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.

Point-Counterpoint Article on Minimalist Running Shoes

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Kevin Kirby, Aug 22, 2013.

  1. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    The ship is certainly sailing on this one. Those who firmly hung their hat on the barefoot/minimalism hanger have now got egg on their faces:

    *all of the most recent studies and the preponderance of studies are showing there are no differences in injury rates
    *all the recent running economy studies are showing no differences (probably because its a matter of the weight of the shoe vs increased muscle activity in minimalism)
    *sales figures are plummeting; just look at the 'minimalism is dieing' type comments from retailers in the most recent Running Insight.
    *a number of prominent running bloggers who went down the minimalism route, are moving back to the middle ground as they see what the science is showing (and the fan boys are ****** at them for doing that!)
    *how many running shoe companies are coming out with maximalist shoes; some are claiming that the decline in minimalism started up to 4yrs ago; some pundits are predicting that 2014 will be the yr of the maxmialist running shoes

    At the end of the day; the science is not supporting all the propaganda and rhetoric about minimalism and barefoot and its claimed benefits. Runners are voting with their feet and not falling for it either any more.

    BUT, we have learnt a lot during all this about adapting tissues to load and gait changes for some specific injuries that will benefit from forefoot striking (or a lower touch down angle) with going minimalism and other that need to stay heel striking.
  2. Admin2

    Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

  3. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Thanks Kevin for highlighting the article. It was a good article - I say that Nick Campitelli & yourself made good points. I personally feel that because there are good points made from the two of you that this deemed "minimalist" shoe category has its place amongst the shelves within running stores... & always will... yet there should be caution (& subsequent education) in adopting such a running shoe. I have always thought this (well at least as long as this "minimalist" category surfaced & has been heavily discussed) as I have been training in racing flats (not just racing in them) for the past 20 years. This structure ("minimalist") of running shoe suits me personally (& others I know of), yet I'll admit that we "minimalist" types could be the minority (for a variety of reasons). This is where the controversy heatens up as there are those within this so deemed 'enlightened' Born To Run "barefoot/minimalist" faction who would tell us that the majority would be suitable... & (as highlighted) would also misrepresent the research to further their agenda. The fact is this is a multifactorial & thus complicated topic in my view i.e. biomechanical/physiological (i.e. genetic entropy); running history/shoe history (i.e. neuropathway development); running fitness/general health (muscle/tendon conditioning; weight & body composition); form/technique (i.e. foot strike/torso position) etc... all of which I feel potentially affect one's ability to run within a type of shoe structure which then won't contribute pushing them over their injury threshold limit.

    I think we also need to officially define the categories of running shoes. Your definition of "minimalist" seems a good generalised view...

    ... albeit, range of figures for the above attributes are ideally required to help reduce confusion.

    The above had the reference (i.e. 1) which was associated with the following: 1.  Kirby KA. Foot and Lower Extremity Biomechanics: A Ten Year Collection of Precision Intricast Newsletters. Precision Intricast, Inc., Payson, AZ, 1997, pp. 87-89.

    Is this correct?

    Anyway, after doing some thinking as a result of another thread in which the "maximalist" shoe like the "Hoka One One" was discussed (i.e. Dr Kirby's personal account) along with reading about some newish technology that a coaching friend of mine (as well as Alberto Salazar) has been promoting of late i.e. the Alter G treadmill: http://www.sweatsydney.com.au/sweat_sydney__010.htm I have seen a potential use for a "minimalist" type runner like myself incorporating some "maximalist" shoe running. Let's face it - the principle of training is to stress the body (more so if you're a serious runner/athlete) - to stress the muscles, tendons, cardiovascular system (as well as bones)... but not to the point of breakdown/injury. There are times where serious athletes & recreational athletes do intentionally & unintentionally push these limits... & subsequently there is the need for recovery - active recovery (shown to be best) is needed on a regular basis. Hence if one hasn't the means to utilise the likes of a "Alter G treadmill" to help offload some of those GRFs/stress, then maybe the next best thing would be incorporating an extremely cushioned shoe like the "Hoka One One" to enable one to still go through the actions of running whilst also clocking up the miles (hence targeting that "10 000 Hour Rule" hypothesis) yet without the degree of stress that a "traditional" or "minimalist" shoe would invoke. Conversely, (based on the stress principle of training) there is a place for the "minimalist" shoe for those who are suited to it (or educated to implement it) in their workouts.

    Anyway, these are just my personal views relating to the bookend ("minimalist" & "maximalist") shoe structures within the controversial running footwear topic (whilst leaving the heel to forefoot midsole pitch issue alone). However, I don't have a pair of Hoka One One to test the above hypothesis (Hoka One One rep out there by any chance? ;-) ).
  4. Matthew:

    I have never had a problem with a runner wanting to wear racing flats or "minimalist shoes" to train or race in. What I have always had a problem with is people like Chris McDougall, Dan Lieberman, Blaise Dubois, Nick Campitelli and the other barefoot-minimalist shoe advocates suggesting that wearing thicker soled shoes with higher heel height differential is somehow the main cause of running injuries and/or cause the runner to "run incorrectly" or run in an "unnatural" fashion.

    As you know, there are plenty of very fast runners who are heel strikers and plenty also that are midfoot and even forefoot strikers. Some train in thick-soled shoes, some train in racing flats. There is no one best shoe for each runner.

    I'll be glad when these above-mentioned non-experts in running biomechanics can go back to being ignored by everyone so more rational minds can push the science of running and running shoe biomechanics forward.
  5. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    As you know Kevin, I too have questioned the reasoning of the above individuals - except for Nick Campitelli - whilst his name sounds familiar, I can't recollect any material of his... & of which has raised red flags with me. Maybe I just haven't been exposed too much to his material (to thus remember); but like I said in my previous post, both Nick & yourself raised good points in the article. I also understand that you would be exposed to such material more frequently than I due to your high profile within running/biomechanics/footwear circles... & hearing/reading unsubstantiated claims, misrepresented research, pseudoscientific views propagating a bias agenda would get very annoying after a while... I get frustrated myself on such cases.

    As you also know I do certainly question the degree of heel to forefoot midsole pitch within traditional running shoes - I do feel that 10 - 12mm differential is too high & can potentially influence/contribute to unconducive form/technique/forces (thus the potential for injury - albeit, I can't cite research to specifically support this). I also understand that we humans are pretty good at adapting to things i.e. to elevated heel pitch running shoes (present now for at least 30 odd years) - hence part of the problem I feel in testing the influence of such footwear traits in relation to pathology.

    However, I do believe in the importance of cushioning (unlike some individuals you cited) - particularly in the role of recovery, also as the result of the amount of hard running surfaces (roads/pavement) which we can't always escape from. For me personally (a runner who does predominantly wear "minimalist" type shoes) I feel this whole footwear issue needs to be assessed on an individual basis based on general guidelines/principles in relation to the runner's history, environment, biomechanics, health/weight etc... For example (based on my own experience) I feel it appropriate to train in so deemed "minimalist" shoes (i.e. Nike Free 3.0, Brooks Pure Connect, Saucony Hattori, Vibram bikila) whilst wearing a more cushioning shoe for recovery runs. Like I said, I have been now more open to the thought of wearing a Hoka One One shoe (as the result of views/thoughts raised in my previous post) amidst of hard training periods where I do feel sore (thus lessoning forces). Optimal training is about stressing the system... & after many years (the result of my stubbornness) I have also realised that just as important is the recovery element to thus absorb the hard work put in. I have recently been told that the heel to forefoot differential in the Hoka One One is 4mm. Anybody know if this is correct?

    Yes, I agree... & those who state such (i.e. "minimalist" for all) are just plain ignorant of the evidential variety of human biomechanics/physiology. Genetic entropy has dealt its cards over the past XXXXX years - & some just need support (& cushioning) if they wish to partake in their exercise of choice as well as not wanting to meet their injury threshold after just say 1 - 2 weeks. The result of which you & I see in our practices on a regular basis... unlike some of the individuals you cited above.

    Like I said previously, humans are pretty good at adapting to things. Thus, I just wonder whether the degrees of heel strikers out there are habitual or the result of the influence of the midsole pitch of the traditional running shoe over the past 30 odd years. Just a thought... of which I see the complications to research on. That said, we know that there are a variety of biomechanical/physiological traits out there, we know problems can arise from either footstrike position, we know problems can arise when we deviate from our individual "norm"... & that injuries are multifactorial.

    On the whole, I agree... it is frustrating... more frustrating when their followers who know even less expand on their views to then propagate (misquote, exaggerate) erroneous views which fit their world view (& now with a worldwide audience via the internet). That said, sometimes concepts/ideas are put forward from a different perspective which does then invoke the need for greater understanding... if not expanding & educating on how the pieces fit together within an area where the injury rates are still high.

    As Craig has said - "runners will vote with their feet" (i.e. subsequent rate of injury)... of which we provide informed/expert opinion on.
  6. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Matt asked, " I have recently been told that the heel to forefoot differential in the Hoka One One is 4mm. Anybody know if this is correct? "

    Mafete toe 41mm, heel 35mm
    Stinson trail toe 38mm heel 32mm
    Stinson tarmac toe 37mm heel 30
    Bondi toe 35 heel 30
  7. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    After years of this back and forth crap, we have gotten nowhere. The minimalist or "non-experts in running biomechanics" are accused of misinterpreting and misusing "science" and the pompous self described "medical professionals" continue to insist that they are the experts when it comes to science.

    What have I learned over the past 4 or 5 years reading the arguments about running shoe design, running gait and training? Everyone is pretty much clueless when it comes to the SCIENCE of running injury.

    There are statistics regarding the prevalence of injury rates and running stating that 70 to 80% of runners develop injury within a given year's time. I can't argue whether that is really true or not. I do agree and assume that injury rates are pretty high regardless. I also assume that those injury rates do not discriminate by type of shoe. A lot of runners get injured, plain and simple.

    Yet, what about the runners who just don't get injured? There are runners that are able to run year after year after year, accumulating thousands of training and racing miles without a single injury. What is it that makes this minority of runners different?

    I will argue that if anyone really did know and understood the SCIENCE that they would have a solution to the running injury epidemic. For those who accuse others of misunderstanding and misinterpreting the science while claiming they know the science behind running injury, I will be the first to say they are full of horse manure.

    Someday I'm sure we will figure out how to prevent running injury, it will come after we understand the science behind it. In the meantime we will fumble around and continue on with the pointless debates made by people who are clueless on both sides of the argument.

    In the meantime, wear whatever running shoes feel the best to you. There isn't anyone that can tell you what shoe is best or why because they don't know. They may pretend to know or they may have convinced themselves that they know but they don't know.
  8. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Its not true. That is the figure from one cherry picked study that usually gets quoted by those with an agenda to make the problem seem a lot worse than it really is. Why not cherry pick and quote the study that showed its was 26%?

    As I repeatedly say:
  9. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Craig, I think you missed my point. I don't care if the injury rate is 70%, 80% or 26%. A lot of runners get injured and they get injured frequently regardless of who's study you look at.

    As you repeatedly say:
    "what I object to is the misuse, misrepresentation, misquoting and misinterpretation of the science"

    The point I was trying to make is that when it comes to running injury, there is no science, we are all clueless. If we truly understood the science, we would have a solution for the prevention of running injury.

    You can object to the misuse, misrepresentation, misquoting and misinterpretation of some weak knowledge about running injury but I wouldn't call it science.

    To presume that anyone really understands the "science" behind running injury, that is just wrong.
  10. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Thanks Dana for answering that question. So the above figures actually indicate a negative heel drop (heel lower than forefoot - of which does look deceiving just by looking at the side profile - albeit, I have been told this is a deceptive way to assess this). However the midsole specs of these shoes are rather confusing with various specs out there. I also have come across a website stating the above specs... then again I've come across others who say something different i.e. heel higher than forefoot.

    The following website (i.e. Natural Running Center) states the following:
    So I thought I look for the specs on the Hoka One One site (Australian) site (they should know surely):

    - BONDI B: states that there is a 4.5mm heel to toe drop - however, the specs to the side of the description state a gradient of 3mm.
    Hence the write-up & specs don't match up.

    - BONDI SPEED: a 4.5mm heel to toe drop (with specs to the side matching).
    - STINSON EVO TARMAC: a 4mm heel to toe drop (with specs to the side matching up).
    Anyway, just thought I highlight the various data out there on the nature of the Hoka One One midsole specs.

    Just a quick note on the running injury topic:
    There is science present & we aren't all clueless with regard to running injuries i.e. repetitive eccentric loading forces will potentially injure tissue... yet the same degree of repetitive eccentric loading forces may not injure another individual due to the different states of fitness & strengths (i.e. muscle/tendon integrity). We know how to reduce the degree of forces we deem adverse & contributing to one's injury - we can do this in a preventive perspective or a treatment perspective - yet most people only seek help as the result of the injury taking place (hence after the fact, thus info sought via a treatment perspective)... thus incidence of injury stats rise.

    Now there are general guidelines we can advise on which can help one not reach their injury threshold i.e. form/technique changes that will lessen the chance of attracting potentially adverse forces, footwear advice, biomechanical/physiological advice on the individual's state, training/adaptation advice, extracurricular exercises to further condition one's body to adapt to the demands of running etc... Like I've said before - running injuries are multifactorial... on top of that - humans are difficult creatures to control - they have free will to do whatever they choose to do (i.e. listen to a point of view which appeals to their world view)... as well as choose not to do (i.e. listen to experienced/educated opinion on preventative measures - which may require effort & time). This has been (in part) my experience why there is the prevalence of injuries out there - most of which could have been avoided if people were more understanding & proactive in knowing & conditioning their own bodies (I can't do it for them). It is also human nature for humans to make their own mistakes & learn from the experience i.e. young children will push the boundaries &/or test things out for themselves (despite experienced parental warning &/or advice)... & in most cases they learn from the pain... us adults are no different in most cases (as well having the "it won't happen to me" mentality)... hence the occurrence/prevalence/reoccurrence of running injuries.
  11. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Matt, sorry for the confusion. In my haste I simply switched heel for toe and toe for heel when I was writing down the heights.

    As far as your explanation about injury rates, it sounds plausible yet we have "experts" like Kevin and Craig who are both chronically injured must severely limit their running yet they haven't been unable to resolve their issues.

    I think your explanation works in some cases but I also believe that when it comes to really having a grasp on this, the scientists still insist that the world is flat and are doing the best they can with what they know. They are persecuting those who have a different point of view and insisting they really have a handle on this. Just as your explanation implies. 200 years from now, people will look back and shake their head about how little we know yet how informed we think and pretend we are.
  12. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Regarding the Campitelli - Kirby article, imagine them having a discussion 150 yrs ago and it is about the prevention and cure of the plague instead of running shoes and running injury. They both have their opinions and points of view based on what they know. The problem is that antibiotics haven't been discovered yet so their discussion or debate falls short. At the time, they thought they had all the answers and had it all figured out, the problem is they were missing the key point that resolves the issue.

    Think about all of the debate and discussion about running injuries, running shoes, prevention and cures. There are a lot of people who have opinions and points of view based on what they know. Are we missing something? Is there something about running injury that is yet to be discovered?

    Craig is concerned about those who misinterpret the science. That may be true but if the science is not far enough along, aren't we all fumbling in the dark?

    I have heard the explanation that running injuries are multifactorial for years now. That may be true but do we really know what all the factors are? The explanation that running injuries are multifactorial, is that another way of saying that it is really complicated and we don't know enough to figure it out? I have to wonder, if the running injury issue ever is resolved, will the multifactorial equation actually look simple? Or will the resolution have nothing to do with a multifactorial equation? Why is it that some people can ignore all sensible training advice, wear anything on their feet, run forever and remain injury free? Is it genetics? What aspect of genetics? Is there a way we can affect it?

    Resolving the running injury issue is much bigger than wearing a certain kind of running shoe.

    For now, I'll leave you to your discussions and debates. Let me know when someone solves the problem.
  13. I generally agree that there has not been enough focus on predictive model building for running related injuries. However, some models do exist such as this one for medial tibial stresss syndrome from Bennett http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/11570734 which seems to detect risk for medial tibial stress syndrome with about 75% precision by employing only two variables- gender and navicular drop. It doesn't get much more simple. The question is: how many people employ this model in clinical practice? Sure they might measure navicular drop, but do they put the numbers into Bennett's equation? Doubtful; this is because most of the podiatrists that I know don't understand things like predictive modelling. No offence y'all but it probably wasn't covered in your undergrad research methods module. So, even if they are aware of the work, they don't know what to do with it. Here's the other, bigger reason which has been intimated previously: most podiatrists are dealing with the already injured- so prediction of injury is no longer the issue; treatment is.

    Resolving the running injury issue is much bigger than wearing a certain kind of shoe, yet those of us who have worked with injured runners for a few decades or more also know of countless patients whose running related injuries appear to have been resolved simply by changing to a different category of shoe. Co-incidence? Maybe, maybe not. Yet, if we take medial tibial stress syndrome as an example, we can follow with reasonably sound logic and reasoning that when we make changes in certain shoe characteristics these might ameliorate this pathology given our existing knowledge of aetiology and the "state of the art"; I won't bother going into the details as this has been well documented previously by Prof. Kirby.
  14. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Hi Dana.

    You critique views (which is fine); ask many questions, put forward scenarios... however, what are your answers? I have provided a brief outline of views/answers in post# 11.

    It is important to express such views - to share them, so others can learn from either an appropriate direction or inappropriate direction... hence we learn from both right & wrong ideas (albeit, sometimes difficult on Podiatry Arena ;))... this is how the pieces are put together... knowledge is expanded upon. This is in part how science/enlightenment works on finding future answers on such matters... where evidence is growing & subsequently appropriate knowledge is yet to be discovered (resultant of the history of associated topics).

    No, as I've said above... it's all part of the process of scientific enlightenment & we know enough about running injuries (i.e. most causes & hence appropriate treatment thereof) to be beyond the "fumbling in the dark" stage.

    The fact is running injuries are multifactorial (as outlined in post 11) - this is a fact - we can see the many facets of it. Running injuries will always remain multifactorial in spite of future knowledge - it just may mean we add other principles to this already multifactorial issue as they arise. Like I've also alluded to previously - issues will always be complicated with humans involved :rolleyes:.

    Hence are you asking for some "theory of everything" (ToE) as is the quest in theoretical physics... which is really attempting to combine multifactorial facets (i.e. quantum mechanics/general relativity/gravitation/electromagnetism) into a unified theory. Like I've said, running injuries are multifactorial... which also definitely includes a genetic component - as I have frequently alluded to (probably more so than others) with regard to genetic entropy (the degree & nature of accumulated mutations within the genome) contributing to the now degree of less than ideal biomechanical/physiological states for efficient running. As far as affecting this aspect (i.e. genetics); I think we are possibly heading in that direction - as outlined in one of my favourite movies - Gattaca... which does actually address the sports component of genetic programming for event superiority...

    Like I've said, humans are difficult to control... & do we really want the above method/level of control. As the movie points out, there are good & bad aspects... i.e. how would one feel if they knew they were competing against an individual who had been genetically programmed to compete is such an event (i.e. marathon)? Who thus had the genetic superiority to function more efficiently & thus greatly reduce the chance of injury. This component can be far more powerful in relation to enhanced performance than the likes of EPO & other banned drugs we recognise today.

    I think we all here agree on that... however, this component (appropriate running shoes) is part of this "multifactorial equation"... along with biomechanical/physiological, psychological, genetics, training intelligence, environment etc... hence my position on "multifactorial".

    I wasn't really wanting to bring up the following issue (i.e. personally sensitive) but there is another factor within the realm of "running injuries" (a somewhat new concept of which sports cardiologists are supporting) which needs to be considered & of which some may not be aware of. I very rarely acquired musculoskeletal injuries (over 30 years of running) - of cause one gets "niggles" (aches/pains) from time to time, particularly when running up around 180km a week (along with speed work). However, I have now had about 5 - 6 bouts of Atrial Fibrillation (since 2007), where my pulse rate rockets (above 230bpm - which is the limit of my heart rate monitor). This causes a dramatic loss of performance where I am reduced to a jog (& then needing to stop) as well as get out of breath just walking up stairs. Cardiologists specialising in this area believe it is the result of scar tissue of the cardiac muscle affecting nerves & subsequent sinus rhythm... as the result of intense training in the past. Hence one may be biomechanically/physiologically efficient to withstand higher levels of running/training without succumbing to your normal musculoskeletal type injuries... but then they may be potentially exposed to other issues... this could be another aspect to consider for the future understanding of the bigger picture of running/sports injuries.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  15. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Thanks Matt, one of the best posts I've seen in a long time. I have plenty of my own opininios, point of view, explanations. I have tried to share many of them on this forum over the years only to be shot down, criticized chastized and had rank pulled because I'm not a medical professional. I have long been told by many on this forum that they do not want my answers, do not care what I have to say, do not know why I'm still around and have been told to let it go. Hence I asked questions to let those who think they have it all figured out provide their view of the world.

    Ironically, in post 14 Simon mentions changing shoe characteristics as a simple means of warding of injury that has been well documented by Kevin. This was a suggestion I first made over 3 years ago that Simon vehemently shot me down and barked at me for having the audacity to suggest something like routinely changing your shoes. It was also the first time I had the multifactorial concept brought forward. Kevin came forward and agreed and supported me on the notion of changing shoes. It was the only time on the forum that he admitted agreement with me.

    You'd have to be dead to not notice the contention between me and the medical professionals on this forum. For me to provide answers is simply counter productive. In time I think I have learned what the people here have to offer. It has long since become repetitive. I will continue to read from time to time and question, unsupported views, opinions or misinterpretations.

    Thank you for taking the time, for treating me with professionalism and respect. They are concepts others on this forum tend to not understand.
  16. No Dana, you misunderstand. Last night when I wrote about changing the category of shoe as part of a patients treatment plan I was referrng to perhaps a runner who attends with medial tibial stress syndrome after running in neutral cushioned trainers, despite the fact that have high levels of navicular drop, mediallly deviated STJ axis etc. and by changing to a "pronation contol" shoe symptoms are then alleviated. Or pehaps a runner who has developed a metatarsal stress reaction after running in vibram five finger shoes, by changing to a more traditional cushioned running shoe the symptoms of the stress reaction may be ameliorated. I was NOT referring to the idea that such a patient with meial tibial stress syndrome may be helped by wearing a pronation control shoe one day, a neutral cushion shoe the next day and varying the category of shoe each time they run. I recommend that all runners routinely change their shoes since materials degrade with time and cyclical loading/ unloading.
  17. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Simon, thanks for clarifying and more importantly, THANK YOU for doing it professionally and respectfully, I really appreciate it.

    Dana, who is actually quite interested and fascinated by the profession of podiatry. One of the primary reasons for hanging around so long.
  18. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

  19. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Thanks Dana for your feedback... & past opinions/explanations. I do appreciate it... you are passionate about related topics pertaining to running & running foot attire & obviously have a long history in running (& within another country). Hence I have found your contribution to be valuable/interesting because of your experience as it is in part different to mine. Others here are also passionate about related topics (including myself); however, others on this forum naturally would also have the Podiatry/clinical perspective behind them - hence sometimes come from a differing perspective to your more field based perspective. Anyway, it is not uncommon for passionate individuals to bang heads once in a while (if not more often). There are various reasons for this, which I see little point voicing my speculations on. I have experienced a number of clashes myself on this forum (which you may not be aware of) as I have gone against the status quo & questioned hierarchical viewpoints immersed in controversy. That said, this writing type medium isn't the best in conveying sincere intentions particularly on heated threads &/or controversial topics... misunderstandings & misinterpretations can arise... & like I stated in my previous post; Podiatry Arena isn't always a conducive environment for expressing differing/alternative viewpoints without running the risk of... well, as you say... being "criticized, chastized". That said, things are often said in the heat of the moment... I know I've been overly sarcastic in some posts than I should have been (for amicable dialogue) - as the saying goes... "To err is human; to forgive, divine". Hence I do try & be more careful these days, despite what may be directed my way.

    Whilst the above can be an unpleasant experience, I would like to think that no one here has any personal vendetta against any sincere forum member (different if one comes here with troll intentions). You are certainly a sincere forum member Dana (evident by your history here), adding a wealth of experience & insights to running related topics... & whom is (by your admittance)...
    ... I think this is to be commended... & in association with your experience... why I treat you with "professionalism and respect".

    I am pleased you received a professional & respectful response... & that you acknowledged it :drinks .

    All the best.

    I was going to discuss another issue of running injuries i.e. tissue/bone healing rates after the injury - which in most cases could have been avoided if individuals were more proactive in appropriate conditioning (education)... thus later.
  20. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

  21. For those that are interested, here is a pdf version of the article I participated in on minimalist running shoes.

Share This Page