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. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Agreed.
     
  2. Dana:

    You and I have both been running for over three decades so I'm sure we share many more ideas than what has come up in our discussions on this barefoot running, minimalist-running shoe subject.

    Clearly, barefoot running is not the same as running in thinner soled shoes and, to me, as both a clinician and scientist, I see barefoot running and running in "minimalist shoes" as being quite different biomechanically from the other, but sharing similarities, especially when compared to more traditional thicker soled shoes.

    My conclusion at this time in this "barefoot running movement", which seems to be most popular here in the States than other countries, is that many runners and running shoe companies are realizing that there may be benefit (and, as you said, there will be a market for the shoe companies) for thinner soled, lighter weight running shoes. The analogy I commonly use is a pendulum swinging away from thicker soled, heavier shoes to lighter weight, thinner soled shoes that will probably,as time progresses, swing back again to thicker soled shoes again maybe within another five years. This is the nature of the shoe industry and is a function of the personality of the runners that buy these running shoes. I can guarantee you that I will be very busy treating running injuries during that time regardless of what the current "popular shoe design" is at the moment.

    As a runner for 40 years, and a sports podiatrist for 27 years, I have seen changes in shoe design happen quite a few times within the shoe industry. At this stage of my life, I can now enjoy watching the pendulum of running shoe design swing back and forth. In addition, I greatly enjoy seeing the responses that I can generate from others when I am requested to offer expert opinions on the subject in the popular media. As you may have guessed, that is just the nature of my personality.

    I'm sure if we met each other on the running trail, we would have a great time running and chatting with each other on our various long-term experiences as runners. You make very good observations at times and hope you continue to contribute to Podiatry Arena:drinks
     
  3. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Kevin, I couldn't agree with you more! I saw a photo of you somewhere wearing Tiger X Caliber GT's and I grinned ear to ear. I remember wearing those very same shoes almost 30 yrs ago! It would be hard to find anyone who even knows what the shoe was, let alone have experience with them.

    I also agree with you there. I will not run barefoot because I think it is impractical and not safe. I will say that there are shoes that other than offering some protection to the bottoms of your feet get pretty close to wearing nothing at all.

    I am guessing that a good share of running shoe sales go to people who don't run or run very little. Running shoes in general became a fashion/casual shoe statement in the 80's and it has stuck. The market needs the pendulum to fuel the money machine. The same principle is behind woman's fashion.

    I'm sure that a good portion of the sales of running shoes go to many people who for whatever reason just got inspired to get off the couch and start running. The last thing these people need is a shoe with no support or cushioning. Even worse, to go out and think they can run with no shoes at all. I agree, business is going to be good.

    For experienced, long term runners, we have had plenty of time and experience through trial and error to figure out what works best and are probably less affected by what some website is saying or what some shoe add in Runners World is pushing.

    I have always tended to favor the lighter shoes because I know what they translate into from a physics point of view especially since most of my running is done on natural surfaces. The reason I am so supportive of this swing of the pendulum is because it means more development in the direction of shoe lightness from the shoe companies. I see a direct benefit to me from all of this hysteria.

    What the inexperienced runner does not see is that even though someone like me may wear 6 oz running shoes, it will not be my only pair of shoes. Chances are, they also have a pile of 13 oz shoes that are worn as well. An experienced runner will know when it is appropriate to wear a 6 oz shoe and when it is imperative to wear a 13 oz shoe for recovery. The inexperienced runner will just stick to the light shoes because it might be their only pair or they liked the advertisement with Anton Krupicka wearing them and think they've found the running panacea.

    Kevin, I'm sure we would! I'm also sure we'd have quite a laugh about our experiences on the Podiatry Arena! I genuinely like this forum, if I didn't I would have been gone long ago. :drinks

    Dana
     
  4. Bennepod

    Bennepod Active Member

    Greetings.

    Just ran across this video http://vimeo.com/12451532 wondered if anyone has seen it. I found the "science"entertaining.

    Brendan.
     
  5. JB1973

    JB1973 Active Member

    evening all,
    not sure if this belongs in this thread but since dana and Kevin are waxing lyrical on shoes i thought i'd ask.
    just listened to a podcast from the guy who set up vitruvian shoes company. he says its folding now and he is having to sell off his stock etc.
    were they minimalist shoes of 'normal' running shoes. does anyone have any experience of them? he did mention Mcdougal in his interview so i'm kinda guessing they might be minimalist and if he's gone bust, does that lead us to think that the minimalist movt isnt quite as big as they thought? or have vibrams got it sewn up.
    cheers
    JB
     
  6. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    I did not think it was that bad. Its better than most. Given that the circumstantial and anecdotal evidence is that barefoot runners are getting injured at a higher rate, I do get amused about the continuing claims about "injury free running". It would be interesting to see how he would respond to some of the reseach coming out from Joe Hamil on running foot fall patterns...

    I came across an interesting tweet on Twitter the other day from a barefoot runner...it said something about podiatry must be getting scared about the barefoot running movement. If podiatry is getting scared, then why are so many barefoot runners getting injuries? Based on What I read and the anecdotes I have seen, then barefoot running is like an economic stimulus package for podiatry (I read that somewhere too!), not something to be scarred of (hence the thread I started on how to manage one of the more common injuiries that barefoot runners get: 'Top of Foot' Pain).
     
  7. William Fowler

    William Fowler Active Member

    There was a question asked about them here, Vitruvian Running Shoes, but no real discussion.
     
  8. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Here are a collection of interesting tweets I have seen in just the last few weeks from one twitter account:

    - Shoes are like drugs. They delude you into a false sense of security because of the comfort, but leave you damaged by the experience.

    - Most biomechanical problems in feet and legs only become significant when a SHOE is introduced. Feet cope very well on own.

    - Could it be possible that sensory nerve pathways from the feet don't actually form properly when people wear shoes all their lives?!

    - Could forcing a child to wear shoes which damage feet, knees, hips and back be considered child abuse?

    - Running shoes with cushioned heels encourage over-striding and heel-striking with the possibility of increased risk of injury

    - Walking barefoot strengthens foot, leg & hip muscles and helps improve postural stability helping to reduce the risk of falls.

    All of theses were tweeted by a Podiatrist.
     
  9. Griff

    Griff Moderator

  10. Where have you written these "things?" I'd like to read them. Are they on RunningBarefootIsBad.com or somewhere else? Are you the mastermind behind the aforementioned site?
     
  11. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    :welcome:
    I have done some media interviews; wrote this on the Boot Camp website and comments in this thread and other threads here on podiatry arena. Perhaps you could explain why I get abusive emails from barefoot runners rather than discuss/debate the issue? If I disagree with someone, I stick to the issue. The minute you start using abuse, you showing the weakness of the position that you are arguing from.

    As I have repeatedly said in this thread:
    Perhaps you could explain some of this:
    1) Why all the claims about barefoot running leading to a reduced risk for injury, when its becoming clearer that barefoot runners are getting injuries at a much higher rate than those wearing running shoes

    2) Why all the claims from barefoot runners on the Kerrigan research that running shoes cause osteoarthritis, when there study was not even on osteoarthritis and was massively flawed. (I got couple of abusive emails based on my comments on this study in this thread! - neither of the emails tried to refute what I said, they just called me names .... I guess that sums up the writers of the emails really well)

    3) Why based in Liebermans research in Nature did we read headlines on barefoot running sites that barefoot running reduces injuries when his study was not even on injuries. Lieberman himself had to publish a disclaimer on his website to distance himself from those claims, so why does the barefoot running community still make these claims?

    4) etc

    I have asked this of other barefoot runners several times in this thread. Why do they never come back to answer? Why do they continually misrepresent the research?
     
  12. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    Just adding to the above. I mentioned this in post #715 on this thread:
    This was from a press release promoting a barefoot running website. Where did Lieberman show that in his study? Why did that barefoot running website make that claim up for?
     
  13. Barefoot Michael:

    I wrote this one some time ago........especially for you......

     
  14. Agreed. The debate should stay to the issues, however I've read plenty of criticism and personal attacks from podiatrists on this forum toward barefoot runners (terms such as "nutters", "nutty," etc.). I'm not saying that any of those abusive terms are justified, just that posters here should look in the mirror if they're going to make accusations.

    Be careful about using absolutes such as "all." Not all runners are making those claims. In fact, I'd say that a very small, uninformed part of the barefoot running community are. What I see is that many in the podiatry community have taken issue with some of the things said in Born to Run and on scattered sites and have inappropriately cast them as the opinions of every barefoot-style runner.

    As far as addressing the rate of injuries, I personally believe -- notice I'm speaking only for myself -- that any number of factors can lead to injury. While the very nature of running barefoot is certainly one possibility, I also believe that poor conditioning, inadequate leg strength and even a misaligned spine can contribute to these injuries. That said, be careful not to lump it all together and say, "See! Barefoot running is 'nutty!'"

    I personally got a stress fracture in my left calcaneus last winter while running in Vibram Fivefingers. While there's no way to conclusively determine WHY that happened, my theory is that I froze out my achilles and calcaneus while running in bitterly cold temperatures due to inadequate warm-up methods AND I was probably also Vitamin D deficient. I had been running barefoot successfully for several months before that and have successfully run the same way since. Some skeptics tried to tell me that such an injury proved that running without "proper" footwear was bad. I retorted that a number of factors -- including my running style -- contributed to the injury.

    Again, you inappropriately use the generality "all." I can't speak for someone else and I doubt that all barefoot runners share the same opinion. As for myself, I haven't read the research so I can't comment on it.

    You're right, it didn't address injuries. Chalk those headlines up to overzealous journalists, I guess. Since when have journalists gotten it right every time?

    I personally fall into the camp of "less impact means less injury" from the simple standpoint that, if you drive a car into a brick wall at 5 miles per hour and then drive an identical car into an identical brick wall at 40 miles per hour, you are very likely to get greater damage on the faster car. All things considered and equal, greater force caused greater harm.

    Now I realize that there's no science to back up the claims of reduced injury from the lesser forces of a forefoot landing, but there also isn't scientific evidence showing greater injury from a forefoot landing. It's up to the individual runner to decide what might be best for him/her.

    You'll have to be more specific. I dare not read your mind. ;)
     
  15. I love how you just lump everyone into one ignorant, mindless bunch. Very mature. Very professional.

    I am not ashamed of calling myself "Barefoot Michael." I find that it helps share my lifestyle with others and also helps me network with other barefooters.

    Why do you call yourself "Doctor?" Even though you are part of a certain profession, why not just be Kevin Kirby?
     
  16. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    I would have to disagree with that. I see the comments touting that Liebermans study showed you get less injuries on pretty much every site that promotes barefoot running. Same with the claims about the osteoarthritis - I did not read them on some isolated sites. I am waiting to hear back from someone to get permission to post some unpublished quotes from what Leiberman actualy thinks about this.

    As I mentioned in reply to your PM, the 'nutty' is probably meant to refer to these interpretations.
    Maybe "all" should refer to the majority of sites that promote barefoot running making those comments. If any one is to judge the views/opinions of the barefoot running community, then we only have those sites to judge the community on.

    But I take your point, we should not judge the majority by the words of the fanatics.
    When you look at the most common running injuries, not one of the risk factor studies have linked any of them to high impacts. I would have to agree with you, if the data supported it, but it dosen't.
    Agreed. I think that this has been stated numerous times in this thread. I hear from barefoot runners who tell me how injury free they now are; but I hear from just as many who curse barefoot running for the problems that it has created for them. A couple were angry that they fell for the rhetoric and misinformation on barefoot running sites.
    There are so many more examples of the misquoting etc, that I could not be bothered typing them all out.
     
  17. So, Barefoot Michael, you never wear shoes any more? You go to work, the grocery store, the movies while barefoot, with no shoes on your feet??
     
  18. Unfortunately my workplace has a policy that requires men to wear socks and shoes, so that's out. I'm hope to petition them in the coming year or so to adjust that policy to allow open-toed footwear for men.

    It should also be noted that, when I don't go barefoot -- especially at work -- I almost always wear minimalist footwear. I've only worn non-minimalist footwear twice since April of this year: One of those times was dress shoes for a memorial service. The other was to test out a pair of Nike Frees (which I absolutely do not consider "minimalist.").

    Anytime I'm not at work I do try to stay barefoot as much as possible, even in public. I also am a barefoot runner and have completed three 5Ks this year without shoes of any kind.
     
  19. Can someone please define when a shoe becomes minimalist versus non-minimalist? What factors are we measuring here?
     
  20. There are no official measurements or scientific definitions for them, but I'd say that the "barefoot" community widely regards minimalist footwear as:
    • flexible
    • lightweight
    • breathable
    • thin-soled
    • no raised heel
    • no arch support

    Generally, it's not a black or white determination. It has to do with how little the shoe adds to or adapts the foot's natural function.
     
  21. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    Michael - thanks.

    What would you consider as the difference between a 'minimalist' running shoe and the good old fashioned 'racing flat' that runners have always used.
     
  22. I honestly have never touched a racing flat -- let alone worn one -- so I really can't answer that. I'm pretty sure that a lot of minimalist runners use racing flats as an option over more traditional running shoes. How "minimal" they are is up to the wearer, I guess.
     
  23. Bobba Booey

    Bobba Booey Active Member

    I think the difference is that racing flats are closer to a conventional shoe and minimalist shoes only offer protection for the sole of the foot, but no support. Michael gave a good summary of the characteristics of a minimalist shoe.

    For example, I will compare the differences on my Asics Hyper Speeds to my VFFs.

    They are both flexible, but the VFFs are much more flexible. The VFFs have so much flexibility that they can be bent and turned in any direction or completely folded over.

    They are both thin soled, but the sole on the VFFs is extremely thin and there is no cushioning or arch support of any kind.

    The Hyper Speeds have less heel rise than most running shoes, but there is still a rise of 7mm, according to Running Warehouse. I don't know if the VFF are completely flat, but there are pretty close to it.

    In general, racing flats are very close to minimalist shoes, but in the barefoot community they are considered a "reduced shoe".
     
  24. In the 1970's, I remember an article in Runner's World about a runner who advocated running marathons in bedroom slippers because of their light weight and thin soles. Many of us ran barefoot in high school and college in the mid-1970s. In addition, myself and many of my cross-country and track buddies in the 1970's ran in very thin soled racing flats made by Onitsuka-Tiger (now Asics) that were lighter than the Vibram FiveFinger but didn't have five toe holes in them.

    Having closely followed the running shoe industry for over four decades, I ask the following question: Why does the "Barefoot Community", as you call them, think they are doing something that wasn't already being done over 30 years ago?? In other words, what has the "Barefoot Community" done for running but create a lot of hype and noise that is based on old shoe design technologies and old techniques that we have already tried before and discarded for better approaches??

    As a runner of 40 years, I find great humor at hearing from the members of the "Barefoot Community" because, as a whole, they lack objectivity, bordering on fanatical devotion in their inability to critically analyze the facts. Myself, and the rest of the serious running community, will only stand up and take notice of these people when some members of the "Barefoot Community" starts breaking records or winning significant international racing events while barefoot. Until then, we will simply consider them to be what they truly represent....a very small minority of the worldwide running comminity that is just another passing fad in the long history of running.
     
  25. Bobba Booey

    Bobba Booey Active Member

    I think they make a distinction between a reduced shoe and a minimalist shoe because there is a small difference between the two. The reduced shoes still have a heel lift and offer some cushioning, even if it's smaller than a conventional running shoe. A minimalist shoe has zero or close to zero heel lift and offers no cushioning. The minimalist shoes only offer protection of the skin on the bottom of the feet from abrasions on the ground.

    I used the VFF as an example because they seem to be the most popular. I will use the Evo as another example of how a minimalist shoe is slightly difference from a racing flat (aka reduced shoe).

    The Evo is extremely flexible. My Asics racing flats sure don't do this.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    The Evo also doesn't have the heel lift that a racing flat has and there is no cushioning at all. The most "minimal" (for lack of a better word) racing flats I know of on the market are the Asics Piranhas and the Minzuno Wave Universe. Neither of which have the flexibility of the Evo and they both have more cushioning and also heel lift. However, they are both lighter than the Evo and VFFs which is interesting that they can't make a minimalist shoe that is lighter than a racing flat.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    I personally enjoy running in my Asics more than my VFF. I think there are many objective people who like to run barefoot, but we mostly hear from the more vocal ones who tend to sound like zealots. I have tried barefoot running and it was very enjoyable, but I still run shod. While transitioning to barefoot you have to take a severe cut in mileage and intensity, which doesn't work for me because I love training too much. I'm currently training for a sub 20 5k and I'm loving my speed sessions in my Asics racing flats. I think barefoot running is fun, but when I want to do some serious running, I like my shoes.
     
  26. When I went to school we used to wear black pumps similar to the one in the attached picture. Don't be deceived by that rubber rand, the soles on these babies are only a couple of mm thick. Are these classed as minimilist? They're highly flexible, have no heel pitch or arch support, they're lightweight etc. If so I was a member of the minimilist running movement in the 1970's, moreover, my five year old daughter and all of her peers are minimilist runners now.

    Indeed, compare the costs of vibram five fingers to these little beauties, I just paid a whopping £1.99 for a new pair for Grace. I bet all you guys who spent big bucks on vibrams are kicking yourselves. Try Tesco's in the school wear section.
     

    Attached Files:

  27. Bobba Booey

    Bobba Booey Active Member

    Don't kick me while I'm down. :D I only speak for myself, but yes I am kicking myself for falling for the hype and spending so much on these minimalist shoes. I admit that I initially bought into the hype of barefoot running. I don't mind too much though because it's part of my personality. When I get into something I usually jump in with both feet (no pun intented).

    I recently took up running (used to play lots of basketball) so I've made quite a few purchases with all the shoes and gear. As I progress as a runner, I'm finding that most of the gear isn't necessary. I also bought a Nike Sports Band, which is highly inaccurate and more of a toy that a purposeful tool. I have considered getting a Garmin watch, but I don't want to depend on it to know my pace. I want to learn pace by effort feel, which will come with experience.

    I learned a lot along the way, so I don't regret that. I still enjoy mixing in some barefoot runs every now and then, but still prefer to run shod for the most part.

    I've noticed that a majority of the folks on the barefoot forum at Runners World also prefer to run in minimalist shoes instead of completely barefoot. It's actually been quite interesting on that forum lately because the full time barefooters are upset with the amount of minimalist shoe talk in the forum.
     
  28. Then I guess you've wasted a lot of time posting in this thread? That's what I'm taking away from this comment and the number of times you've posted here.

    I have a comment and subsequent question for everyone:

    I'm hearing a lot here about how the scientific evidence doesn't back up barefooters claims about running unshod. I understand that no evidence shows that regular shoes increase injury rates. But there's also no evidence showing that regular running shoes decrease injury rates over running barefoot. Essentially, there's NO scientific evidence proving anything regarding shod versus barefoot running. So the question:

    If podiatrists generally base their clinical practices on what scientific evidence shows, how can a podiatrist recommend ANY footwear (or lack thereof) to their patients? How could a podiatrist scientifically justify recommending regular trainers over a patient's desire to run barefoot?

    I asked this question a couple of times of a podiatrist (who is actually on this forum) months ago via Twitter and never got a straight answer.
     
  29. Bobba Booey

    Bobba Booey Active Member

    Dr. Kirby, I am far from a barefoot zealot but I feel like this kind of statement is very elitist. I know you are a very fast runner and I can only hope to one day achieve some of the running accomplishments you have done, but aren't the gifted individuals breaking world records a "very small minority" in the general running community? In addition, do you have to be the best of the best to have credibility? I'm not attacking you, I just wonder why the barefooters would have to break world records to earn your respect. I would like to add that I have a lot of respect for you Dr. Kirby and think your knowledge and experience in running is extremely valuable. I am also located in Sacramento and hope to meet you someday (I will be shod btw). :drinks
     
  30. BB:

    If it makes you feel any better, Bobba, I am no longer a "very fast runner" but am rather an older former fast runner. Was my statement elitist? I don't think so. My statement reflects the reality of the greater running commuinity. Who do you think most serious runners aspire to be like, the runner who is winning the races in shoes or the few barefoot runners who are back somewhere in the middle of the pack trying to gain attention for themselves by running without shoes? This is the nature of any sport, we tend to focus on the winners and disregard the numerous other athletes in the event who just so happen to be slower or less talented. It is clearly evident to me, from being in the sport for four decades, that most serious runners, who are always looking for some type of edge to beat their PR or their rivals, would be much more impressed with the "Barefoot Community" if they actually started winning significant races because of their decision to be unshod. If the barefoot runners actually started breaking the tape at the finish line, then believe me, barefoot running would actually become more mainstream.

    By the way, I don't consider the latest fad of wearing minimalist shoes to be "barefoot" or "barefoot-like". The only true barefoot runner, in my book, is someone that runs without shoes on for the vast majority of their mileage, not someone that runs in the boat shoe, the Vibram FiveFinger.

    In addition, I have nothing against barefoot runners in general since, if that is what makes them run faster and be able to run with fewer injuries, then more power to them. It isn't that I don't respect a barefoot runner just because they are barefoot. To me they are just another one of the thousands upon thousands of runners I have run with or against or have seen as patients that have made a personal decision to run without shoes on their feet. I only lose respect when they start saying things that they have little knowledge of that may convince others to do something that may eventually injure them. In other words, as a physician who regularly has treated runners for the past quarter century and has a desire to see all runners be able to run with less injury and more enjoyment, I do have a big problem with the barefoot runners making claims that their barefoot style of running produces fewer injuries and that shoes are the main cause of running injuries.

    I believe my opinions have been clearly expressed on this subject in the many interviews I have given to the popular media over the past 8 months, in the articles I have written on the subject and on Podiatry Arena. BTW, I'll be doing a free screening at the downtown Fleet Feet on J Street in Sacramento on Wednesday, October 6 from 5:30 - 7:00 PM if you want to chat further on the subject (between patients).:drinks
     
  31. Bobba Booey

    Bobba Booey Active Member

    I know they were old achievements, but I still respect and admire them.

    I completely agree that we love the greats in any sport and aspire to be like them. I can only speak for myself on the attention aspect of barefoot running, but I didn't like the attention that barefoot running or even VFF running gets. I have only ran barefoot (no shoes at all) a few times throughout my neighborhood and the amount of attention I got was crazy. I don't like being the center of attention so it was very uncomfortable. People driving by would stop and comment or ask questions. I like to wear my VFF to the gym because they are very comfortable, but they also get a lot of attention because people are curious and like to ask questions.

    I agree that there may be some people who love the attention of barefoot or VFF running, but I don't think everyone feels that way.

    If this was happening then we truly would have a barefoot running revolution, instead of the virtual one. ;)

    I agree and the experience and sensations between barefoot and VFF are night and day.

    I understand you on this issue and think it's an important one. For example, I fell for the hype from all of the barefoot running websites citing study after study which proves that barefoot running is like a magic pill that prevents injury and improves performance. I admit I also joined the podiatrist hating bandwagon as a result. Thinking that they were just a bunch of people trying to get your money by putting you in custom orthotics regardless of whether you need them or not. I am extremely happy that I found this website so I could hear "the other side" of this debate. My opinion of podiatrists has completely changed and I have a lot of respect for the Dr.'s that share their knowledge here.

    p.s. I found this website on one of those barefoot sites. I don't remember which one but I think the intent was to show a bunch podiatrists against barefoot running, further entrenching the hatred towards podiatrists. However, it didn't have that affect on me.
     
  32. Bobba Booey

    Bobba Booey Active Member

    Dr. Kirby, what kind of things do you look for during that screening? Are you looking to help people with pain? I generally don't have any pain other than soreness that I would expect after a particularly hard or long workout. The only issue I have, which is very minor, is that I have some slight tenderness by my right heel but nothing in the left one. It's very minor and doesn't affect my running as far as I'm aware of, but it could mean some kind of imbalance somewhere.
     
  33. Arrghh. I'm assuming you are medically qualified since you state "it could be some kind of imbalance somewhere"? Diagnosis via internet. That's one I've my personal favourite impossibilities. You could have a carcinoma or you might have a plantar fasciitis or you might have any number of problems- I'm guessing, just like you. I do know this, I don't know of any medical diagnosis of a pathology giving symptoms of "tenderness in the heel" called "imbalance somewhere". Since diagnosis by internet is verging on the impossible, your guess is probably as good as anyone else's. Take your pick. If I were you, I'd go visit a qualified physician so they can examine you in person.
     
  34. Bobba Booey

    Bobba Booey Active Member

    I apologize Dr. Spooner. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was formally diagnosing myself. I thought I was stating what I was feeling, the way a patient would when talking to a Doctor. I have no idea what the diagnosis would be or if there is even a problem at all. I tried to emphasize that IMO it was very minor.

    I haven't considered seeking medical treatment because it doesn't bother me. I also don't go to the hospital when I stub my toe or get a paper cut because those are minor issues that don't need any formal treatment. Calm down and get over yourself. Is this how you talk to your patients? :confused:
     
  35. When they phone me and ask for a diagnosis over the phone, it's pretty much the same. Do you e-mail your doctor with vague symptoms and anticipate a firm diagnosis? So, anyway, do you think you have a carcinoma? Anyway, off-thread enough for fear of my posts being deleted. Yet, why bring it up? How does it relate to the subject of this thread?

    P.S. unless the paper cut severs a major artery.... But you'd be able to diagnose that- right? Or if the stubbed toe resulted in an avascular necrosis..... But, you'd be able to diagnose that though, right? But Like I said, I'm just guessing, just like the lay public. I love t'internet, everyone's an expert.
     
  36. Bobba Booey

    Bobba Booey Active Member

    Dr. Spooner, I apologize if I did something wrong by asking those questions of Dr. Kirby. I have no medical training, so the only thing I have to go by is my perceived level of discomfort. If I feel pain and discomfort, then I might seek medical treatment. I say "might" because like most men I have a tendency to avoid the Doctor unless it seems very necessary. I imagine this is what most of your patients do, but I am only guessing.

    Maybe I have a carcinoma, maybe it's PF, maybe it's nothing. I also apologize for saying it could be some kind of imbalance. You are correct that it's something that I read online, but I wasn't stating it as if I know it do be a fact or a diagnosis. I was simply stating my thoughts and feelings like I would if I was going to see a doctor. If I told this to a doctor and received the response you gave me, I would feel very attacked and would seek care from a different doctor. Maybe you meant your comment in a constructive way, but that's not how I read it.
     
  37. And if I said this to a patient and they didn't like what I was saying and sought attention elsewhere, I'd be more than happy- anyone who can give diagnosis via internet is clearly better than me. You're right: it's an "imbalance". Feel better?
    I guess that's why this is a site which is supposedly for discussion between professionals involved in foot health and not for the lay public to say "I've got a pain in my heel..."
     
  38. BB:

    Don't worry about Dr. Spooner. He's really just a pussycat. I've known him for a long time and he's one of my favorite guys to hang around with at seminars since he's very smart and always good for a laugh or two. Something about having the same warped sense of humor??

    Anyway, you didn't do anything wrong, BB, other than ask a medical question on a site that is meant for foot health professionals. Both Simon and I tend to go off every now and then on the people that visit Podiatry Arena. Don't know why.....it's just in our nature??
     
  39. Bobba Booey

    Bobba Booey Active Member

    You are correct sir. I do remember reading that this site is for health professionals and not a place for people to seek treatment. I violated that and also went off topic on this thread. I will quietly drift off and resume lurking because I am not a health professional. I do enjoy reading the threads here and picking up the information that I am able to understand. If my comments were inappropriate I apologize and a moderator can remove them.

    Cheers.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page