Barefoot Running Debate

The Spira shoe available to the public only weighs 7 OZ. I don't know what the custom shoes the top competitors were wearing weighed. Possibly 5 or 6 OZ? So I guess we want a soft, ultra light shoe.

Dana

 

Dana, thanks for the lessons in biomechanics.:bash: I'll come back to your other comments later. The hopping test didn't produce non-sense results unless you cheated. Yesterday you told me it didn't "correlate with running what so ever"; I gave you a reference which demonstrates that hopping leg stiffness is highly correlated with running velocity. Tonight you're telling me that it doesn't "demonstrate leg stiffness", well do you know what? you're wrong yet again- do you want the references? (which is were I think you and I came into this conversation). In this case I asked you to stay low to the ground in order to minimise differences in hop height and for you to adopt your natural frequency. You were you own control. So if you performed the task correctly and repeated the task there shouldn't have been major differences in your hop height, only differences (or in your case no differences) in the oscillation frequency.... But what the **** do I know Dana? After all you must know more about this than me because you used to work for IBM and you've been running for soooooooooooo long. Me, I just studied the human foot and lower limb for the last 22 years.

Dana, go out and run in whatever shoes you like... just like Jim Fixx did, but I guess his heart rate monitor must have been on the blink or he'd have walked a bit more.

That's me done with you for now.

 

Dana is a he!

VFF KSO weigh 5.7 OZ per shoe, VFF Bikila weigh 6.0 OZ per shoe. The traditional shoes I'm comparing HR to, weigh from 8 OZ to 13 oz per shoe, with the avg being 12.75 OZ.

I have 187 data points from a 6.7 mile dirt trail loop that starts and finishes at the same location (my driveway) at an altitude of 5100 feet with 553 feet of climb and 553 feet of descent. On the loop wearing traditional running shoes, when I average 9 minute pace for the 6.7 miles or a total time of 60 minutes, 18 seconds, I can expect my Heart Rate to average 138 beats per minute over the duration of the run. I can also expect a variation of + or - 2 BPM.

I have 6 data points wearing VFF KSO and Bikila. Using straight line linear regression on the 6 data points, I have found that when maintaining an average HR of 138, I can expect a pace of 8:18 min/mile or a total time of 55 minutes, 37 seconds.

The improvement in time/speed is 7.8%.

I see 3 factors at play:
1) I only have 6 data points for VFF. The 7.8% could be driven simply by statistical variation and there really isn't a true shift in HR.
2) The difference in weight of the shoes as Kevin has described could be contributing to all of the difference.
3) The non padded, lightweight shoes are encouraging a change in gait dynamics leading to improved efficiency.

I intend on gathering enough data to remove factor 1. I know factor 2 is a viable contributor to efficiency. I have no idea about factor 3 but I thought it would be an interesting discussion point on this forum.

Kevin had a great suggestion to add weight to the VFF to normalize the factor. I doubt I'll do that because I'm a study of n=1, I would need to repeat the run several times and the last thing I want to do is add weight to my feet while running.

This really would be a great experiment for the lab where metabolic cost can be measured and specific factors can be isolated.

For now, I'll just have fun running faster in my 6 oz shoes. :drinks

Dana

 

OK Simon, time to take a deep breath, :empathy:. I know you are really smart and you are an expert in your field, that is great! I don't think anyone is trying to minimize that or take anything away from you.

Remember how this exchange started? You questioned my line about running "exactly the same 6.7 mile route" every day? Look where this has gone, why do you think that is? Take a look at the exchange between us, what do you see?

Believe it or not, we can all learn. Take your position on rotating shoes. You believe that you can wear the same pair of shoes every day. You support that claim armed with studies you believe relate to it, your background knowledge and your own experience. The problem is that it all still has limits. Your experience is based on running 3 days per week at some distance. With that type of routine, there is plenty of time to recover between runs so yes at that level you can wear anything and recover between runs. You could wear a pair of tin cans on your feet and avoid injury. There have been a finite number of studies done, typically trying to isolate a specific factor or two in a controlled environment over a limited period of time. We know there are so many factors and combinations of those factors that you could never hope to have a study cover everything. Your knowledge comes through research and yes that too has limits.

For the competitive runner who might log an average of 20 miles per day, I doubt there is a study supporting or disproving the benefit of changing shoes when running at that level. I also don't believe that you know what it is like to average 20 miles per day. When at that level of running, there is limited time to recover. As Kevin has pointed out, a given shoe can cause tissue stress in certain points. When running every other day, no problem, the stress point has time to recover. When running 20 miles/day. The stress point introduced by a single shoe does not have time to recover and will not recover, it doesn't matter whether you are running on pavement or on a trail. If there is a stress point, it will show up day after day. If you fail to change shoes to remove the stress point and continue to average 20 miles/day, you will most certainly wind up injured.

Let's forget about the studies for a second. When you run 20 miles/day, day after day, I don't care who you are, your feet will ache. You can explain this through the dynamics of GFR, leg stiffness, whatever. The point is your feet hurt and the cause simply put is from running a LOT. If you wear the same shoes, I guarantee your feet will continue to exhibit pain and ultimately something will break down because you are not eliminating the cause.

But wait, there is a solution, change your shoes! Miraculously your feet will experience less pain! Continue to change your shoes and your feet will experience even less pain and you will be able to continue running 20 miles/day. You will still have aches and pains but that is unavoidable. What is the right number of shoes to rotate? Could be 2 pairs, 3, 4. It's the number that works for the individual. For someone who has many pairs of shoes, why not rotate them every day? There is nothing to lose by doing it.

In spite of there not being a study to support this, as Kevin pointed out, rotating your shoes has been a practice performed by high mileage runners since the 1970's at least.

Simon, I'm sure you will stick with your single pair of shoes position, that is OK. The way to truly prove your own position would be for you to go and run 20 miles/day in the same shoes. After 3 or 4 months of running at that level, if you can come back injury free, then maybe I will agree that there is some credibility to the practice of sticking to a single pair of shoes.

Dana :drinks

 

Dana - sorry for the gender confusion. I heard "dana", my brain said "she" and i didn't pay close enough attention to the pronouns in the rest of the conversation to realize I was off.

I also apparently misheard 8% as the decrease in heart rate. Though, I didn't intend to insinuate that 8% decrease in HR = 8% decrease in VO2 as Kevin pointed out.

However, I am curious what the actual HR difference is at a given pace between normal shoes and VFF's. Assuming a ballpark typical O2 pulse (maybe 15 ml/bt for a 30 y/o male), the change in VO2 can be approximated (though roughly). Compare this to the inertial moment differences from 6 oz. (granted, this wll also be rough since shank dimensions, etc. will effect this) and you start to get an idea if the weight alone could account for the VO2 difference. Not to belabor the point but I'm kind of a math dork like that.

 

Until Dana duct tapes some lead sinkers onto his FiveFingers (to become Vibram LeadFingers) , then we won't know whether the decreased mass of the Vibram shoe is the reason for the decrease in heart rate. I wish I could have more interest in heart rate being an actual measure of oxygen consumption......but I know it isn't.....last time I was sitting down reading a post from Dennis Shavelson, Brian Rothbart or Ed Glaser, my heart rate went up even though I was not doing any exercise.

Here is the reference to the first ever published study on the effects of adding masses to shoes on oxygen consumption during steady state running from a exercise physology grad student I used to run and take classes with at UC Davis and one of my exercise physiology professors (Catlin MJ, Dressendorfer RH: Effect of shoe weight on the energy cost of running. Medicine and Science in Sports. 11: 80, 1979).

 

Found this when looking for Kevin posted paper.

 

No problem on gender confusion, I've had to deal with it my whole life. At one point I thought of going by my middle name Richard, no confusion there.

Let me give you a few data points because the trendlines for traditional shoes vs VFF are not parallel. At least they aren't right now. Remember I only have 6 datapoints for VFF so far.

Pace, min/mile____HR for Traditional shoes_____HR for VFF

8:00__________________147________________140
9:00__________________138________________133
10:00_________________129________________126

What this is saying is that the faster I run, the bigger the discrepancy.


Kevin wrote: "I wish I could have more interest in heart rate being an actual measure of oxygen consumption......but I know it isn't.....last time I was sitting down reading a post from Dennis Shavelson, Brian Rothbart or Ed Glaser, my heart rate went up even though I was not doing any exercise."

I'm sure I too have had a part in your elevated HR. I agree that many factors affect HR that have nothing to do with oxygen consumption. But if you are measuring average HR over the entire run, everyday for 100's of days you will see variation around the line if HR is plotted against pace. I suspect the variation is due to many factors such as longer term fatigue level, outside stress, weather, clothing, caffeine, etc. But wouldn't the line itself with enough data points correct itself for the outlying factors and truly be measuring the relationship between beats per minute and minutes per mile? At this point, I've collected enough data that a single run or data point does not shift the line. There are far too many existing data points contributing to the position of the line for a single point to have significance. Can't you then infer from that relationship that as minutes per mile decreases there is a greater demand for oxygen and with a greater demand for oxygen comes greater beats per min?

In the abstract Mike posted, it concludes: A large portion of this increase may be attributed to weight of footwear.

I think we all might agree with that finding. What I've been curious about is if there is something related to the smaller portion of the increase.

Dana

 

Dana:

I will give you that using heart rate as an estimation of metabolic cost of an exercise is a pretty good parameter for metabolic activity, however I doubt using heart rate alone to measure metabolic cost of an activity would be accepted in any current peer reviewed scientific publication due to it's innacuracy. For you, Dana, since you do seem to be fairly scientific in your approach to running training, I think heart rate might very well be a good measure of the metabolic cost of your running.

One other possibility that might explain your increased heart rate in training shoes that have more mass than the Vibram FiveFinger (VFF) is that it is possible that you are using stride lengths that are too long in your normal training shoes to have optimal metabolic efficiency. In other words, you might need to increase your stride frequency and decrease your stride length slightly in your training shoes to get your heart rate lower. This is just a thought. However, I don't think it is as likely as the mass difference explanation since I would think that a guy that has been running as many years as you would have dialed in their optimum metabolic efficiency for stride frequency/length by now.

Now go attach some lead weights to your damn Vibrams and tell us what you found!

 

Kevin, I do agree but the HR monitor is the best I have. I would love to go in and have my VO2 tested wearing different shoes so that I would know for sure.

You have hit the nail on the head, I'm convinced you now understand what I'm trying to get at. It has always been about my stride length with normal training shoes which is what I'm trying to improve on. I have not been successful but all of a sudden after wearing VFF, my stride length and rate have changed when wearing those shoes.

After training for 10 plus yrs for ultramarathons, my stride rate decreased as a means of survival. When I stopped running ultramarathons, my training distances shortened and my pace picked up. The problem was that my stride rate was still too low and I compensated by increasing stride length. I didn't realize this and it felt like I weighed 300 pounds when I was running, which I'm sure I was just experiencing inefficiency. I spoke to a running friend about this and he asked me to count my stride rate. I was shocked to find it was 162 steps/min. I knew for sure that was NOT efficient. The next run, I simply focused on limiting the amount of time my feet were on the ground. Like snapping my fingers, everything changed and my stride rate instantly increased to 176 steps/min. I didn't even have to work at it, it just clicked. My first thought was, YES, that is how it is supposed to feel. I then tried to increase my stride rate from 176 but that wasn't happening for what ever reason. Without being able to test Oxygen consumption, I don't know if 176 is optimal for me or not. Then VFF enters the equation, my step rate increased immediately to 180 and my HR decreased by 4 or 5 bpm. What?

That brings me to now and the discussion we are having. Because I believe there is a probability that my stride length is still too long when wearing traditional shoes, I am very interested in whether it might be ultimately impacted by wearing VFF. By wearing VFF once/week and running at a stride rate of 180, will I be able to transfer through muscle memory, that rate to traditional shoes? That is a rhetorical question, I guess. For whatever reason, I have found when I wear my Nike 8 OZ racing shoes, my stride remains at 176. It is only with VFF that it increases to 180. I have to speculate that it might be due to no padding and possibly no height difference from heel to toe. I really don't know the reason, it is what it is.

My thought is that if I spend enough time running at a step rate of 180 in my VFF, that some of that will transfer to my step rate when in traditional shoes. Therefore, increased step rate = decreased stride length which is exactly what you hit on!

I now hope you understand why I have an interest in those ridiculous shoes and why I have been supportive of them. For whatever reason, I am simply able to run in them in a way I'd like to run in traditional shoes and my hope is to use them as a tool to help me get there.

Dana

 

Regrading your specific test, I wrote: The test was grossly limited and flawed. It has no correlation to running what so ever.

The study you referenced wrote: "Leg stiffness was calculated using the flight and contact times of the hopping test."

I stand by my claim. The test you referenced uses flight and contact times, your test only used contact times.

Your test is like using stride rate to measure running speed without including stride length.

Dana

 

No, you are wrong again. The test, it's not mine BTW, models the body as a spring-mass system and employs the spring equations for a simple harmonic oscillator. I know there are differences in the methodology between this and the reference cited, believe it or not, I am also aware of the limitations of both methods. I also know that to claim that measuring leg stiffness in the manner we did (for a bit of fun) has "absolutely no correlation what-so-ever to running" is over-stated, particularly coming as it was, from someone with little to no knowledge of biomechanics. Given that hopping leg stiffness was shown to be correlated with running performance when leg stiffness was measured using one method, I would guess that hopping leg stiffness might well be correlated with running performance when measured using a slightly different method or even that the two methods may be correlated. But thanks once again for your post, when I need the help of an amateur jogger to help with my understanding of the concepts of biomechanics and research methodology, you'll be the first person I call. In the meantime here's something I can say with 100% certainty: I have no interest what-so-ever in hearing yet again about you and your five fingers. So lets leave it there, hey Dana.

 

Simon I agree, let's leave it there. Simply avoid reading anything I post and I'm sure we will both be better off.

Dana

 

Just stumble on this

 

The Barefoot Running Injury Epidemic

 

Paulo, thanks I enjoyed watching that. I had the fortune of running with the Tarahumara in Leadville trail 100 mile run in the Colorado mountains. I ran with them in 1993, 1994 and 1995. Shoes or no shoes, they are totally amazing runners with respect to how they can run such great distances with ease knowing they didn't even train for these runs other than what they do in their every day life.

I can say that they certainly had me thinking about my running shoes 18 yrs ago, long before what has happened over the past few years. I know there are many on this forum that have an issue with unsubstantiated claims about running barefoot or in shoes like Vibrams. I also believe those concerns have broadened to concerns about the possibility of increasing numbers of people becoming injured from not wearing shoes or wearing VFF. I guess we will see if that is a true concern or possibly just a shift in the types of running injuries from those relating to wearing shoes to those relating to not wearing shoes.

Last Friday I ran over 14 miles on the trails in Colorado in a pair of VFF. It was one of the most pleasing and enjoyable runs I've had in a long time. At this point if I'm given a choice of wearing VFF over traditional shoes while running on trails, I'll pick the VFF every time. I can see myself ultimately replacing most if not all of my traditional shoes with Vibrams or similar ultralight shoes.

To those who would rather debate with me about wearing VFF, I would suggest you spend your time and energy going out and running in a pair to see for yourself what it is like to run in them. The worst that could happen is that you would be far more informed when guiding your clients about what shoes to wear.

Dana, who is not a podiatrist and has no medical training.

 

No, Dana. One of the things that could happen is the runner could develop a metatarsal stress fracture [of which there have been plenty due to running in the Vibram shoe], the fracture could displace dorsally [which they commonly do],the runner could end up permanent dorsiflexion deformity of that metatarsal head and a floating digit syndrome [which also very very common status post metatarsal stress fracture], and ultimately develop a plantar plate tear and hammertoe deformity over time to the adjacent metatarsophalangeal joints due to the change in ground reaction force patterns at the metatarsal heads that could potentially prevent the runner from ever running comfortablly again. I have seen this exact same pattern of injury occur in runners with previous metatarsal stress fractures.

Since you, Dana, are not a podiatrist, and have no medical training, then you have no ethical responsibility and have no medical liability for any recommendations you make to your running friends or to your acquaintances or on the internet. You could tell a runner that they should run in 4" spike heel pumps so that they could run faster, have fewer injuries and have a more sensual running experience. Then, if that runner fractured their ankle runing in the 4" spike heel pumps you recommended, you would not be responsible in any way for the recommendation you made since the runner would be told by an attorney or judge that they were foolish for listening to you since they were simply getting their information from a layperson that has no special medical knowledge or degree or license or board certification.

However, since I am a doctor, have a medical degree, have a medical license, and am board certified, I do have an ethical responsibility and am liable for medical malpractice for giving out treatment recommendations that could potentially cause injury. As a result of my greater medical training and greater medical-legal responsibility for the treatment recommendations I give out to my patients and others, I will not recommend the Vibram FiveFinger shoe to runners since it does cause more metatarsal stress fractures to runners....and metatarsal stress fractures are not an insignificant foot injury.

Just because you do it, Dana, and it works, doesn't mean that everyone should do it since it may not work for them and, in fact, may injure them. I suggest you spend your time and energy going to a sports podiatrist's office and start to see the wide variety and types of running injuries we all treat so that you can have a better appreciation of what the members of this medical professional academic website [that you now seem to feel so comfortable with that you can confidently tell us what we should be doing with our time and energy] deal with on a daily basis.

 

Kevin, I'd like to read the reference that supports and substantiates your claim.

I would imagine that you would probably be best off by not giving any advice at all, it would be the safest way to go. Since you typically aren't seeing the healthy people with healthy feet, it would make sense that you would want to recommend shoes that are best for those with pathological problems.

Dana, who is not a podiatrist and has no medical training

 

Dana:

No, again, Dana. It would be best if you not give me any advice at all since your opinion of what I should and shouldn't do as a podiatrist means absolutely nothing to me. You obviously don't have a clue what it means to be a health professional. Go back to running and keeping track of your data points....that is what you are good at. Leave the shoe recommendations to the professionals.

 

Kevin, this is the essence of what I've been struggling with all along on this forum. I have seen absolutely no evidence that the shoe recommendations that the "professionals" are making are supported or substantiated by anything. The recommendations of the "professionals" do not have any supportive evidence that one type of shoe is healthier than another. What is it that makes the "professionals" recommendation better? You live and breathe in pathology and you make recommendations based on that and assume that is also good for the healthy individual who does not go to your office.

You place no value on my point of view and that is fine, with respect to others on this forum, you have a lot of company. I certainly haven't lost any sleep over it.

Scientific breakthroughs and invention come from those thinking outside of their own assumptions. It is sad to see that no one on this forum is willing to think outside of their own set of rules and guidelines.

The people here will never convince me that big, clunky, over supportive, over cushioned, over everything shoes are the way to go. Likewise, I will never convince this forum of anything based on hard earned experience.

In this case, the future will tell us who was right when we look back in hind sight. It will be interesting to see how correct the thinking of the "professional" actually was.

In the meantime, I will continue to ignore what you think is right regarding shoes and continue to enjoy a long, healthy and injury free life of running.

Dana

 

This (in fact all your intervention in podiatry-arena Dana) sounds like someone with an agenda....(IMHO)

 

Dana you miss a major point what I believe is that certain shoes even the VFF, certain stride length, certain running speeds etc etc will be good for some and bad for others dependent on activity. ie no shoe will fit all.

What may work for you will not work for others, ie nobody has said barefoot running is bad for all, it maybe fine for some and a nightmare for others, we as podiatrist and other medical people will advice people with the best of knowledge on whats right for them. and what conditions to run on.

Things change and develop with understanding almost everyday, again it´s up to us to keep upto date, we lay our reputations on the line when giving recomendations, this is our jobs, career and for many lifestyle.

So what works for you will not work for others this I can guarantee you.You think you have found the answer and you may have but it is just for you n = 1

 

Mike, the only reason I bother to recite what works for me is to point out that the opinions I've read here don't work for everyone, starting with me!

I came here to learn and I was shocked by how biased and narrow focused the discussions on this forum are. You think you are up to date, that you are laying your reputations on the line, etc. I am only questioning whether you have ever considered looking outside of conventional wisdom like all good scientists should do. I have and I was surprised and pleased by what I found. Others have as well so it really is more than n=1.

Remember, there was a time when those who believed they where up to date and felt they where laying their reputations on the line also thought world was flat. For those who disagreed, it was a futile debate.

Dana

 

An excellent article on the difference in running in five different types of shoes versus barefoot has just been published in the Journal of Biomechanics. I think this article is starting to get to the bottom of this "barefoot running vs shod running debate".

 

Kevin, is there are reason why they chose different running surfaces? Why not have shod and unshod runners either all run on tartan or all run on grass. I don't understand why they added a variable into the equation that doesn't seem necessary and may skew the results.

Dana

 

You have data to back this up? Seems awfully anecdotal to me. You say common. How common? Under what circumstances? Are people who are barefoot/wear thin soled shoes the only ones who experience these types of injuries? Are there other risk factors besides shoe type or shod/unshod? Please cite your data particularly your VFF specific numbers.

So by extension if I find another MD or PhD with more credentials who might advocate differently I should follow their advice instead? Again, you are making claims that seem not to be backed up with any formal study. That is not good science. I might be foolish to ignore your advice. You are qualified. But I would be making a decision based on your opinion, and not something backed by any conclusive research. Now, if I waited for conclusive research on all of my life's decisions, I would not get anywhere, so I would take your opinion (and those of others) and try to make an informed decision.

I think Dana has made some valid points, yet because this person doesn't have all of the letters behind her name they are being discredited. This is where the disconnect happens sometimes with the medical community and patients. Medicine has long been giving advice based on anecdotal practice instead of evidence based practice. There appears to be nothing conclusive about running barefoot vs shod. It may work for some while not for others, but it appears many have made their decision and are not willing to at least consider other opinions simply because they are being presented by us plain old ignorant laypeople.

Ivan

 

EXACTLY! Perhaps you could explain why so many in the barefoot running community make extraordinary claims about the amount of evidence that prooves barefoot running is better, when there is no evidence that says that. For eg, I recently came across this quote:

Why do they make these claims up for?

Incidently, I at the International Foot and Ankle Biomechanics conference in Seattle at the moment. The biomechanists/scientisits here have no vested interest one way or the other in the debate on barefoot running. The kindest comment I have had so far on Liebermanns paper that was in Nature from these biomechanists was "crap". Most of the comments were more derogatory than that. That is what these scientists think of the quality of that research.

 

I think a lot of people read "Born To Run" and focused mainly on the running barefoot part. To me the point was something along the lines of the joy of running. I can't answer your question. I have been running (with shoes) for 30 years (without one single injury might I add). Do I think there is something to running barefoot? Yes, but I have been proceeding slowly, and I have NOT thrown away my New Balance shoes! Why? Because I am not convinced yet. However, people like Kool-Aid, what can I say. But is that any worse than some (not all) physicians saying "NO NO NO" based on...well, not based on anything along the lines of valid research. I hear you. Fanaticism of any kind can be silly and outright dangerous. I don't want people hurting themselves, but if this is an opportunity to get some people off the couch then perhaps Podiatry should be helping by offering some guidance on how to transition and run barefoot safely (or at least more so).

Well, I don't know about being vested or not. Saving face? Perhaps. It seems to me that if a certain community was advising people (who paid them) to buy shoes that had not been scientifically shown to decrease injury/improve times, etc, then I would say that there is indeed a vested interest.

I have only seen the videos posted by Lieberman's group (Say, he has a lot of credentials too doesn't he? Hmmm...). I had some questions my self. Are there weaknesses in his view? I would imagine so. But "crap" is the best your peers can come up with? That doesn't work for me. Why "crap"? How have you debunked anything? Where are your numbers? What was your sample size? You know, all of the questions related to validating research (if it was done at all).

 

Most of the discussion has been around just how bad his methodology was. We went through all that near the beginning of this thread. I have yet to meet anyone who is familiar with the methodology and analysis he used that agrees with it! The use of the word "crap" was used my many as a summary of discussions of the method and analysis used. The most obvious flaw was the differences in the age groups he compared: 19 vs 38 yrs -- if you want to make a valid conclusions, then the age of the groups should be the same; he eliminated the african runners from the analysis; one group only ended up with 6 subjects in it; there are many issues (that are technicially beyond my understanding) in how they used the force plate and 3D data and analysed it; etc etc - this is what the biomechanists have been talking about


I sincerely and genuinely intrigued about the barefoot running community's use of what they see as "evidence" and no one else is seeing that. How do they reach the kind of conclusion that I quoted above?

BTW: in case someone chooses to respond without reading the whole thread, I will state it again: I have nothing against barefoot running, it is just the misuse, misrepresentation, misunderstanding and misquoting of the research by the Evangelists from the Church of Barefoot Running that I have a problem with.

 

Since the proponents of barefoot running are not selling anything and have nothing to gain financially, I have to question for the need to interpret any of the limited research on this subject. Simply sharing their own experiences should be enough. Having a positive experience with barefoot running is great, no one can take that away. I'm not sure of why there is a need to try to convince those who will listen that it is a better alternative. Why does it matter?

I have tried to describe what it feels like to run in VFF to people who have not tried them. The other day I read probably the best description from someone who really doesn't care what others think or what they choose to wear or not wear on their feet. He described running barefoot or in shoes like VFF as having a foot massage. Just as simple as that and I couldn't agree more. No one was trying to convince anyone of anything.

I just ordered my third different model of VFF today. I am fortunate enough to be able to decide what is best for MY running with or without studies and regardless of anyone's opinion.

I will run my next marathon in October in racing flats because that is what I've been training myself to run in. For the marathon I have planned for 2011, I plan on running it in one of my models of VFF. Better than the results of some study with a limited sample size or the opinions of others, I will learn first hand how VFF and Dana work together when running a marathon. I won't need to convince anyone of anything, it will be a matter of what the experience was like in training and racing and how was my performance affected. I will be the one who benefits from the information and that is all that matters.

Dana

 

Ivan:

Welcome to Podiatry Arena.:welcome:

You may want to consider reading this thread from start to finish. I first started this thread nearly 8 months ago and those of us who have been contributing from the start to this thread have pretty much already said what needs to be said on this subject.

I'm currently here at the 2nd International Foot and Ankle Biomechanics Meeting in Seattle. I just got done talking to two of the most most well-known running and running shoe researchers in the world, along with Craig Payne-the creator of Podiatry Arena. Neither of these famous researchers are very impressed with Lieberman's research on barefoot running. In fact, when I specifically asked them about the subject of barefoot running, they just shook their head in disgust. Their response pretty much sums up, for most of us with "degrees after our names", what we feel about the virtual barefoot running fad here in the United States.

Happy running.:drinks

 

Ivan, thanks for your support. If you chose to read all 700 plus posts in this thread, you might find it entertaining. A related thread is also out there called Vibram Fivefinger cause metatarsal stress fractures? Over the course of both of these threads I have debated and debated with several of the more senior members of this forum. We've all been very successful in making complete fools out of ourselves. The difference is that I have made a fool of myself in front of complete strangers who I will never meet and who I could give a rat's behind about what they think. On the other hand, the senior members of this forum have also made complete fools of themselves but they have done so in front of their colleagues. That is where I get the last laugh.

Over and over, you will read statements such as this one from Craig Payne "it is just the misuse, misrepresentation, misunderstanding and misquoting of the research by the Evangelists from the Church of Barefoot Running that I have a problem with." Ironically, you will also read grossly opinionated and unsubstantiated comments from the senior members of this forum. The way I see it, the Church of Podiatry is as guilty of making unsubstantiated claims as the "Church of Barefoot Running."

The senior members of this forum who I sometimes refer to as the "Holy Elders" have told me that they do not hold anything I have to say as having any value. I have been reminded more than once that I do not have a medical degree and I have also been reminded and informed about their credentials.

In spite of the fact that I have been running essentially daily since the early 1970's, that I have documented over 72,000 miles of running since 1982 and that I have never been injured, my opinions based on that experience caries no weight. The Holy Elders believe that academics has more value than real experience. Nothing will change that opinion. I believe you need both to truly understand but that isn't going to happen for many on this forum so they hold on to what they have.

The reason I continue to spend any time on the forum is that I have learned some things about biomechanics that I can combine with my experience to further my understanding of running. In spite of the endless childish exchanges on this forum, I have truly gained. I can not say that anyone here has learned from me. I can say that no one would admit it if they have. In they end, I have gained, they have not.

My advice to you, know going in that you will have more success winning a debate with a tree trunk than some of the people here who are willing to debate. It just isn't going to happen. If you can stand back and observe, you will see how laughable the whole thing is. The better the points you make, particularly if they are contrary to the thinking here, the more condescending people will get. When people start whipping out their degrees to measure who's is longer, that is when it really get's laughable.

Dana Richard Roueche, who does not have formal medical training so be careful with any advice I might give.

 

The reason I keep repeating it that I have had abusive emails from barefoot runners based on what I have written in this thread, calling me a barefoot hater etc .... I can't help it that they can not read.

The difference is that we go after anyone who makes unsubstantiated claims. There are plenty of threads here that we have been somewhat brutal on other podiatrists (see the Rothbart related threads; the threads discussing Ed Glaser's theories or Dennis Shalveson's approaches). I do not see anyone from the "Church of Barefoot Running" policing themselves over the misuse, misrepresentation, misunderstanding and misquoting of the research that they make in the same way we do here?

 

Dan Lieberman and I were recently interviewed for an article in O & P Business News on barefoot running for those who are interested.

Foot Strike Patterns Study Ignites Barefoot Running Debate.

 

Here is a typical example:

This was in a press release yesterday promoting a barefoot running website (link). Can somebody ... anybody .... please show me where in Lieberman's work did he do anything on injury risk? In his study in Nature not one of the subjects had an injury and the study was not about injuires. I just do not get it. Why do people make this claim up based on his work? Lieberman himself resort to the extraordinary step of publishling a disclaimer on his website distancing himself from this sort of intrepretation of his research (ignoring for now, all the flaws in the reasearch previously discussed). Can someone explain this to me?

 

Kevin, an entertaining article. You where quoted as saying "Running barefoot, you tend to run on the fore-foot and have a shorter stride. The runner is more at risk of Achilles tendon problems as well as metatarsalgia." Isn't the runner also at risk of those same problems when wearing shoes?

I grinned when I read this quote from you when referring to the barefoot running movement. “It is a virtual movement,” he said. “People are talking about it, but not actually doing it.” I guess you haven't been on the trails and roads around Boulder, Colorado. Related to the barefoot movement, the minimal shoe movement, it looks like the major running shoe companies are betting big bucks that this is more than a "virtual movement". Just to give a few examples, Nike has the Free line, Adidas has Clima Chill, New Balance will have Minimus, Merrel will have their bare foot collection. These are lines of models not just a single shoe.

Dana

 

Dana:

For your information, running in "minimalist shoes" is not barefoot running. We call running in "minimalist shoes" shod running, not barefoot running, no matter what the marketing specialists would like us to believe otherwise.

 

Barefoot runners go for world record in London, UK

 

Craig, because the abstract includes the statement "Fore-foot- and mid-foot-strike gaits were probably more common when humans ran barefoot or in minimal shoes, and may protect the feet and lower limbs from some of the impact-related injuries now experienced by a high percentage of runners." I would speculate that human nature has taken this statement to the next level.

I have to think that if there was concrete proof that running barefoot vs running in minimal shoes vs running in traditional shoes existed to demonstrate which mode was best or which combination of modes were best, we wouldn't have such a heated debate.

Just like religion, no one has concrete proof of one belief over another but it makes for heated and emotional discussion.

I doubt there will ever be a comprehensive study that will be able to conclude unequivocally that one mode is better than the other. Ideas and thinking will evolve over time but that will be the extent of it.

It will be up do the individual to weigh all of the factors and decide what's best for them. The shoe companies will simply follow the dollars with some influence from their marketing of course.

Dana

 

Kevin, I agree, please read what I said. "Related to the barefoot movement, the minimal shoe movement". In other words I said the MOVEMENTS are related, I did not say running in minimalist shoes is running barefoot.

The RELATIONSHIP goes beyond the marketing specialists. If you read what the barefoot proponents are saying, it is rare they don't also talk about wearing minimal shoes to supplement barefoot running. Look at the sentence I pulled from Lieberman's abstract in my post to Craig, even there he talks about humans running barefoot or in minimal shoes.

Dana