Barefoot Running Debate

Dear Mr. Kirby, Chris McDougall in the beginning of his book "Born to Run" shows quite gloomy statistics of running injuries. Could his numbers be trusted? If not, were would be possible to find reliable statistics on annual basis?

 

Really?!

I've not embedded this because it has a bad word in it. But I think its fair comment on the above.

Walk barefoot. Because otherwise you'll oxidise to death for lack of electrons.

Thanks for sharing.

 

Thats the exact sort of nonsense I was referring to in the thread: There is no barefoot running debate. If the natural/barefoot/minimalist runners/promoters want to be taken seriously they have to distance themselves from what those on the fringes are touting. Maybe the person that wrote that was wearing shoes as a child (those who know this joke, know what I mean - see posts #18 & #19)

 

Its becoming increasingly clear that the injury stats for barefoot/minimalist running is evener gloomier. Barefoot/minimalist running is an economic stimulus package for those who treat running injuries. You just have to ask anyone from any number of different disciplines who treat running inquires to know that the injury rate in barefoot/minimalist runners is disproportionate to the number of runners who are barefoot/minimalist.

 

Sorry folks I know this is off topic. I was wondering if anyone had the email address for Simon Barthold and Craig Tanner?

contact me at bwilliams@breakthroughpodiatry.com
thanks!
Bruce

 

It's common sense running barefoot will strengthen the feet far more than being in running shoes.

Your feet are absorbing/propelling far greater forces/resistances going barefoot. Much of this force would be absorbed/lost into the cushion of a decent running shoe, resulting in a loss.

 

So your real point is that you also know nothing, but cusioned shoes must be better. Well I've tried both running in well cusioned shoes and minimalist. My body lets me know very clearly which gives least impact and it's the minimalist shoe with a forefoot landing. That's only the start of it. Sure I'm not in a science lab but I am a post grad engineer who knows the extreme limitations of liearized modelling. Reducing this issue to a discussion about inadequate scientific method serves no one. We know the science is useless - but that's a double edged sword - you can't take the moral high ground there either. If you attack those using the same inadequate science to advocate the use of cusioned shoes over "barefoot" then fine. If not then you are biased.

 

You have the advantage on me there. I have no idea what liearized modeling is.

So you're a post grad engineer. A difficult degree to acquire and a challenging job. I'd certainly not presume to teach you about engineering based on my reading a few blogs, being as how that's what you do all day and what your training was in. You'd have every reason to be ****** at me if I did!

But I'll keep this post short. I've been treating people with bust feet all day so I'm a bit tired.

 

Destroyer:

It is nice that you feel that running with a "minimalist shoe" with a "forefoot landing" helps you. For me, I ran in a heel striking fashion, (as do 80% of all other runners), and found that heel striking for me, both in training shoes or variable midsole durometer and heel height differential and in racing flats (what you probably now call "minimalist shoes) was very successful for me. In fact, I heel struck my way to a 2:39 marathon at age 18 and heel struck my way to a 2:28 marathon at age 23, all with relatively few injuries for the 70-100 mile weeks I was putting in at the time.

What does all this anecdotal information from you and I prove?...absolutely nothing! Just don't tell me, or anyone else that running in "minimalist shoes" with a forefoot landing is a "better way" to run, like many of the barefoot-minimalist zealots do, since this is certainly not the case.....this is all that most of us ask of newcomers to this academic podiatric forum.

Happy running.:drinks

 

Why do you want to reduce the impact for? What is actually wrong with impact forces? You do realize that in all the risk factor studies for running injury only one of them has been able to relate impacts to injury, so not sure of the rationale of reducing it? Sure, forefoot striking (with or with shoes) reduces the heel impact forces; but it also increases the eccentric loads on the achilles/calf muscles and also increases the forefoot dorsiflexion moments of the forefoot on the rearfoot <-- this is responsible for the injury epidemic that barefot/minimlaist running is causing.

We know that too, but i have asked repeatedly of barefoot/minimlist runners posting in this thread why they keep saying that the overwhelming scientific evidence supports barefoot/minimalist running. Why do they keep saying that when there is no evidence at all. Why do they lie? I am still waiting for someone to show me that evidence or explain what they keep making the false claims about the evidence. Can you explain it? See this thread: There is no barefoot running debate

I do not think anyone here has made any claims about the science of cushioning shoes, in fact we had a thread on it in way back in 2007: Do “cushioning” shoes really cushion impacts?

 

In Benno Nigg's latest book, his research demonstrated that those runners with increased impact forces had the lower injury rate. I don't understand why everyone is so infatuated with "impact forces" now....whatever happened to abnormal magnitudes of joint moments and excessive tensile strain loading rates etc. as the mechanical sources of tissue damage in running injuries.

In other words, it's not all about impact forces and impact loading rates when we carry on intelligent discussions on the mechanical causes of running injuries.

 

I think our post-graduate engineer friend didn't double-major in English....linearized modelling is, I believe, what he meant to write.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_model

 

Again common tells us “cushioning” does indeed "cushion" impacts.

Lets talk in terms of strength potential with the aid of cushioning. Much of the energy is being lost into the cushion of the shoe & not back up through the foot/body resulting in a loss of strength potential during that time training. Any cushioning will obviously take more stress off the foot. Too increase strength, increase the stress you place on the muscles.

Forward to 0:50 in the video below, an extreme example. Same phenomena. The barbell pad is the cushion: the shoe. The barbell is the physical object: the runner.


Original Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CETPQODDXs0

 

Well there you go. That's that then. Put away your text books and journals, lets rely on sicknote's common sense.

Revolutionary. I am going right now down to the track and tell the sprinters I look after to try using really thin soled shoes with no padding when they want to run faster. Hey... what about if we put spikes of metal on the sole so they grip better too?

Genius. I am going to start getting my patients to start walking around with 20kg back packs on... that will be even more stress won't it? They will have the strongest feet ever and all of their problems will go away. Hmmm I wonder then why I have many of my overweight patients have foot problems?? They must have just got fat too quickly... didn't ease in to it gradually enough.


Student? God help us.

 

Thanks for the laugh out loud Craig!

Actually, a bloody good point!

 

http://peakperformance.runnersworld...ne-from-heel-landing-to-forefoot-landing.html

 

What are you talking about fella?.

lol.

What do these alarming injury rates prove?.

Your placing a far greater demand on the muscles in the feet (strength potential) during barefoot/minimalist running, muscles not conditioned during training in shoes. Runner's can't all of a sudden run there regular training mileages having just converted to barefoot/minimalist running (which they do without a second thought). They won't have conditioned the muscles or built up the appropriate tolerance to sufficient levels. Going at it too soon will have consequences.

BUT with the application of common sense & sensible goals, strength improvements will be made.

Due to running in Vibram FiveFinger shoes.


There are too many factors to lay the blame firmly with Vibram FiveFingers footwear.

Training mileages/workloads will need to be adjusted, he's bringing more (under-conditioned) muscles to the party having being running in shoes.

Of course injury rates will be on the increase, it applies to overloading the muscles in any exercise which are under used.

 

Kevin, what shoes do you currently use for running?

Dana

 

I suspect he's talking about you not knowing your arse from your elbow. Just guessing. Next...

Kleg + Kshoe+ Ksurface = Knet...................?

What determines impact forces between the body and the ground during running? No, lets make it easier, lets take two balls: what determines the impact force when they collide?

 

Speed, mass, and relative stiffness?.

 

And the body modulates Kleg according to surface stiffness (Kshoe + Ksurface) to obtain a near constant COM trajectory. So.... if I jump off a wall and land on the concrete below with my legs locked out..... If I land on the same surface from the same height, but bend my knees.... Now, if I jump from the same height and land on a softer surface I don't need to bend my knees relatively so much to arrive at the same impact forces that I achieved with either of the previous two examples. Is it better to run with straighter legs or more bent legs? Which will be more metabolically efficient? What does the research tell us? Does it tell us that performance is enhanced with running on stiffer surfaces or more compliant surfaces?

 

Simon, with respect to your questions, what does the research tell us about injury rates in running?

Dana

 

It tells us that running is crap (Van Gent RN, Siem D, van Middelkoop M, et al. Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 2007;41(8):469-480). But when surfaces are more compliant for runners then the metabolic rate is reduced, performance is improved and injury rate is potentially halved (McMahon TA and Greene PR. The influence of track compliance on running. J Biomech 12: 893–904, 1979). Next...

 

Or possibly running tells us that research is ****.

 

The research tells us common sense isn't being applied, training programs are poorly thought through & runners are not listening to there bodies.

When we take the above into consideration, when surfaces are more compliant for runners & the metabolic rate is reduced, injury rates are potentially tripled.

 

Your references, please. And I really suggest you actually read and attempt to understand the research before you respond in future.

 

Moreover, I think what this thread tells us and indeed exemplifies is that runners often have a very poor grasp of research and running biomechanics. Like I said: next...

 

Research & references mean nothing when common sense isn't being applied by the runner, they overreach beyond there existing potential which results in them placing a far greater burden on there untrained body/muscles & with training programs being poorly thought through will result in an increasing risk of injury. Regardless of surfaces being more compliant & the metabolic rate being reduced, barefoot/minimalist/sprint spikes/racing flats, running shoes, doesn't matter.

Common sense hasn't been applied, they overreach.

The rest is history.

Nothing to do with what you put on your feet.

 

I'll take it from that you cannot back up your contentions with peer reviewed research, published in an index medicus rated journal? And I should listen to you because.... you're called "sicknote". Rather I should ignore the scientists and experts in the field in favour of you because.... you know better than everyone, because you are: "a student, researching an essay". No thanks. I'd rather eat my own turds. Called it as I saw it, Griff- this ones a tool.

"Nothing to do with what you put on your feet"- really? I'm sure even Dana would say that some shoes are **** to run in, while others suit him better... why is that? Why is it that several good quality studies have shown that it does matter what you put on your feet in terms of injury treatment and prevention?

Why is it that people who don't have the guts to use their given names on discussion forums are often the loudest with their own opinions, but also often the weakest when it comes to backing up their contentions with evidence? And answering the questions put to them?

For the final time: You stated that you are a student researching an essay:

What are you a student of?
Where are you studying?
What is the title of the essay?

I put it to you that you were lying when you said this.

"It's no secret that a liar won't believe anyone else"

 

Simon, as you know there is an extremely limited amount of research that connects running form, shoe type, etc. to injury rate and what does exist is pretty useless so to generalize that a group of people, (runners) have a poor grasp on something that has no substance is a laugh.

 

You're straw man preamble ignored, what percentage of runners do you think have a strong grasp of biomechanics, research methods and statistical analysis, Dana? 1 maybe 2%? What about you, which category do you think you fall into?

As you are so wise on thee matters, perhaps you could tell me how to treat a runner with medial tibial stress syndrome. I can give you the full case history if it helps. Yet, perhaps I can help you de-bug some IBM system for you?

That's not fair. I have no idea what you do at IBM. Perhaps you make the coffee, either way i wouldn't presume to be able to stir the coffeeeee in the way that you do at IBM, just because i drink coffeeeeeee. Yet because you run, you seem to think that you know better than those whose life's work it is to understand running biomechanics, better than them. Just an observation and an irritation

 

What do any of these questions have to do with shoe type, running form and injury rate? Do you have a strong grasp of biomechanics, research methods and statistical analysis? If so, why can't you tell us what running shoe and running form relates to the lowest injury rates?

It's one thing to ask questions, but real value comes from those who can provide answers. I don't have the answers, do you?

 

Research tells us that when the natural frequency of the leg "spring" is optimised to the natural frequency of the surface, metabolic efficiency can be improved and injury rate might be reduced.

Running "form"? The body naturally adopts the most metabolically efficient form with that which it has and that which is presented to it. If you try to alter this, metabolic cost will increase.


In terms of running shoes and injury rate, its all about which shoes best place the lower limb within it's zones of optimal stress and stiffness. This will obviously vary from individual to individual.


It's one thing to be runner. It's another to understand running biomechanics.

I think I have a reasonable grasp of running biomehanics. I'm sure there are people out there who know more. I'm sure you are not one of them.

So, I've answered your questions, what about answering mine? How many cups of coffeeeeeee do you make for the people who work at IBM on an average day?

 

It's not really an issue.

Janda can have the strongest grasp of biomechanics, research methods, statistical analysis & wear the best footwear.

Does that mean he will remain injury free throughout his entire life?.

Of course not.

 

Come back when you've read Janda. And morevoer, have the balls to post under your real name, child. i may not agree with Dana, but at least he's got the balls to be upfront about who he his, and where he's coming from.

 

Injury rate MIGHT be reduced? OK, I guess that might just answer it or it might not. Your last question might be a bit immature but since this is an academic forum, I might be wrong.

Simon, you still haven't answered my questions. The statement about the body naturally adopts the most metabolically efficient form is a bunch of crap. It MIGHT be true for some individuals but you have absolutely no proof that it is true for people in general.

You also have no proof between injury rate and zones of optimal stiffness so that statement might also just be hot air.

Let me repeat again, there is a limited amount of research that supports the relationship between shoe type, running form or gait and injury rate. To pretend otherwise MIGHT be a bit embarrassing.

 

Great biomechanically knowledge, research methods, statistical analysis & wearing footwear which best places the lower limb within it's zones of optimal stress and stiffness doesn't mean Janda becomes immune to injury.

 

Bunch of crap? Please show me which research proves that? What we do know is that when we start pissing about with gait parameters metabolic cost increases. I use the word might, because as anyone who understands statistics appreciates, there are very few certainties, and certainly none proven by statistics.

We also now that peoples lower extremities function very stiff get injured in a certain way- stress fractures generally; we also know that people who run very complaint tend to get injured in a certain way- soft tissue injuries. So, it's a reasonable hypothesis that somewhere in-between there exists a zone of optimal limb stiffness for runners- and your counter hypothesis is.... non-existant.

I don't believe I said that there is a relationship between shoe type, running form or gait and injury rate. But you are welcome to that straw man too. What I said was that reducing surface stiffness has been shown to improve metabolic cost and decrease injury rate.

Now, let me repeat again, can you answer my question and tell me how many cups of coffeeeeeeee you make for the employees of IBM on a daily basis?

 

Yet apparently it does still show your ignorance for all to see. It's just a good job you haven't got the mettle to post under your real name, for then all could really see your lack of knowledge, ability and talent..

 

Simon, no matter how hard you pretend to answer my initial questions, you haven't. No matter how low you stoop to insult me, you haven't. What a laugh.