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. AlexDP

    AlexDP Member

    I never said I agreed with Horseman.

    Yes, I said the default position is barefoot. But that's all it is: the default position. It's neither good nor bad. Because running shoes alter this position, people who claim they alter that position for the better should prove this. It is unreasonable to put the burden of evidence on barefoot runner, all the while accepting that companies fail to produce evidence for their products.

    If you had read my posts before you came to such a conclusion, you'd have noticed that I never claimed that barefoot running is either better or worse. Fact is: we don't know. I'd appreciate it if you'd read my posts before calling me ridiculous, because quite obviously you have no clue about what I have said.
  2. AlexDP

    AlexDP Member

    That you could be liable would be one reason to.
  3. Horseman42

    Horseman42 Banned

    This is my position as well. It's what I was saying earlier, and is now what I'm being ridiculed on.
  4. Horseman42

    Horseman42 Banned

    Yes I give out medication. Medication that has been tested and re-tested several times over. We have a CPS manual listing all the drugs and tests that were done to support the efficacy of all medication. All tested against the default position that being not taking the drug or anti-biotic .

    What evidence, or tests do we have for the running shoes, were they ever tested to the default position??
  5. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    Actually I said that he agreed with you- and he has now said it again...

    What you decide is 'default' is irrelevant.
    Barefoot may be natural, but only in a natural environment- I cannot see why this is so important to you.

    Actually I asked if you prescribe anti-biotics...
    I believe a Doctor would prescribe them as they have the training knowledge and experience to try and ensure that the most appropriate is prescribed. Do you question why they prescribe the antibiotics, or you think they are more qualified to do their job than you are?

    So this medication can be used by everyone at any time?
    So there are never side effects? Everyone responds the same way?
    The point is that there are reasons for such controls.
    Do you really think that running shoes need such controls?

    If you wanted such scrutiny of the shoe you want to exercise in, do some research and find a Podiatrist or a foot health professional in your area and get an assessment- believe it or not they will generally have a University degree (possibly more than one), will have experience by assessing people every day as well as other having gained further education through conferences and having contact with other professions through forums such as this one. (clue- contributors on this forum would be good bet).

    And another thing- I will let you into a little secret- if you don't swallow all the marketing that running shoe companies spew forth, then you will be on the same page as most Podiatrists... we do actually sift through the bullsh!t to be able to provide good recommendations to our patients. That includes conventional running shoes as well as barefoot ones...
  6. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    Alex could you please clarify this statement, it comes off as a veiled threat?
  7. blinda

    blinda MVP

    I also read it as such. What exactly is your motive for joining this forum, Alex?
  8. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    What is not unequivocal about it? Every single study done worked show they work. Its that simple. You will not get stronger evidence for anything else!

    Don't forget you claimed: "you should be able to back this up with evidence. Yet you're not"

    Have you even actually read any of the >50 studies?
    So its unacceptable for Nike to implicitly claim it and its acceptable for a minimalist company to explicitly claim it?
  9. AlexDP

    AlexDP Member

    No. Nike and the minimalist company are just the same. Perhaps I wasn't clear before, in that case I apologise. Both are shoe companies, both make claims, both could be liable. No difference between them whatsoever. However both disguise their claims. Nike will talk about cushioning - but not about injury. A minimalist company will talk about running the way nature intended you to - but not about injury.

    As for those studies... Let's look at some other things. I am sure that everyone on this forum knows that strong glutes and hamstrings prevent anterior knee pain and are also a major factor in preventing ACL tears. Every somewhat respectable strength and conditioning coach out there (I'm thinking Eric Cressey, Kelly Bagget) knows that strong glutes encourage forefoot running. This change in gait is very obvious when you have someone do a specific glute exercise: you will notice that the person will walk on the ball of his foot immediately afterwards. The connection between the forefoot and the glutes is there. Now if you sprint barefoot, you will land on the ball of your foot. This will strengthen your glutes. Therefore barefoot sprinting does play a role in making people better athletes. The connection between ankle sprains and a weak gluteus medius has also been proven. My point in all this is: barefoot running, or at least barefoot sprinting, is pretty much something every strength coach has been using to improve athletes and make them less injury prone AND there is proof it works.
  10. AlexDP

    AlexDP Member

    I was merely saying why my opinion could be relevant. It is nowhere near a veiled threat. I currently do not have any foot or ankle injuries, I am completely healthy and I combine barefoot running with shod running and soccer.

    As for my motives for joining this forum: I am very interested in how the human body works and I do a lot to expand my medical knowledge. I realise that I am not a professional (one can only have so many degrees) and therefore I was very interested in reading professional opinions about barefoot running, which has helped my ankle and knee a great deal. I am not a barefoot fanatic however and I think there is a time and place for it, but it is not for everyone all the time.
  11. David Wedemeyer

    David Wedemeyer Well-Known Member

    Alex These were the original responses. At least one other contributor read it that way as well and in my opinion your explanation is not a logical one. You seemed to be inferring a legal term here that implies some form of responsibility for the comments made and then provide a vague explanation. Fair enough. I don't wish to continue to argue this point. The comment was made and you will obviously stand by your explanation, so have a good day.
  12. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Here is an interesting take on it:

    I wish someone would show me where all these podiatrists are who are opposed to barefoot running are?

    Barefoot running has been a boom for running injury clinics. Ask anyone who works at one!
  13. RobinP

    RobinP Well-Known Member

    Bingo! You now think what most podiatrists who do biomechanics think
  14. Glen

    Glen Member

    The debate that has lost all sense of logic. I do see stress fractures with Vibrams, but of course the same injury in normally shod patients as well. It is the over the top comments as in all debates, which really turn the discussion into a mess.
  15. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  16. Ian Linane

    Ian Linane Well-Known Member

    OK. I'm sold on it.

    The idea that running barefoot stimulates the brain and makes me much smarter!!!

    If I go the whole hog, totally "bare", will it help me get a PHd? Maybe that is why Kevin and Simon are so clever, they are secret "bare runners". And have you noticed Craig's become more incisive since he took up running (is he a "bare runner"?).

    Next SOCAP conference I wonder if Nike will sponsor the "bare runners" early morning jog? Especially in the winter in Scotland!!
  17. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    can you pleeeeease tell emhow I can get a copy of this... I love it!

    never could figure out how to rip a youtube clip..
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  18. MJJ

    MJJ Active Member

    Perhaps if these guys ran barefoot it would 'fix' them.

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  19. Don't they know that they shouldn't be wearing those Blaise Dubois Big Bulky Shoes (BDBBS)?! That must be why they run that way!!
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  20. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    I still seeing many alerts turning up in my inbox about the overwhelming scientific support of barefoot running, when in reality there is still none. Most of the recent ones have been about the nonsensical claims made by vivobarefoot (see this thread: Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: a retrospective study).

    SO it was refreshing when this alert from a blog post turned up thus am from a blog called Truth on Fitness:
  21. Which reminds me, I see a retired Navy Doctor- he was off to the gym straight after seeing me last week. He still wears the "Inter Marathon" he has had for several decades so I grabbed a couple of quick snaps on my iphone.

    Attached Files:

  22. blinda

    blinda MVP

  23. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

  24. mr2pod

    mr2pod Active Member

    Having just seen Noel's High Flying Birds at the BDO, there is no way anyone can convince me that there is a new Oasis either.
  25. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Haha.. bit like Wings being the new Beatles.. at least Liams band were'nt at BDO.. apparently they are horrible!
  26. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Here is a follow up video:

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  27. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    In case this hasn't surfaced yet...

    Minimalist Running: To Shoe or Not to Shoe?
    - Dr. Josh Dines and Dr. Rock Positano (Orthopaedic surgeon specializing in Sports Medicine)

  28. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    I have not seen that. The injuries to the achilles occur because the ankle dorsiflexion moments in forefoot strike pattern are higher than in a rearfoot strike pattern. If the structures can not adapt to that load, then you get an injury.

    IF you get an achilles problem from this, then one of two things have to happen:
    1. Go back to rearfoot striking to reduce the load as part of the rehab, then transition back even more slowly than before so the tissues can adapt

    2. Go back to rearfoot striking and stay there as the loads on your tissues are too big for adaptation to take place. I suspect those that can not adapt have a bigger lever arm --> greater dorsiflexion moments than "average" --> they too high for adaptation to take place (see the thread: STJ Axis Variations and Achilles Tendonitis)
  29. Just wanted to point out a problem with many of our discussions here on Podiatry Arena as it applies to joint moments.

    Craig here is speaking of external ankle joint moments where a forefoot strike pattern causes an increase in ground reaction force (GRF) under the forefoot which will, in turn, cause an increase in external ankle joint dorsiflexion moment. However, due to the increase in external ankle joint dorsiflexion moment, there will also be an increase in internal ankle joint plantarflexion moment that is caused by increased preactivation of the gastrocnemius and soleus muscles and increased tension force within the Achilles tendon.

    The standard format for reporting results from inverse dynamics research is that the joint moments will always be assigned as being internal joint moments, not external joint moments. However, when we talk clinically about joint moments, we routinely speak rather of external joint moments (i.e. those moments resulting from GRF acting on the plantar foot), rather than internal joint moments (i.e. those moments resulting to tensile forces within muscles, tendons and ligaments or compression forces between bones).

    I therefore suggest, that, from now on, we be sure to preface our discussions on joint moments as to whether these joint moments are "external" or "internal", since, otherwise, our discussions will be confusing at best and, at worst, will be exactly opposite to what we meant to say.

    This is a significant problem currently and needs to be addressed at all level of biomechanics education for clinicians so that better clarity will result in the teaching of this subject.
  30. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    well said

  31. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Hi Craig.

    My post (& quotes) at #229 was in relation to the article I cited...
    Minimalist Running: To Shoe or Not to Shoe?

    The quotes I used in quotation blocks in my post were from this article. Hence, to format a quote in your post from material I quoted in my post, with my name associated with it (as above) can be misleading, as it should be associated with the article, not myself - I did not write the piece in question... yet quoted it as I thought it might spark discussion.

    Just thought this should be clarified. Could you please edit the quotation block in question to reflect that it was from the article & not myself.

  32. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    I edited it
  33. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    I have a great piece of "proof" that barefoot and minimalist does not work.
    It has been a very hot summer here in Adelaide, and so, since about November I have been going primarily barefoot or in Thongs.. I even have the thong tan to prove it. I should hasten to add that a thong tan in Australia is an entirely different thing to the thong tan we might expect to see in the USA.. on say.. Kevin?
    Anyway, I have been progressively troubled by right lateral ankle stiffness, that eventually progressed to frank pain, and currently has stopped me from running, which is extremely annoying coz I am training for the NYC Marathon.
    it came to a head yesterday after a 1.5 hour yoga session.. a lot of sitting cross legged and OMMMMM-ing.. to the extent that last night I could barely walk. My self diagnosis was either peroneal tendinopathy or maybe a chronic capsular impingement. With my extremely pronated feet, the latter made more sense.

    This morning I put on shoes and my orthoses for the first time in about 4 months.. pain has resolve by about 90%, with an immediate an obvious improvement

    there you go.. finally proof... barefoot and thongs (on your feet at least).. are bad.. a comprehensive, prospective, retrospective, RCT case study with a sample number of 1.. does not get any better than that.
  34. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    has anyone seen this yet?

    Perl D.P., Daoud A.I., Lieberman D.E.
    Effects of footwear and strike type on running economy
    (2012) Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, . Article in Press.

    PURPOSE: This study tests if running economy differs in minimal shoes versus standard running shoes with cushioned, elevated heels and arch supports, and in forefoot versus rearfoot strike gaits. METHODS: We measured the cost of transport (mlO2/kg/m) in subjects who habitually run in minimal shoes or barefoot while they were running at 3.0 m/s on a treadmill during forefoot and rearfoot striking while wearing minimal and standard shoes, controlling for shoe mass and stride frequency. Force and kinematic data were collected when shod and barefoot to quantify differences in knee flexion, arch strain, plantarflexor force production, and Achilles tendon-triceps surae strain. RESULTS: After controlling for stride frequency and shoe mass, runners were 2.41% more economical in the minimal shoe condition when forefoot striking and 3.32% more economical in the minimal shoe condition when rearfoot striking (p<0.05). In contrast, forefoot and rearfoot striking did not differ significantly in cost for either minimal or standard shoe running. Arch strain was not measured in shoes condition but was significantly greater during forefoot than rearfoot striking when barefoot. Plantarflexor force output was significantly higher in forefoot than rearfoot striking, and in barefoot than shod running. Achilles tendon-triceps surae strain and knee flexion were also lower in barefoot than standard shoe running. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally shod runners are modestly but significantly more economical than traditionally shod runners regardless of strike type, after controlling for shoe mass and stride frequency. The likely cause of this difference is more elastic energy storage and release in the lower extremity during minimal shoe running.

    Document Type: Article in Press

    interesting that rearfoot striking in minimalist shoes was more economical than forefoot striking??

    Simon B
  35. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator


    1. What is actually wrong with that shockwave? Apart from tibial stress fractures (<1% of running injuries) what is the problem?

    2. If they think the "shockwave" is a problem why did they also not mention all the increased loads in the different tissues in the barefoot condition?
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  36. Should be interested to read the full text- anyone?
  37. They also fail to mention: "increased tibial accelerations were found in the FFS pattern along with increased peak vertical and anteroposterior GRF, greater anteroposterior GRF load rates"http://www.udel.edu/PT/davis/Strike_pattern_orthotic_shock.pdf

    You get a biphasic A-P force with FFS strike running; is this a "SHOCKWAVE!" too? Couple that with the shortened stride of FFS running and you get more impacts per mile too. Put another way, you ultimately get more and bigger bangs for your buck with a Vibram than you do a conventional running shoe, assuming you FFS in the Vibram.

    See also:

    The heel strike transient: http://www.clinicalgaitanalysis.com/teach-in/transient/

    They also fail to mention that FFS barefoot running, is not the same as FFS shod running.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  38. Athol Thomson

    Athol Thomson Active Member

    Check your inbox. Should be a copy there now.

Share This Page