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.

There is no barefoot running debate

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Craig Payne, May 10, 2011.

  1. In fairness, he has made a secret of it by not declaring it in the publication in Nature. Many will only extract the paper, they will not go to his website to find that actually he his funded by Vibram.

    Funny old world.

    Interesting to note that Steve Robbins felt that there was an element of the infomercial in the paper.
  2. Perthpod

    Perthpod Active Member

    Interesting to note that Steve Robbins felt that there was an element of the infomercial in the paper.

    Were there free steak knives?
  3. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Here is a short video of Kilian Jornet, this years winner of the Western States 100 mile endurance run. Observe his foot strike the type of shoes he is wearing and the reduction of shear force from the surface he is running on.


    No I'm not Kilian, my kids are older than he is and I ran the Western States 100 miler when he was 5 yrs old.

    Simon, OK, shear forces change the direction of the net GRF vector. My question which still hasn't been answered: Does the reduction in shear force (change in the direction of the net GRF vector) reduce the propensity for injury?

    I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm just really curious if the "give" I have experienced for all these years while running on natural surfaces has anything to do with remaining healthy.

  4. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Wow.. even I am impressed by that post.. all I can say is "huhhhhhh"?????
    Barefoot Kevin does have a nice ring though.. may I suggest Dr. Kirby you head over to the deed poll office and insert a "Joe in there somewhere.. or a "bob".. Barefoot Kevin-Bob... gold!
  5. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Barefoot runner braves Falmouth Road Race
    I would love to know what literature that they think actually says that?
    Not a day goes by that I do not hear ANECDOTAL reports from podiatrists and other health professionals working in running injury clinics about the high number of barefoot runners that are getting injured, but that is NOT a scientific report and its certainly not "literature" , so I wonder what Moria McDermott thinks she is quoting from?
  6. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    I hate to think how many times I have asked this, but I would really like someone to explain why so much gets made up.
    Here is another classic video from Dr Daniel Howell. I commented in the other thread on barefoot running about his book was nothing but propaganda and that his comprehension of foot biomechanics in the book was abysmal (in his book he still talked about the tripod model of the foot .... duh?). Now we have this gem from him:

    Its not a bad video on what the windlass mechanism is right up until the last sentence. Since when did the windlass mechanism not work in shoes? Why make this up? What is is trying to achieve by making this up for?
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  7. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    Did not barefoot michael have a post on his site about the burden of proof being on those making the claims? Shouldn't then, this Daniel Howel come up with some evidence to back up his claim? My hallux still dorsiflexes when I use running shoes, so I challenge him to show my windlass is not working.
  8. William Fowler

    William Fowler Active Member

    How about this. As there is a shorter choppy stride length in barefoot runners, would they not have less hallux dorsiflexion and less windlass effect? If this is right then this would be the opposite of what the video is claiming. Just a thought.
  9. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Its actually quite easy to demonstrate how wrong he is. Put on a pair of running shoes --> do what the foot is doing in the video --> does your first MPJ bend? --> the windlass is working in running shoes.

    All the plantar pressure data that looks at first MPJ loading shows the windlass works in shoes (if we accept that first met head loading is a proxy measure for the windlass working)

    I spent time discussing this with Irene Davis and Joe Hamil and potential differences and implications in first MPJ ROM in barefoot vs shod a while ago and there is certainly no reason from there perspectives to believe this either.

    The only time the windlass mechanism does not work in shoes is in footwear like the MBT and other rocker sole type shoes. That is easy to "feel" when you put them on (and many people also dispute that) and demonstrate with the lack of met head loading associated with the lack of windlass function.

    This is just another one of the myths being propagated and easy to demonstrate how nonsensical it is. It a shame that gullible people continue to fall for it.
  10. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    I not sure I agree with the comment, but ConsumerReports have weighed in with this comment:
    Interesting observation this bit:
  11. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    A number of posts that contributed no value to the discussion have been removed from this thread (in case you are wondering where they are)
  12. Kelsey

    Kelsey Member

    Just to continue on the same train of thought, I came across a great blog post by Dr. Ross Tucker from the Sports Science Institute in South Africa, which concisely and completely summarizes what we know about barefoot running. It is a great site (The Science of Sport). I have linked some of his blog posts on my social media pages.


    Health and Happiness
    L. K. Armstrong, D.P.M., CSCS
  13. Griff

    Griff Moderator


    We have discussed Dr Tuckers excellent blog entries before on the main barefoot running thread on here.

    N.B. For those in the UK he is speaking in London this week at the Sports and Exercise Medicine Conference (UKSEM). More details on this in the conference section on here where it has its own thread (other keynote speakers are Simon Bartold, Benno Nigg, and Dan Lieberman). Well worth a visit.
  14. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Will you be attending Ian? I promised to play nice with Lieberman, but who knows?The truth is out there... I plan to mention it..
  15. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Hey Simon - I was really keen to go but it is annoyingly clashing with the SCP conference which I had already booked myself on, so I'm heading up to Harrogate tomorrow and will be there until Saturday. I do however have several colleagues (Physios and Sports Physicians) who will be attending so I have been promised access to all the handouts/notes. I also made it very clear to them that the barefoot debate session was not to be missed, so I'll hopefully get an eye witness account of it all if it kicks off.

    It's Bartold Vs Howell I'm more upset about missing...
  16. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    It's Bartold Vs Howell I'm more upset about missing...[/QUOTE]

    Well.. I got on his website, and apparently shoes cause everything from plantar heel pain to haemorrhoids.. hard to argue that I suppose. Can't tell you how much I am looking forward to this. Hope Benno is in a feisty mood.. may be some new a-holes torn!!
    I think the debate is being videoed. If this is the case, and people are interested, I will post it on arena
  17. Athol Thomson

    Athol Thomson Active Member

    Well.. I got on his website, and apparently shoes cause everything from plantar heel pain to haemorrhoids.. hard to argue that I suppose. Can't tell you how much I am looking forward to this. Hope Benno is in a feisty mood.. may be some new a-holes torn!!
    I think the debate is being videoed. If this is the case, and people are interested, I will post it on arena[/QUOTE]

    Hi Simon,

    Absolutely keen as for you to post the video up if possible?

    Can't get to conference due to a family wedding so a video would be much appreciated.

    Good luck Thursday and Friday.
  18. Perthpod

    Perthpod Active Member

    When do you think barefoot cult extremists will realise that theyre not actually gaining anything but a swollen false ego from expousing the benefits of a completely unoriginal idea? Yep, most ppl were born with feet..and can run...doesnt mean there isnt a time and a place for wearing footwear on our man-made surfaces. If shoes are so evil and damaging...would it not be the podiatrists that would be the first to be concerned?!
  19. Simon:

    Hope you and Benno give Lieberman and Howell a lesson they won't soon forget. Wish I was there to cheer for the "home team". Howell looks like a attention-seeking nutcase to me. At least Lieberman has some credentials and seems like a real scientist.

    Good luck!:drinks
  20. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    There seems to be a couple of threads going on this debate. I see Paynie posted in the running shoes weakening muscles thread about this
  21. Griff

    Griff Moderator


    Would love to hear your version of how the debate went.

    Only report of it I have found so far is this: http://www.sam-murphy.co.uk/newsandevents/?p=961
  22. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Hi Ian,

    well.. to say Lieberman behaved like a prima donna would be the understatement of the century!
    First he complained to the conference organisers that he was being set up by ASICS.. although I was the only one on the panel with an even remote association with ASICS. Then he told them that if the discussion was not going to his liking, he would walk off the stage, mid debate. THEN, 12 hours before the discussion, he told the organisers the composition of the panel was biased, despite the fact that only Benno and I were pro shoes, and demanded that a 6th panelist be included, that being his close friend and barefoot coach, Lee Saxby.. We had a briefing of all panelists with the moderator, sports scientist Ross Smith from Cape Town scheduled on the morning of the debate, and we all dutifully appeared at 9.30 am for the brief... except... Lieberman.. yup he did not deign to attend, but loudly told all and sundry endlessly later in the day that he went running along the Thames instead.. barefoot of course..bloody hell.. where is my vodka and pizza rider bitches??
    Anyway, after the big man was all fluffed up, we started our debate, after having been formally warned by the conference organisers to not upset Lieberman (yes, this is real)...
    So.. I got the ball riding with Ross with the following question.."So Ross, if I were to come to you with a proposal for a study where we took habitually shod runners, and made them run barefoot for 45 minutes 3 times a week and tracked them for 6 weeks. Would this get approval from your Human Ethics Commitee?" To which Ross immediately answered, God Bless his soul " not unless they were completely crazy and did not understand the process!".. hmmm.. maybe the discussion on barefoot running should end right there, and with it this dumb debate.... it is dangerous, that is why the reseach cannot be done.
    Anyway, Benno then launched into Lieberman about his use of the Effective Mass model to support his theories... keeping in mind Benno came up with this concept in the mid 1990's ( and yes folks, even Lieberman admits they are only theories.. albeit ones picked up as gospel by all media and bloggers.. shheeez). He told DL that is was completely inaccurate and inappropriate to apply the EM Model to dynamics systems, and that he should stop. Silence from DL.. no wait, he then launched into a rant about how he had been barefoot running along the Thames that morning and how great it was.. like running on the most dreamy surface ever ( note to self.. find out who is supplying this guy his acid.. it is clearly goooood stuff).. and how mankind had been doing that for 10,000 years.. which he had already said once before during a debate that had only been going 5 minutes ( Ross Smith rolling his eyeballs at this point) and ad nauseum in the previous day's interminable lecture..
    At this point I mustered up all my pecker, and the following exchange ensued
    SB.. so Dan, you say that when one heel strikes, the foot and leg come to a complete stop and ..DL.. I never said that.. SB .. Dan I am reading this directly from your website and I... DL.. I NEVER SAID that (voice rising dramatically) and you are MISREPRESENTING me ..SB.. but Dan (now frantically waving piece of paper printed directly from his Harvard website) you say that ... DL.. I NEVER SAID THAT.. (lifts out of chair to glare at me and as if about to fullfill promise to leave stage.. SB thinks but does not say.. ok fella.. keep ya undies on.. obviously your misrepresentation of the facts on your website and your rudimentary understanding of the physics and biomechanics of human movement are a touchy subject.. (remember the organisers would only allow me to think this, not actually say this unless I offend the mans delicate sensibilities.)

    So.. my friends.. that is pretty much the way it went.. Lieberman a total lame duck, but unfortunately lame duck hunting season was closed, and the whole thing left a bad taste with few questions answered.
    Chatting to Benno later.. who unfortunately has mellowed a lot since I first met him.. 20 years ago he would have ripped Liebrman a new one..and he too was disappointed it got so stage managed, and that virtually nothing could be achieved because nothing could be discussed. Lieberman as a biomechanist makes a great anthropologist.. and I wish that is where he would stay. He is way out of his depth in the world of biomechanics, and I think it is frankly embarrassing that he is setting himself up as such an expert ( a claim he would deny.. but the man has an ego and he can't help himself). End of the day, Benno expressed what we all know, that the Nature article would never have been accepted in to a peer reviewed journal.
    So.. I guess another frustrating day in the office, but I shall continue to fight the good fight. I write this from Honk Kong on my way home, a place i will be for 4 days before returninng to the USA for another debate. I was prepared for Lieberman, but we got stooged. I will not allow that to happen this time..

    blood will flow!!


  23. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

  24. Simon:

    Thanks for your commentary on the debate, especially the pre-debate antics of Lieberman. Classic stuff!:rolleyes:

    What was Daniel Howell like?
  25. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    "What was Daniel Howell like?"

    well, he arrive barefoot naturally! To be honest, I felt a little sorry for him.. he seemed kinda a lost soul, so I tried to go easy on him. I did have to ask him if he thought there was any circumstance where shoes were mandatory. He said no. I then asked him if he thought diabetes qualified. He said no.. going barefoot stimulates circulation and is the best thing a diabetic person can do. At this point Matthias, one of the other panelist who is a medical doctor, basically told him he was a tool and that he was endangering peoples lives, a perspective I could only agree with!

  26. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    well .. he arrived barefoot naturally. I actually felt a little sorry for him coz he seemed kinda a lost soul, so I tried to go easy on him. I did however have to ask him if he thought there was any circumstances where shod was mandatory. He said no. I then said.. what about diabetes. He then said going barefoot was the best possible way because it stimulates bloodflow. At this point Matthias, one of the pther panelists kinda went crazy and told him he was a tool and endangering peoples lives, a view I could not disagree with. I then respectfully asked him to at least put a disclaimer on his website that going barefoot in the presnece of diabetic foot disease was absolutely counter indicated

    gotta fly.. literally

  27. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    What about industrial safety wearing of footwear?
    Stimulate blood flow!
  28. As I said earlier......

    .....just confirms these thoughts.
  29. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    How bizarre! What is he afraid of? Is he afraid to be put under scrutiny? If you put yourself out there and can not take the scrutiny, then get out of the kitchen!

    A pattern is starting to emerge. There were complaints at the mid yr ACSM mtg that there was no opportunity to question the claims being made. Similarly at the ISB mtg, there was no opportunity to ask questions/challenge. Why is that? Is it that there rhetoric, propaganda and cliches do not stand up to scrutiny, so they do not want it?

    From the egs that you gave above Simon, its obvious a lot of his claims do not stack up to the scrutiny, so no wonder he did not want the scrutiny.

    At least at the APodC mtg, Irene McLay was willing to enter into dialogue and takes questions and put herself under scrutiny.
    That just confirms what was said previously about his book...all propaganda with no substance. This also shows how blinded you can become with the propaganda that one can not see past things to understand the potentially fatal consequences of that advice. We had a previous thread on this: Barefooter giving advice to those with diabetes to go barefoot
  30. Athol Thomson

    Athol Thomson Active Member

    The 'Social Network' movie courtroom scene where Mark Zuckerberg (creator of facebook) says;

    You know, you really don't need a forensics team to get to the bottom of this. If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook.

    Seems sort of appropriate to me. (stick with me here)

    If the barefoot running gurus had stumbled across the answer to all running related injuries...............then they would have stumbled across the answer to all running related injuries!

    This thread wouldn't exist because all barefoot runners would have no injuries and no sane person would run in shoes again! No discussion needed.

    Just not as clean-cut as that though is it?

    Again I have no objections to barefoot running just like Craig P. Just can't handle the lies.....

  31. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

  32. Do you think the Simon "Bertold" thing was a callow jibe because Simon got the chap's name wrong here? Anyway, let's explore this effective mass argument. It seems that Ross believes that Simon does not understand this, whereas he (Ross) does. So can you explain it to me please Simon and can we invite Ross onto here, so that he can explain it too, please?

    Mass is mass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass; acceleration is acceleration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration; mass x acceleration = force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force; force is a vector; vertical components may decrease; shear components may increase; the net external ground reaction force moments about the joints relate to the magnitude of the force x the perpendicular distance to the joints axes. Lower vertical components don't necessarily equal lower net external moments. Just because we see differences in the magnitude of the vertical component of net ground reaction force tells us nothing (in isolation) regarding the external moments acting upon the human locomotor apparatus. Rather we need to look at the net ground reaction force vector in relation the the joint axes and kinematics which are occurring at any instant in time. Viz. it is only though an holistic approach to the analysis of human locomotion that we can truly learn anything meaningful. To view elements of kinetics in isolation is fruitless; to view elements of kinematics in isolation is fruitless; we need to see the whole picture. Am I on the ball or missing the point?
  33. I was first introduced to the term "effective mass" when I read Jachen Denoth's chapter in Benno Nigg's book "Biomechanics of Running" in about 1986 (Denoth J: Load on the locomotor system and modelling. In Biomechanics of Running Shoes (ed. B.M. Nigg), Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc., Champaign, Illinois, 1986.) This was a great new concept for me at that time in my career. In his chapter, Denoth showed that the "effective mass" of the limb can be modelled as being dependent on masses of the limb and body, the initial knee flexion conditions at impact and the surface characteristics. As the knee is more extended at landing, effective mass increases, as the knee is more flexed at landing (to about 100 degrees) the effective mass is decreased.

    I have a attached a pdf that reviews the concept of effective mass and other impact modelling techniques.

    This may be a great new thread for someone who wants to start one on "Effective Mass Modelling of Impact Forces".

    Attached Files:

  34. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Am I on the ball or missing the point?[/QUOTE]

    No you are spot on.. I think Ross is way off the mark, and this is how I responded on his website..
    "Hi Ross.. nice precis of the debate. If I might just make a few comments that I think may have been missed. The first is that it was not ASICS that were concerned so much about hostilities, although of course they knew this had to be managed, but rather the conference management, and in particular Lieberman. I was actually told 12 hours before the debate that he had insisted on including a 6th speaker, his friend and barefoot coach Lee Saxby, because he was concerned the barefoot argument had been highjacked by ASICS. Given the composition of the panel and your own presence, this seemed highly inappropriate, and smacked of insecurities of his own "theories". If you are going to work in the kitchen, at some point one has to take the heat.
    You made the comment " But it led to an argument, because I think Simon Berthold misunderstood the point of the analogy. He had printed off Lieberman's website explaining barefoot running and adamantly criticised Lieberman's explanation. "
    I think that is a pity, because I understand the analogy exactly. The point I was making is that Lieberman says in his webpage that the" foot and leg come to a dead stop". It is there for all to read. Sorry, at heal strike the foot and leg do not come to a dead stop, and the problem I have with this is that people read his site and naturally assume that if he says it it is gospel, (a little like the Nature article, but that is another debate). What he says is taking a rigid model of the foot and leg and failing to understand he is applying it to a dynamic system. At the very worst, this is a very clumbsy description. At the most distal link in the kinetic chain, how can the foot and leg come to a dead stop during heel striking? (remember, these are his words, on his website, for all to see and misunderstand) Does he clarify anywhere the duration in ms of this static configuration?. It just is not logical or indeed correct. Furthermore, using the 'effective mass" theory, a thoery that as Benno Nigg pointed out he, Benno, develpoed int he mid 90's, is applying a static theory to real dynamic function, and is making no recognition that the magnitude of GRF's is multifactorial, and 'effective mass" does not seem to be a major contributing factor. Benno stated this in the course of the debate. What Lieberman needs to be talking about are 1. torque/moments of each joint. It is simple - the torque/moment at the knee joint drops a bit when the forefoot is loaded, but the torque/moment at the ankle increases a lot 2. shock at the tibia.. previous studies, including one by Irene Davis herself, have shown that people who FF strike have INCREASED tibial shock. This is thought to be because of a couple of mechanisms, including increased knee stiffness ( the knee angle does not change as much when FF striking) and an increase in GRF. Here is an excerpt directly from one of Irene's papers
    “The greater peak acceleration in the FFS (forefoot strike) may also be related to peak forces. On average, the FFS pattern resulted in greater vertical GRF (ground reaction force) peaks by 16% of body weight, or an average force difference of 104 Newtons. Previous studies have also reported greater peak vertical GRFs with an FFS pattern (McClay & Manal, 1995b; Oakley & Pratt, 1988). This difference was significant and most likely contributed to the greater amount of tibial acceleration in the FFS pattern. Finally, it is important to note that the heel pad of the foot provides an additional mechanism of shock attenuation in the RFS vs. the FFS. The smaller peak acceleration values of the RFS (rearfoot strike) and greater vertical GRF force peaks in the FFS pattern may be due, in part, to the ability of the heel pad to absorb a substantial amount of energy (Valiant & Cavanagh, 1985).
    Liebermans website also states 'the change in the velocity of the effective mass does not differ significantly between a heel strike and a forefoot strike" .. this is using an overly simplistic undergraduate physics to explain an extremely complex biomechanical phenomenon. How can the change in velocity be equal?? The different landing patterns will enable different amounts of motion at impact. Therefore, subsequent kinematics will be different. I undersatnd his website should not include complex biomechanical theory, but he is using it to justify his own views on barefoot running and forefoot strike, and these veiw are not accurate. I also challenge the importance and relevance of this focus on the primary impact transient Fz1. Shorten (2011) has publish a paper entitled (and concluding), the "heel impact' force peak is neither "heel' nor 'impact' and does not quantify shoe cushioning effects (Footwear Science, 3,1:41-58). This paper implies the 'impact transient' is not actually measuring impact. it is far too contaminated by low frequency forces which have nothing to do with the accelerations occuring in response to ground contact.
    This is why Irene Davis found that tibial accelerations ( a DIRECT measurement of impact transients/forces), was INCREASED when forefoot striking. Lieberman's core argument for saying barefoot running is superior (impact forces) is fatally flawed, and in actuality is the opposite. Impact forces are INCREASED when running with a forefoot strike!
    I hope this does not sound like a winge, but I believe I do have a rudimentary grasp of the issues at hand, and my only concern is that if someone, especially someone with the influence of Daniel lieberman, is goig to go into print on a website people will read and beleive, he need to report the issues accurately and not make them fit his own personal theory.
    On a final note.. many people over many years have mis-spelt my name. My personal favorite is the very posh sounding Simon Barton-Old. My name is actually Simon Bartold, not Barthold or Berthold as you, sir assert!

    Very best and thanks for your valient efforts in the debate.
    Simon Bartold '

    best to all
    Simon Barington-Smyth -Wetherinham Barton-Old
  35. Simon:

    Such emotion!! Good to see you getting your heart pumpin' again. Can't wait to get you going when we are Manchester next June. Should be fun!:rolleyes:

    Here's the excerpt from Lieberman's Harvard/Vibram FiveFinger sponsored website that Simon is talking about.

    Unbiased science or keeping Vibram happy? I vote for the latter.

    Attached Files:

  36. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    I am an emotionsl kinda guy.. youve heard me play guitar.. it's like Clapton (i wish)
    It is worth getting on the VFF website to see Lieberman giving his endorsements. My personal favorite is his statement that" prior to 1970, heel strikes did not exist"...??!!!

    Dang.. I wonder where they went..?
  37. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    From PM New...
    South African Simon???
    It is a misquote from Reuters...
  38. stickleyc

    stickleyc Active Member

    For the most part, I'm trying to keep up with processing all of the effective mass discussion points so I don't have much to add but I was at the ACSM meeting and attended the main barefoot session and it was like an combination church-service/motivational seminar. After hearing Lieberman and McClay present alot of information as fact without opposition I left before the final speaker.

    Interestingly, the next day a student of mine was presenting a poster on biomechanics of shoes vs. military boots in a thematic poster session (where EVERY single other poster was related to barefoot vs. shoes) and Ms. McClay bemoaned to my student the U.S. Army's recent barring of VFF's from being worn by soldiers. My student respectfully disagreed. :D
  39. Irene is definitely convinced that the barefoot/no orthotics/no heel strike way of running is best. During our barefoot vs shod running debate at the Annual California Physical Therapy Association Seminar a few months ago I believe I made some very good points so that both sides were presented quite fairly. Even though Irene and I are good friends, I told her openly during the debate, with a smile on my face, that I thought she was crazy....best laugh I got out of the whole debate. As long as both sides are presented, I believe these events are very healthy for all of us. However, when they are one sided, they aren't as good and tend to feel a little bit like religious revival meetings.
  40. Came across this overview of shod v´s barefoot running and this seemed as good a place as any to bring it to your attention.

    Barefoot Running a duel of foot vs. shoe

    One of the things I have been banging on about is good for some bad for others - in the last couple of slides of the powerpoint the UVA folks discuss this alittle

    Any ideas what makes adequate and I would have preferred stiffness but ok I agree with the underlying concept.

    But what got me attention with a why ? Ability to isolate FHB in stance

    any ideas why this would be important ?

Share This Page