For those that are interested, I took sides against Nick Campitelli, DPM, on the subject of minimalist running shoes in a recently published article in Podiatry Today magazine.
Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
Point-Counterpoint: Minimalist Running Shoes: A Significant Advance Or Injuries Waiting To Happen?
Tags:
<
cycling power measurement
|
Can Motor Control Training Lower the Risk of Injury for Professional Football Players?
>
-
-
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. -
Related Threads:
Other threads tagged with barefoot running
Sales of minimalist running shoes continue to decline
Barefoot/minimalism running biomechanics
Running economy in shoes vs barefoot
Evidence behind the 'barefoot running' headlines in the media - the Egg on Face Award
Roundtable Discussion on Barefoot Running and Minimalist Shoes
Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Internet Interest in Vibram FiveFingers Declining at Rapid Rate
There is no barefoot running debate -
I think we also need to officially define the categories of running shoes. Your definition of "minimalist" seems a good generalised view...
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? ;-) ). -
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. -
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?
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.
As Craig has said - "runners will vote with their feet" (i.e. subsequent rate of injury)... of which we provide informed/expert opinion on. -
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 -
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. -
As I repeatedly say: -
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. -
The following website (i.e. Natural Running Center) states the following:
- 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.
- BONDI SPEED: a 4.5mm heel to toe drop (with specs to the side matching).
Just a quick note on the running injury topic:
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. -
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. -
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. -
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. -
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.
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 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 -
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. -
-
Dana, who is actually quite interested and fascinated by the profession of podiatry. One of the primary reasons for hanging around so long. -
Update of current state of affairs from competitor.com
http://running.competitor.com/2013/08/shoes-and-gear/sole-man-10-things-about-the-minimalist-trend_81962/1 -
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)...
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. -
-
For those that are interested, here is a pdf version of the article I participated in on minimalist running shoes.
<
cycling power measurement
|
Can Motor Control Training Lower the Risk of Injury for Professional Football Players?
>
Loading...
- Similar Threads - Point Counterpoint Article
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 638
-
- Replies:
- 15
- Views:
- 1,207
-
- Replies:
- 1
- Views:
- 432
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 599
-
- Replies:
- 3
- Views:
- 3,266
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 978
-
- Replies:
- 1
- Views:
- 2,903