Barefoot Science

Kind of destroys a big chunk of their argument!

Cheers,

Brad

 

RBurke,
You've probably figured out that this group is pretty set in their way. I've tried to use experience, common sense, logic and thought on this forum and got no where. I'm sure you've figured that out by the recent exchange of posts you've had on this thread. Don't worry about the immature exchange of posts, it happens all of the time here.

Questioning the use of orthotics to the members of this forum and suggesting alternative approaches had me laughing out loud. With that kind of thinking, you are not about to get a warm reception from the people here.

I haven't read enough studies to understand why it is a good idea to wear big, heavy shoes stuffed with orthotics so I can't comment.

I have watched the athletic shoe industry evolve over the past 40 years. Currently, it is heading towards a path that contradicts the big, heavy shoe concept. The clients of the people on this forum will be wearing shoes that contradict the big, heavy shoe concept. Ignoring change does not mean it won't happen. It just means that those doing the ignoring have their head in the sand.

I am going to sit back and watch the show. Will the thought processes demonstrated on this forum become archaic and the people supporting them become dinosaurs? Time will tell.

You don't need to convince anyone here what you believe is right. For that matter, I'm sure you won't be able to, just follow your own ideas.

Dana,

who has been asked to mention at the end of my posts that I'm not a podiatrist and have no medical training. I guess that is in case you can't figure that out on your own.

 

Dana - can you not see that RBurke made some unsupported claims that are contradictory to the research evidence and then has totally failed to answer any of the questions put to them. RBurke has totally misrepresented the evidence and failed to respond when challenged on that.

Have you not noticed that they went away when a fundamental flaw was pointed out in their argument?

The product being talked about may or may not be any good, and I have no desire to find out. Given the nonsensical marketing claims and misrepresentation of the research, my 'snake oil' detector goes off. If it was promoted without that nonsense, I might be motivated to look closer at it.

BTW, this thread has nothing to do with "barefoot running". The thread is about a foot orthotics based on what the marketroids called "barefoot science"

We are not picking on "barefoot". We pick on anyone from any background who makes unsupported claims and claims that are contradictory to the evidence. See some of the threads about Podiatrists like Brian Rothbart, Ed Glaser and Denis Shavelson. They have been beaten up on also because of the nature of the claims that they make.

 

DaVinci, do we really know why they went away?

I know this thread has nothing to do with "barefoot running". I also know you are not picking on barefoot. I picked up on the defense of the church of podiatry and couldn't resist. BTW, just to make sure your assumption is correct about me, in addition to not being a podiatrist, I am not a barefoot runner.

I have seen how claims are supported, it wouldn't take much to improve on that process. Conducting studies that may or may not have some level of bias to support a claim leaves a lot to be desired. As well as grasping for studies that may only remotely and secondarily be related to support a claim is also pretty weak. Not having a supporting study does not mean reality doesn't exist either. It is laughable that you rely so heavily on studies performed in a controlled environment to separate what is real from what might be contrived. The problem is that a controlled environment is contrived.

Dana

 

Welcome Dana to this thread... given up on the “Barefoot Running Debate” thread have we? I must say I haven’t visited the thread lately due to the same old stuff being rehashed & repeated over & over again as a result of some who don’t want to leave their biases ‘at the door’ & take into consideration what has been said many times before.

Are we?... another piece generalization from a non-podiatrist again? Could you please provide examples next time? Thank you.

Ummm, your perception is rather subjective isn’t it? Maybe others didn’t quite see it that way. Maybe others here feel they too have used (as you stated) “experience, common sense, logic and thought” & have felt they got nowhere.

“Immature exchange of posts”... like which ones? This comment has been the only immature piece I’ve seen here so far. Can you please provide examples of the immature posts? It should be easy for you to do – you just need to press the “quote” button below the post in question then state why it was “immature”. Thank you.

That is probably because you have failed to invest the time into understanding why orthotics is most definitely beneficial for some people/runners. Why orthotics are effective in reducing the adverse forces directed to an individual’s body region which is the primary cause behind that individual meeting their injury threshold too soon. There are of course alternative approaches to orthotic use for some injuries when orthotics are not going to address the primary cause for an individual. It is just orthotic therapy happens to be very effective in addressing a large percentage of the primary causes behind the multifactorial nature of running injuries. Other alternative solutions may be changing footwear, minor changes to running technique, stretches, strengthening exercises (i.e. plyometrics) etc...

I gave rburke a warm reception here. But in case you haven’t noticed yet, this is an evidence based forum. If something is said that has not yet been substantiated to some degree then questions will be asked. Is this not fair? Just because you or someone else finds it hard to substantiate your views with evidence doesn’t mean you should question the integrity of the forum members (or Podiatrists). I have asked rburke to provide evidence to the claims he has made. It really should be a simple task to complete... if he has the evidence. He has not done so! To receive the courtesy of a response would be nice – would it not?!

It would seem civility is only expressed in one direction with some people of a certain persuasion.

I view this as another immature generalised comment. I don’t believe in “big, heavy shoes” (see this post) but I certainly do believe in orthotics when used in the appropriate way (for reasons stated above).

I too believe that the “big, heavy shoe concept” isn’t appropriate – I have already stated this in this thread (here). However, I don’t feel others here (at least not the majority) are ignoring the change as you state. It is just it appears you only want to believe what you want to believe Dana, due to you own biases... thus your head could be termed “in the sand” on this issue.

Time should have already told you by now Dana – you just need to put aside your biases, open up your field of vision and grasp the diverse implications & expanse of the topic.

Well I’m a Podiatrist, a runner... & a runner who trains up to 180km/week in minimalist shoes (Nike Free 3.0), some of which are in modified Vibram FiveFingers.

I think I do – they didn’t have the answers... & weren’t willing to admit it.

Hmmm... I see.

Hmmm... you might get something from this catchy tune Dana...


All the best in your running & future reading/understanding on this topic.
Kind regards,
Matt.

 

Matt, thanks for welcoming me to this thread, until now, I wasn't sure if I could post to more than one thread or not. Glad we cleared that up.

You ask for an example of an immature exchange of posts. Reread posts 24, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36 and 38 of this thread. Look also at posts 648, 651, 653, 669, 671, 674, 676, 682, 692 in the Barefoot Running Debate thread. You can call those posts whatever you want, I know what I would call them. From those examples, I certainly understand your comment about old stuff being rehashed and restated over and over again. These are just two examples, would you like more? There are dozens and dozens of them on this forum.

It is possible that people go away because they are forced to prove their statements which they have no proof. I would also assume that people go away because they realize they are wasting their time. They figure out that they are trying to convince a group of people with a belief system that is based on their own interpretation of studies that they consider proof and nothing is going to change that belief system.

You said you gave rburke a warm reception. You said "Welcome to Podiatry Arena rburke. I hope you stay around long enough to answer some of the valid questioning of your views as well as substantiate them with credible references - it will only give your position & intentions credibility." There is probably a better adjective than warm to describe that quote.

You say this is an "evidenced based forum" yet when one of your Holy Elders stated "I will not recommend the Vibram FiveFinger shoe to runners since it does cause more metatarsal stress fractures to runners" I questioned the validity and credibility of this statement and got no response. What I found interesting is that none of the followers on this forum questioned this unsubstantiated statement. If it didn't come from one of your Holy Elders, I'd be willing to bet people would have been all over a comment like that. I can only conclude that the forum is evidenced based sometimes.

Matt, it is not about what I believe or what my biases are. I am simply genuinely interested in the thought trends with respect to running. When the barefoot and minimalist shoe trend started to gain popularity, I spent a lot of time reading about it primarily out of curiosity. It was only a matter of time before I stumbled on the Podiatry Arena and started reading what the opinions of this forum where with respect to this trend.

On this arena I read over and over about the unsubstantiated claims of the barefoot proponents. OK, no problem there, I get it. Then I started reading unsubstantiated claims from the very members of this forum about Vibram Five Fingers. I also started to read condescending comments such as the "church of barefoot". I had to laugh, some of the members of this forum where just as guilty about making unsubstantiated claims as those they where accusing.

I found what seemed to be total ignorance by people who claim to be medical professionals so outrageous that I went out and bought a pair of VFF the 3rd week in June. I had to see for myself what all the emotion and stink was about. After wearing them, I confirmed to myself that certain vocal members of this forum really had some strong opinions yet they had nothing to stand on. In spite of many having strong unsubstantiated opinions about shoes like VFF, they didn't even have experience to draw from.

Now that I have gained first hand experience with shoes like VFF, I have since began to wonder if the notion of supportive shoes that have room to hold orthotics that may also have motion control devices built into them really the best way to go? Physics tells me that to have what I just described, you can add heavy into the description. I can't help but wonder about the reaction many on this forum have to new shoes and products that hit the market. Are these people trying to protect something?

I have been asked what my agenda is. I in turn would like to ask what the agenda is of the people who have debated with me on this forum. My only agenda has been to point out that there are people here that are as guilty of spewing unsubstantiated bovine excrement as those they ridicule.

I have somewhat of a warped since of humor so when I read many of the posts written here, I have a good laugh. There are many here who think they have it all figured out. By spewing BS back and forth many have convinced each other that they have it all figured out. Sitting on the sidelines and reading this stuff is genuinely entertaining. Because of that, I'm probably not going to be as easy to chase away from this forum as you would hope.

Dana

 

LOL.:drinks Did they make your heart rate rise?

 

Simon, ABSOLUTELY! You are one of my favorite members of this forum! It would be boring without you. Sorry, I can't provide references or substantiate those claims. Keep up the good work. :drinks

Dana

 

rburke came to this thread with a statement that there as plenty of evidence to support what they were claiming. Many barefoot runners have come to the thread on barefoot running with similar statements. They were all asked to produce that evidence. All of them failed to provide it. What has that got to do with belief systems? It has everything to do with misusing, misundertsanding, misinterpreting and misquoting (and in some cases lieing about) the research.

 

Craig, if someone came forward to this group with a claim that contradicted what people think on this forum and produced evidence to support that claim, based on what I have observed, I would expect some combination of the following to happen:

1) Members of this forum would look to discredit how the research was conducted.
2) Members of this forum would look to discredit the author(s) of the research.
3) Members of this forum would look to see how the research was funded and question it's credibility based on the sponsor.

I have no problem with the energy that has been put into discrediting supporting evidence of conflicting beliefs. I do have a problem when the same level of scrutiny is not placed on all evidence, including that in support of opinions and beliefs of this forum.

The problem with these studies that people seem to live by here, is that they are generally using small sample sizes over a small cross section of subjects in a contrived environment over a small time frame. The margin for error is huge, yet these studies are used it to project what is believed to be reality. Common sense tells you these studies are limited.

Never the less, if the study is supportive of the belief system, then is used as gospel and there you go. On the contrary, when someone references a study that supports something inconsistent with what is believed, then it is discounted as not credible. It seems like there are two piles of studies, those that support your beliefs = good, those that do not = bad.

Just today, Kevin referenced a study on another thread. I would love to read that study, it compares subjects wearing 5 different pairs of shoes vs barefoot. The study was conducted on different surfaces when wearing shoes vs not wearing shoes. I haven't had the opportunity to read the study but that seems like a gross flaw in what they are trying to demonstrate. I may be completely wrong on this, I haven't read the study. Why would you try to measure the differences between wearing shoes and not and have the subjects run on different surfaces?

Reality is filled with an infinite combination of possibilities. There will never be a study that addresses everything. Does that mean that if a phenomenon is observed that the phenomenon does not exist until there is research to support it? What I find unfortunate is that when someone comes to this forum who has observed a phenomenon, rather than try to understand what was observed, the person is badgered for supporting evidence. OK, but we all know supporting evidence is limited. Does that mean no one is allowed to report based on experience and observation? I guess not.

I'm not trying to argue whether the beliefs of many on this forum are right or wrong. I'm just surprised at how convinced some of the people here are that they are right.

My whole point being that I see a probability of next to zero that someone from the outside would be able to join this forum and convince the members here of something other than what they already believe. I don't care what proof or evidence they bring with them.

Dana, who is sincerely trying to understand the protocol that drives this forum.

 

I gave a whole lecture at the QLD State Conference last week on dealing with research that conflicts with your beliefs and experiences and the strategies to incorporate rather than ignore it. If the research stacks up to scrutiny, then it has to be incorporated into the practice, no matter which way the research goes. If the research stands up to scrutiny, you can’t ignore it no matter which way it points. I gave egs of how contradictory research can be incorporated and has to be incoporated.

That article posted by Kevin is not one of them and not relevant. The subjects weren't running, they were jumping from a height.

I would think we are equal opportunity here and critically appraise research no matter what it says.
Here is another eg: The barefoot running "church" are happy to dismiss any research done by or funded by the running shoe industry. Based on that why should any research done by barefoot runners or funded by a barefoot company be dismissed as well - they seem to like having it both ways. What is really amusing currently is how the barefoot "church" are going around praising that recent study funded by Nike .... can you explain why they are accepting the results of that Nike funded study when they are happy to dismiss the results of other Nike funded studies purely based on the source of funding. I really don't get it!

Here is another eg: Have a read of this, especially the bit were two barefoot running websites run the headline that "running shoes cause osteoarthritis". No matter what the "world view" view is, they made those claims up. Why did they do that for? (the study they were quoting was not even done on people with osteoarthritis!)

 

Craig, :good: From what I've read, those talking about barefoot running have really taken the wrong approach and have made idiots out of themselves. What is unfortunate is that if their ideas about barefoot running or wearing ultra light shoes have merit, it has been detracted from because of the way it has been presented.

I really don't disagree with people discrediting the barefoot proponents because of their approach. What is unfortunate is that with the desire to discredit the approach, the concept of minimalism that may or may not have merit is also discredited. One of my points has always been that just because a supporting study does not exist, it doesn't mean the idea is without merit.

I can't sit here and whip out studies for or against running with shoes or without. Because I am fortunate enough to see for myself, I certainly have a good idea of what works for me. Yes n=1. It doesn't matter what works for everyone else, it is n=1 that I'm interested in. I have read enough to know what the barefooters have to say. I have read enough to know what many of the podiatrists on this forum have to say. I also have my own brain, a ton of experience and I know what to think about what works for me. That is good enough for me.

In the end, none of this matters, I'm going to do what Dana wants to do. All of my discussion is just my observation of the reaction this forum has had to the barefooters and to shoes like VFF. If you feel the reaction has been appropriate, fine. I know I won't convince anyone differently.

The thing that really bothers me about the site "Barefoot Running is Bad", is that the author remains anonymous. My guess is that whoever owns the site is also a member of this forum because it is all too familiar. Whoever it is, since they are reluctant to put their name behind what they have to say, I'm reluctant to waste my time reading it.

What has been great for me is that if it wasn't for this forum getting so worked up over the barefooters, I probably never would have tried truly minimalist shoes. I was always under the premise that highly cushioned and supportive shoes are good. What I have found based on my own desire to learn and my fortune of being able to open my mind briefly to try minimal shoes is that the premise of cushioned, supportive shoes for the mainstream may actually be wrong or at least wrong for Dana. It will take time for me to tell.

Dana, who is grateful to have a civil discussion with you Craig, thank you.

 

Thanks Dana for your response.

Crikey, they're all Simon's posts :empathy: Nothing like a bit of friendly banter.

Ummm... constructive . Anyway, the welcome was sincere.

Yes, I would question this to some degree as well - & have (last two paragraphs). Wolf's law would address this issue if adequate adaptation is conducted.

I sincerely commend you on your efforts & interest on this topic.

I too brought a pair about 3-4 years ago with the prediction there would likely be a lot of "emotion and stink" regarding them. I believe there can be a place for them in training for some runners (not all). I wouldn't race in them however. I commend you again for the interest invested in the topic.

I have already expressed my view on the validity & importance of orthotics for some people (& in some circumstances). However, I too have questioned the validity/function of 'supportive' shoes. I believe most (probably except very heavy runners who have poor lower limb function) runners do not need them - in fact they may well be contributing to adverse gait/lower limb function.

As far a weight of the shoe is concerned - I believe in training, it is advantages to increase metabolic cost in some sessions (i.e. weighting the lower limb would contribute to this) whilst allowing the lower limb/foot to function uninhibited as possible. However, the objective for racing is to decrease the metabolic cost as much as possible (i.e. decreasing weight, improving lower limb function & muscle efficiency/loading).

You are hardly sitting on the sidelines. Despite this forum appearing to act like a boys club, I certainly have no intentions of chasing you away (& I would like to believe nobody else is either). I welcome your contributions when I get the time to read them.

 

:good: Dana!

 

Craig:

The barefoot versus shoes study I posted recently in the Barefoot Running Debate thread was, indeed, about running, not about jumping from a height (Braunstein B, Arampatzis A, Eysel P, Bruggermann GP: Footwear affects the gearing at the ankle and knee joints during running. J Biomech, 43:2120-2125, 2010.)

There were 14 experienced runners that ran barefoot and in five different types of shoes ( the exact types of shoes were not listed) at a 4.0 m/sec pace (6:42 mile pace) over a force plate while on a tartan track surface (shoe conditions) and a grass surface (barefoot condition) in this study from University of Cologne and University of Berlin, Germany. They used 3D video along with inverse dynamics to determine the moment arm length across the ankle joint axis and knee joint axis for both ground reaction force (GRF) and the quadriceps and gastrocnemius-soleus to come up with a "gear ratio" which was GRF moment arm length/muscle moment arm length.

They found that running barefoot increased the gear ratio at the ankle joint in early support phase but decreased the gear ratio at the knee joint during the middle of support phase. Running in shoes also significantly increased the moment arm length for the ankle plantarflexors during propulsion (speculated due to increased MPJ stiffness with the shoe vs. barefoot) which may have led to reduced shortening velocities for the ankle joint plantarflexors during propulsion. This is the first study I have seen that actually measured moment arm lengths of barefoot vs shod running and may help explain how barefoot running may actually aid some people with some types of chronic knee injuries to run less painfully than while in shoes. In addtion, when combined with Benno Nigg and Darren Stefanyshyn's research on running efficiency with stiff-soled running shoes (remember Benno's prediction of a world record in his shoe for the 2000 Sydney Olympics?) this research may help explain why running in shoes may actually be a faster way to run than running barefoot. Very interesting!!

 

Whoops..sorry, I was thinking about a different study....

 

Dana,

I know I've probably said this before but I find some of your posts presumptuous and bordering on the patronising. You seem to judge the arena community (and by the sounds of it the Podiatry profession) solely based on the posts made here. You know very little about any of us or the theories we subscribe to. Why? Because most of us can keep objective when we critique research and post here. You don't think any of us have even tried a pair of VFF's, despite both myself and Ben-Hur previously telling you that we own a pair (and I'm sure we are not the only 2 Podiatrists who do).

Why is the Podiatry profession so fixated on critical appraisal of research? I don't know. Maybe as there seem to be so many 'get fixed quick' schemes focusing on the lower limb. As Craig has said it is not a barefoot/minimal thing - we are just as critical of our own kind who make unsubstansiated claims regarding foot orthoses, not to mention footwear which promises things which are not yet proven (MBTs, Fit Flops, Shape Ups, Easy tone etc etc).

Finally, I would have thought you had been around long enough to have frequented more than a few online forums Dana. You should therefore realise that there is a certain theme which they all have irrespective of whether they are a forum about Podiatry, Knitting or your favourite NHL team. They all have regular posters. Those posters all have individual personalities. Any relative newcomer posting will always feel like there is a clique or a gang which they are not a part of. No forum will take too kindly to relative newcomers pretending to know more than they do - particularly when it is the bread and butter of the regular posters. Want a classic example? See this post from a Cycling forum. (If you have a spare 30-40 minutes try to read all the posts - there are some rather amusing ones).

My point is: stop making Podiatry Arena out to be a clique of bullies who resist any involvement from non-regulars. You and I both know that is not the case. It's no different to any other forum. Fact. If you are going to stay around (which of course you are more than welcome to and I hope you do) then stop bleating on about it like an old woman and just deal with it.

Ian

 

"He doesn't like you..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YSF5SfqF2o

 

Ian, I've made the implication about the members of the forum not trying VFF's purposely. My expectation was that I would be corrected and in the process find out if anyone on this forum really has tried the shoes. Until Matt and you just surfaced, no one has admitted it. I find that curious because the discussion about barefoot running and minimal shoes has been going on for a long time! I don't know if there are only 2 of you on the whole forum or if there are more. You are sure there are more, with all of the discussion about VFF, I find it amazing that more people haven't come out of the closet and admitted wearing them. Why do you think that is?

Ian, will do. I have more than had my say. It will be all about going forward from here.

Dana

 

I don't know Dana. I cannot speak for anyone else. Personally I didn't feel it necessary to mention in every post I made that I wear them on a weekly basis. Maybe as I know we don't hugely value anecdotal/n=1 evidence. I find them quite comfortable. However I spoke to a colleague who got raging knee pain from using them. Exchanging these sort or personal yarns doesn't really get us anywhere with respect to truely understanding the potential risks/benefits does it?

As I said, I do not need to 'admit' what I do in my own time in order to appropriately critique research - it shouldn't (and doesn't) change the way I view evidence. Something perhaps a portion of the barefoot community could take on board?

 

Ian, I don't know. We had a thread, VFF cause metatarsal stress fractures? It had 155 posts and thousands of hits from people reading it. With the lack of research regarding VFF, did that thread do any better with respect to truely understanding the potential risks/benefits?

The quandary I have is if the research doesn't exist and personal yarns don't get us anywhere, what do we do with respect to drawing conclusions about something like VFF? Speculate? Experience? Ignore?

We know there will be plenty of clients wearing them. What do you tell them? What do you base your opinion on?

Dana

 

I believe the reason for the birth of that thread was the increase in metatarsal stress fractures seen by clinicians since VFFs became more 'main stream'. I personally have seen 6 individuals with metatarsal stress fractures following a transition to VFFs in the calandar year 2010. Does this mean all that use them will develop this pathology? Of course not, but on the arena we often share clinical experiences, and these day to day experiences coupled with the internet forums also quoted may suggest a potential trend. Does this contribute to understanding potential risks? I think it does.

It is a quandry, and one we are all currently in. What conclusions do we draw at present? Well nothing concrete either way in my opinion.

There will be - and I do not lose sleep over people wearing them. It is their choice and they are free to do as they wish. What do I tell my patients who ask me about them?

- I tell them not to believe everything they read about them
- I tell them that the research does not currently inform us as to whether VFFs are evil and injury causing or magical and injury preventing.
- I tell them that I personally wear them (not exclusively) and find them comfortable
- I tell them I will not go on record as recommending they wear them

I base this on what I currently know about VFFs

 

RE-RAIL

As this thread isn't about VFF or barefoot running has anybody here actually tried Barefoot Science insoles?

 

Ian, thank you. An excellent and very helpful post.

Dana

 

G’day.
Firstly let me state that I don’t presume to know more than the more eminent members on this site and cannot offer much in the way of counter argument though I do have a few questions.
I agree with Messer’s Payne, Kirby and Spooner and others that the snake oil salesmen and products on the market need to provide relevant research for their claims. This phenomenon is not limited to orthotic or shoe design sadly and abounds in other professions as well.
Surely you can agree though that there is no silver bullet for eliminating running injuries?
No shoe has managed to do so.
Research such as the GronoRun Study (Buist 2008 AJSM) has shown that altered training programs fail to do so and that running injuries are in essence multi-factorial.
For all the research which does provide justification for the use of orthotics, injury rates still remain similar to those 30 years ago.
Such being the case can the likes of barefoot running or barefoot science not be part of the solution? If only a small part!
As Mr Kirby has stated in an earlier post, barefoot running changed the load on the ankle compared to shod running so maybe it does have potential. Morioka and Yagi (Gait and Posture 2004) showed postural sway decreased when perception from the soles of the feet increased. This was based on balanced standing rather than running admittedly.
Maybe barefoot running has its uses but needs to be fully understood first though I can’t envisage too many people copying Zola Budd or Ron Hill any time soon.

BTW I’m not an advocate of vibram five fingers or any such product.
I would however believe that if someone presents with ITBS or some other pronation related injury their training load should be addressed to find a balance so that the body can get stronger via adaptation then I would possibly avoid the impulse to use custom orthotics and attempt to improve the bodies inherent ability to control/ deal with the axial loads that running places on the joints.

Basically my point is I don’t believe any of us has the answer just yet though we may individually have parts of it.

 

and don't forget that she had to start wearing running shoes because of all the injuiries that she started getting.