"Tackling the 10 Myths of Barefoot Running"

Indeed

 

Ahh Silverchair......baby Nirvana

Used to love these boys they were just kids when this came out....

http://youtu.be/heQi0AZBH-0

Just noticed Bel posted same song up while I was typing!

Check out "the Door" by them as well. Top tune

 

Great minds `n all....but `baby Nirvana`? nah. More like these guys; Collective Soul

 

Ok I think I can help here Blinda, this is more "Baby Nirvana-ish"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90gMzgEI8Nw

 

ohhhh yeah! Just around the corner from you right now on Irvine Bvd David!

 

Dear Simon,
You know I love you, your personality and you point of view, always balanced and based on science. I'm petty sure we will take another drink together one day.

I was in USA 1month ago and met some retailers that cannot open an account... sold out! Not enough production for the demand.
I want congratulate your company to finally make a minimalist shoe (GEL-Lyte33): less stack, lighter, more flexible, just 6 mm ramp, no control device and not just for skinny athlete .... WAAW... are they finally listen you?

There are probably a lot smarter than the physio, Chiro and physician in the room... I had great discussion with some... but not a lot of debate... you need to come next years.

Simon I answered many time to many of your questions, but I will do another time ... the last one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9pU1hMLP-E

:drinks

 

K. I`ll give you that. This is what Kevin calls `sick`, ja?....sorry for hijacking the thread...back to the barefoot debacle.

 

Hope you have the opportunity to sample some of the wonderful wines from Australia on the drinks tray Blaise. Barossa Valley is always best, but the Hunter.. where you are.. has some approachable drops.

Cheers
S

 

Your OK Blinda.. I blame Courtney Love myself

 

"Big, bulky", "motion control", "stability", "cushioned", "trail", "road", "racing flats", "training flats", "lightweight performance", "minimal", "barefoot" are all terms used as an oversimplified means for referencing categories of shoes that share a loosely held set of characteristics. Every one of these terms are vague and ambiguous.

In spite of the ambiguity, these reference points or categorizations of groups of running shoes with similar characteristics are critical to the consumer as an aid to plowing through the thousands of models of shoes on the market today.

Shoes labeled as "motion control", "stability", "cushioned", "training", or traditional "trail" shoes are of absolutely no interest to me. For the remaining categories, I only consider shoes weighing less than 8 or 9 OZ which eliminates many more models from consideration. Therefore, with the help of labeling, I can get from a 1000 or more models of shoes down to 20 or 25 models in a matter of seconds. At that point it then becomes a matter of looking for the shoe that possesses the specific set of specifications and performance characteristics I'm looking for.

The labeling of shoes is a marketing concept to help the consumer select the proper shoes. Labels are intended to be simple reference points not in depth shoe specifications. The practice is not a scientific concept in which studies are performed.

When the question is asked to define a "minimalist" shoe or a "barefoot" shoe, I find it to be a pointless waste of time. The response will be no better than if they asked for the definition of a "motion control" shoe, it will be broad, general and ambiguous.

To understand the intended purpose of a specific model of shoe, you need to look at the exact specifications of the shoe and it's intended performance characteristics.

Dana

 

What the...? Are you staying locally Simon and for how long, I need big bulky shoes for sure & I'll pay a pint or two for them?

Ja Blinda...except in SoCal we say siiiick (& rad if you're 40ish) ...ok no more hijacking sorry...

 

I can clarify this for you Dana.. there is no such thing as a motion control shoe.. it is not possible to control motion with a shoe

 

Dear Kevin and the gang'
I guess we should all keep in mind Godels Theory of incompleteness, roughly as follows-
1 There are some things that are TRUE and will never be proved.
2 There are some things that are FALSE and will never be proved.
3 There are some things that we may never know.
Please folks look at the first para of my first ever post on this forum 2 days ago.
There is plenty of scientic evidence about how micro-wobbleboard shoes work and clinical benefits. Maybe you think I am using them for acute running injuries? Though I have to say any Fitfllop worn in lieu of barefoot/slippers is a knockout for most weightbearing pain and I utilise it in this manner. Just try your chronic TA patients! So yes, we need studies.
A new patient yesterday with 10 years of unresolved back, groin and more pain had her back pain diminish immediately in these devices,such can be the effect if we change loads, activity patterns etc. Generally that pattern holds.In my opinion, the most likely profound effect is the stimulated proprioceptive response. Bartold tells us that even Asics is trying this in their R&D around reducing pronation.
Kevin I first met you at CCPM at 1981 PG course and have heard you lecture a number of times since. I have always implemented Biomechanical principles, but where applicable use even better techniques. Have any of you guys ever thought about what would happen for our patients if we had even better options, because we have for many patients.
At the most recent AAPSM meeting here in NSW, 2 expert sports Pods disagreed about the benefits (or otherwise!) of the orthotic system that one of them uses. He, Gary Brewin's, last words to the presenter were "until you use them in your own practice, you are not in a position to make informed comment". I think I'll rest my case on this very point. The speaker also spoke on a lot of shoes, most of which can't be supported with evidence, but no-one challenged him out of the audience of 30. Perhaps he could check with Pods and Physios, for example, that use Hoka shoes in their own footgear clinics for their own patients before he challenges the benfits of these publicly.
I will otherwise be occupied for a few days but can respond to your questions then Kevin. At least Blaise's visit has kept the debate going!

 

Good to hear from you again, Bronwyn. Unfortunately, you did not answer any of my questions that I asked in response to reading some of the catchy marketing jargon on your website.

Here again, is what I copied off of your "Dr. Foot Solutions" website:

Here are my questions again, please answer them one by one as time permits:

1. How you "de-orthoticise" a foot?

2. What type of testing do you do to a customer to know that their foot is "weak"?

3. How do you know the shoes you sell activate muscles any more than do other types of shoes or by being barefoot?

4. Are there any "good shoe stores" that do not promote your "Barefoot Science Foot Strengthening System", or these types of shoe stores "bad"?

And, if you are providing me with research references to support your position, I really don't want research given that has been paid for by the company that makes the shoes since I would, and I think most other medical professionals would, consider this research to be biased.

 

Yet the term is still used by many of the major shoe manufacturers and retailers to classify shoes! Simon, that is my point! Before anyone starts asking about the definition of a given label of a category of shoes such as "minimal", "big bulky" or "MOTION CONTROL" you must realize why the classifications exist in the first place and what their intended purpose is.

As an aside, it is funny that you state that there is no such thing as "Motion Control". On a few occasions Craig P. has gone on about how the sales and market share of motion control shoes has been increasing. He said that he based his market analysis on the input of three "experts" in the shoe industry that are connected with major running shoe companies. I assumed one of the people he was referring to was you. I never questioned him on the fact that Asics has dropped the "motion control" nomenclature from its classification categories quite some time ago. I have wondered how something can grow that doesn't exist.

I don't care what the shoe companies or retailers call their running shoes as long as they provide some sort of a method for me to quickly get to the models of shoes they market that possess the specifications and performance characteristics that I am interested in.

I like the classification "Big Bulky", unlikely to be used by manufacturers and retailers but it certainly would help me steer clear of quite a few of the models that are out on the market today.

Dana

 

Actually, the latest data I have seen and feedback I am getting is that there is now a slight drop in sales in the 'motion control' (or whatever you want to call it) category.

 

Craig, is this data you are looking at published anywhere? I'd like to learn about the sales direction of all of the categories, the actual time frame the data was collected and what countries are included in the data.

Dana

 

Based on chats to industry people and retailers and this data:
http://www.leisuretrends.com/ShowArticle.aspx?ID=832&EID=151

 

Hey Blaise.. in relation to VFF..and your asssertion they are selling out.. man if I was a retailer I sure as hell would not stock them.. gone the same way as toning. EXACTLY as I predicted..

you might like to check out the breaking news about them being sued for false claims that has broken this morning

http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/03/29/vibram-sued-over-fivefingers-claims/

and

http://t.lt02.net/q/tyAd3maKSwz8-uChASVi0rgo3MaiDHiG6eUzJwRedQVJl83GCGjxMBGBQ

ahhhhh.. what a GREAT way to start the day!! :dizzy:

 

Craig, thank you. The decline in "motion control" is even worse than what it a appears with respect to market share because the combined categories are actually growing. Even though "stability" shoes show growth, it is also at a lesser rate that the total so it's share is also declining.

What is unfortunate about the data is that they split road shoes into sub categories but not into sub-sub categories such as minimal and traditional as a part of the neutral/cushion category. They also don't split trail shoes into sub categories which would include stability and neutral with neutral being split further into minimal and traditional.

I guess it does show a trend away from "motion control" and "stability" with the minimal road shoes growing at 110%. I wonder what rate the minimal trail shoes are growing at. Since all trail shoes grew at 67%, I can only imagine that the number is huge!

Dana

 

Strangely enough I visited the website just a couple of days ago due to the following advertisement I saw in the Sydney Sunday Telegraph (25-3-12)...



The above advertised "Barefootscience is an anti-orthotic clinically proven to decrease pain and build strong feet" statement intrigued me. I confess I wasn't aware of this "Barefootscience"... so I did a Google... & found the following... & by heck it annoyed me. I apologise now... because it will likely annoy others as well...



I would like to know where is the data/research that... "orthotics prevents the foot muscles from moving" & "orthotics makes the muscles weak". I know these questions have been discussed before on this forum but maybe a fellow Podiatrist can now enlighten us (unless Bronwyn you don’t subscribe to these views).

OK then...

I agree in part as far as the vibe/professional behaviour sometimes present on Podiatry Arena but for individuals to come here & speculate on Podiatry (on the whole) & individual practitioner treatment regimes, make assumptions on others success rate, make generalised statements as well as not express themselves satisfactory (professionally), you will attract some level of critique. You haven't had success with orthotic therapy - well I have (as well as many others here). The fact that you haven't may say something of your treatment regime (I won't speculate further)... thus the need for you to plug MBT's & the like... & these Barefootscience devices???

Oh, & I'm all for assessing in a holistic fashion i.e. strengthening/conditioning the body as a unit (i.e. training & nutrition) etc... & I run anywhere between 100 - 160 km a week in minimalist running shoes - been doing so for at least 20 years now - before it became a trendy thing to do for the apparent masses. Can others do what I do - no, certainly not... for many variable/individualise reasons. The great thing about this minimalist movement for me is that these days I have more choices as to which shoes to train/race in .

I hope you continue to contribute here Bronwyn... & answer the above questions asked of you. This forum should ideally be an avenue for freely expressing ideas & learning from others; however, I’ll admit it sometimes doesn’t feel that way... albeit, this writing medium isn’t the most effective means in conveying ones intentions/feelings.

 

I wish someone would explain to me why people find it so necessary to make things up for.

3 studies have looked at muscle strength and foot orthotics. 2 of them actually showed an increase in strength. The other showed no change (ie no weakening).

Can someone who makes this claim please explain why what you are making up is the exact opposite of what the evidence says?

 

Be Careful Simon,
You tell me in recent post that your big bulky chunky mushy ASICS running shoes was preventing injuries... Do you thing that Asics support your claim?

 

Blaise:

You wrote earlier:

What part of "big bulky chunky mushy" that you have used to describe a major athletic shoe manufacturer's line of running shoes is "rigorous and unbiased science"? Sounds like marketing jargon that is being used, in this case, to either sell a product or sell tickets to a lecture series that zealously promotes a philosophy that lacks enough science on its own to sell tickets.

Again, Blaise, do you want to be a rigorous and unbiased scientist, or do you want to be a marketing specialist?

 

What IS IT with you Blaise?.. why can't you listen!
You are intent on manipulating everything you touch. I have no need to "be careful"
I told you I believe it is quite possible for traditional athletic footwear to help prevent injury. And I do not give a fig if it is ASICS or Nike or adidas or Brooks or Hoka. I believe it is quite likely they help. I also beleive, as I have stated ad nauseum, that I believe judicious barefoot training on grass and wearing lighter, less structured footwear on varied surface and terrain, will likely help prevent injury in some athletes.
You are really starting to bore me man.
I answered your question here on Podiatry Arena for all to read.

this is my presonal opinion Blaise.. and personal opinions are allowed.
I Don't give a rat's ar*e if you agree with me or not. It is my opinion, and nothing to do with ASICS...
Time you pulled your head out of the dark place it is inserted and understood the message you preach.. a one size fits all for every athlete ....is scientifically unsupportable, wrong, and likely to cause injury in a significant number of runners.
This is the exact reason Vibram Five Fingers find themselves in the predicament they are in.. others no doubt to follow. My advice to you would be to change the message you preach or you may have no product to recommend.

 

So you cannot say (with scientific support) that ASICS big chunky shoes prevent injuries?

if you don't recommend minimalist shoes for most of 10% of runners... we are at the same point... because for me there is good reason to recommend big boofy shoes (but for maximum 10% of the runners) http://www.therunningclinic.ca/blog...-10-good-reasons-to-run-in-big-bulky-shoes-2/

 

Sorry to be going back a step...

But Anti-orthotic?!

Lazy arches??

Really??

 

I think the best is: you come follow my course... take some notes... and after that I'm coming in your lab and you give me an "education" speech in all your knowledge on shoes (process, opinion, biomechanics, ...) and I take some note. We sit around 2 beers and we debate our point base on 1. science 2. experience.

I will come back in Australia next years (huge success of the 2 courses I gave this year) and will teach again my running course for health professionals in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth. I will be there between 01 march and mid April 2013.

Also, schedule your agenda now to be available for a debate. Without you it's a little boring because every panelist are agree in most of the subjects.

See you

 

No problem.. what's the pay?!

 

I understand that for you, everything is about "how much money I can gain"?
You coach me for free (2h)... I offer to you my course for free (3 days)... you pay your beer and I pay mine.
Is it OK for you or you need to make money for all the thing you do?

 

Simon,
I think what many find confusing is that sports shoe companies haven't explained the changing trends back to "natural motion" and where this fits in to what has been developed and advised for only about the last 40 years (Nike Free 65 page booklet handed out to Pods at 2011 Australasian Podiatry conference. At the same time, "freebie" shoes being given away were traditional ones, not the Frees!) I continually meet health professional colleagues who say they don't understand. Hence my presentation on what barefoot running means for clinicians and therapists at IVO2012 conference.
Because the shoe companies haven't put all the info out there, it seems to have led to many thinking you've got to be for or against.
80% of the patients I see overstride compared to "barefoot walking" technique and can experience reduction in various weight bearing symptoms within the consult by improving cadence and postural alignment and softer heel strike, through gait retraining and application of techniques that stimulate neurosensory input. I presented 7 cases at the workshop on day 2. I just think we could all benefit by not assuming that the patients walking gait is not part of the problem.
I found the references to around 250 scientific articles, presented at Blaises course, gave a great overview on the whole subject and was presented without bias and indeed, a good deal of commonsense.

 

Yep.. it is all about the money.. you dope.. :drinks

 

Bronwyn.. I do not think you get it.. referencing 250 papers when you do not understand them means nothing... it is a bit like an elderly man driving a Ferrari as compensation for other inadequacies!!

And there is no common sense, it just happens to align with your own theories to sell your product.. and you soak that up and pay Blaise $650 to hear him agree with you.. c'mon! (or maybe he gave you a freebie but I doubt it)
Bronwyn.. you and I go back a long way.. I taught you how to put on a cast and now you have a "better way".. believe meI am ok with that.. but Blaise.. or Bias as I prefer to call him is profiting from other peoples gullibility and preaching a message of injury.

It is wrong.. go read Ross Tuckers webpage and get (unlke Blaise) some balance to this whole story..

this one is for Bias....:boohoo:
bye bye

 

Bronwyn:

I am still very interested in how you "de-orthoticise" a foot. Do you charge a fee for that procedure?

Also, what type of testing do you do to a customer to know that their foot is "weak"? Are you aware that orthotics have been shown to strengthen the legs?

Also explain what you mean by "natural motion".

You must really like Chris McDougall's book "Born to Run" because you seem to be selling the same story that he tried to sell: all the sports shoe companies are in some sort of conspiracy to hurt runners because they made running shoes that have cushioning in their soles. Do any of the 250 scientific articles you are talking about have even a shred of evidence that running barefoot or in "minimalist shoes" reduces the frequency of injury?

Why do you think Vibram is now facing a multimillion dollar class-action suit against its minimalist shoe, the FiveFinger? Have any of the manufacturers of traditional runnnig shoes such as Nike, Asics, Adidas, Saucony, New Balance, and Mizuno ever faced a multimillion dollar class action suit because of the design of their traditional running shoes?

Also, I hope you don't promote the absolute nonsense that this woman, Anne-Marie Miller, is discussing here on this video. This is the biggest bunch of BS that I have ever heard and you allow your name to be associated with this Barefoot Science product?? Please tell me that you don't say things like "this isn't an orthotic, it's better than an orthotic!!"



Finally, after a few seconds of research, I found this article you put out for a press release about six months ago. Do you have any scientific evidence to back up those claims you make in your press release, or is this all just some marketing for your Barefoot Science product?

http://drfootsolutions.blogspot.com/2011/09/press-release-foot-expert-why-barefoot.html

 

Hi Kevin,
Am in between appointments so will answer your questions tonight.
By the way, the "product" I sell is what you all do, a solution for the patients problem, pain etc. It's just the technique that differs. Isn't what we're all after is to help the patient. Re de-orthoticising, most can't wear the orthoses that they were given by other well meaning colleagues. Interestingly at IVO2012 there were a number of very good presentations on"sensomotoric" devices, with some outstanding results. It just seems we could learn a thing or two from these colleagues.