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.

Plimsolls "better" than trainers

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Robertisaacs, Sep 12, 2013.


  1. Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

    Scientists believe that people will believe anything if you preface it with the phrase "Scientists believe".

    Humanity is doomed.
  2. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    There is no evidence that has showed that. He is making it up.
    I would love to know what studies he thinks are actually showing that. I know of none. He is making it up (funny how I blogged on this a couple of days ago!)
    ...and what injuries are actually due to the impact of heel striking?

    Where do people get this stuff from?

    I am surprised it was in the Independent. I normally expect that sort of nonsense from the Daily Nail.
  3. Only if trainers can be found to give you cancer. If its not cancer, the Daily Fail is not interested. They have STANDARDS.

    I didn't see anything running related on that list, which is saying something considering it includes tap water. Oh yes kids, almost all cancer sufferers in the UK use tap water...
  4. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    It just shows how gullible people are.....
  5. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Gotta love this bit:
    Its NOT becoming more popular among long distance runners. The opposite is happening - its becoming less popular!
    It was NEVER massive in America. There are more people riding unicycles than barefoot running! It had a massive presence online giving the perception that it was massive; but out in the real world the numbers doing it was never big.

    The barefoot/minimalist ship has sailed. The fad is over. ..... surprised the Independent published this is in the science section when the science now shows:
    * the injury rate between traditional shod running and barefoot barefoot/minimalist running are the same
    * the running economy studies are showing no differences or, if anything, heel striking is more efficient
    * the biomechanical studies are showing no mechanical advantages of one over the other

    ... obviously the 'Dr' they chose to quote is not up-to-date with the most recent evidence.
  6. Griff

    Griff Moderator

  7. It was in the daily mail today too.
  8. Griff

    Griff Moderator

  9. blinda

    blinda MVP

    No mention of Plimsolls in The Mash, but barefoot is still in the stars.....

    Pisces (20 FEB-20 MAR)
    No word from Kate Bush yet about your chiropodist bill after that barefoot journey home from the lake.


    I stand corrected;

    All you need is a pair of plimsolls, Now That’s What I Call Music 5, and a willingness to leave your dignity behind you...
  10. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

  11. On this basis I vote for the Daily mash. It has the same factual content as the others but is a lot funnier.
  12. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Sometimes a pinch of salt is all that`s required.
  13. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Interesting comment from Mick Wilkinson on twitter:

    "Remind me to avoid press conferences in future #misquoted #outofcontext #twistedmywords"
  14. I know this guy was speaking at some sort of science day in t' North, but something that is really beginning to bug me is the "press release". This, along with the trend for about 10 authors with their names on a paper to perform a very basic study really irk.

    Call me old fashioned, but the culimination of a scientific study should be the publication of said study in a good quality peer reviewed journal with presentation to peers at conference; unfortunately the culmination these days appears to be a press release.

    I wonder how many actually include the "press release" as part of their bid for funding these days?

    One final thing that I really, really find annoying is this poxy "hash tag" bollocks. For starters it's an octothorpe or pound sign not a "hash tag". Good job this country isn't dumbing down.:bang:

    As for Dr Wilkinson: #nooneforcedyoutospeaktothepress #naivebuthappy
    As for me? #turningintomydad
  15. I feel his pain.


    We know the media are buggers for that.

    Wonder what his views actually are.
  16. Great comic, Robert. Reminds of me of Dan Lieberman's barefoot running research. Like Simon said, I wonder how these press releases are generated only for selected research studies, and not for the vast majority of others? Do these press releases originate from the author or the university?
  17. From Griffs link:

    "Stuart Miller, Head Of Biomechanics at the London Sport Institute, contacted Sky Tyne and Wear to warn anyone considering barefoot running to take it gradually.

    He said: "It is important to realise that you are using your body in a way that it is not accustomed to. "As such, a proper adaptation period is required. This should include mixing in short barefoot runs separated by at least a few days with your normal shod runs.

    "Additional exercises to improve the strength of the calf muscles such as simple calf raises, standing on the edge of a step and lifting yourself up onto your toes, are also important."

    OK, is there any evidence to support Stuart Miller's contentions? Perhaps someone could give a definition to: "a proper adaptation period"? We know from previous research that the adaptation programme that was advocated by Vibram for the five finger shoes resulted in pathological bone marrow oedema in the greater proportion of subjects in a certain study. Perhaps Stuart could go on record for the press to tell us what a proper adaptation period for barefoot running is, such that future researchers might employ his guidlines in a similar study? I doubt it; the appeal to nature fallacy not withstanding in light of modern running surfaces. His statement that one should be "mixing in short barefoot runs separated by at least a few days with your normal shod runs" is based upon what evidence?

    I've not googled it as I'm too busy at moment, but is there any good scientific evidence which demonstrates an increase in the strength of the calf muscles following a programme of simple calf raises as advocated by this "Head of Biomechanics"? i.e. "Additional exercises to improve the strength of the calf muscles such as simple calf raises, standing on the edge of a step and lifting yourself up onto your toes, are also important." Doesn't the body do something like this every time we take a step? Except in dynamic function each calf muscle group is lifting body weight, whereas in the exercise which appears to be being advocated here, each calf muscle group is lifting approximately 1/2 body weight (assuming you are doing it in bipedal stance). Regardless, lets say we do Stuart's exercises three times daily with 20 repetitions: which is going to have the bigger influence- this, or just walking / running around on a daily basis? Tudor-Locke in her 2004 study showed that men took an average of 7192 steps per day; women took an average of 5210 step per day. So, 60 reps versus 5-7K reps- hmmmm. Like I said, I've not googled it, so blow me away with the research that demonstrates an increase in muscle strength using this exercise protocol... then show me the evidence that this protects from injury in barefoot running. I'm sure Stuart can support his statements which is why he actively took it upon himself and "contacted Sky Tyne and Wear" to make his points.
  18. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    He is taking a lot of heat for this.

    I see the fan boys on some forums are loving the article!

    (BTW; I respond to your sparing partner on twitter!)
  19. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    This funny.

    The New Statesman picked up on this story and too ran the usual stuff, but this paragraph is a hoot:
  20. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    I been thinking abut this and just remembered that he was less than honest in a previous press release quoted in this thread: Running economy in shoes vs barefoot ... hard to "#outofcontext #twistedmywords" when you write a press release!
  21. Cameron

    Cameron Well-Known Member


    Gym (naked) shoes were introduced at a time when the whole of the Western world was obsessed with physical culture. Sand shoes had become popular with the masses when rail travel became freely available to the working class. At first the flimsy sand shoe had a life span of approx one week which was a long as you might spent by the seaside on a 19th century family vacation. The plimsoll was more robust and because they were white could at a distance be mistaken for croquet shoes (worn by the upper class). War in Europe meant sand shoes were issued to the armed forces and were better made and available in different colours. Often these were kept as war souvenirs and coveted by teenagers of the late 40s and early 50s. The US kids had already got baseball boots (Chucks) but these were not as readily available in Europe post war. When physical education became part of the national curriculum in the UK during the early early 50s gym shoes were introduced. The idea was leave the foot free to do what came naturally in the school gym as well as protect the wooden floor surfaces. Every other kind of trainer was usually banned because they might mark the flooring.

    To be fair physical education then would not necessarily involve running and that came much later. Subsequently trainers evolved from road running/aerobic shoes to fashion icons and so may arguably be less helpful in gym work. Rather like left handed scissors for right handers.


  22. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    He tweeted me and told me that the BBC News article was more aligned with what was actually said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24071139

    Beautiful and concise summary here too by Dr Mark Burnley from the University of Kent:


Share This Page