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. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    I think they are referring to this-
    On the epidemiology of running injuries
    The 1984 Bern Grand-Prix study
    Bernard Marti et al- Am J Sports Med June 1988 16 285-294;
    Haven't read the full study, but it is a survey result. Simple to understand the result from above- if you are an injury in a cheap shoe, are you not likely to try a more expensive one to see if it helps? This is not causation. Footwear is not mentioned in the abstract at all...
    The 1991 study may be- ROBBINS, S. E. and G. J. GOUW. Athletic footwear: unsafe due to perceptual illusions. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 217-224, 1991
    Perhaps it is this one-
    A Kinetic Evaluation of the Effects of In Vivo Loading on Running Shoes- Joseph Hamill, Barry T. Bates- J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1988;10(2):47-53

    From my quick read- The cushioning diminished with wear, but that did not seem to have a negative effect,
    'the results also suggest that these changes are not totally deleterious since foot control seems to improve as cushioning is lost and foot control accounts for at least half of running shoe related injuries'

    Both of these papers suggest that cushioning in shoes is over rated as a feature- not too controversial, and nothing about barefoot running...

    It sounds like their 'research' was based on reading articles like this one...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1170253/The-painful-truth-trainers-Are-expensive-running-shoes-waste-money.html

    Perhaps you should ask them for their actual references?
     
  2. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Paulo,

    Get us the full references and we may be able to help you more.

    If they were referring to the Robbins and Gouw work then it would be interesting to see how they were interpreting the conclusions. Dr Robbins himself has aired his frustration at people misrepresenting his findings (much like Dr Lieberman did), and infact there is a fascinating correspondence between the two of them on Dr Robbins website: http://www.stevenrobbinsmd.com/

    You can also download pdfs of all of Dr Robbins work from his site, which may be helpful in your reading before you draft a response to the article.

    Ian
     
  3. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    Paulo, I think CraigT answered most of those .... None of those actually studies actually showed what is claimed. I guess is another perfect example of what I have repeated ad nauseum in this thread:
    If the barefoot running community want to be taken seriously they have to stop misusing, misquoting, misrepresenting and misunderstanding the research.
     
  4. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    Earlier in this thread, I suggested is the alleged claim of less injuires being claimed by barefoot runners really due to the barefoot vs shod or is it due to the rearfoot vs midfoot/forefoot strike running form and nothing to do with the shoes at all?

    Good to see Chris McDougal is changing his tune:
    http://zero-drop.com/?p=10#more-10
     
  5. I just wish someone would ask Chris McDougall this question in one of these interviews:

    "Throughout your book "Born to Run" you seemed to pick on Nike shoes and also seemed to have a problem with thick-soled cushioned heel shoes. However, the shoe you chose to run in for your 50 mile run at the end of the book was the Nike Pegasus, one of the thickest-soled, most cushioned heel shoes that have ever been made. In addition, the Pegasus is manufactured by the shoe company you complain about the most, Nike. How do you explain the apparent disconnect between what you write about in your book and advise others to do and what you do yourself???"
     
  6. footface

    footface Active Member

    I suspect that the reason people seem to think that barefoot running reduces injury is a combination of improving running technique (which works with shoes as well), placebo, and the fact that you have to slow down and reduce mileage when doing barefoot thus resting and slowly strengthening muscles and tendons instead of being able to run too hard too often.

    I personally think my injury problems in the past have been partly due to being a fit person who then started running and my CV system was able to sustain more than my soft tissues were ready for.
     
  7. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    The barefoot running movement is not about wearing or not wearing shoes, it is about running form. It doesn't take long for an individual to figure out that running without shoes has it's limitations. I ran for 3 hours this past Saturday in 15 degree F weather, I would have lost my toes if I tried to do that barefoot. Addressing the limitations of running barefoot quickly points in the direction of minimalist shoes. The barefoot movement has effectively initiated a trend towards minimalist or sometimes called "barefoot" shoes. I consider the "barefoot" movement as the "minimalist" shoe movement.

    The concept of the minimalist shoe is to encourage running form similar to the form used when running barefoot. Minimalist shoes tend to be lightweight, thin soled, little to no height differential between the heel and toe, flexible with little support or cushion. Their intent is to essentially protect the feet from sharp objects, the elements and not much more.

    It has not been demonstrated that a given type of shoe, minimalist or traditional is better for preventing injuries. Given that a minimal shoe may weigh 6 or 7 oz, while a traditional shoe can weigh 12 oz to as much as 14 oz per shoe, why would anyone want to wear a heavy shoe? While there is no proven injury prevention benefits of one type of shoe over another, it has been proven, demonstrated that lighter shoes do reduce metabolic cost or improved running efficiency. Common sense would tell the runner to go with the lighter, minimalist shoe if they want to improve running efficiency.

    The shoe industry has experienced several trends over the years. A "recent" trend that started in the early 1990's was the introduction and development of the trail shoe. While trail running might have been considered a "Fad" at one point, it stuck and the shoes designed and targeted at the trail runner stuck and became a trend or segment of the shoe industry.

    The barefoot or minimalist runner might be considered a "fad" but the shoes designed and targeted at this runner will also stick and become a trend or segment of the shoe industry.

    While there has always been racing flats, the shoe companies offered limited models and targeted these shoes at a limited segment of runners who where considered to already run efficiently and for use while racing. The racing flat is a minimalist shoe but the "minimalist" shoe from a marketing perspective is targeted at a different type of runner. It is targeted at a runner to encourage running efficiency and for everyday use. Over time, the racing flat and minimalist shoe will most likely blend together from a marketing perspective. They already are currently both included and sold in a new classification called "lightweight performance". The minimalist shoe is here to stay. The only thing that needs to be determined is what portion of shoe sales will be directed from the other categories such as cushioned, stability, motion control or trail to the minimalist or lightweight performance category.

    Dana
     
  8. Oneoff

    Oneoff Welcome New Poster

    I have a question regarding "barefoot"/minimal running and figured it would probably be better to put in this thread then create a new one.

    I've skimmed through this thread and think I understand where there is rough consensus:

    - Barefoot running is overhyped and possibly unwise
    - Minimalist running isn't really anything new (racing flats being old as dirt) but does offer some advantages over modern mainstream running shoes because of the lower mass, translating into better mechanical efficiency.
    - We may have developed to run a certain way on dirt but on hard pavement/cement running for extended periods of time without any padding can lead to injuries if the runner is not very careful
    - The scientific consensus for barefoot and minimalist running just isn't there. Experiments are currently being conducted and hard evidence either way is still 5 years away
    - Barefoot or minimalist training on soft surfaces does help strengthen stabilizing foot muscles

    But what I couldn't find (or didn't see since I skimmed) was a consensus as to correct running form (forefoot vs midfoot vs heel under body) which I am really interested in since I have bought some VFF Trek Sports and can't figure out how to run in them correctly. Don't get me wrong, I am not an evangelical for minimalist running, I bought them because I love the feeling of so little weight on my feet when walking and being able to wiggle my toes. However I figured since they were made for running I might as well try taking up running in them (since I could stand to lose some weight).

    So why Forefoot or Midfoot running over Heel? It seems you've thoroughly debunked the impact jolt study or at least brought it into serious question and I see most runners striking heel first. Is there any real significant difference so long as one keeps the strike point beneath their body instead of in front of their body?

    Thanks
     
  9. :welcome:

    Oneoff:

    Good posting.:good:

    If you critically analyze running videos, most runners in fact, whether heel-striking or midfoot striking or forefoot striking will first contact the ground with their foot ahead of their center of mass (CoM) since this is the most efficient way to run. I believe it is a common fallacy, which I hear repeated over and over again, that runners should land with their feet under their CoM.

    Running involves, in its initial stages of support phase, a braking phase where the ground reaction force (GRF) vector is directed posteriorly and the foot is ahead of the CoM. At the middle of support phase, in midsupport, the foot is directly under the CoM, and the fore-aft shearing forces change to one where GRF is directed anteriorly. The initial braking phase during the first half of the support phase of running is where the hip and knee are flexing and the ankle is dorsiflexing in eccentric fashion which builds significant elastic strain energy (potential energy) within the viscoelastic soft tissue components of the runner's foot and lower extremity. This elastic strain energy is then released once the foot moves posterior to the runner's CoM to propel the runner forward during the latter half of the support phase of running.

    Therefore, if the runner places the foot being ahead of the CoM at initial ground contact, the full elastic strain energy potential within the runner's foot and lower extremity can be fully utilized. In much the same way, jumping from a crouched position rather than from a standing then crouched position will reduce the vertical jump height due to the change in the dynamics within the serial elastic components within the individual's foot and lower extremity. The braking phase and "foot ahead of CoM initial contact position" is mechanically necessary to build up proper magnitudes of elastic strain energy in the runners foot and lower extremity to allow more metabolically efficient running.

    This is one reason that running styles such as Chi Running and Pose Running will, for many runners, be a less efficient method to run than if the runner was a heel striker in traditional running shoes. Future research will undoubtedly bear this out.

    However, the mechanics of the initial foot contact changes dramatically with barefoot running or while running in Vibrams because the runner, to protect the heel from pain or damage, must shorten their stride and become more of a forefoot striker and less of a heel striker especially if running on non-compliant surfaces. In this case, the runner will still be striking with a posteriorly directed GRF vector but, since the stride is significantly shortened, the stride frequency must be signficantly increased to run with the same velocity than if they were wearing more traditional running shoes that allowed a fuller running stride length.

    The bottom line is that the experienced runner will, after a short period of acclimation to a new shoe or new surface, self-select a particular running style that will not only optimize metabolic expenditure but also minimize discomfort. This can be achieved in cushioned heel shoes, Vibram FiveFingers shoes or while running barefoot, with no single running shoe/barefoot combination being necessarily better for all runners or worse for all runners due to the large interindividual variability in skeletal morphology, muscle fiber type, plantar foot skin thickness, plantar foot soft tissue compliance, plantar foot sensitivity, previous injury experience and running experience , to name just a few parameters that affect running kinetics and kinematics within the human species.

    Hope this helps.:drinks
     
  10. After about a half hour of searching through my file cabinets of old articles and drawings I have done over the years, I finally found what I was looking for: a long-lost illustration I made in 1984 during my Biomechanics Fellowship at CCPM for a lecture on running biomechanics I gave to podiatrists and podiatry students. This 26 year old illustration depicts the brake-propel transition timing for shearing forces along with the other phases of running gait to help illustrate my point about the importance of the foot striking the ground ahead of the center of mass during running. You are all welcome to reproduce this illustration for your own lectures since I don't think I have ever seen anything like it ever done before within the medical literature.
     

    Attached Files:

  11. Here's a nice little article from Steve Magness which basically says the same thing that I said earlier today. Good to see that others are also thinking clearly on this matter of why runners should always land with their foot in front of their center of mass, not with the foot directly underneath their center of mass as many "experts" claim.

    Why We Land In Front of our Center of Gravity
     
  12. efuller

    efuller MVP

    A few comments on the "consensus".
    Overhyped, I'd agree

    Nothing new, I'd agree

    Pavement vs dirt, It is quite amazing how fast people adapt their running style to different surface hardnesses. There was one study I saw that saw adaptation in one step to an unexpected surface. Your body knows what feels good. The question is does the adaptation to the surface reduce or increase injury. For example one adaptation is to incease knee flexion angle on harder surfaces. There will be higher internal forces with increased knee flexion angles. A shoe, with heel padding, makes the surface less hard.

    Scientific evidence not there, I'd agree.

    Barefoot running increases strength. Running in shoes increases strength too. I don't think there is any evidence that barefoot increases it more.


    Your body knows. Run at the style you find most comfortable. If it hurts to run in minimalist shoes then don't do it. Why do you think that you are not running in them correctly?

    Eric
     
  13. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ferrisdp/Ferris,1999.pdf
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689165/pdf/9675909.pdf
     
  14. CamWhite

    CamWhite Active Member

    It has been argued by some that contact with hard surfaces increases bone density. That makes sense to me. We are capable of adapting to our environment.

    My question is: Does walking or running on concrete also produce more articular cartilage or synovial fluid? Does running on concrete make a meniscus more resilient to impact forces? Are there any studies that show a correlation between an improvement in joint health as a result of walking or running on hard surfaces?

    I am writing this because I am curious. To me it makes no sense to strengthen bones if your joints are shot from excessive wear and tear.
     

  15. http://cds.ismrm.org/ismrm-2004/Files/000208.pdf
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100207/

    etc..

    A better question might be: are there any studies that actually show running is good for you?

    A merry Christmas to all, especially those of you who take the expression "the human race" way too literally. I'll let you into a secret, it's not a race, and you are ruining your bodies.

    Here's a thought for 2011, why don't I see many swimmers as patients... hmmmmm
     
  16. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    There is no doubt we need impacts for bone health. A lack of impacts is a major risk factor for osteoporosis. Joe Hamil has got some work coming up on this in which they compared the bone mineral density of the calc in rearfoot vs forefoot/midfoot strikers. The forefoot/midfoot group had a lower bone mineral density. I did ask him if the density was approaching the pathological density associated with osteoporosis and he said no.
    There was a Finish study (I think) that looked at osteoarthritis in older runners who usally run on trails vs road and they found no difference.
     
  17. Simon.....ruining our bodies by running?.....coming from a guy who just recently blew out his knee playing rugby......that's a laugh....:drinks
     
  18. Kevin, my knee injury was caused by two big fella's on a rugby pitch, it was not me that ruined it, it was them. Runners usually have no-one to blame but themselves. There is a subtle difference.;):drinks
     
  19. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    I am really doing my best to understand…I want to understand …. but as I said repeatedly in this thread that if the barefoot community want to be taken seriously they have to stop the misquoting etc etc (you all know what I am saying!).

    As part of wanting to understand, I purchased his book (fortunatly, it wasn't expensive): The Barefoot Book ...

    I can't believe that people are that gullible that they actually fall for this nonsense. For someone with a PhD in biochemistry and teaches "anatomy", they know didly squat about foot biomechanics. Anyone with more than a basic understanding of foot function will be able to drive Mac trucks though the holes in the book and some of the arguments he presents. Its full of unsubstantiated non-scientific garbage. So many of the statements in the book are actually just made up and can not be sustained in the face of the evidence! Heaps of example of selective use of references when references exist to contradict many of the statements made! ... I would have expected better from someone with a PhD.

    I only purchased the book as I read a couple of positive reviews of it on some barefoot sites ... I guess they were "positive" as they want to believe ... Seriously, if any of them read this, then you really need to start reading what is being written with a more critical eye rather than just fall for it.

    At the same time I also purchased Natural Running written by the guy behind the Newton Running shoes - just started reading it and its off to a great start and is looking good thus far.
     
  20. That's the beauty of running, Simon. After 40 years and 70,000+ miles of running, I still have all the internal components of my knees working just fine, and still run 20 miles a week without knee pain being brought on by someone else's actions. I can only blame myself if I get a knee injury by running. For my personality, that is a far superior way to live the rest of my life.:drinks
     
  21. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Craig, Kevin has commented a few times about barefoot running being a virtual concept where everyone is talking about it but few are doing it. That statement is certainly supported by what I have observed. I have seen thousands and thousands of runners over the past few years with only a couple of barefoot runners. I am fairly convinced at this point that debating with the barefoot community would be like debating with a ghost, it really doesn't exist.

    What does exist is all of the attention that the "barefoot movement" has generated toward minimal shoes. Some really great questions have been raised around minimal shoes. Since there is no supporting evidence behind what is the better shoe regarding level of cushioning, level of support, level of control, etc., it really raises the question around the weight variable of the shoe. We know there is a relationship between weight and efficiency. It only seems to make sense that the individual should wear the lightest shoe possible while maintaining injury free health. It works for me so I'm sticking to my story!

    Happy Holidays.

    Dana
     
  22. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    Paynie, I get exactly what you are saying. I have seen a number of patients recently who tried barefoot running and I too want to better understand and help. I have not read that book, but did read what sounds like a similar one. They twisted and distorted the science, conveniently left out relevant facts and was basically propaganda. As you said, those that want to believe fall for it.
     
  23. JohnD

    JohnD Member

    Greetings,

    Having spent several hours reading all 982 posts in this thread, along with a few other popular threads (including the VFF/metatarsal stress fracture thread), I can say at least I was thoroughly stimulated and learned a few things too.

    I'd like to address a few issues I noticed that were not discussed:

    1) While it is true that pretty much all of the studies commonly cited by barefoot advocates suffer from serious experimental flaws, the same can be said for many of the studies cited here. Though Lieberman was hounded for his small sample sized (and rightfully so!), this cardinal sin is committed by numerous other authors, along with other various issues (2D kinematics, age and gender controls, etc). As a scientist, one must examine any new article with extreme skepticism. That's simply how science works. It is disheartening to see the same double standard applied by the barefoot "nutters" applied by hardline supporters of the status quo--particularly regarding their OWN research. Please do not interpret this as a personal accusation against any poster here; it is merely an observation I have made here and in reading through the literature.

    Earlier in this thread ('bout 600 replies ago!) Irene Davis posted regarding her own research into impact loading rates and running injury. In a series of retrospective studies, she showed that runners who had suffered tibial stress fractures and plantar fasciitis appear to have higher impact loading rates. She has gone on record (http://www.illiteratewithdrawal.com/2005/06/running-without-shoes/) claiming this can be remedied by barefoot running with "proper form." I was quite bothered by the convenient lack of mention of Benno Nigg's 1997 paper and HA Bahlsen's 1989 PhD thesis which showed, in a prospective study (which has much more power scientifically), that peak impact forces and peak loading rates decreased the risk of all injuries. Now, it is surely possible that tibia and plantar fascia injuries increased while the total rate decreased, but it is also surely possible that those who have suffered those injuries in the past have now adopted a higher loading rate to protect themselves from such injuries! Since in this situation a randomized controlled trial would not be possible, it seems that one must defer to the prospective study.


    2) There are inherent flaws with any study that includes measurements of running economy and how they relate to changes in footstrike, running form, or surface; namely, that the body is programmed to be an "optimizer." If we examine this argument from a biological perspective, we can view the distribution of the various factors going into running economy (muscle coordination, stride rate, footstrike, etc) as belonging to a "fitness landscape," an idea which should be familiar if you have studied evolutionary biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape). This is typically used to describe evolutionary changes over time, but can also be used to describe how the body adapts to a stressor. When the body is learning a new skill (like running, swimming, throwing a basketball), it continually adapts to optimize its efficiency at the given task. With regards to running, we know from several studies (which I can dig up if you want, they have been posted in the leg stiffness thread, I believe) that the body works to maximize metabolic efficiency--more on this in a minute--. So, a heel-striking runner who has been heel-striking for several years will become quite efficient at it, and it would be no surprise for him or her to be less efficient when deviating from the "natural" running form that he or she has adopted over time.

    However, this is where the fitness landscape idea comes in: Let us suppose for a minute, for theoretical purposes, that forefoot striking is indeed ultimately more metabolically efficient than any other footstrike at all speeds due to its additional loading of the Achilles tendon. This would be point B on our fitness landscape:
    [​IMG]
    Now suppose we have a runner who has been heelstriking for his entire career. he will have a fairly efficient and optimized heelstrike, right around point A. If we ask him to attempt a forefoot strike, it is no surprise that he would be less efficient because his body has not optimized itself for that footstrike style, even if the forefoot striking is ultimately capable of better efficiency. To really see results, we would need to look at efficiency periodically over a long time--possibly months or years. Alternatively, we could do the type of Mz twin study we always dream about. Dr Jack Daniels (no relation to the whiskey guy!) gave a fabulous interview talking about some of these issues here:

    http://www.flotrack.org/videos/cove...ls/335086-4-barefoot-running-thirsty-thursday

    Dr. Daniels did some of the earliest research on running economy, efficiency, and physiology in the 70s and 80s. The POSE method study was a step in the right direction--it studied the POSE method for 12 weeks and showed a decrease in economy vs. a control group. However...getting back to #1...this suffered from the same MASSIVE flaws as the Lieberman study. Small sample sizes! The experimental and control groups were n = 8! I don't care how small your p value is, if your sample size is in the single digits, I don't want to hear about it. Additionally, even if we were to accept the results of this study, it only shows that the POSE technique is ineffective. Maybe ChiRunning would be more efficient (I suspect not, but regardless).

    Despite the variability in running form among the general population, it is astounding how little variation is present among the very top international performers. One post referenced a slow-motion video of top triathletes that showed significant variation in their running styles, but we ought to confine ourselves to runners, not multi-sport athletes who have just completed exhausting swim and bike legs.
    [​IMG]
    In this image, we see five athletes from three countries in the 10km final at the 2008 Olympics. Though totally unscientific, it is a good example how little running form varies at the very top international level in distance running. You will find significant variation, for example, even among national caliber athletes, or journeyman international athletes, but among top champions--top-25 all-time marks in a distance event, for example--the similarities in running form are simply astounding when compared to the variation among middle-of-the-pack runners. Does this have implications for middle of the pack runners? Perhaps. But it may also be that at very high speeds (if I recall correctly, the Olympic 10k was won in about 27 minutes--4:20 mile pace) there is one "ideal" form, but may be less important at slower speeds.


    3) The body maximizes metabolic efficiency in a given condition, but may not simultaneously minimize injury risk. This is related to #2. As illustrated in several of the leg-stiffness and surface-stiffness studies, the body attempts to keep the external kinematics as similar as possible over a variety of surfaces, with the overarching goal being minimizing the metabolic cost of running for the selected speed. This is to say nothing about minimizing strain on the muscles, tendons, joints, and bone. They may be mutually exclusive--the most economical running strategy may not be the least injurious. Some clever studies (most likely "in silico" :wacko: ) will be needed to cast some light on this area. I have noticed that in this discussion, often the line between "efficiency/economy" and "injury prevention" is blurred--one should take note that there is NO evidence these go hand-in-hand, and it is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which the two would be mutually exclusive. Barefoot running could be more efficient and also more injurious. Or it could be less efficient and less injurious. Again...more studies are needed. Which brings me to...


    4) Despite a stack of 50 running injury-related papers on my desk, there is only ONE (actually two--see #5) that directly deals with the body's adaptations to minimal or barefoot activity. You can look it over here:
    http://www.asbweb.org/conferences/2005/pdf/0553.pdf
    While suffering from some drawbacks (potential conflict of interest...funded by Nike and *surprise* investigating benefits of a Nike product), I was pleased by the fact that a) they used reasonable sample sizes (n = 25) and b) refrained from making any outrageous injury-related claims. The gist of the study was that performing a pre-workout warmup in a highly flexible and "minimal" (here we go with dubious terminology again...) shoe (the Nike Free) vs. a traditional athletic shoe increases foot muscle strength and size. I suspect similar results would be found for adding barefoot activity into an athlete's training regimen. Whether this increase in foot strength affects anything, including performance or injury risk, remains to be seen.


    5) The other study in my pile that directly looked at barefoot activity is the much-cited one by SE Robbins. While I was intrigued by his research at first, my evaluation of his work has dropped to the extent that I groan whenever I see another paper or article cite him. I'm surprised his articles haven't come up until recently in this thread, as he has made some highly partisan comments regarding barefoot running. Though often cited by "barefoot nutters," he has consistently misrepresented studies he has cited in his paper (including the "grand prix study"--Robbins' misrepresentation of this study is where the "cheaper shoes are better than more expensive ones" claim comes from) and made claims in his article titles, abstracts, and conclusions that are not supported by his data. I also have a letter to the editor-in-chief of MSSE from Peter Cavanagh and E. C. Frederick, two respected researchers with whom I suspect many here are familiar, which characterizes Robbins' claims in his various papers as "outrageous and untenable." Robbins' response is actually quite similar to that of some of the "barefoot [name]" posters here--shifting the burden of proof to shoe companies, accusing Cavanagh and Frederick of conflict of interest, and reasserting his original points without directly confronting the issues raised.

    6) Finally, before I drive myself crazy looking at these animated smiley-faces on the right, I would just like to comment that some of the most interesting research happening right now is Benno Nigg's recent foray into wavelet analysis. It is quite complex, and involves separating the soft-tissue vibrations from impact into different frequency components. I cannot claim to be an expert on it, much less fully understand the mechanics of it (still working through his papers at the moment), but there is a fascinating relationship between the plantar mechanoreceptors, the pre-activation of muscles, and the dampening of soft-tissue vibration by adjusting leg stiffness. There is an interesting narrative being developed about how the brain "decides" how the leg will impact the ground, and I think understanding how surface stiffness, shoe composition, preferred path of movement, tactile sensation, and soft-tissue vibration affect the running stride, particularly under muscular fatigue or footwear/surface combinations outside the "zone of optimal leg stiffness," will ultimately lead to a better understanding of the etiology of running injuries. I am wondering if any posters here are familiar with Nigg's or anyone else's work on wavelet analysis.

    Anyways, hope this provided some food for thought

    Best,

    ---JohnD
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2010
  24. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    You deserve some sort of award for that! :good::welcome:
     
  25. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Nice post John. What's your background?

    On a lighter note, the money making inventions continue: Barefoot stickers
     
  26. John:

    It is very good to have you on board here on Podiatry Arena since, from reading your excellent posting above, it is obvious that you are knowledgable and have read the literature that pertains to this interesting subject. I don't really have much to add to your comments other than I have noted that the runners I have examined who have self-selected to be forefoot strikers at moderate running speeds (about 6:00 minute/mile pace) all have a decrease in ankle joint dorsiflexion with their knees flexed (eg. soleus equinus deformity). As a result of this very consistent clinical observation of mine over the years in the hundreds of runners I have examined, I believe that your model of the hills and valleys to become a heel-stiking vs forefoot striking runner may not necessarily be a good representation of reality.

    My theory is that runners choose the optimum footstrike pattern largely dependent on the ankle joint dorsiflexion stiffness when the knee is flexed (not with the knee extended as many clinicians measure in runners). Runners with more ankle joint dorsiflexion stiffness when the knee is flexed will be more likely to choose midfoot to forefoot striking pattern whereas runners with less ankle joint dorsiflexion stiffness will be more likely to choose a heel striking pattern since this will be a more economical kinematic pattern for running. I'm still waiting for someone to do this research to test my hypothesis. However, I'm very certain, after a quarter century of clinical observation of runners, that this factor is very important in how a runner becomes either a "natural heel striker" or a "natural forefoot striker" in running.

    Welcome, John, to Podiatry Arena. :welcome: Many of us are looking forward to your continuing contributions.
     
  27. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    If a runner changed his running form from heelstriking to forefoot striking, sure they may not be as efficient initially but wouldn't the body optimize to a new footstrike style fairly quickly? Isn't that the expectation a running coach would have when teaching proper or efficient running form?

    I find this comment interesting. John what aspects of running form in top runners do you see as important that is similar? When I look at the photo, I see the first two runners as forefoot strikers and the remaining three as possibly midfoot strikers. I really don't see any as heel strikers. With respect to the top runners, what foot strike to do see that they have in common? I do know what they do have in common is that their shoes weigh around 5 ounces or less. What may be considered as minimalist shoes in 2010 language. Other properties of those shoes are that they are very flexible, provide minimal to no support, have minimal cushioning or stability characteristics. Have a minimal difference in height between the heel and forefoot. Ultimately they simply provide some minor protection between the bare foot and the surface of the ground. Do you think the characteristics of the shoes the top runners are wearing have some influence on running form?

    Dana
     
  28. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Kevin, in addition to ankle joint dorsiflexion stiffness when the knee is flexed as a factor, do you see variation in shoe properties as also a factor? For example, in an exaggerated case where the heel to toe differential is 2 inches, wouldn't you expect the runner to heel strike regardless of ankle joint dorsiflexion stiffness? It would seem that the "best" shoe would have no or minimal height difference between the heel and toe so that ankle joint dorsiflexion stiffness can be the primary determining factor in foot strike pattern. Ultimately, let footstrike pattern be determined naturally rather than artificially impacted by shoe architecture.

    Dana
     
  29. In my experience, it often depends on whether said runner has a history of achilles tendon disorders. I quite often see runners who forefoot strike in their road running shoes, with their shoe heel height differential of about 1.5 cm. These runners commonly have a long history of achilles and other problems. Yet when heel lifts and rearfoot posts are added, a change to heel/ midfoot strike is sometimes observed and their symptoms usually resolve in such cases. The change in strike may be due to the added mass under the heel, or to other factors. Either way, the change from forefoot to rearfoot strike is frequently associated with resolution of symptoms in such patients. I can honestly say, I've never seen a runner who's achilles symptoms resolved with a change from rearfoot strike to forefoot strike, but I have seen the reverse- frequently- hand on heart, no BS. Those with a better understanding of biomechanics than I might say: "Dog, that's really a no brainer, since the eccentric loading on the Achilles will be reduced in the rearfoot strike pattern when compared to the forefoot strike pattern, all other factors being equal." I say: "why do you call me Dog?"
     
  30. JohnD

    JohnD Member

    With regards to footstrike, one thing I've seen repeated a few times (both in this thread and in general) is that "footstrike changes with speed." However, at least looking at what I have seen personally, footstrike for a given runner stays fairly constant through a wide range of paces. Here's a nice pair of videos that shows a college cross-country team running at a variety of paces, from 8:00 miles down to 5:28, and then a self-selected "hard" pace (under 5:00 pace):
    http://www.vimeo.com/17244848
    http://www.vimeo.com/17247874

    It's rather long, but you can breeze through the middle and just compare footstrikes at the beginning and end--only three of the seventeen or so runners change their footstrike, and these three only switch from heel to mid/forefoot at under 5-minute-mile speeds. Granted, I have read that fatigue may play a role in footstrike, so that may skew the results of this video--filming running form under fatigue was actually the intent of the whole ordeal, so one could not call this scientific! I'd really like to see footage like this of runners doing several short trials (with rest!) at faster speeds--maybe from 5:20 down to 4:00 pace, and examine if/how their footstrike changes.

    However, it's interesting to contrast these observations with some real studies. The only major study I'm aware of on footstrike patterns in elite runners is Hasegawa et al 2007 (http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/a...atterns_of_runners_at_the_15_km_point.40.aspx). Steve Magness (http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2010/02/new-studies-on-footstrike-do-faster.html) and the folks at Science of Sport (http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/04/running-technique-footstrike.html) have both posted on this study. While I don't agree with everything in either of their conclusions (which are quite different!), they do make some good points. I particularly like this graph:

    [​IMG]

    (forefoot striking is not graphed, as only 4 out of over 200 runners were forefoot strikers--its rarity seems to reinforce Kevin's theory that forefoot striking is not present unless an athlete has unusual reduced ankle dorsiflexion).

    At different speeds, a different distribution of footstrikes is present. It's unclear whether this is because midfoot striking makes you faster, or you midfoot strike because you run faster. Steve Magness cites as-of-yet-unpublished British research--probably from collaborators with his own research group at George Mason, where he is doing graduate work--that investigates footstrike patterns of middle-distance runners in the 1500m and 800m.

    In the 1500m, the breakdown is as follows: (average time 3:56)
    Forefoot: 34.6%
    Midfoot: 46.2%
    Rearfoot: 19.2%

    In the 800m, the breakdown is very similar:(average time 1:55)

    Forefoot: 35%
    Midfoot: 48%
    Rearfoot: 17%

    Magness does not indicate whether these are the same athletes, so we are somewhat limited in our ability to draw conclusions. After looking at this, the first thing I thought of was the Brigham Young study mentioned a while back (http://www.jssm.org/vol9/n1/21/v9n1-21text.php) on ground reaction forces in spikes, flats,and shoes. They only included heelstrikers--at 6.7m/s! (4:00 mile pace). If Magness' data is correct, that would represent only 1 in 5 middle-distance runners, and as Lieberman did show, ground reaction forces are different for different footstrike styles.

    I don't have full access right now to the Hasegawa study, though I should by early next week. I'd like to do a linear fit to their footstrike vs. place data and convert it to footstrike vs. speed to see if it can predict the footstrikes of the 800m and 1500m runners. A cheeky little statistics trick, but wouldn't it be neat if it worked? Of course, just from eyeballing the graph, it looks like midfoot striking would drop to zero by about 500th place in this half-marathon. Again, we don't know if this is because the slow runners are being prevented from going faster because of their "inferior" footstrike (as the barefooters would have it) or because they simply aren't running fast enough to necessitate a flatter foot placement. But if the latter case is true, the implications of this for the average "weekend warrior" types, who rarely (if ever) dip under 10-minute-mile pace, are nil. And of course there are other confounding factors--faster runners are more likely to be wearing low-heeled racing flats, while slower runners will tend to wear bigger-heeled trainers; faster runners are more likely to have been exposed to coaches who advocate specific footstrike styles, slower runners are not, etc. This is why I'd like to look at the same set of runners doing a variety of speeds. It would help answer a lot of these questions.

    Well, we don't really know how long that takes. For example, it takes basketball players a long time to learn to dribble and shoot with their non-dominant hand. In contrast, it hardly takes any time at all for the body to adapt to a new surface or a new shoe. One thing the POSE method study showed is that, if POSE is truly more efficient, it takes much longer than 12 weeks to see the results. In the interview I posted earlier, Jack Daniels says he'd like to see studies track changes for 6 months to see how efficiency changes.

    Well, it's extraordinarily difficult to tell footstrike styles in photographs unless the photographer happened to capture the moment the foot touches the ground. Some runners look like they are about to heelstrike, but snap their ankle down at the last minute and midfoot strike. You really need a high-speed camera (or a force plate) to analyze footstrike styles. The things that struck me in the picture have more to do with the rest of their body: their slight forward lean, the angle of their hips and arms, and so on. Footstrike is an easy part of form to pick apart because it is easily classified into forefoot, midfoot, rearfoot. But without 3d kinematic analysis, it's harder to easily quantify body angle, hip flexion, and so on.

    Certainly, the shoes must have some effect. High end running spikes tend to be between 3 and 6 ounces and extremely thin. Flexibility is more variable--some you could fold in half, and other have a full plastic plate covering the bottom. One thing most have in common, though, is that they are actually negative drop shoes if you include the spikes. Granted, these sink into the track, but it still might encourage a more forward footstrike or other minor alterations. Sprinters talk about how they need spikes that allow them to "get up on their toes." Some of these effects might be so small that they are virtually unmeasurable, though. I think Jack Daniels did a study that looked at spiked vs. spikeless shoes of the same weight, and found no difference in running economy as long as the track was clean and dry (spikeless shoes slip on wet tracks!).

    ---JohnD
     
  31. Oneoff

    Oneoff Welcome New Poster

    Wow, thanks for the info Kirby! I read your posts and then followed your links and kind of wondered off from there and didn't get back to you to even thank you.

    So: Thank you! :D

    @efuller

    It just feels so odd. I was always a heel striker so the shift to mandatory mid-foot/forefoot wasn't just taxing on my feet (ankles hurt for a bit, etc) but also disorienting. I couldn't just start running like I used to.

    Also I got out of breath quicker and couldn't run as far but I think that has less to do with the shoes then the condition I'm in. :rolleyes:

    @JohnD
    Just amazing. It's not just that you obviously know what you're doing but that you have the time and patience to read through multiple scholarly reports/articles (even if it might be your day job ;)).


    I don't have anything to really contribute to this conversation so I'll just lurk from now on; watching from the shadows, silently judging every word :eek:

    Merry Christmas and belated Chanukah, Kwanza and Winter Solstice.
     
  32. I would tend to agree with you, John, if we look at the ranges of 5:30 to 8:00 mile pace running that the foot strike pattern is basically the same. However, if we look at the full range of running speeds from a slow jog to a sprint (yes, slow jogging and sprinting are still considered "running"), the runner will generally be a heel striker at the slowest running speeds and tend to move more toward being a forefoot striker at the fastest running speeds.

    My take on this subject from being a competetive distance runner since the age of 13 and studying my runner-patients over 25+ years, is that most runners will self-select their given footstrike patterns (i.e. heel, midfoot, forefoot striking) that makes them:

    1) most metabolically efficient, and

    2) less painful.

    However, the footstrike pattern chosen by the runner will be modified by the following variables:

    1) heel height differential of the running shoe (higher heel height differential will tend to cause more of a heel-striking pattern),

    2) running speed (slower running causes more of a heel-striking pattern, faster running causes more of a midfoot or forefoot striking patttern),

    3) ankle joint dorsiflexion stiffness with knee flexed (runners with increased ankle joint dorsiflexion stiffness with knee flexed will be more likely to be forefoot strikers and runners with decreased ankle joint dorsiflexion stiffness with knee flexed will be more likely to be rearfoot-strikers),

    4) coaching influences (runners may be trained to run differently from their self-selected style by coaching over a given time period).

    I have raced behind many runners, getting to watch their foot-strike patterns mile after mile over the past few decades. Most of these runners were rearfoot-strikers, and only a few were forefoot-strikers. Of course, as running speed increases, forefoot-striking also becomes more common. It is quite possible, that those that were able to efficiently forefoot-strike (I never was able to forefoot strike except at sprinting speeds) also could utilize more elastic recoil within their Achilles tendons to make them run faster than did the rearfoot-striking runners. I honestly don't know exactly how you could design a study to determine which came first, the chicken or the egg.;)

    I'm not too impressed about one running style being "better" than another. The only time I will suggest a change in running style to a runner-patient would be if more simple changes such modifying insoles/making orthoses, stretching, strengthening, icing, physical therapy, modifying shoes, or changing training/racing habits are not successful in relieving injuries. It is exceeding difficult for a runner to totally change their running style and, if done in the laboratory setup like Irene Davis has been doing, is quite costly and time-consuming...more expensive and much more time-consuming for the runner than custom foot orthosis treatment.

    I agree with John that still photos are impossible to use to determine foot-strike patterns unless they are taken at the very instant of initial ground contact of the runner. High speed videos are necessary to accurately determine foot-strike patterns. These changes from rearfoot-striking to midfoot-striking are only a few milliseconds apart and, I think, are being over-stressed currently in their importance due to Lieberman's research and the barefoot running discussions that are occurring.

    John, you are a breath of fresh air to this excellent thread. Where are you located and what is your specialty/training?:drinks
     
  33. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    What really bothers me about the studies that compare the proportion of runners that heel strike vs midfoot strike vs forefoot strike is that they do not consider the type shoes being worn as a variable. Like running speed, shoes are also a factor. Unless all of the runners are wearing the same shoes, the results are pure nonsense.

    JohnD, you are right, you can't use a still photograph to analyze movement, so I'm not sure why you did. I also saw a lot of variability in how they are carrying their arms but elected to just use the footstrike example because it is relevant to the discussion. Since it is a still photo, you really can't draw any conclusions about the form of top runners. My impression when watching top runners compete in motion is that their form varies quite a bit.

    Dana
     
  34. I tend to agree, Dana. Do we have any such studies?
     
  35. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Simon, I'm sure you know the answer with far more confidence than I do. What bothers me is the use of these studies to draw conclusions or prove points. From reading this forum for a while, I too am learning how studies can be misused, especially when the study is bogus to begin with.

    Dana, who feels good because Simon actually agreed with me about something
     
  36. Ian Linane

    Ian Linane Well-Known Member

    "Dana, who feels good because Simon actually agreed with me about something"

    What a Christmas present! If I'm good then next year Santa Simon might do the same for me!! :pigs:
     
  37. Bobba Booey

    Bobba Booey Active Member

    It's nice to see the mood much more light-hearted in this thread, maybe it's because of the holidays. :santa2: I saw this video and thought it did a good job of summarizing this whole barefoot movement in a humorous way. Enjoy and happy new year everyone. :drinks

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  38. nickcampi

    nickcampi Member

    There is no literature supporting that running with shoes increases strength. It makes sense to believe that it will actually decrease muscle activity, to the intrinsics, especially since we are relying on the heel to absorb our shock instead of our forefoot.
     
  39. nickcampi

    nickcampi Member

    I have been trying to read these posts to see where the debate started and where it was heading etc.., and it is amusing to see some of the comments being made with respect to medical literature and scientific literature. To jump to the point, there is no study that exists that indicates running injuries can be minimized by wearing running shoes. We all tell our patients to buy motion control shoes etc, but do we really know why?? Because it controls pronation?? Well isn't pronation good to absorb shock? Oh, too much is bad. So if i pronate 4 degrees to 6 degrees beyond neutral STJ, then is that too much?? Why? because Root said that is why? Has there ever been a study that compared foot biomechanics to injury patterns? We all say that pronation is bad, but if you land on your forefoot or 4th and 5th metheads as we do when running barefoot (or with minimal shoes, the word barefoot is trivial as far as I am concerned) then does pronation even matter?? Why have running shoes evolved to have such a thick heel??? Why cushion the heel? Why do we tell our patients to land on there heel when they run?? Because that is what we were we all taught in biomechanics ?? What about three types of running shoes.. There are millions of types of feet out there. Do we have 3 types of orthotics to put our patients in? If i am running in a 75$ running shoe that has been demonstrated to have just as much cushioning scientifically as a 175$ running shoe, then why shoe i buy the 175$ running shoe? What shoe should I tell my patient with a normal arch to get what has plantar fasciitis and has been running in a 175$ running shoe? Or should I just say that you don't have plantar fasciitis because you are wearing the best shoe for your foot and it can't be the shoe that is causing your problem? I can't justify an orthotic because you already have a normal arch. Remember that we are advising our patients everyday in our practice to go out and buy a running shoe to wear when they have plantar fasciitis and that they should not be going barefoot. Why? Because the literature says so? Well it actually doesn't say so. And in the few MEDICAL LITERATURE articles that exist that do say it does, can't actually be proven by the methods used.

    If you jumped off a ladder barefoot, would you land on your heel??? So why is it better to run 26.2 miles on your heels????
     
  40. Dr. Nick Campitelli:

    Now that you have asked 18 questions in your posting above, what is your point?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page