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. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. 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.

Five major points - barefoot vs shod

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Leopold, Jul 17, 2012.

  1. Leopold

    Leopold Member


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    I have been asked by a local sports magazine in western Canada called Impact Magazine to debate barefoot vs shod. I've been asked to take the shod side. The editor would like five major points to contest and we each get 500 words total. I realize there are many points of contention on this debate but I need to suggest five major titles. Any thoughts? Note: the readers are sports enthusiasts not biomechanists.
    My major difficulty at the moment is that Vibram 5-fingers, Asics Nimbus and volleyball shoes all mean shod - Yikes! Perhaps this is point number one.
    Finally, any thoughts on how significant the difference would be between a thin slip of Vibram rubber and a "traditional" runner (say 20-24mm of cushion under the heel), and a slip of Vibram rubber and actual barefoot?

    Regards,
    Lee
     
  2. Boots n all

    Boots n all Well-Known Member

    Yer l would want that definition sorted first, even the like of Vibram promote and sell that shoe(?) as a "barefoot feeling" "barefoot sports shoe", will they declare socks as shod also?
     
  3. 5 points on the Shod side...

    How about:-Glass, sharp stones, blunt stones, dog****, and unexpected hedgehogs.
     
  4. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    How about:

    1. There is nothing wrong with running barefoot
    2. There is nothing wrong with running shoes
    3. Evangelists from the Church lie about the research
    4. Different running forms load different tissues differently; there is no one right way to run for everyone
    5. Podiatrists and those that work in running injury clinics are making more money since this trend started.
     
  5. qwertypo23

    qwertypo23 Welcome New Poster

    Points to consider for rebuttle
    - what is "natural" motion?; there is no "correct" way to run
    - evolution: the slow runners were eaten/average age much lower/average weight much lower(less impact force's)
    - Investigate what elite marathon runners/athletes wear
    - 80% of runners get injured anyway.
     
  6. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    100% agree

    1. ... but the modern man is misadapted and need to be careful when he/she want to run barefoot again
    2. ... but the modern running shoes change a lot our biomechanics (since 40 years) ... after 2 000 000 years of evolution with the relative 'same protective biomechanics'
    3. ... that what's happen when philosophy go against science... (both sides)
    4. ... But there is a wrong way ;)
    5. ... especially in the areas where we find more professionals that are against the trend... the best thing is to educate and oriented people to move properly in the trends... I'm guessing, but I think that the prevalence of injuries for runners in the area of Quebec decrease since the begging of the minimalist movement, 10 years ago!
    6. ... Because this trend : The industry change, health professional (especially podiatrist) change and consumers are more critic and have more choice-option.
     
  7. Leopold

    Leopold Member

    Thank you simon for that Tenbroek dissertation.

    Would anyone hazard a guess at the two most prevalent injuries found with the minimalist trend? I would choose 2nd met stress fracture and achilles tendonopthy. I have a couple references to back that up but they don't leave me very confident. Any thoughts?

    Blaise, what is a modern running shoe?
    Also, the injury trends are likely the same, and has little to do with their shoes. If you make a runner feel better they just run farther and still hurt themselves.

    I think that studying elite runners only offers a small piece of the puzzle. They move way faster than a 4-5hr marathoner. My elite running buddies run significantly different when they they go my pace as compared to their racing pace. That includes their cadence and stride length, which is basic math. Finally, I feel the need to bring up Bikila's two world records, one barefoot and one shod.

    As for evolution, it's always interesting to see how confident people are with the way the human evolved. Though the multitude of different camps on the subject is fascinating. My thoughts, nothing human's hate more than another human, and this continent isn't big enough for the two of us.....
     
  8. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    90% of the market shoes (also called big bulky shoes, maximalist shoes, 'traditional' shoes ... to the opposite of flat shoes, minimalist, racers, ...)
    We have a mathematical formula to quantify the shoes with a rate from 0 (barefoot) to 100 (Hoka).
    For the moment, grossly
    I call a shoes minimalist if :
    stack < 15mm
    drop < 5mm
    weight < 7oz
    I call a shoes maximalist if :
    stack > 20mm
    drop > 7mm
    weight > 9oz

    My thought:
    - higher if you change with not enough progressively (both side)
    - lower on your foot on short term with maximalist
    - lower on your knee on short term with minimalist
    - lower on long term with minimalist

    Agree
     
  9. Nothing personal to anyone, but it should help all concerned if the accepted terminology used within shoe construction is applied to these conversations. "Stack" and "drop" are not terms which would necessarily be familiar to the shoe-maker.

    P.S.
    I'm a "selfish-gene" man too, you can't beat a bit of competition to drive the wheels of evolution.
     
  10. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Thanks Simon,
    what the good term in english 'interference'? 'ramp'?
    In french we call this épaisseur and pente
    B
     
  11. And while you are welcome to your thoughts. There is absolutely no direct evidence to support any of those contentions. End of story.:hammer:
     
  12. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    I think there is many 'indirect' evidence on that (correlation between the effect of different type running shoes on biomechanics and secondary the load on tissues... not causation I agree... and not yet RCT on that ...) but is there some evidence that it's not true?
     
  13. I don't know because I don't know what you mean when you write "stack" and "drop"; that's my point. épaisseur translates into English as thickness; thickness of what? Pente translates as slope; again, slope of what?

    You may be talking about the heel height and pitch of the waste section of the last (heel pitch is something different again)? But you probably need to include a measure of the sole thickness too. The term coined by Kirby as "heel-height differential" may be the best to use here. But what about the "toe-spring"? What influence might that have?

    I'd be interested to read anything that supports your contentions here. Specifically that:
    Frankly, I think you are wrong.
     
  14. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    - Thickness or stack of the Sole (outsole, midsole and insole together at the higher point, often at the heel.
    - Slope or ramp or drop or heel to toe height differential... is the differential between the height of the heel and the forefoot.
    To give you an example, barefoot is 0 drop and 0stack :)

    I think I'm right. Maybe we can, one day, have a long and tiring debate going in circle and finishing by some bad understanding quote on podiatry arena... or take a beer together when I'm coming in UK :drinks
     
  15. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    There is not much useful data. BUT, from my experience; the understanding on where the force/load differences are between forefoot v rearfoot and also what I observe in forums/social media from runners asking for advice and in the total absence of data, this would be my estimate:

    More common in minimalist runners/forefoot strikers: met stress fractures, dorsal midfoot interosseous compression syndrome, post tib tendonitis and post tib dysfunction, achilles tendinitis

    More common in rearfoot strikers: tibial stress fractures, anterior compartment syndrome, peroneal tendinitis

    No clear pattern (both forefoot and rearfoot strikers get these): plantar fasciitis, patellofemoral pain syndrome, iliotibial band syndrome (also changing from heel striking to forefoot striking for these conditions does help some, but not others. There are still plenty of minimalist/barefoot and forefoot strikers seeking help for these problems that developed after they made the transition).

    You will always read about individual exceptions to these, but this is the impression that I get to the pattern.
     
  16. As I said, you'd do better to avoid the terms "stack" and "drop" because these are not generally used within the shoe design industry.

    Well how scientific of you. You make a claim, I say show me the evidence because I think you are wrong and your response is to say that "you think you are right". You missed the point, that's not how academic debate works. If your purpose is merely to advertise a course then pay Craig some money for an advert. This will help to support Podiatry Arena.

    I don't believe that you can support the four points you made previously with either direct or indirect evidence. Can you?

    Here's a question though, Blaise: What's in it for you? What is your motivation to promote minimalist or even barefoot running? Are you honestly acting as an ethical practitioner in your mind, using the best currently available knowledge to treat the injuries within your patients, or are you more interested in selling courses and trying to make a name for yourself along the way? This is really a rhetoric set of questions, more for you to reflect upon than to provide an answer to me.
     
  17. Leopold

    Leopold Member

    I have another question on ground reaction force data. Are vertical GRF's usually calculated as ground force on shoe, as compared to insole/orthotic reaction force on foot. It seems logical that the forces between the ground and shoe, especially during impact, would be different than that of the insole on the foot.
    I once dropped an egg off my elementary school roof in a box full of cotton balls and it didn't break - Have to think the reaction force was different for the box and for the egg.
    Finally, would the inertia of the shoe contribute to impact force magnitude or timing, assuming we are looking at ground to shoe reaction force?
     
  18. Leopold

    Leopold Member

    I have another question on ground reaction force data. Are vertical GRF's usually calculated as ground force on shoe, as compared to insole/orthotic reaction force on foot. It seems logical that the forces between the ground and shoe, especially during impact, would be different than that of the insole on the foot.
    I once dropped an egg off my elementary school roof in a box full of cotton balls and it didn't break - Have to think the reaction force was different for the box and for the egg.
    Finally, would the inertia of the shoe contribute to impact force magnitude or timing, assuming we are looking at ground to shoe reaction force?
     
  19. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Craig, I'm agree with all except the peroneal tendinitis... because it has a primary role of plantar flexion when running... Can you explain or correct me please?

    To my experience I would add and precise :
    More common in minimalist runners/forefoot strikers: met stress fractures, dorsal midfoot interosseous compression syndrome, post tib tendonitis and post tib dysfunction, achilles tendinitis, calf and deep post leg compartment syndrom, metatarsalgia, peroneal tendinitis, plantar fasciatis

    More common in maximalist rearfoot strikers: tibial stress fractures, anterior compartment syndrome, peroneal tendinitis (?), ATSS and stress fracture anterior crest, heel fat pad synd,

    No clear pattern (but more minimalist runners/forefoot strikers tendency): MTSS and stress fracture to the medial tibial crest, PFPS

    No clear pattern (but more maximalist rearfoot strikers tendency): most of knee pathologies (ex: tibio-femoral OA), iliotibial band syndrome, most of the coxo-femoral pathologies, lower back pathologies.
     
  20. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    I speak about the basics science on "where the force/load are apply differently between forefoot vs rear foot"... two type of stike pattern largely influence by the type of shoes in a way that we know. I propose to you to Read the quote I did to Craig answer about injury pattern... try to understand why HE and I tell that... and comment (telling us WHY NOT) if you don't agree.:drinks

    I will be quick : I teach with passion this concept since more than 10 years (probably long time before you were debating on that topics here). My approach is a mix of clinical experience (not just maximalist or minimalist... both together!) and an evidence based approach. I love teaching advance concept in post graduate course even if I teach or taught at Laval University different courses in physio, medicine, kinesiology and physical education... and all this passion has nothing to do with money... (I'm owner of 10 clinics at Quebec city... I don't need to teach for money.) For 'making my name' it's fine link that... some colleague of you speak about me in podiatry congress ;)

    If I reassure you and you are still interested to understand what I teach you can read some testimonial here : http://www.therunningclinic.ca/en/courses-conferences/testimonials.php

    An add on Podiatry arena is a very good idea... Craig how can I proceed?
     
  21. OK so first off you're assuming everyone in minimalist shoes will forefoot strike, while everyone in more traditional running shoes will rearfoot strike. This is not true. However, how does the data on strike position you refer to back up your contentions that injury rate will be:
    It simply doesn't. I'll tell you why not, because that data doesn't look at the influence of progressive transfer from one form of shoe to another; it doesn't look at injury patterns in minimalist shoes; it doesn't look at injury patterns in other forms of running shoe; and the final contention you make here, well I'd guess you simply pulled that out of your ass.

    What the data does tell us is the load/deformation of each tissue may be different in different tissues when wearing different kinds of shoes. This is not the same, nor supportive of your contentions above.
     
  22. Further,
    I presume you do not teach this:
    Because it is not evidence based.
     
  23. Leopold

    Leopold Member

    Would the reaction force between the ground and the shoe be the same as the reaction force between the insole and the foot for any given moment in time on any given step?
     
  24. No. And the reality is we cannot measure the reaction forces between the foot and the insole, only an element of them. To measure the reaction forces fully you need a force plate. In-shoe pressure measurement only measures certain aspects of the reaction forces. Read this:
     

    Attached Files:

  25. Leopold

    Leopold Member

    Thank you for this one as well Simon. It seems one point the barefoot supporters like is the impact force difference. Are they they cutting down data that doesn't exist though? By that I mean, regardless of strike pattern, they are comparing values of barefoot impact on the ground/force plate with shoe impact values on the ground/force plate. How confident can we be that the values the foot experiences inside the shoe are the same as the outsole experiences?
     
  26. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    I love your 'doesn't look at the influence of progressive training' and can be just agree with that.
    I love too your 'pulled out of your ass' and can be just agree with that.

    Ok, last explanations:
    We know that less your have shoes, more your increase your impact moderating behaviour by some biomechanics adaptation... (I'm sure you know all of this). ex : Running barefoot (the extreme of the spectre) increase the load of the plantar flexor because you run more (or have a tendency of) on your forefoot.

    - higher if you change with not enough progressively (both side)
    Transition to one to the other (maximalist-minimalist) increase the load of some specific tissues... Why someone moving to minimalism have more certain type of injuries and why someone moving from minimalism to maximalism (we have that type of people at Quebec in our study - assign in the maximalist group, but use to run in minimalist shoes- have other type of problem. (see the quote of Craig)

    Q : Do you think that moving to a minimalist shoe from a maximalist shoe have no risk to develop the type of injuries Craig named, like a MT stress fracture?

    - lower on your foot on short term with maximalist
    If you take someone starting a running program and you protect is feet... I guess that he will be less injured (short term only) at the protected part of his body.
    Q : Do you think that maximalist shoes doesn't decrease the stress on the foot -generally-?

    - lower on your knee on short term with minimalist
    Same thing for the knee... and you will decrease the EKAM movement with less interference in most of the case.
    Q : Do you think that traditional shoes doesn't increase EKAM?

    - lower on long term with minimalist
    I believe that for many reason (alignment, cadence, adaptation of tissues, ...) but one of the argument is that when you change your maximalist or minimalist shoe after 4-6 months, you will have more chance to have a biomechanical change with the maximalist than the minimalist shoes... nothing is closer to nothing than 12 technologies compare with 12 news technologies.
    Q : Do you think that maximalist shoes lowering the risk of injuries on long term?
     
  27. Nope, you still haven't provided any evidence other than your own anecdote and your English is appalling and difficult to comprehend. As far as I can understand, all that you have done here is to restate your original contentions and then ask me if I believe them. I've already stated that I don't believe your assertions to be based in fact. The moons a balloon. How do you know? I just said so, didn't I?

    If you are going to use abbreviations/ acronyms it would be helpful to define them in full at the point of their first usage.
     
  28. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Do you have some evidence to tell me the opposite?

    From my 15 years of experience treating almost exclusively runners; dealing since more than 10 years with minimalist and maximalist stunning shoes; being a runner since 32 years; working wing the national team; being in contact with hundreds of health professionals and tens of researchers groups around the word; understanding where the force/load differences are between forefoot v rear foot (and the influence of the shoes on that); observing in forums/social media runners having trouble with injuries... ...
    I think I'm right! ... but who knows... maybe the other Simon?:D

    What do you think of my questions? (you can just answered yes or no... even with no evidence)
    Do you think that moving to a minimalist shoe from a maximalist shoe have no risk to develop the type of injuries Craig named, like a MT stress fracture?
    Do you think that maximalist shoes doesn't decrease the stress on the foot -generally-?
    Do you think that traditional shoes doesn't increase EKAM?
    Do you think that maximalist shoes lowering the risk of injuries on long term?
     
  29. You are not impressing me, all you are doing is attempting to shift the burden of proof. I can list my curriculum vitae too, if you think that would help? Now, you made the contentions, the burden of proof is with you, not I. So, that evidence if you would please, Blaise...

    Alternatively, you could wind your neck in, admit that actually you cannot support the contentions you made through either direct or indirect published evidence and apologise for wasting my time. I won't hold my breath though. Next...
     
  30. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Ground reaction force is usually measured (not calculated) with a force plate. There are in shoe sensoras that can also measure foot shoe reaction forces. Some shoe sensors ask for body weight so that they can estimate what the total force should be. There are calibration issues with both inshoe and force platform sensors.

    Mechanical analysis of the landing phase in heel-toe running.
    Bobbert MF, Yeadon MR, Nigg BM.
    J Biomech. 1992 Mar;25(3):223-34

    In looking up the above paper, which influenced me greatly, I saw other papers by the same authors on the use of accelerometry and inverse dynamics that could be used to look at groundreaction force.

    One question is why do you want to look at vertical ground reaction force.

    The difference between your example of the egg, cotton, and carton versus the shoe and the foot is that there is a lot more internal motion with the egg. Specifically the egg does not stop the instant the carton hits the ground. Whearas the distance the foot travels relative to the outer sole of the shoe is relatively less than the egg in the carton. The concept you are examining here is impulse. Impulse is force x time and is what happens when the ground changes the momentum of a falling object. You can create the same impulse with a low force times a long time as compared to a high force for a short time. The cotton and the compression of the material of the shoe give some more distance and time over which the force can be applied to slow the downward momentum.

    The interesting thing about the study I cited above was that it showed the the ground reaction force impact peak was related to the impact of the shank and foot and that knee flexion was very important in reducing the magnitude of ground reaction force. So, just as there is some internal movement in the egg carton there is "internal" movement of the whole body to reduce impacts. However, material under the heel of the foot can reduce the peak loads from the shank impact.

    Eric
     
  31. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Don't worry, my goal is not to impress you. So you don't agree, but you cannot say why and you cannot say also what your position (evidence based or not) on the questions I ask you?
     
  32. Wouldn't the load on one side of a material interface be the same as the load on the other side of the interface?
     
  33. I can say why, I just don't need to Blaise because you cannot provide evidence to support the contention you made in the first place. Viz. the burden of proof is with you, not me. Rather, the benefit of assumption is with me. What don't you understand about that? Put forward the evidence and then we can debate it. At the moment, you are merely attempting to deflect the argument, it might work with those unfamiliar with academic debate... I thought you'd been involved in academic debate before? But in reality you cannot even say why you believe what you said, never mind why you might disbelieve any evidence I might provide to support my position.

    "Here's what I think"
    "I think you're wrong, show me the evidence"
    "I'm right"
    "No, show me the evidence to support your position"
    "I'm right, why do think I'm wrong?"
    "Because you can't evidence what you've said"
    "What do you think?"
    "I think you haven't evidenced what you've said yet"
    "But you can't tell me why you think I'm wrong?"
    "I think you are wrong because I'm familiar with the evidence base, I have a sound understanding of lower limb biomechanics and research methods and I know there is no evidence which supports your contentions... go ahead show me some evidence..."

    Bored now Blaise, either evidence your contentions or wind your neck in.
     
  34. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    no answer?:sinking:
     
  35. No, clearly you haven't got any answers. That was evident yesterday, Blaise. The problem is that you are not man enough to admit it. You've given me a synopsis of your career, you've provided a link to your courses, you've attempted to shift the burden of proof, but you still haven't provided any evidence for your contentions whatsoever. Good luck with your future.
     
  36. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Blaise, is it really so hard to say that you don't have evidence for your strongly held beliefs.

    What's a maximalist shoe?
    A shoe can be made/modified to reduce stress on a particular anatomical structure. This modification will probably increase stress on some other structure.

    What's EKAM?


    Folks are more likely to answer your questions if the question can be clearly defined.

    Eric
     
  37. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Yes, the load would be reduce on both sides. The difference between the two would be the forces acting on the material between them (gravity and accelerations.)
     
  38. So, if we took a force plate and covered it in say a 4mm sheet of eva foam, the forces recorded by the force plate should be the same as the forces at the foot to eva interface- right? Except the co-efficient of friction between the eva and the force plate will not be the same as the co-efficient of friction between the eva and the foot. What influence might this have on the reaction forces, Eric?
     
  39. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Except for the weigth of the foam. Now, if your talking about induced behavioral changes, like change in knee angle, then they will be different.

    Eric
     
Loading...

Share This Page