on this type of medium as it is for an adequate radiometric test of some mysterious bone found in an open system.

    2. Allow zimmy to answer this.

    Actually, out of curiosity, I would like to know zimmy's background i.e. profession, runner or not, reasons for contributing. I respect & value his contribution... I just don't agree with the basis of his standpoint.

    Kind regards,
    Matt.
     
  13. zimmy

    zimmy Member

    Well, I think Tipsytoes would have to clarify what he means by the statement "someone is confusing lamarckism and natural selection".

    My research is mostly statistical/mathematical modelling in evolutionary biology and ecology. I have an h-index of 14. I have no background in medicine/biomechanics. Despite spending most of my working hours in front of the computer and not living in a cave I have successfully done some barefoot/minimalist running. I'm doing it mostly out of curiosity and because it feels great.
     
  14. Patient: elite runner, long standing medial longitudinal arch pain 12 months plus- had some cowboys in there and is a "therapist" in her spare time (you know the score :bang:) first saw me a couple of months ago, arch pain almost gone now. Back to light training, "softly, softly catchy monkey", last words out of my mouth. Reads "the book" decides to run barefoot on a beach- now calf strain............:bash: D'ya know, some people just want to **** their bodies up, end of.:bang::bang::bang:
     
  15. spikeysam71

    spikeysam71 Guest

    I just have a question for all of you. Why are you so stubborn about the topic? I feel like no matter what you don't even think through that barefoot running has some validity and just immediately shoot it down.
     
  16. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    :welcome:
    Who is being stubborn? Can you show us where?

    I do not see anyone here shooting down barefoot running and claiming it has no validity.

    All I am shooting down is the misrepresentation, misquoting, misunderstanding and misuse of the research by the evangelists from the Church of Barefoot Running. I have nothing against barefoot running (how many times have I said that?).

    I have asked several barefoot runners in this thread, and none have come back to reply, can you show us ONE (just one) piece of research that actually shows barefoot running is better than shod running?

    I keep seeing all these claims about the science that underpins barefoot running and when you look at what that 'science' is, none of it was valid, none of it actually showed what was claimed --- that is all that most of us are shooting down. Its the nonsensical mumbo jumbo that barefoot runners are using to justify what they are doing that has no validity (eg see the nonsense above about evolution - what has that got to do with it? Just because someone has a negative view of barefoot running, how does that make them an evolution denier?) .
     
  17. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    We have discussed a lot of this earlier in this thread in more detail, but I will go over some of it again...
    To expand on and explain that. Take the Liebermann research that was published in Nature. Pretty much every barefoot running website and the wider media interpreted that research as supporting barefoot running and that barefoot running was better and that there were less injuires in barefoot runners etc. But, there is nothing in the research that showed that!

    Liebermann himself had to put this statement on his website to distance himself from the way the research was being used:
    All Leiberman showed was that there is a difference between barefoot running and shod running! Thats all, but look how his research has been interpreted! I have seen numerous claims that he proved barefoot running was better? How can anyone reach that conclusion?

    Even then, I see his methods have been totally dismissed by a number of biomechanists (we discussed this earlier in this thread) so the validity of the differences may not be even valid. For eg:
    - several groups were eliminated from the analysis!
    - there was a big difference in age between the two groups compared!
    - there was only 8 subjects in each group!

    Who is being stubborn if they continue to use Liebermann's research to claim that barefoot running is better? It may or may not be better, but you can not make that claim based on that research. That all we a shooting down is this kind of interpretation and misrepresentation
     
  18. spikeysam71

    spikeysam71 Guest

    Well really no other research exists at this time so I geuss well have to wait. But still even when you see a study you find everything to nit pick at it and say o thats wrong. I could see people doing that to some extend of course because you want to know if its valid or not but can't you just stand back for a second and say you know what maybe this could lead to something.
     
  19. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    You are right, so why do the barefoot running community continually point to the "science" that they claim shows barefoot running is better?
    You might call it nit picking, we call it critical appraisal. It is the responsibility of every professional to critically appraise research to determine the strength or weight we should be giving to the conclusions.

    For the Liebermann study, all they concluded was barefoot was different to shod. There were some methodological issues (eg the age group differences; the sample size) that weaken the strength that you could give to the conclusions, but it does not necessarily invalidate them (though some biomechanists think some of the flaws in it do invalidate the conclusions). Yet despite this, how often have you seen it claimed that this study showed barefoot running is better (it was not about that) and that you get less injuries running barefoot (it was not even a study on injuries!).

    For the Kerrigan et al study, the critical apprasial totally invalidates the claims made, yet how many barefoot running websites made claims that running shoes cause osteoarthritis based on this research? (when it wasn't even a study in osteoarthritis!, let alone the study's validity).

    I am not just singling out the barefoot running claims. For example, how would you feel if a doctor used shock wave therapy on a mortons neuroma you get based on the conclusion to this study?
    You may be right, but if the barefoot running community want to be taken seriously they have to stop the nonsense nonscientific unsupported claims and stop pretending that the research is showing something that its not.
     
  20. spikeysam71

    spikeysam71 Guest

    That all makes sense. In your eyes if you had to design a about barefoot running what would it be and how would you do it?
     
  21. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    GOOD QUESTION and I been giving a lot of recent thought to this.

    Lab based research (eg Liebermann, Kerrigan) will only ever be able to describe the differences and nothing more. You can extrapolate and theorize from these types of study designs, but you can only really prove where the differences are.

    Case-control type studies will not have enough validity to carry much weight. In these types of studies you take a group of barefoot runners and a group of shod runners and look at their historical injury rate (less valid) or follow them prospectively over time and compare injury rates. There are two reasons that this type of design would be problematic:

    1. Barefoot runners are a self selected group of people. For example, if someone starts out barefoot running and get an injury, they probably go back to running in shoes. So what is left in the cohort of barefoot runners is a group of people who will get naturally get fewer injuries. For this type of design you would have to include those who started out barefoot and then got an injury and went back to running shoes as an injury in the barefoot group --- very difficult methodology to control for this

    2. I stand to be corrected on this, but I get the impression that in general barefoot runners run less distances than shod runners. Any injury rate differences found in this study design could be a function of distance run and not the barefoot vs. shod.

    The only real way would be a prospective randomised controlled trial. In this design, you would recruit a group of shod runners (probably need >100 of them). You would then randomly assign them to either transitioning to barefoot or continue with shod running. You would need a transitioning protocol that the barefoot community would find acceptable. After that transition has happened, you then need a protocol in place to keep running distances between the two group (and probably some other parameters as well) the same between them. You then follow them over time (probably 6-12 months) and compare injury rates (with an acceptable definition of what an ‘injury’ is). Anyone who gets an injury during the transition to barefoot running and cannot continue and has to withdraw from the study because of this would be counted as an injury in the barefoot group (this is standard randomised control trial methodology, known as ‘intention to treat’ – see this Nike Free vs. conventional shoe for plantar fasciitis where they got the wrong conclusion because they did not use this intention to treat principle).

    The whole purpose of the randomisation is that the two groups of runners should be equal on age, bodyweight, height, years of experience, mileage run, injury history etc etc, so that the only differences betweem them would be the barefoot running. The problem with the case control type design mentioned above would be the dificulty in getting two groups that matched on all these.
     
  22. spikeysam71

    spikeysam71 Guest

    Thanks that was quite the explanation. I'm a student researcher in high school interested in all sports related stuff like this involving the foot/leg so I figure I'll stick around hear and learn some more. This is slightly off topic but what would be the best way (on this forum) to go about finding some in Los Angeles, CA who is doing some interesting research
     
  23. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Thank you for answering my query zimmy. Enjoy your running.

    Welcome spikeysam. My guess is that you didn't thoroughly read through all of this thread at this point (I understand it is long). You probably found this site via a Google search &/or heard about it within the 'barefoot community'. The fact that the thread is titled "Barefoot Running Debate" coupled with the fact that it is on a Podiatry based website probably evoked a preconceived notion... that we are negative towards the validity of barefoot running. I hope Craig's comments have put your concerns to rest... they are sincere & a true representation of this thread on the whole.

    On the contrary, I feel the barefoot community are quite stubborn on this topic on a few accounts. One of which, is that they like to think that the Podiatry profession (on the whole) are against barefoot running... we are not. We are in the business of helping the community with lower limb related problems... we subsequently have to analyse/critique any activity that impacts on the lower limb... barefoot running certainly fits into this category. We need to weigh up the pros & cons & provide educated answers to the public so they themselves can make a educated decision on the choice to involve some degree of barefoot running into their program or not. If we did not do this we would have neglected our duty of care & have a lot more people walking/hobbling through our doors. We would no doubt be then criticized for not addressing this topic... in some areas it is a case of damned if you do & damned if you don't.

    I came to this discussion late myself but did decide it best to slog through 400 odd posts before I contributed. I am a Podiatrist who is also a distance runner. I primarily run in the Nike Free 3.0 & have reached up to 185 km/week in this shoe. I only state this because it at least shows I have experience in running... & running in what most would consider minimalist footwear... running at what most would consider a large volume of distance. I also have a pair of Vibram FiveFingers (albeit somewhat modified - see post 417).

    I subsequently believe that barefoot running does have a place in various degrees for some people. This is where it gets complicated due to the variability of the many aspects of the subject (i.e. adaptation from shoes to no shoes, many individual biomechanical traits, strength, fitness etc...).

    I subsequently also believe that footwear design could be a lot better in providing a more conducive function in aiding the foot so it can function as it was designed to do i.e. not inhibiting its naturally intended function & contributing to potentially adverse gait patterns which may potentially contribute to adverse forces directed to the lower limb which could lead to injury.

    My involvement in this thread has come from a different direction than others. That has been the questioning of the use of evolution in this topic/research & subsequently the validity of evolution. I believe that if one is to use a premise that is incorrect then at some point, to some degree the outcome or understanding is going to be incorrect or incomplete. I have to go where the evidence leads... thus...
    ... all the best in the understanding/research into this topic.

    Maybe our next direction is to discuss running footwear characteristics which are not conducive for running & subsequently characteristics which could be conducive & worth considering in the designs of future running footwear. Despite what some members of the barefoot brigade believe... footwear is needed in cases where the environment requires/demands protection of the feet.

    A while ago (on another forum) I toyed with the following...

    [​IMG]
     
  24. Great posting, Craig.:good:

    I believe that this barefoot running "revolution" is nothing more than a passing fad that will likely bring the modern running shoe back away from thicker-soled shoes to thinner-soled, lighter shoe......at least for a short while. The "pendulum of running shoe design" will swing away from thicker soled-heavier shoes to thinner soled-lighter shoes for a while, and then likely swing back again in 2-3 years once runners start getting more injuries in these "minimalist shoes" that Chris McDougall advocated in his book, "Born to Run".

    In the times I ran barefoot while I was a college distance athlete, I found it to be a great experience to be able to discard my shoes to do some of my running. So I can certainly see why some runners are so infatuated with barefoot running. However, I only ran barefoot on a grassy field and never attempted it on any other surface, since I was running 70-85 miles a week and racing once a week with very few injuries. Barefoot running is a great supplement for runners who are doing heavy training mileage, but for beginning and occasional runners, I don't recommend it.

    Unfortunately, now with the internet, any individual with half a brain can start a blog or open up a website devoted to barefoot running, can misquote and misinterpret the research and can do just what Chris McDougall did in his book: promote barefoot running without objectively analyzing the scientific literature on running biomechanics and without looking fully at the history of the international running community.

    In addition, I am very sceptical of individuals such as Chris McDougall who are cashing in on this "barefoot running revolution" by being sponsored by companies such as Vibram that make "minimalist shoes" that McDougall advocates in his lecture tours. Seems somewhat disingenuous for McDougall to complain so much about Nike in his book but then choose Nike shoes to run his 50 mile race in that he describes in his book. Why didn't he choose Adidas, New Balance, Saucony, Puma, Asics, or Mizuno??? Very interesting.

    Finally, wearing shoes no longer makes the runner "barefoot". Barefoot running only occurs when without shoes. "Minimalist shoes" are not "barefoot shoes"....they are shoes. Racing flats that are as thin and even lighter than the Vibram FiveFinger have been available for runners to run in for the past 40 years so my question is....what is all the big fuss about these "minimalist shoes"??!! "Minimalist shoes" are simply a reintroduction of an old idea that has been around for the past four decades. For those of us who have been students of the running shoe industry since before the time of the "personal computer", all of these events are almost comical in nature.....but they certainly do make things more entertaining for all of us in the running shoe discussion forums.
     
  25. I had a barefoot experience recently. On holiday a couple of weeks ago I got rather badly sunburned on the tops of my feet (which I know makes me Stoopid). For 3 days I could not put shoes or socks on so I was, of necessity, forced into "primal walking" for most of the time. I thought it was an oppertunity for some investigative podiatry.

    The score for 3 days was:-

    Cracked my anterior PMA into the edge of a patio impacting the tips of the metatarsals and forcibly hyperextending the toes - Buising and capsulitis which is still not 100% settled.

    Trod on a shell in the beach car park - Minor laceration in my MLA

    Any number of "stone bruises" - painful for a short while.

    My youngest (2) tried to play the game where he stands on my feet and I walk him around. He was wearing wellies with a very rough abrasive sole. The only thing covering the dorsum of my feet were blisters - Girly scream of agony which terrified the poor child and caused the neighbor to come around because he thought Eleanor (3) had been stung by something.

    So my conclusion from this statistically insignificant sample is that day to day barefoot living hurts quite a bit but is OK so long as you have time to heal afterwards.
     
  26. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

  27. stickleyc

    stickleyc Active Member

    Good thoughts Craig. I have been given this a bit of thought as well as I've followed this thread. Most of the research I do is in injury risk modeling (though nothing related to barefoot running).

    Though retrospective injury modeling is problematic, it seems the history of research for any given injury/set of risk factors is to initially conduct a study with injury history relative to a battery or tests/measurements/etc. Then eventually someone takes the time and effort to track a cohort through a prospective model. At this point, some decently designed studies on this topic using retrospective injury modeling would be a step in the right direction (though this would provide little or no incite into the mechanistic causes if there was a significant difference found). At this point though, I think the bigger problem with trying to do a retrospective study on this topic would be finding enough people with a long enough history of barefoot only (or predominantly) running.

    I have wondered this myself and would agree that my general impression is that in a large sample, the mean mileage would be significantly less in the barefoot group...but again, I would welcome some data clarifying this.

    Assuming we are right though, depending on how great the difference is between barefoot and shod, I believe this could still be effectively dealt with using a Hazard Ratio.

    One of the major roadblocks I've foreseen in doing this type of research is addressing the injury incidence. It is easy to define an acceptable operational definition of injury but how do you deal with the fact that there will be foot injuries (and within that group there will be stress fx and plantar fasciitis and any number of other shades of different injuries) and shank injuries (and is that ERLLP actually tibial stress fx or MTSS or CECS, etc.) and knee injuries...you get the point.

    If you are simply going to say "any injury to the lower extremity" then you've effectively removed your ability to isolate the variable of interest - shod/barefoot - since the number of different gait characteristics that will influence each of these injuries is endless.

    If you are going to differentiate injuries, then the numbers of subjects you have to enroll in order to have a good chance of ending up with enough of each of these injuries to ensure statistical power starts to become prohibitive.

    But, like I said, pretty much any area of injury risk modeling starts with studies that are far from ideal but help build the case for what the risk factors are.

    As a side note, one of the Ortho's we work with recently jumped on the barefoot bandwagon and told me he was interested in us doing some barefoot research. Knowing that he was asking from the point of view of hoping to prove that barefoot running would be the cure-all for all of the running world's ailments, I politely said "we're busy doing other things right now."
     
  28. Just an observation: I got home from work and put on a pair of Saucony triumph that I've had for a while. It's hot, I'm wearing shorts so didn't put on any socks, the heel stiffener is rubbing my achilles like its' going out of fashion. I noticed it tonight because I didn't have socks on, but how long has that heel stiffener been pressing on my achilles? Since I was given the shoes? Has it had a positive or negative influence on my Achilles?

    In terms of prospective studies, I'd use Mz twins to minimise variability. Measure heritability at start for given variables; split twin pairs into barefoot and shod training programmes, then measure heritability of variables at end. Viz., change in heritability is due to differences in environment over the course of the study.
     
  29. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    Thank for the feedback.

    I would still have problems with these kinds of designs for barefoot running due to the self selcted nature of barefoot running. That type of design would not include those who attempted to transistion to barefoot running and got an injury and went back to running shoes (and there are a lot of them as I have had emails from several since this thread started!).

    As an aside, here is a question for the barefoot runners: Why do you tout the achievements of Zola Budd competing at the Olympics barefoot, but fail to mention that she had to eventually resort to using running shoes due to all the injuires she started getting?
     
  30. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    I had not seen that, but I am not surprised. I also came across this comment in a news report:
    From: http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=124193&catid=2

    I do not where people get this kind of nonsense from. They making these claims up as there is absolutely nothing to support it.

    I would have thought that good running form is the most economical running form. If energy consumption goes up, then that has to be a sign of inefficiency --- i.e. the muscles are having to work harder --> you can't run as fast and as far and risk for injury goes up.

    I think it was Cavanagh's work from the 80's that showed the most economical running form was what people did naturally. Any attempt to consciously change running patterns resulted in increased energy needs --> i.e. it was inefficient.

    Based on that I not surprised that the Pose technique increased energy needs, as it is a conscious change to running form. (interesting I see that the biomechanics that Romanov based his technique on has now been shown that he misunderstood the research that he used!)

    And we also have Hamil's unpublished work (I must ask him where that is at) that showed heel strike running was more economical than midfoot or forefoot.

    At the end of the day, I do not believe for one minute that any one particular way of running is better than another (whether that be heel strike, Chi running, Pose running, Barefoot running, or whatever an evangelist is touting) - each runner will have a running form that will be better for them and more often than not, that is probably going to be the way they currently run naturally.

    That is why the comment above:
    is so idiotic.
     
  31. Guddi

    Guddi Welcome New Poster

  32. Paulo Silva

    Paulo Silva Active Member

    Merrell & Vibram Introduce Merrell Barefoot for 2011

    Full Story
     
  33. CamWhite

    CamWhite Active Member

    My money's riding on a Skechers barefoot shoe. They've done a good job of knocking off everything else;)
     
  34. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    I like to think I have read absolutly every piece of research on barefoot running and on forefoot vs rearfoot strike; Pose running; Chi running etc ..... I can not help but think I am either missing something or someone has got it wrong. I just read this an a barefoot running website:
    Could someone (anyone?) please tell me what this is about? I read these sorts of statements regularly, but in all my reading, I have yet to find ONE study that has actually shown that. What research am I missing?
     
  35. It's just like politicians, Craig....they just make it up out of thin air to serve their agenda!:cool::eek:
     
  36. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    I genuinly would like to know what research that they think or believe to show what is being claimed.
     
  37. Kelly Cox

    Kelly Cox Welcome New Poster

    I'm coming in quite late to this debate--I only joined the forum to post about laser treatment of toenail fungus, but I couldn't resist adding a bit to this thread.

    I admit I haven't read all 16 pages of this thread, but I'll tack on my experience, fully admitting that it is nothing but anecdotal.

    I'm 48, and I've been a runner since junior high school. But I also have had plantar fasciitis 5 times, beginning at age 23. That time, it lasted two years. The last case I had was 5 years ago, and lasted 3 months.

    Every podiatrist I saw about PF insisted that I needed more arch support, so I wore orthotics in all of my shoes, including running shoes, but I still kept getting injured anytime I got up to where I was doing much over 30 miles/week (not much at all, for real distance runners).

    I began running almost exclusively barefoot 5 1/2 years ago. I got one more case of PF when I was coaching freshman volleyball (lots of jumping to block my athletes, in shoes, on a hardwood floor). I started back running barefoot even before that case of PF was through, and the PF went away within a few weeks.

    I'm not a lightweight guy, at 6'1" and over 200 lbs, but I can go and run barefoot for as long as I want to (longest BF run so far has been 11 miles) and I have had no arch pain whatsoever for years.

    It works for me. I haven't tried to convince any of my athletes to run barefoot, nor my fellow hash house harrier runners. Of course, in the winter I have to put something on my feet, but I prefer SealSkinz waterproof socks, with smartwool socks underneath in really cold weather.

    I do think a great many people will go and get injured if they jump on this "bandwagon", especially if they think that running in Vibrams is the same as running barefoot.

    I just wanted to share my experience. Thanks for reading!

    Kelly Cox
    Madison, WI
     
  38. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Thanks for sharing your experience Kelly.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page