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.

Evidence behind the 'barefoot running' headlines in the media - the Egg on Face Award

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Craig Payne, Jan 27, 2013.

  1. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
  2. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    ... and associate with capacity to the body to adapt. Some runners are 'stressing a lot their body' but their tissue adapt to this 'mechanical stress/load'

    (foot and post part of the leg) because it's decrease the stress on these tissues and, on a short term, 'protection' is the way to decrease inflammation and pain.

    because we know that most of tissues with chronic problem are not inflamed and the best treatment is to stimulate tissue adaptation (ex: A persistent Achilles tendinoses/tendinopathy treatment is oriented to intervention that stimulate the tissue adaptation *exercises, mechanical stress quantification.. and sometime shock wave, PRP, prolo, ... )

    Because the 'tissue adaptation' of these pathology are limited... I think that a chronic 'protection' can be a good idea.

    not sure I understand... pathomechanics is another debate... but I think it's over estimate, especially by physio and podiatrist. Most of the running injuries are link with over stress long time before biomechanics.

    My opinion: most of those researches are unimportant and not clinically applicable (but that's another debate)... Ex : we have presently no idea if pronation is really link with any pathologies

    Me too. no problem to debate... and no problem to not be agree.

    NO. Even my website refuse money from shoe companies. I have absolutely NO conflict of interest.

    I have no problem with that. I assume 100%. And I don't speak a lot about orthotics also because I don't believe that the number of prescription is justify... business of 25 000 000$ in the province of Quebec (7 000 000 people) (another debate)

    Best
    Blaise
     
  3. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Sorry Paul, but that's one of the thing I'm teaching at TR University and Laval University.
    There is presently wrong assumption on which complete profession are based (physio and podiatry included)
    Because you bring that on the table you need to demonstrate your position and the evidence about your statement. And because you won't be able (no cherry picking and prospective study... I did a large review some years ago so we need to confronted all together) I will be very frank with you and tell you what I think : There is presently no strong evidence that any biomechanical or anatomical peculiarities are link with any pathologies.

    Why shoes need to address the force related pathomechanics if there is no link (most of the time) between mechanics and pathology... if we think that we cannot dictated a specific biomechanics (ex : control pronation with MC shoes)... if there is no normal clearly know... and if prescription of the shoes in function of the shape or biomechanics of the foot change nothing on pathologies?
     
  4. Craig:

    It warms the cockles of my heart to read these articles. Finally the media is seeing the light. Looks like my prediction of the barefoot running fad ending soon may now be accelerated a little with the research by Kevin Hatala and company.............hey, I like that guy's first name!

    http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showthread.php?t=75373
     
  5. Paul Bowles

    Paul Bowles Well-Known Member

    :eek:

    I'm going to take 10mg of temazapam and have a lay down......

    :eek:
     
  6. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    here we go again...
    I have heard this form you over and over again.
    Simple question-
    Can all tissue adapt to all load? Is there no upper limit??

    I believe the answers are no and yes... and I am very interested to hear why if you disagree
    This is a massive flaw in your clinical rationale

    Ok- so based on Diebel's study which- for those that don't know it- showed excellent results from gait retraining in a surgery bound military cohort with anterior compartment syndrome... you then have extrapolated that you should run in minimalist shoes.
    Did you miss the part in the study where they were all wearing standard running shoes?
    Why add a potential problem by changing shoes when the problem is more likely related to overstriding and can be managed without changing the footwear?

    Never mind... I can at least see your rationale, and it is PERHAPS one situation where there MIGHT be a reasonable role for a minimalist shoe.

    Well I am not sure this is correct... particularly when you have a license to stretch the truth which you seem to think you have...

    The study by Collins 2008- which was prospective and blinded- showed good results with foot orthoses...
    Franklyn- Miller 2011- prevention of MTSS- again prospective- orthoses preventing MTSS

    Excellent clinical studies with very robust designs (and there are plenty more that show a good clinical results from foot orthoses)

    Foot orthoses change forces-> shoes change forces- so by your rationale this is actually very strong evidence for 'maximalist shoes'...

    NB- I am being facetious... the point is that you should not claim lack of evidence with all of the assumptions you make with the studies you so often quote...
     
  7. Paul Bowles

    Paul Bowles Well-Known Member

    Blaise lost me when he "dismissed" the role that force plays in overuse injuries of the lower extremity and told us that "its a wrong assumption which our whole profession (physio and Pod) is based".... Its like telling a nuclear physicist that protons don't exist.

    I'm going to take another 10mg of diazapam and have a lay down...maybe with a becks tonight!
     
  8. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Blaise - I have absolutely no idea how you expect to be taken seriously as a scientist/researcher/clinician when you use terminology such as "maximalist". It has absolutely no meaning which is relevant to footwear, lower extremity biomechanics or the discussion of overuse injury.

    IRONY ALERT... One interesting meaning of this word, should you care to reach for your dictionary, is the following:

    Sound familiar?
     
  9. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    So why we used the term minimalist?

    If you want we can used the TRC rating...
     
  10. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    NO and Yes
    What the problem?

    Is the tissue NEEDS to be protected all the time? Is the upper limit is what your BBS permit

    Let me laughing a little bit :)


    THANKS!!! first time I hear you be just partially agree with me

    Sorry Craig, you will need stronger arguments. ;)
    Do you have more relevant study that justify your prescription of maximalist/BBS/ moderne shoes (TRC <60)? ... ... ... please, just one, ... ... or maybe just a good clinical explanation? ... ...

    If you want I can comment your both studies in a near future (miss time presently) because one is include in my Cochrane review and I know the other one pretty well.

    I often commit myself on what I do clinically... KK did one time (see above)... I discuss with Craig P about that... but all the others, I have no idea what you do (about shoes). Do you prescribe just BBS? I,want to learn and know why.
     
  11. Paul Bowles

    Paul Bowles Well-Known Member

    Let simplify the whole debate here for a second:

    If injuries in the lower limb are force related - and tissue adapts to force (as per your argument) we wouldn't have injuries.

    If the tissue is unable to adapt sufficiently to the force we would have injuries (as per Craigs argument above).

    If substances put under feet (whatever you want to call them, shoes, orthoses, pads, strapping whatever) are used to reduce force we do see an improvement in force related injuries.

    If we abide by Blaises original chart and use the adaption mechanism/theory and minimalist/barefoot shoes how are they reducing the force under the foot?

    So I think we can ascertain that adaption theories (if they even work at all) don't work all the time. We can agree things placed under feet to reduce force do improve pathology so that leaves us with one question - the original one I was asking: How do minimalist shoes reduce the force related with injury?
     
  12. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    Paul no, but he does make a profit off speaking and training physios with this concept..wink, wink, nudge, nudge...:D
     
  13. Greg Quinn

    Greg Quinn Active Member

    Surely this is really about any individuals response to tissue stress?

    The adaptive plasticity of any MSK form-function complex is largely determined by how the environment effects the responsiveness of tissues to a change in magnitude, duration or direction of a force...

    This assumes that...
    An individual has the inherited capacity to respond optimally
    That the molecular signals involved (mechanotransduction etc.) are able to function... Plastic responses diminish with age
    That tissue reactions have sufficient time to respond to force alteration
    That the forces involved don't overwhelm the biological response... If they do... Problems occur

    Short version....

    Some people do better than others in minimalist shoes... If you're determined to try this approach be prepared to progress at your body's rate of adjustment.

    My patients tend to be those who require more substantial shoe wear or orthoses to avoid injury or recover from it. Saw someone today who has never had injury until he ran in minimalist trainers!

    This would never stop me from encouraging anyone from walking/running barefoot... If it feels right for them... And take care... I'm more worried about the cuts, bruises and frostbite to be honest!

    Regards

    Greg
     
  14. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Thanks greg for the constructive comments

    Weel say. Fully agree

    Agree

    It's happen sometime
    I have a tone of patients that reduce a lot their injuries from the day they start to have a good mechanical stress quantification... even if at the final they were stressing more their body. (Minimalism, exercises, physical activity, ...)

    But I won't recommend to someone not injured, use to BBS, with no objective to improve performance to change shoes... because yes there is a risk in the transition (both side)

    If someone start a running program, I will recommend to start with a minimal shoe from the beginning. The risk of injuries will come from a lot more from the stress from the mileage than the shoe... with mini AND maxi, we will need to do a good mechanical stress quantification.

    Me too... after thousands of minimalist shoes prescriptions, since more than 10y now, I become more aggressive (but more explanations) in the transition and with a very low number of complication.
     
  15. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Hi David
    Thanks for the constructive and not personal comment. It help the debate.

    13y ago, I was recommending, prescribing, and teaching the 'proper' shoe prescription... You know giving a MC shoes for some one with overpronation... you know, the movement that is control by MC shoes... you know the special movement of the foot that so dangerous for runners... you know the cause of all our problems... you know the movement we are very good to assess and quantify... you know the movement many prospective study was linking with all our MK problems of the lower quadrant... you know the movement on which many health professionals are basing all their business... ...

    The profit I do by speaking and training physios with specific concept have nothing to do with the shoes I recommend (it will be the same if I will recommend just maximalist shoes). If I'm invited everywhere it's because what I say are congruent, evidence based, not bias, and clinically applicable.

    Best
    Blaise
     
  16. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Hi Paul,
    See some other explanations. I feel we won't understand each other and I feel OK with that... hope you too. I try one last time.

    Except if you stress too much or too fast (over you own capacity to tolerate the stress)

    Agree

    No
    You will treat a acute injury on short term (improvement)
    you will weaken (decrease tolerance to stress) on long term (increase vulnerability to the same tissue)

    We don't reduce the force under the foot. It's the reason why :
    We prescribe PECH/BBS/maximalist shoes for acute condition (protection mode)
    We don't (and choice minimalist shoes) for condition where tissue stimulation is a good idea (tissue we know to have a capacity to adaptation and showed to become stronger/ more resistant to the stress by stimulation)

    I explain with the chronic Achilles tendinopathy... the goal is not to always decrease the stress on your body... If it was the case, do bicycle... or become a couch potato...

    Best
    Blaise
     
  17. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    You're so very welcome Blaise ;)

    One thing you cannot seem to get your head around Blaise is that there is a therapeutic need for shoes and shoe modifications (diabetes, rocker soles for various reasons, custom shoes for gross deformities, SACH heels, wedging for knee OA, not to mention outsole lifts, for example and all of which are very effective when chosen for the appropriate patient- much more so than "barefoot" and "stress quantification". I do feel that exercise and rehab are very important but your version is just weird.

    The very same can be said for foot orthoses; show me one study that show that they weaken feet and do not work. Just one and not off a run blog please, we've seen that too much already and it makes you appear daft.

    You never clearly delineate between retail, recreational products and medically necessary ones but instead conveniently lump it all together as bad. This is why no one with any real clinical knowledge will ever take you seriously.

    Isn't being a physio a profit driven business, or do you treat all of your clients gratis? You provide a service for a fee but I'd bet dollars to donuts you have derived more income from seminars and speaking in the last couple years than at any other point in your career? Care to comment on that? Hypocrite!

    So show us the evidence, case studies etc., why should we take you at your word when you keep regurgitating the same flimsy evidence, evidence which is now being disproved mind you.

    :sinking:

    "Best" and unbiased...
     
  18. Paul Bowles

    Paul Bowles Well-Known Member

    Its not about not understanding you Blaise, I take your opinions and respect them - but its statements above in answer to my question that make absolutely no sense whatsoever and contravene your original theory - can;t you see that?

    If injury is related to the structural inability of tissue to adapt (we will use that since you raised it) - then surely failure of adaption is failure of adaption - no matter which way you want to look at it? So why treat the failure differently acutely versus chronicly. I'll give you an example - Pt A today had chronic achilles tendonosis with marked thickening of the paratenon and intrasubstance longitudinal tearing. Pt B today had acute achilles tendonosis with no paratenon thickening or tears. Besides the basics (ice, rest, NSAID etc...) why would we treat the mechanism of injury any different in these cases?

    Glad we can have a discussion without getting off topic....as you can see this area interests me significantly and I am really trying to understand your point of view and hopefully walk away with something here, but I just can't get away from the pathomechanical causes of injury and how "minimalist" footwear does nothing to address this besides harping on about "your tissues will adapt". The bad news, leave anything long enough it will ALWAYS adapt!
     
  19. Paul Bowles

    Paul Bowles Well-Known Member

    See this is where its completely wrong - you are "blaming pronation" - pronation is a movement. Its normal, its necessary - its not a disease, and its most definately not the sole pathomechanical function that determines or predicts injury!
     
  20. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Because the answer to stress is different

    Two comments
    1. I don't give NSAID's even in acute for a tendinitis... bad practice! (other debate)
    2. I speak often about a case study in my course : mailman, 2 years of pain, limping, and no work because chronic achilles tendonosis with marked thickening. My treatment (after he saw many health professionals including podiatrist, PT, Orthopaedist surgeon and sport doc... everybody try many different treatments... always in the protection mode... except eccentric exercises that was not enough 'stimulating' the tissue) : buy a pair on ultra-minimalist shoes and start to run gradually http://www.therunningclinic.com/medias/pdf/interval-program-i-2.pdf with good mechanical Quantification http://www.therunningclinic.com/medias/pdf/quantifying-mechanical-stress.pdf (he was not a runner... but was walking a lot before the 2 years of pain). Result : after 2 month he was not limping, he was running 30 min, and visually less thickness.
     
  21. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Why so much people try to control this pronation? why motion control shoes? why orthotics with arch support to fix problem upper to the knee?
     
  22. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    The problem is that you haven't managed to understand that there is a difference between kinematics and kinetics (movement and force).

    It is not about 'controlling pronation'- it is about changing forces so that tissues can function under optimal stress. Footwear is one part of doing this- sometimes a small part, sometimes a large part.

    So called motion control shoes can be useful... but it does not mean they are correct for everyone, or necessarily the best option (or actually control motion).

    If perhaps you are talking about using a walking boot or a plaster cast you would be correct. Shoes, orthoses etc do not do this and there is no evidence that they do- they change how forces go through the body.

    Based on this, we don't need to worry about what anyone wears on there feet! They could wear clown shoes. You also do not need any footwear prescription chart. We also do not need to do any other intervention... they will just get better on their own by gradually increasing their load

    ...and they don't know enough to be able to critically assess your argument.
    As I have said before, you have some good theories and principles, but when it comes to shoes and orthoses your views are oversimplified and formed on poor understanding.
     
  23. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    changing force but not changing movement...
    ... under optimal stress hahaha
    Please explain

    Are the motion control shoes can decrease the incidence of injuries? That's the real question.

    So why switching to minimalism too fast is causing injuries?

    There is a little of truth... I know some runner never injured even with big bulky shoes and overstriding and huge VLR-impact force... just because they quantify well their biomechanical stress

    Probably... All the 1400 health professionals... so I need you or Sponer or kurby or bartold in one of my course ... I will be more than happy ;)
     
  24. Paul Bowles

    Paul Bowles Well-Known Member

    Hey Craig can you correct your quote about me up top - I said the above line the below linE was Blaise - it looks like I said it!!! :)
     
  25. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    And that tells me all I need to know about Blaise. As Craig clocked - he has no understanding of the delineation between kinematics and kinetics. Yet he delivers "evidence based" lectures on running biomechanics internationally... Yikes.
     
  26. Paul Bowles

    Paul Bowles Well-Known Member

    I'm bowing out guys and girls - i'm done. There is only one place this can go from here and its just not pretty.

    Blaise may I suggest that a little more reading on kinematics vs kinetics. No disrespect intended I have enjoyed the discussion but there is just nothing in it for me at this point to continue!
     
  27. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CraigT
    The problem is that you haven't managed to understand that there is a difference between kinematics and kinetics (movement and force).
    It is not about 'controlling pronation'- it is about changing forces so that tissues can function under optimal stress. Footwear is one part of doing this- sometimes a small part, sometimes a large part.

    Let me explain my thought with more details
    when I speak about controlling pronation it's not just decrease the the total range of pronation.
    If you want to change kinematic (force) what your option? Control the speed of the movement... increase the total range movement... or play with the force
    And what's optimal stress? Is it the same thing that optimal pronation? And optimal cushioning running shoe?
    By focussing on this specific kinematic (movement) like the pronation are we not forgetting that the shoes are disrupting many other neurological-biomecanical factors that bring the body to move differently (ex over and rearfoot striding)... and finally increase other forces to act on the body (ex : more EKAM at the knee?)

    All open to learn from you
    Blaise
     
  28. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    Yep, and he thinks that he is the only one that critically appraises literature and questions paradigms...


    Same reason changing anything too fast will call injuries.
    If it was as simple as you say, then there wouldn't be any MT stress fractures in traditional footwear... we know this is not the case.


    Read this...

    FYI- The subjects had not responded to the original orthoses, but had a positive clinical response to the inverted orthoses...
    Oh... also kind of makes the idea that orthoses are 'splints' seem questionable. Interesting that Irene Davis is a co-author yet she often states this in her presentations.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2013
  29. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    sorry mate- seems I can't now...
     
  30. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    Better go back and check what the difference is between kinetics and kinematics...

    Do you know what EKAM is? I will wait for your answer... Because if you increase EKAM, then you will also decrease EKAM... :dizzy: (the significance is individual.)

    'Optimal stress' would be decreasing stress that has cause pathology... but it does not miraculously disappear completely... that is what you do with a plaster cast.
     
  31. Craig:

    You make some good points here. Those on the barefoot/minimalist shoe bandwagon who don't understand the basic principles of biomechanics show how much they don't know about the statics and dynamics of joint function of the foot and lower extremity when they start talking about the biomechanical effects of barefoot and minimalist shoe running.

    First of all, just because there is no change in kinematics with an intervention, such as altering shoes, does not mean also that there in no change in kinetics. The paper you listed, (Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Dec;35(12):2060-8, Effect of inverted orthoses on lower-extremity mechanics in runners. Williams DS 3rd, McClay Davis I, Baitch SP) is a classic example of how even though the kinematics of the runners did not change with inverted orthoses, the kinetics did change. And it was this change in kinetics that likely caused the runners with knee pain to become less synmptomatic with inverted orthoses. I do find it somewhat interesting that Irene Davis, PhD, one of the coauthors, now says that one of her goals is to get all runners out of foot orthoses. I don't understand why you would want to remove something from a runner that makes them have less pain unless you also believed that foot orthoses caused the feet to become weak, of which there is not a shred of evidence for.

    Secondly, the barefoot/minimalist shoe advocates seem to totally ignore the known important effects that the central nervous system (CNS) has in actually controlling the kinetics and kinematics of the foot and lower extremity during running. These people make it sound like putting one type of shoe on will make you run one way and then putting another type of shoe on will make you run another way which totally ignores the fact that the CNS is continually analyzing the afferent information from its sensory organs and then sending out efferent neural messages to the muscles of the body in an attempt to optimize the metabolic energy expenditure and to avoid injury during the given activity. Benno Nigg's "Preferred Movement Pathway" model takes into account this important effect that the CNS has on kinematic function, something which the barefoot/minimalist shoe advocates seem to totally disregard in their explanations of how barefoot and minimalist shoe running is somehow the best way to run.

    Lastly, the barefoot/minimalist shoe advocates get very excited about impact forces and how they cause all running injuries. You will almost never hear them speak of the effects of barefoot/minimalist shoe running on internal joint moments which is the more likely cause of most of the injuries we see in runners, not impact forces. You also will never hear them mention Benno Nigg's prospective study where he showed a decrease in injury frequency in those runners with increased impact forces (Nigg BM. Impact forces in running. Current Opinion in Orthopedics, 8(6):43-47, 1997). Why wouldnt' they mention it? Because his study blows a hole the size of a barn in the side of their idiotic argument that impact forces are the main cause of running injuries.

    The barefoot/minimalist running crowd continues to cherry-pick the literature to write articles and give lectures to meet their agenda that all running shoes that have slightly thicker soles or slightly higher heel height differentials are the cause of the vast majority of all running injuries. To highlight my point, just read the following article that was just published recently in Podiatry Management Magazine by Nick Campitelli, DPM, who is a medical advisor for Vibram FiveFingers. I nearly became ill reading this article in one of our national podiatry magazines because it was "sanctioned" by the American Academy of Podiatric Sports Medicine and it was full of cherry-picking biases and mistruths.

    Treating Running Injuries: Form and Footwear

    Ridiculous claims like these just show how illogical these people are and demonstrates just how much they just don't understand the scientific process. We need to work together to keep these people from continually misinforming the public and causing more running injuries.
     
  32. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    I'm running to the shoe shop to buy a BBS with 40mm of stack and 12 mm of drop... Finally you convince me.
    Thanks Kevin for this very informative comment.
    Blaise:dizzy:
     
  33. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Sorry craig for the late answer... plaisure with other debater take me over my discipline ;)
    Agree with that.
    but the real quote more : "We made an intentional effort to recruit additional barefoot and minimalist shoe wearing runners to draw conclusions based on these groups"... and I understand that necessary to recruit enough minimalist runners (less frequent) but also bias the survey (how much is another thing)

    I have no problem with that if they classify the type of runners to increase the homogeneity of the different groups, and to decrease another confounding factor like changes : "Runners who reported changing their footstrike pattern or running shoe preference in the previous 12 months (n=1363) were excluded from further analyses"

    Just sad that they didn't present the injury report in the transition group... (maybe those that was moving to minimalism was more injured in the first year?)

    also other interesting quotes : "Forty-four percent (372/848) of runners who changed shoes reported that they did so because of injuries."... and "The 372 runners who changed their footstrike pattern due to injury reported a total of 411 injuries. Forty-nine percent of these injuries occurred at the knee with 58% of these runners reporting a knee injury (214/372)."

    I find nothing better than my prescription chart for the moment.;)
     
  34. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    Kinematics does not take into account the forces of motion but describes motion. Your sentence describes kinetics.

    Epic fail Blaise, the wheels are falling off the bus…


    I should hope so but will you?

    Best
     
  35. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    My mistake
    If you want to change kinetic (force) what your option? Control the speed of the movement... increase the total range movement... or play with the force
     
  36. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    Craig summed it up best Blaise:

    Assuming you do understand the difference between kinematics and kinetics, this question would be better answered by you of barefoot/minimalism; how does this change forces? A shoe is NOT a coffin and probably does little to influence kinematics but can and does influence kinetics. The same with custom foot orthoses Blaise and even more so than a shoe.

    I hope that you are willing to reappraise their value based on your new understanding of physics. I know that you do not believe in them long term but you'll have to provide at least clinical evidence of that and hopefully finally admit that they do not weaken feet, fair enough? ;)
     
  37. Ray Anthony

    Ray Anthony Active Member

    JackRabbit survey finds waning interest in minimalist shoes
    New York, January 2013

    A recent survey of 877 runners found that while a substantial number of runners are interested in minimalism, once they try it they gravitate back to traditional shoes.
    The survey, conducted by JackRabbit Sports, New York City’s leading running store, sought to determine not just how many people are buying minimalist shoes, but what motivated them and whether they continue to use them after their purchase.

    Half of all runners surveyed had no intention of ever buying minimalist shoes, and only ten percent intend to try them in the future. Of the remaining 38% (336 respondents) who had bought minimalist shoes at some point, more than half had bought traditional shoes as their most recent shoe purchase. While most of them were still using their minimalist shoes, the longer ago a runner bought them, the more likely it was that he or she has not used them recently.

    Despite that pessimistic outlook for the longevity of the trend, it continues to attract considerable numbers of runners. 17.6% of runners bought a minimalist shoe as their last shoe purchase; and among those who had ever bought a minimalist shoe, 50% bought them within the past six months.

    Runners are buying minimalist shoes for a variety of reasons; injury prevention was the most common reason cited (32.6%). Much of the marketing around minimalist shoes concerns the effect they can have on running form, and the survey found that runners who bought minimalist shoes were almost twice as likely to be working on their running form as those who had not.

    Runners who bought and continue to use minimalist shoes use them in a variety of contexts; fewer than half use them for all their runs, and many use them for non-running workouts as well.

    JackRabbit’s internet-based, open survey recruited subjects through internet methods such as email and social media outlets. Taking the survey was completely voluntary and all results were completely anonymous with no personal identifiers.
    Full results (PDF) are available at here.

    Ray
     
  38. I think this photo pretty much sums up my feelings about a health professional who goes around lecturing that minimalist shoes prevent injuries.

    https://twitter.com/blaisedubois
     
  39. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    My first suggestion for Podiatry Arena post of the year 2013! I've about wet myself laughing Kevin, it appears that "injury free" is as questionable as the evidence for barefoot/minimalism.

    Not enough "stress quantificaton" apparently?:D
     
  40. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Thanks you Ray for the info
    It's just absolutely a not credible information
    blaise
     
Loading...

Share This Page