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.

"Tackling the 10 Myths of Barefoot Running"

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I'm reminded of something I first said at a PFOLA meeting some years ago. The problem is this: foot orthoses and for that matter modern running shoes "work by changing the kinetics at the foots interface". So, given that everyone is unique the manner in which the kinetics should be modified by either foot orthoses or running shoes will depend upon the subject. In other words, when we try to study the effects of foot orthoses, or running footwear, we are effectively performing a drug trial in which everyone gets a different dose of the drug. So, if we really want to examine the kinetics, we need to control the kinetic modification to the individual so that everyone receives the same "dose".

    Viz. attempting to examine running shoes using the protocols we apply to drug development will be a fruitless endeavour unless the kinetic changes induced by the shoes are standardised to the individuals within the studies.
  2. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member


    I have always struggled with the argument that this type of shoe is best vs that type of shoe is best vs no shoe at all is best. I agree with Simon's point completely and would add that for a given, specific individual, the manner in which the kinetics should be modified is NOT the same for every single run. To keep that modification constant for every single run is simply inviting repetitive injury. There is no single, best type of shoe across individuals AND there is no best single shoe for a single individual.

    For the last several weeks I have been grinding out very hard mileage in minimal shoes. It was time to back off and take a break for recovery. Today, I switched from minimal shoes to a pair of heavy, Asics, dual density stability shoes and ran a relaxed 8 miles. While the shoes are capable of totally and completely sucking the joy out of any run, they were just what the doctor ordered. Once I got over the fact that the shoes were twice as heavy as I was used to wearing, the added support was a welcome change to rest my feet which I had been beaten into the ground. I felt like I was riding in a Rolls Royce instead of a skate board. In spite of the many benefits of wearing minimal shoes, there are also benefits to wearing heavy duty, supportive shoes from time to time. One day of that was enough, tomorrow it's back to minimal shoes.

    If I were asked to recommend a shoe to a new runner, I would advise them to follow the Goldilocks plan and always have a choice of options. Start with both a pair of minimal shoes and heavy, duty, supportive shoes. With experience, the runner should be able to figure out which type of shoe works best for a given run based on the type of run and what they have been doing in training leading up to that run. Eventually they may want to add a pair or two that fall somewhere between the two.

    Far from a simple answer but using ONE pair of shoes or one category of shoes regardless of where they lie on the continuum is an invitation to injury.

  3. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    yep, well put Dana and Simon.. or one single paradigm as proposed by Blaise. As he well knows, the thrust of my argument in our little discussion in Austin was that one cannot apply one rule to all athletes as he does. I specifically pointed out that i believe that mixing up training, terrain and footwear may be the key to injury prevention, and I have posted as much previously on this forum.
    In my own practice I am not exclusive at all, and whilst everyone knows I consult for ASICS, I frequently recommend other companies product if I believe it will do the job better. I frequently recommend the athlete change their terrain, and I frequently recommend they introduce some barefoot training on grass into their program. I also include this in lectures, just as I did in Austin. Unfortunately we do not see this from Blaise, who meerly rails against "BBS.. a new abbreviation for his personal phrase "big bulkky shoes".. and almost. (noet I say almost) always recommends minimalist shoes, although he is yet to provide a definition for what these are.. or how they differ from racing flats..or why they are universally better for every athlete..

    In response to the questions you asked me Blaise.. the direct question was " do I believe ASICS shoes prevent injury". My direct answer was "yes, absolutely". i answered you question.. that is what i beleive, and in this society I am entitled to my opinion. If yoiu wish to take it further, the onus is on you to prove to me that ASICS shoes cause injury.. and by the way, I believe that any shoe, from any company, of any configuration.. or going barefoot, may, in certain circumstances contribute to injury, along with a myriad of other factors.

    this argument is now getting childish and i have work to do..
  4. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Oh Blaise. You almost answered that post like a real scientist with whom I'd love to have a conversation with. And then your response to question 2 reminded me of one of my new years resolutions. No more interactions on this sort of subject with people who have no regard for proper scientific method. Wasted most of 2010, and a fair bit of 2011 doing that. Not this year my friend.

    Just so you know, when you make a very specific claim such as "less than 11% of the running population should wear PECH shoes, the rest should be in minimal shoes" and you are asked for your rationale or evidence for making such a claim, an appropriate reply to the person who asked you is NOT "Why not? Do you have data showing its not true?"

    No Blaise, I do not have data showing its not true. But then I have not stated is is not true. You made the claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you. However, you clearly do not have evidence or data showing it is true. Therefore perhaps you should refrain from plucking made up facts from the air until you do?
  5. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    I did answer questions 1 and 2.. read the posting!

    I said it depends and.. it depends. It is ALWAYS athlete dependent Blaise
    i ca only assume you apply the same protocol to the gtreatment of every athlete based on this posting..

    there is no politicising from me Blaise.. are you still hurting from the Austin spanking!!:boxing:
  6. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Blaise.. you have not provided evidence for any of these statements you have made and publically broadcast..??
  7. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Could not agree more ian.. all you are gonna get is psuedoscience and cherry picking that will make your ears bleed. Like you, i am bailing out now. I have better things to do..! hopefully catch up with you at BSS.. that is Biomechanics Summer School BSS not BBS! :hammer:
  8. JohnD

    JohnD Member

    Excellent comments. I do feel compelled to point out that improvements in metabolic efficiency (O2 consumption) are NOT at all related to reductions in what you might call "orthopedic stress" or mechanical strain on the body. That is, just because a shoe condition reduces O2 consumption has no bearing on whether it prevents injury. In fact, I personally suspect that in some cases, these two are mutually exclusive—i.e. the body chooses to maximize metabolic efficiency at the expense of mechanical strain. So factors that maximize performance (such as spiked shoes for a track race) may actually INCREASE injury risk. We know that extremely light shoes with spikes (effectively a NEGATIVE heel-to-toe drop!) increase performance. Most doctors would also agree that excessive training in spikes increases injury risk.

    I should also point out that it's nearly indisputable that spikes/racing flats are superior to running barefoot in a race situation. Otherwise, the best runners in the world would be doing it.

    Finally, I got a laugh out of your comment about "sub-3oz shoes." Even the esteemed vibram fivefingers weigh over five ounces. I have a racing spike that weighs in at 3.3oz, cost over $100, have a paper-thin upper held together by kevlar wires, and probably won't last more than 40 miles! I hear a rumor that Nike loses money on this shoe. So your 3oz minimalist shoes might be a long ways off...
  9. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    From what I've seen, it doesn't look like the following video has been posted as yet. Out of all the barefoot running threads running around the forum, I suppose this thread (discussing myths) would be the most appropriate for the following...

    Pick of the quotes:
    - "I don't care if it is a wedding, I'm not going to wear those foot coffins you call shoes."
    - "Gravel, gravel, gravel."
    - "Abebe Bikila, he won the marathon barefoot, & then he had to put on shoes... & he died."
    - "I don't know why I got blisters on my heels - I totally forefoot strike."

    I'll admit to thinking one of the quotes... "heel striker", whilst watching other runners.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  10. John makes some excellent comments.

    From my experience, someone who basically grew up running cross-country and track from the age of 10 to the age of 22, and being involved in both of my sons' junior high and high school cross-country and track programs, I find it comical to hear the minimalist runners talking about how shoes should always be a certain thickness in the sole or "they are wrong" or "they will hurt you" or "they are too big and bulky".

    I ran and trained with the some of the best distance runners in Northern California during the late 1970s and I still stay in touch with many of these former elite runners who I would label as "track nuts". None of these elite runners ever confined themselves to only one style of shoe. They nearly always raced and ran their speed workouts in racing flats or racing spikes, did their longer training runs in thicker soled, heavier shoes and had no aversion to running barefoot on a grassy surface for intervals or a fartlek workout. In addition, they could care less if a runner was a heel striker, midfoot striker or a forefoot striker....all they cared about was being faster than their competitors, not where his foot contacted the ground during the running stride. I believe, that even today, many of these habits and opinions of elite distance runners still hold and most of the ones I still communicate with, really can't understand what the big point is in all this barefoot/minimalist running fad.

    I do believe, however, that there may be an advantage to sometimes wearing light weight and thin soled running shoes, which we previously called "racing flats" and also sometimes running shoes with thicker soles that are heavier, which we previously called "training flats". In addition, as Dana also likes to mention, I have long believed that it is very helpful for the higher mileage runner to switch from one shoe to another on a daily basis to give their lower extremities different stresses in different anatomic locations every day so that same magnitudes and anatomical locations of stress are not present on a daily basis for the runner. This is another argument for having higher mileage runners doing some barefoot running. By changing the running shoes (or no running shoes) over each day, there is likely less chance of developing overuse injuries. For many years, I was doing double workouts, running five miles in the morning, then doing a longer run or an interval or track workout in the afternoon. At that time in my life, I felt that having at least two pairs of running shoes was a necessity, just so I didn't have to run in wet-sweaty shoes the next run!

    In other words, I believe that having the runner have different running shoes and experience slightly different stresses on their lower extremities every day may actually be beneficial for them over the long haul. But, I don't think it is at all helpful when runners go to the religious extremes like many of members of the Church of Barefoot Running and not wanting to ever wear running shoes because they believe they are somehow evil or harmful, or take it to the evangelistic extremes of the minimalist shoe advocates that like to say that all traning flats are harmful because they have a slight heel raise and slightly thicker soles than racing flats. How ridiculous and cult-like can these people be!

    I do feel it is good to have more selection of running shoe styles for runners now with the minimalist shoe market expanding. However, many of us who are clinicians in busy sports clinics are just getting sick and tired of seeing all the runners who have injured themselves by believing the propaganda of the likes of Chris McDougall and Dan Lieberman and have started to run only barefoot, or in minimalist shoes or by them trying to convert from heel striking to midfoot or forefoot striking, and then getting running injuries as a result.

    It is now time for a little more common sense in this discussion, so more runners don't become injured and more sanity and objective discussion can take place between all those involved in the hopes that everyone will come away with greater knowledge and clarity on this important subject.
  11. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    We do tend be rehashing old material from time to time on this topic (& I just see myself included ;))... I can see the need for its continuance (unfortunately).

    The information now established on topics of barefoot running & minimalist running should now be quite common by 2012... it is common sense which ironically isn't as common as the term implies. We (general sense) in Podiatry with an interest in this area have probably done a reasonable job thus far in advocating the information appropriately, hence our duty of care fulfilled... yet we have little control over other's common sense & what they choose to see fit for their world view of running.

    That said, my views surrounding barefoot running & minimalist running may differ slightly to another within Podiatry, based on my own practical experience but the general gist of the information is similar (i.e. assessment of appropriateness based on the individual’s physiological makeup & running history). There can be a fine line between healthy scepticism & denial. The barefoot devotees need to understand that you can’t ignore the evidence (or twist it around) based on issues you prefer to be true... particularly when fancified (or should that be farcified) within the pages of a book which also has other pseudoscientific elements in its mix to justify a barefoot dogma.

    Oh good, I'm a bit late but at least it has a presence in this thread :rolleyes:.
    (I should have known that video wouldn't have escaped the clutches of this forum - even if it is just a few days old)
  12. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

  13. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Blaise, thank you for posting this on your blog and providing the link to it.

    I have just a few comments that really resonate with me.

    1) "Asics is not the first to market, Asics is the best to Market", thanks for the laugh.

    2) I sincerely had a very difficult time sitting through the whole thing.

    3) I have yet again come to the conclusion that anyone that has anything to say for or against traditional shoes, for or against minimal shoes, for or against barefoot running, who takes a position on either side of this subject and tries to argue their point is simply full of crap, end of subject.

    4) After struggling through the the entire presentation, finally in Simon's conclusion about the importance of variation, for whatever it is worth, I have to say that after 40 years of running that I have found based on my anecdotal experience as a subject of 1 that my findings are similar.

    Dana Roueche
  14. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    thanks for posting that Bias.. people can see in all your glory how much you are hurting mate!
    You take a beating badly Blaise.. its all just a bit of fun, and if you would stop promoting your one size fits all philosophy, everyone would be happier.

    Your obsession with spruiking a message you are gaining financially from is hurting people.

    You should stop and go back and read the science.

    Right now you are just talking about the snippets that suit you.

    Finally what I believe
    barefoot on grass as a part of a balanced program is great
    lightweight footwear is here to stay.. great
    "drop" is an unscientific term promoting an unscientific message, but people are free to wear whatever the hell they want. Luckily ASICS has a full range
    variation in training across different terrain and surfaces is good and probably protective against injury
    there is no one size fit all for every athlete as you propose.

    Good luck with your lecturing to the 2 people enrolled.. I hope they have not wasted their money (;
  15. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    This is perhaps the thing that I have the biggest trouble understanding with this whole debate... And there are plenty of others pushing the same wagon.
    Why do these people have to take the extreme 'solution'...?:confused:

    Also- agree with your beliefs regarding training Simon:drinks
  16. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Feel that will be friend again;)






    Both course in NewCastle and in Melbourne are full and we have a waiting list. The success of this course is 100% guaranty... EVERYBODY Loves it... especially the the rigour of the evidence based content.;)
  17. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Hope you will be there

    The Great Running Shoe Debate- Melbourne 7:30pm Friday March 23

    Panel Members:
    Dr Craig Richards (doctor, running shoe industry critic, barefoot running advocate)
    Craig Payne (podiatrist, barefoot running industry critic)
    Blaise Dubois (physiotherapist, international speaker, minimalist running shoe advocate)

    The fourth chair is reserved for Simon Bartold (Podiatrist, ASICS's Global Research Co-ordinator, former barefoot advocate turned maximalist) should he emerge from his self-imposed exile from public debate to join us on the night.

  18. Ben

    Ben Member


    Why was the 'Podiatrists only' day cancelled for the Melbourne show? This was specifically advertised on this website for a reason I imagine? Was there not enough interest or is there other reasons?

  19. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    was the reason.
  20. That is pretty funny. Oh well, there are still plenty of gullible non-medical professionals who will be led to believe that if you are a heel striking runner you are doing something bad for your body and that minimalist shoes are some sort of new, great invention.

    Have you seen the latest posters from Blaise that are meant to change the current "aberrant" practice of shoe prescribing? If I wasn't so busy now I was going to make up some of my own, much more humorous, versions of the same posters.

  21. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Hi Keven,
    I'm to busy now to debate-chat about that, but a poster with a lot of humour and completely ridiculous has been publish in a journal with a lot more influence that the mailing list of the running clinic...
    I tell you... it's hilarious!!!
    Hop that you don't support that kind of stuff!


    Also, what's your comment on the presentation of Simon in Austin? ;)
  22. Blaise:

    Haven't seen this RW shoe finder poster before. Do you have it in a larger format so that I can actually read what it says?
  23. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Nah.. sorry Blaise.. I am in the USA and Canada telling the truth about running and running shoes.... in a lot of public debates, including in Quebec. No exile for this little black duck! Time to give the Quebecoise a more balanced view than they have had recently from you. You will, as you were in Austin, be widely scrutinised for your inaccurate and biased comments! The bull****ometer is warming up as we speak!

    ps.. I am not the ASICS Global Research Coordinator nor have I ever been pro.. or anti barefoot.. nor am I a maximalist.. (can't you read Blaise?? I outlined my beliefs.. all of which you apparently agreed with, on this thread very recently..see 8th March.. have you changed your mind???)I am just interested in a case by case approach to my patients, not a one size for all as you propose.. facts mate.. work with facts!:pigs:

  24. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Yup.. Blaise struggles with the truth.. despite claiming the courses were overbooked with a waiting list, and "100%" guaranteed, there was not enough interest.. as I posted.. I heard 2 registered punters, so the pin was pulled.
    Fortunately, the majority of podiatrists understand complex biomechanical principles and can see straight through the BS without too much trouble.
    The public debate is another matter.. it is very simple to pull a crowd when you promise something with no value or substance.. i mean.. look at Kim Kardashian!

  25. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Blaise.. on Feb 1st I asked you to provide evidence for the statements below you have publically broadcast. I followed this up with a further request a week or so later. To date you have not responded on this forum in any way.
    Can you please provide the evidence to support these statements you have publically uttered?

  26. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Dr. Kirby.. you are way smarter than me, so can you explain to me why DuBois , in his posters, is recommending PECH shoes (whatever they are) for athletes when they get a foot or achilles tendon injury??
    One of the main premises of his "teachings" is that barefoot and minimalism is the gold standard.. so if this were the case.. why would you recommend PECH shoes (whatever they are...)
    he is on public record saying
    "increased vertical loading rate, increased braking forces, increased vertical displacement and increased heel strike ALL come from shoes

    shoes cause heel striking

    80% of people running barefoot run midfoot and forefoot..

    if you heel strike in shoes, the body is not able to protect from injury..

    the best way to run safely is to run barefoot"

    but then says.. "if you get injured , go back to PECH shoes"..whatever the hell:hammer: they are..

    Me no understand. do you have a solution?

  27. Simon:

    I think you and I are too old to understand this "new knowledge". I mean we actually had 8 track tape players in our cars, had most of our music on vinyl, thought the IBM Selectric typewriter was "advanced technology" and ran races with racing flats that are now, for some reason, called "minimalist shoes".

    However, Blaise seems to be a nice guy to me but obviously you two seem to butting heads lately. I've never met him.

    I think my beliefs are much more in line with yours Simon, but certainly also realize that there is much room for change in the running shoe industry. If you do make it out to Sacramento for a visit (I'll be in Belgium and Amsterdam for two weeks starting next week), then maybe I'll buy you a beer and we can come up with a better chart to compete with the chart that Blaise made up so runners can get running shoes in a manner that is not so "aberrant".:drinks
  28. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Pity I will miss you in Amsterdam, I will be there for a week mid April.. hope to catch up in Sacramento..
  29. Blaise Dubois

    Blaise Dubois Active Member

    Hi keven,
    I personally think that you will have more credibility to make a chart by yourself than doing it with Simon. He is a great guy... we took a beer together and he was very cool and we had fun together around a beer... But to my eyes, he is so biased than he bull*** everybody having no scientific background (like retailer), by misusing and misrepresenting science for business purposes... the video I comment was a very good example.

    I feel great with grey zone... with debate... with people thinking in another way than me... NOT with lies in the purpose to sale something.
  30. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

  31. Blaise:

    Thanks for sending me the Runner's World Shoe Finder shoe selection chart. When comparing the shoe selection chart from Runner's World to your chart, I really don't like either of them but I have fewer problems with the Runner's World chart. In other words, I like the Runner's World Shoe Finder better than your chart.

    I don't believe that people who self-select to rearfoot strike while running should be encouraged to not rearfoot strike. In addition, I certainly don't believe that barefoot running is "the default" running style. Finally, I don't believe that running shoes with thinner soles and lower heel height differential are better running shoes for the majority of runners. In my 27 years of treating thousands of runners, I have found that the vast majority of runners do quite well in more traditional running shoe designs, as long as the shoe is appropriate for them.

    As for Simon Bartold, we first met during one of my first international lectures in New Zealand about 20 years ago. Since then we have lectured together on quite a few occasions and he even played guitar while I sang a Beatles song at our last international conference together.

    Simon and I are very good friends and I consider him as one of the smartest sports podiatrists that I know in the world at this time. It will be very difficult for you to convince me that this man that I have known for two decades has anything but the best interest of the running public in mind when he lectures on shoe design and shoe biomechanics. I have never seen him get upset at anyone at any of his lectures but from what I have seen from you so far, you seem to be very good at irritating him.

    Therefore, Blaise, I suggest that you give Simon the respect he deserves and he has earned since, as far as I know, you simply don't have the credentials or knowledge that he has gained from his years of clinical experience as a sports podiatrist and his years of work in the biomechanics of running and of athletic shoe design.

    Maybe you two can start over again and both respect the fact that you each have opinions that you can agree on and some that you may strongly disagree with. I hope that all of our common goals are to make runners run with less injury, run with more comfort and run with more pleasure by helping them select the best shoes for their own particular running needs.

    Let's see if we can all be a little more productive by trying to find some common ground together so that the discussion can be more educational and less antagonistic.:drinks
  32. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    There is some irony that the one of the first times that I saw the proposition that correction of running technique could part of injury management was during a workshop sponsored by Asics and Simon had quite a lot of input.
    Simon was noting that he felt that heavy ‘motion control’ shoes were on the way out. This was 2004- SMA conference in Alice Springs I think(Correct me if I am wrong Simon, but I believe it was Jason Maclaren that did the presentation?).
    This is well before it was fashionable... even before 'Born to Run' was published.
  33. Simon, Kevin, Bart van Gheluwe and I along with some others discussed this at the Boston PFOLA meeting 2004 over martini's and paper plane building. If I recall, Simon's contention was that we should not be attempting to control motion with shoes, rather we should facilitate it. :drinks
  34. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    Not sure where this should go... from Running Times- Are you ready to go minimal?

    The exercises described are quite good irrespective of whether you want to try going 'minimal'.

    Interesting comment about the function of the plantar fascia and knowledge of the anatomy of the plantar intrinsics...
    'The flexor hallucis brevis runs from the back of the heel to the ball of the foot'

    I guess it targets an audience with lay knowledge and therefore simplifies things but I was surprised by this... especially considering tha Dr Mark Cucuzella believes that FHB function is incredibly important in barefoot technique (The video is done by Jay Dicharry with Dr Cucuzella)
  35. Good memory Simon! I think Bartold is very proud of his teeny little airplaine!

    Here was the rest of the group from that evening. Good times!
  36. nickcampi

    nickcampi Member

    What I find humorous is what some "shoe companies" have done. They either believe that there is a place for forefoot/midfoot striking, or they have only added a category of shoes strictly to fill a market niche. This is obvious to both the medical and non-medical professionals. It is clearly seen with the Asics 33. It was created to "work with the foot, and not against it" yet they believe in motion control and not motion enhancement. Why did it take 30 some years for this product to be created if they are research based? Was it created to compete in a market where other similar shoes are being created or was it created to help the runner?
  37. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    " It is clearly seen with the Asics 33. It was created to "work with the foot, and not against it" yet they believe in motion control and not motion enhancement"

    Ahhh.. I think you might have this the wrong way round Nick!
    In June of 1998 I first used the expression "Motion Enhancement, not Motion Control", at a lecture to a group of post graduate physiotherapy srudents at The University of South Australia. ASICS completely dropped the term Motion Control from their vocabulary in 2002. It has NEVER been used since.
    At the SMA Conference in 2006, I had a discussion with Irene Davis on this issue. At this time she was very vocal that running shoes should control the foot and that everyone should wear orthoses. I told her I did not beleive the scienc supported that notion at that time. I even showed her a video I had had made, with the words "motion control" being flushed down a toilet, complete with sound effects. Irene told me I was wrong. She has apparently since changed her mind.
    I have been espousing a less is more philosophy for at least 15 years.. ASICS has been committed to this for a similar timeframe. No matter what you may think Nick, ASICS always adheres to the current published science. This is the reason ASICS has not gone down the minimalist path. I will not let them, just as I would not let them persue toning shoes. Time will tell if I am wrong or right.
    On anothe matter.. nice photos Kevin.. it is scary how good you and SImon's memories are, and even scarier to see how awesome my paper jet was.
    On another note, I believe every company has a pretty poor representation of how to match current footwear to foottype, not the least ASICS. I cringe at some of the stuff I read ,and really wonder at the message it sends to both medical and consumer. Currently, the whole concept of "categorisation" of product is at best wishfull thinking at worst deceitful. I hate it, and I applaud Blaise for at least having a shot at trying something different. I do not agree with it, but nor do I agree with the RW effort either ( nor for that matter do I agree with ASICS).
    In my oprinion, this whole thing should be thrown out with the extremely murky bathwater.. the concepts of motion control, cushioning, structure cushioning, maximum support, minimalism, barefoot etc blah, blah should all be abandoned because they really represent nothing.
    I would like to see a video base representation of the spectrum of human movement, of biomechanical variability, sex, age gender, and athletic ability, and a representation of what might.. just might, in the continuum from barefoot to very supportive footwear, work for each athelte. This is very difficult to demonstate in print media, and is spmething I have struggled with for years. I will continue.
    Finally, there is a very recent paper looking at energy costs barefoot vs shod .... (Metabolic Cost of Running Barefoot versus Shod: Is Lighter Better? Jason R. Franz, Corbyn M. Wierzbinski, and Rodger Kram, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Publish Ahead of Print, February 12th 2012 )Could this be the final nail in the coffin for the last supposed credible argument of the barefoot movement. I will leave you asll to be the judges.. I tried to attach the paper for you, but since I am at ASICS HQ in the USA, they are blocking my outgoings to prevent me telling our secrets to the world! Anyone who need a pdf of the full paper can contact me privately

    best to all

  38. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Here is an observation...

    I just looked through the latest Runners World magazine and it followed the same pattern as previous recent months. There are no claims what-so-ever in the advertisements from the traditional running shoe company's about their shoes preventing injury .... yet so many commentators/bloggers/etc are demanding that they should come up with some evidence.

    The only advertisements for running shoes that make claims to prevent injuries are from the minimalist running shoe company's. Can some explains why those very same commentators/bloggers/etc that are making demands of the traditional running shoe makers are not asking/demanding the same from the minimalist running shoe makers who are actually making the claims .... don't figure.
  39. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    No Craig.. I can't explain that, other than to assume these companies, like so many of the bloggers, do not feel any responsibility whatsoever for the things they say.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 14, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page