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!

Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: a retrospective study

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Griff, Jan 5, 2012.

  1. BarefootPT

    BarefootPT Welcome New Poster

    How embarrassing for Vivobarefoot. They should be condemned for their interpretation of this.
  2. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

  3. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Interesting to see Chris McDougal's spin on this study. Here is an excerpt:
    Like in his book, he continues to distort research to suit his agenda. He obviously needs to read this thread to see exactly what the study is really showing.

    I have never noticed him offer up an explanation that why we are seeing so many injuries in barefoot and minimalist runners. According to his logic we should all be promoting barefoot/minimlaist more to get more business! Barefoot/minimalist running is an economic stimulus package for anyone who works in a running injury clinic. Just ask anyone who does how much business this is generating!

    and of course he rolls out the flawed 'shill' conspiracy theory argument:


    A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Shills can carry out their operations in the areas of media, journalism, marketing, confidence games, or other business areas. A shill may also act to discredit opponents or critics of the person or organization in which they have a vested interest through character assassination or other means.

    In most uses, shill refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers, participants or "marks" the impression of an enthusiastic customer independent of the seller, marketer or con artist, for whom they are secretly working. The person or group in league with the shill relies on crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to do business with the seller or accept the ideas they are promoting. Shills may be employed by salespeople and professional marketing campaigns. Plant and stooge more commonly refer to a person who is secretly in league with another person or outside organization while pretending to be neutral or a part of the organization in which they are planted, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).[citation needed]

    Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions[1] because of the potential for fraud and damage; however, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates "buzz," the shill's actions may be legal. For example, a person planted in an audience to laugh and applaud when desired (see claque), or to participate in on-stage activities as a "random member of the audience," is a type of legal shill.[citation needed]Shill can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws.[citation needed]

    1. ^ FTC v. Greeting Cards of America, Inc. et al - USA (S.D. Fla. 2004). Text
  4. Griff

    Griff Administrator

    He forgot to add what a cash machine it can be for those denigrating running shoes...

    And why has he put "reviews" in inverted commas? Is he suggesting people that no one actually reviews shoes?

    And finally, I know I've said it before, but why do people insist on referring to all research that Lieberman has his name on as 'Lieberman's work'? He was the sixth author on this latest article. Is the reason he seemingly gets all the credit some sort of Matthew Effect?
  5. Chris McDougall continues to spin his web of half-truths in this article just like he did in "Born to Run". The problem is, he actually thinks that he knows what he is talking about.....even though he knows very little....

    Who is the fraud here, in this video?? What a joke!

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  6. yvr68

    yvr68 Welcome New Poster

    I'm a running coach and lurker who finds some great insights on your forum. As a coach I find McDougall's advice appalling for so many reasons. I bet if Lydiard were alive today and saw Chris he'd point to him and say loser. McDougall may be a good storyteller but he's certainly no fact-teller.

    Not sure if any of you have seen this study yet but the authors conclude that running barefoot offers no metabolic advantage over running in lightweight, cushioned shoes.


    To quote one of the results: "A consequence of these two findings was that for footwear conditions of equal mass, shod running had ~3-4% lower V[spacing dot above]2 and metabolic power demand than barefoot running (p>0.05)."

    I haven't been able to get a full copy of the study yet but am looking forward to reading it.
  7. yvr68:

    Give me your name, your location and your e-mail address and I'll send you that pdf. I prefer to help only those who are willing to let me know who they are.:drinks

    Unfortunately, the paper you mention only adds to the controversy and does not help us with the more compelling question as to why elite athletes rarely, if ever, compete barefoot, even though all other studies tend to point to the fact that barefoot running at slower running speeds is more metabolically efficient.

  8. Indeed, and if we go back to original post: why this latest retrospective study suggested that more injuries occur among rearfoot strike (RFS) runner when compared to forefoot strike (FFS) runners when: "Within a medical anamnesis of 471 runners, Kleindienst (2003) could not detect differences between RFS and FFS concerning the frequency of running related injuries. The same is valid for the incidence of foot deformities. However, the location of foot deformities depends on the strike pattern and the related forces and loads. Based on an epidemiological survey, analyzing 1203 runners, Walther (2005) came to a similar finding. There are no differences in the incidence of running related injuries between FFS and RFS. However, the location and the kind of injury and complaints are different." - http://w4.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/viewFile/451/391
  9. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Back on topic to the original post.

    Here are two studies that showed the opposite. The problem is they are in german and I have no more information than this, so no info on methodolgy:

    Kleindienst (2003) - 471 runners; no difference between rearfoot and forefoot strikers concerning the frequency of injury
    Walther (2005) - 1203 runners; no difference in incidence of injury between rearfoot and forefoot strikers; however, the location and kind of injury and complaints are different.

    Walther, M (2005) Vorfußlaufen schutzt nicht vor Uberlastungsproblemen. Orthopadieschuhtechnik 6; 34
    Kleindienst FI (2003) Gradierung funktioneller Sportsschuhparameter am Laufschuh. Shaker Aachen 234-235
  10. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    471 and 1203 subjects. That is a lot more than the 56 used in the study that started this thread.
  11. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Craig, If you can forward me both these articles i will have a crack at translating them. Will not be perfect, but I think I should be able to give a pretty good overview.
  12. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    I don't have them. I have ordered them. All I have is those snippets of the results. Will forward when I get them
  13. Yeah, Craig, you should forward these over to VivoBarefoot since I'm sure they would want to make up a new flashy ad saying:


    This is pretty funny stuff....I love it!
  14. I've got gout right now so I may be feeling a little bit sorry for myself, but I didn't realise my postings had become invisible.

    On the 28th of February I wrote:
    Nobody comments on this. Then, four days later Craig writes:

    And gets thanked for it.... "don't figure". Never mind :bash: Why do I bother? :boohoo:
  15. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Sorry Simon, I really did miss your post!!

    (in Feb, there were 1886 posts; that's 65/day)
  16. phil

    phil Active Member

    I'm intrigued by the Chris McDougal youtube in post #45, he mentions the if you're a "puller" (forefoot runner?) that gravity will pull you up the hills.

    Now i'm not a physicist, but gravity usually works in the down direction.

    This is really groundbreaking, space and time bending stuff!
  17. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Biomechanist challenges idea that forefoot strike pattern reduces runners’ injury rate
  18. Peter1234

    Peter1234 Active Member

    Personally I think it very suspicious that a professor would sign his name to a study with a retrospective design

    besides, what do the results mean? Does it mean that those people who are rearfoot strikers should become forefoot strikers? its neither here nor there...

    all in all very suspect
  19. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    There is nothing wrong with retrospective study designs. They are what they are.

    The issue is the way that the results are being interpreted by the Evangelists from the Church. A retrospective design does not support what they are claiming this study shows.
  20. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator


Share This Page