Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
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 (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
I have been asked by a local sports magazine in western Canada called Impact Magazine to debate barefoot vs shod. I've been asked to take the shod side. The editor would like five major points to contest and we each get 500 words total. I realize there are many points of contention on this debate but I need to suggest five major titles. Any thoughts? Note: the readers are sports enthusiasts not biomechanists.
My major difficulty at the moment is that Vibram 5-fingers, Asics Nimbus and volleyball shoes all mean shod - Yikes! Perhaps this is point number one.
Finally, any thoughts on how significant the difference would be between a thin slip of Vibram rubber and a "traditional" runner (say 20-24mm of cushion under the heel), and a slip of Vibram rubber and actual barefoot?
..............My major difficulty at the moment is that Vibram 5-fingers, Asics Nimbus and volleyball shoes all mean shod - Yikes! Perhaps this is point number one.
Regards,
Lee
Yer l would want that definition sorted first, even the like of Vibram promote and sell that shoe(?) as a "barefoot feeling" "barefoot sports shoe", will they declare socks as shod also?
Finally, any thoughts on how significant the difference would be between a thin slip of Vibram rubber and a "traditional" runner (say 20-24mm of cushion under the heel), and a slip of Vibram rubber and actual barefoot?
1. There is nothing wrong with running barefoot
2. There is nothing wrong with running shoes
3. Evangelists from the Church lie about the research
4. Different running forms load different tissues differently; there is no one right way to run for everyone
5. Podiatrists and those that work in running injury clinics are making more money since this trend started.
__________________ Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
Points to consider for rebuttle
- what is "natural" motion?; there is no "correct" way to run
- evolution: the slow runners were eaten/average age much lower/average weight much lower(less impact force's)
- Investigate what elite marathon runners/athletes wear
- 80% of runners get injured anyway.
1. There is nothing wrong with running barefoot
2. There is nothing wrong with running shoes
3. Evangelists from the Church lie about the research
4. Different running forms load different tissues differently; there is no one right way to run for everyone
5. Podiatrists and those that work in running injury clinics are making more money since this trend started.
100% agree
1. ... but the modern man is misadapted and need to be careful when he/she want to run barefoot again
2. ... but the modern running shoes change a lot our biomechanics (since 40 years) ... after 2 000 000 years of evolution with the relative 'same protective biomechanics'
3. ... that what's happen when philosophy go against science... (both sides)
4. ... But there is a wrong way
5. ... especially in the areas where we find more professionals that are against the trend... the best thing is to educate and oriented people to move properly in the trends... I'm guessing, but I think that the prevalence of injuries for runners in the area of Quebec decrease since the begging of the minimalist movement, 10 years ago!
6. ... Because this trend : The industry change, health professional (especially podiatrist) change and consumers are more critic and have more choice-option.
Would anyone hazard a guess at the two most prevalent injuries found with the minimalist trend? I would choose 2nd met stress fracture and achilles tendonopthy. I have a couple references to back that up but they don't leave me very confident. Any thoughts?
Blaise, what is a modern running shoe?
Also, the injury trends are likely the same, and has little to do with their shoes. If you make a runner feel better they just run farther and still hurt themselves.
I think that studying elite runners only offers a small piece of the puzzle. They move way faster than a 4-5hr marathoner. My elite running buddies run significantly different when they they go my pace as compared to their racing pace. That includes their cadence and stride length, which is basic math. Finally, I feel the need to bring up Bikila's two world records, one barefoot and one shod.
As for evolution, it's always interesting to see how confident people are with the way the human evolved. Though the multitude of different camps on the subject is fascinating. My thoughts, nothing human's hate more than another human, and this continent isn't big enough for the two of us.....
90% of the market shoes (also called big bulky shoes, maximalist shoes, 'traditional' shoes ... to the opposite of flat shoes, minimalist, racers, ...)
We have a mathematical formula to quantify the shoes with a rate from 0 (barefoot) to 100 (Hoka).
For the moment, grossly
I call a shoes minimalist if :
stack < 15mm
drop < 5mm
weight < 7oz
I call a shoes maximalist if :
stack > 20mm
drop > 7mm
weight > 9oz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopold
Also, the injury trends are likely the same,
My thought:
- higher if you change with not enough progressively (both side)
- lower on your foot on short term with maximalist
- lower on your knee on short term with minimalist
- lower on long term with minimalist
Nothing personal to anyone, but it should help all concerned if the accepted terminology used within shoe construction is applied to these conversations. "Stack" and "drop" are not terms which would necessarily be familiar to the shoe-maker.
P.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopold
My thoughts, nothing human's hate more than another human, and this continent isn't big enough for the two of us.....
I'm a "selfish-gene" man too, you can't beat a bit of competition to drive the wheels of evolution.
Nothing personal to anyone, but it should help all concerned if the accepted terminology used within shoe construction is applied to these conversations. "Stack" and "drop" are not terms which would necessarily be be familiar to the shoe-maker.
Thanks Simon,
what the good term in english 'interference'? 'ramp'?
In french we call this épaisseur and pente
B
My thought:
- higher if you change with not enough progressively (both side)
- lower on your foot on short term with maximalist
- lower on your knee on short term with minimalist
- lower on long term with minimalist
And while you are welcome to your thoughts. There is absolutely no direct evidence to support any of those contentions. End of story.
And while you are welcome to your thoughts. There is absolutely no direct evidence to support any of those contentions. End of story.
I think there is many 'indirect' evidence on that (correlation between the effect of different type running shoes on biomechanics and secondary the load on tissues... not causation I agree... and not yet RCT on that ...) but is there some evidence that it's not true?
I don't know because I don't know what you mean when you write "stack" and "drop"; that's my point. épaisseur translates into English as thickness; thickness of what? Pente translates as slope; again, slope of what?
You may be talking about the heel height and pitch of the waste section of the last (heel pitch is something different again)? But you probably need to include a measure of the sole thickness too. The term coined by Kirby as "heel-height differential" may be the best to use here. But what about the "toe-spring"? What influence might that have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaise Dubois
I think there is many 'indirect' evidence on that (correlation between the effect of different type running shoes on biomechanics and secondary the load on tissues... not causation I agree... and not yet RCT on that ...) but is there some evidence that it's not true?
I'd be interested to read anything that supports your contentions here. Specifically that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaise Dubois
higher if you change with not enough progressively (both side)
- lower on your foot on short term with maximalist
- lower on your knee on short term with minimalist
- lower on long term with minimalist
I don't know because I don't know what you mean when you write "stack" and "drop"; that's my point. épaisseur translates into English as thickness; thickness of what? Pente translates as slope; again, slope of what?
You may be talking about the heel height and pitch of the waste section of the last (heel pitch is something different again)? But you probably need to include a measure of the sole thickness too. The term coined by Kirby as "heel-height differential" may be the best to use here.
- Thickness or stack of the Sole (outsole, midsole and insole together at the higher point, often at the heel.
- Slope or ramp or drop or heel to toe height differential... is the differential between the height of the heel and the forefoot.
To give you an example, barefoot is 0 drop and 0stack :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Spooner
I'd be interested to read anything that supports your contentions here. Specifically that
Frankly, I think you are wrong.
I think I'm right. Maybe we can, one day, have a long and tiring debate going in circle and finishing by some bad understanding quote on podiatry arena... or take a beer together when I'm coming in UK
Would anyone hazard a guess at the two most prevalent injuries found with the minimalist trend? I would choose 2nd met stress fracture and achilles tendonopthy.
There is not much useful data. BUT, from my experience; the understanding on where the force/load differences are between forefoot v rearfoot and also what I observe in forums/social media from runners asking for advice and in the total absence of data, this would be my estimate:
More common in minimalist runners/forefoot strikers: met stress fractures, dorsal midfoot interosseous compression syndrome, post tib tendonitis and post tib dysfunction, achilles tendinitis
More common in rearfoot strikers: tibial stress fractures, anterior compartment syndrome, peroneal tendinitis
No clear pattern (both forefoot and rearfoot strikers get these): plantar fasciitis, patellofemoral pain syndrome, iliotibial band syndrome (also changing from heel striking to forefoot striking for these conditions does help some, but not others. There are still plenty of minimalist/barefoot and forefoot strikers seeking help for these problems that developed after they made the transition).
You will always read about individual exceptions to these, but this is the impression that I get to the pattern.
__________________ Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
- Thickness or stack of the Sole (outsole, midsole and insole together at the higher point, often at the heel.
- Slope or ramp or drop or heel to toe height differential... is the differential between the height of the heel and the forefoot.
To give you an example, barefoot is 0 drop and 0stack :)
As I said, you'd do better to avoid the terms "stack" and "drop" because these are not generally used within the shoe design industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaise Dubois
I think I'm right. Maybe we can, one day, have a long and tiring debate going in circle and finishing by some bad understanding quote on podiatry arena... or take a beer together when I'm coming in UK
Well how scientific of you. You make a claim, I say show me the evidence because I think you are wrong and your response is to say that "you think you are right". You missed the point, that's not how academic debate works. If your purpose is merely to advertise a course then pay Craig some money for an advert. This will help to support Podiatry Arena.
I don't believe that you can support the four points you made previously with either direct or indirect evidence. Can you?
Here's a question though, Blaise: What's in it for you? What is your motivation to promote minimalist or even barefoot running? Are you honestly acting as an ethical practitioner in your mind, using the best currently available knowledge to treat the injuries within your patients, or are you more interested in selling courses and trying to make a name for yourself along the way? This is really a rhetoric set of questions, more for you to reflect upon than to provide an answer to me.
I have another question on ground reaction force data. Are vertical GRF's usually calculated as ground force on shoe, as compared to insole/orthotic reaction force on foot. It seems logical that the forces between the ground and shoe, especially during impact, would be different than that of the insole on the foot.
I once dropped an egg off my elementary school roof in a box full of cotton balls and it didn't break - Have to think the reaction force was different for the box and for the egg.
Finally, would the inertia of the shoe contribute to impact force magnitude or timing, assuming we are looking at ground to shoe reaction force?
I have another question on ground reaction force data. Are vertical GRF's usually calculated as ground force on shoe, as compared to insole/orthotic reaction force on foot. It seems logical that the forces between the ground and shoe, especially during impact, would be different than that of the insole on the foot.
I once dropped an egg off my elementary school roof in a box full of cotton balls and it didn't break - Have to think the reaction force was different for the box and for the egg.
Finally, would the inertia of the shoe contribute to impact force magnitude or timing, assuming we are looking at ground to shoe reaction force?
There is not much useful data. BUT, from my experience; the understanding on where the force/load differences are between forefoot v rearfoot and also what I observe in forums/social media from runners asking for advice and in the total absence of data, this would be my estimate:
More common in minimalist runners/forefoot strikers: met stress fractures, dorsal midfoot interosseous compression syndrome, post tib tendonitis and post tib dysfunction, achilles tendinitis
More common in rearfoot strikers: tibial stress fractures, anterior compartment syndrome, peroneal tendinitis
No clear pattern (both forefoot and rearfoot strikers get these): plantar fasciitis, patellofemoral pain syndrome, iliotibial band syndrome (also changing from heel striking to forefoot striking for these conditions does help some, but not others. There are still plenty of minimalist/barefoot and forefoot strikers seeking help for these problems that developed after they made the transition).
You will always read about individual exceptions to these, but this is the impression that I get to the pattern.
Craig, I'm agree with all except the peroneal tendinitis... because it has a primary role of plantar flexion when running... Can you explain or correct me please?
To my experience I would add and precise : More common in minimalist runners/forefoot strikers: met stress fractures, dorsal midfoot interosseous compression syndrome, post tib tendonitis and post tib dysfunction, achilles tendinitis, calf and deep post leg compartment syndrom, metatarsalgia, peroneal tendinitis, plantar fasciatis
More common in [COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]maximalist [/color]rearfoot strikers: tibial stress fractures, anterior compartment syndrome, peroneal tendinitis (?), [COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]ATSS and stress fracture anterior crest, heel fat pad synd, [/color]
No clear pattern (but more minimalist runners/forefoot strikers tendency): MTSS and stress fracture to the medial tibial crest, PFPS
No clear pattern (but more maximalist rearfoot strikers tendency): most of knee pathologies (ex: tibio-femoral OA), iliotibial band syndrome, most of the coxo-femoral pathologies, lower back pathologies.
I don't believe that you can support the four points you made previously with either direct or indirect evidence. Can you?
I speak about the basics science on "where the force/load are apply differently between forefoot vs rear foot"... two type of stike pattern largely influence by the type of shoes in a way that we know. I propose to you to Read the quote I did to Craig answer about injury pattern... try to understand why HE and I tell that... and comment (telling us WHY NOT) if you don't agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Spooner
Here's a question though, Blaise: What's in it for you? What is your motivation to promote minimalist or even barefoot running? Are you honestly acting as an ethical practitioner in your mind, using the best currently available knowledge to treat the injuries within your patients, or are you more interested in selling courses and trying to make a name for yourself along the way? This is really a rhetoric set of questions, more for you to reflect upon than to provide an answer to me.
I will be quick : I teach with passion this concept since more than 10 years (probably long time before you were debating on that topics here). My approach is a mix of clinical experience (not just maximalist or minimalist... both together!) and an evidence based approach. I love teaching advance concept in post graduate course even if I teach or taught at Laval University different courses in physio, medicine, kinesiology and physical education... and all this passion has nothing to do with money... (I'm owner of 10 clinics at Quebec city... I don't need to teach for money.) For 'making my name' it's fine link that... some colleague of you speak about me in podiatry congress
I speak about the basics science on "where the force/load are apply differently between forefoot vs rear foot"... two type of stike pattern largely influence by the type of shoes in a way that we know. I propose to you to Read the quote I did to Craig answer about injury pattern... try to understand why HE and I tell that... and comment (telling us WHY NOT) if you don't agree.
OK so first off you're assuming everyone in minimalist shoes will forefoot strike, while everyone in more traditional running shoes will rearfoot strike. This is not true. However, how does the data on strike position you refer to back up your contentions that injury rate will be:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaise Dubois
- higher if you change with not enough progressively (both side)
- lower on your foot on short term with maximalist
- lower on your knee on short term with minimalist
- lower on long term with minimalist
It simply doesn't. I'll tell you why not, because that data doesn't look at the influence of progressive transfer from one form of shoe to another; it doesn't look at injury patterns in minimalist shoes; it doesn't look at injury patterns in other forms of running shoe; and the final contention you make here, well I'd guess you simply pulled that out of your ass.
What the data does tell us is the load/deformation of each tissue may be different in different tissues when wearing different kinds of shoes. This is not the same, nor supportive of your contentions above.
I will be quick : I teach with passion this concept since more than 10 years (probably long time before you were debating on that topics here). My approach is a mix of clinical experience (not just maximalist or minimalist... both together!) and an evidence based approach.
I presume you do not teach this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaise Dubois
- higher if you change with not enough progressively (both side)
- lower on your foot on short term with maximalist
- lower on your knee on short term with minimalist
- lower on long term with minimalist
Would the reaction force between the ground and the shoe be the same as the reaction force between the insole and the foot for any given moment in time on any given step?
Would the reaction force between the ground and the shoe be the same as the reaction force between the insole and the foot for any given moment in time on any given step?
No. And the reality is we cannot measure the reaction forces between the foot and the insole, only an element of them. To measure the reaction forces fully you need a force plate. In-shoe pressure measurement only measures certain aspects of the reaction forces. Read this:
Thank you for this one as well Simon. It seems one point the barefoot supporters like is the impact force difference. Are they they cutting down data that doesn't exist though? By that I mean, regardless of strike pattern, they are comparing values of barefoot impact on the ground/force plate with shoe impact values on the ground/force plate. How confident can we be that the values the foot experiences inside the shoe are the same as the outsole experiences?
...because that data doesn't look at the influence of progressive training; it doesn't look at injury patterns in minimalist shoes; it doesn't look at injury patterns in other forms of running shoe; and the final contention you make I'd guess you simply pulled out of your ass.
What the data does tell us is the load/deformation of each tissue may be different in different tissues when wearing different kinds of shoes.
I love your 'doesn't look at the influence of progressive training' and can be just agree with that.
I love too your 'pulled out of your ass' and can be just agree with that.
Ok, last explanations:
We know that less your have shoes, more your increase your impact moderating behaviour by some biomechanics adaptation... (I'm sure you know all of this). ex : Running barefoot (the extreme of the spectre) increase the load of the plantar flexor because you run more (or have a tendency of) on your forefoot.
- higher if you change with not enough progressively (both side)
Transition to one to the other (maximalist-minimalist) increase the load of some specific tissues... Why someone moving to minimalism have more certain type of injuries and why someone moving from minimalism to maximalism (we have that type of people at Quebec in our study - assign in the maximalist group, but use to run in minimalist shoes- have other type of problem. (see the quote of Craig)
Q : Do you think that moving to a minimalist shoe from a maximalist shoe have no risk to develop the type of injuries Craig named, like a MT stress fracture?
- lower on your foot on short term with maximalist
If you take someone starting a running program and you protect is feet... I guess that he will be less injured (short term only) at the protected part of his body.
Q : Do you think that maximalist shoes doesn't decrease the stress on the foot -generally-?
- lower on your knee on short term with minimalist
Same thing for the knee... and you will decrease the EKAM movement with less interference in most of the case.
Q : Do you think that traditional shoes doesn't increase EKAM?
- lower on long term with minimalist
I believe that for many reason (alignment, cadence, adaptation of tissues, ...) but one of the argument is that when you change your maximalist or minimalist shoe after 4-6 months, you will have more chance to have a biomechanical change with the maximalist than the minimalist shoes... nothing is closer to nothing than 12 technologies compare with 12 news technologies.
Q : Do you think that maximalist shoes lowering the risk of injuries on long term?
I love your 'doesn't look at the influence of progressive training' and can be just agree with that.
I love too your 'pulled out of your ass' and can be just agree with that.
Ok, last explanations:
We know that less your have shoes, more your increase your impact moderating behaviour by some biomechanics adaptation... (I'm sure you know all of this). ex : Running barefoot (the extreme of the spectre) increase the load of the plantar flexor because you run more (or have a tendency of) on your forefoot.
- higher if you change with not enough progressively (both side)
Transition to one to the other (maximalist-minimalist) increase the load of some specific tissues... Why someone moving to minimalism have more certain type of injuries and why someone moving from minimalism to maximalism (we have that type of people at Quebec in our study - assign in the maximalist group, but use to run in minimalist shoes- have other type of problem. (see the quote of Craig)
Q : Do you think that moving to a minimalist shoe from a maximalist shoe have no risk to develop the type of injuries Craig named, like a MT stress fracture?
- lower on your foot on short term with maximalist
If you take someone starting a running program and you protect is feet... I guess that he will be less injured (short term only) at the protected part of his body.
Q : Do you think that maximalist shoes doesn't decrease the stress on the foot -generally-?
- lower on your knee on short term with minimalist
Same thing for the knee... and you will decrease the EKAM movement with less interference in most of the case.
Q : Do you think that traditional shoes doesn't increase EKAM?
- lower on long term with minimalist
I believe that for many reason (alignment, cadence, adaptation of tissues, ...) but one of the argument is that when you change your maximalist or minimalist shoe after 4-6 months, you will have more chance to have a biomechanical change with the maximalist than the minimalist shoes... nothing is closer to nothing than 12 technologies compare with 12 news technologies.
Q : Do you think that maximalist shoes lowering the risk of injuries on long term?
Nope, you still haven't provided any evidence other than your own anecdote and your English is appalling and difficult to comprehend. As far as I can understand, all that you have done here is to restate your original contentions and then ask me if I believe them. I've already stated that I don't believe your assertions to be based in fact. The moons a balloon. How do you know? I just said so, didn't I?
If you are going to use abbreviations/ acronyms it would be helpful to define them in full at the point of their first usage.
Nope, you still haven't provided any evidence other than your own anecdote. The moons a balloon. How do you know? I just said so, didn't I?
Do you have some evidence to tell me the opposite?
From my 15 years of experience treating almost exclusively runners; dealing since more than 10 years with minimalist and maximalist stunning shoes; being a runner since 32 years; working wing the national team; being in contact with hundreds of health professionals and tens of researchers groups around the word; understanding where the force/load differences are between forefoot v rear foot (and the influence of the shoes on that); observing in forums/social media runners having trouble with injuries... ...
I think I'm right! ... but who knows... maybe the other Simon?
What do you think of my questions? (you can just answered yes or no... even with no evidence)
Do you think that moving to a minimalist shoe from a maximalist shoe have no risk to develop the type of injuries Craig named, like a MT stress fracture?
Do you think that maximalist shoes doesn't decrease the stress on the foot -generally-?
Do you think that traditional shoes doesn't increase EKAM?
Do you think that maximalist shoes lowering the risk of injuries on long term?
Do you have some evidence to tell me the opposite?
From my 15 years of experience treating almost exclusively runners; dealing since more than 10 years with minimalist and maximalist stunning shoes; being a runner since 32 years; working wing the national team; being in contact with hundreds of health professionals and tens of researchers groups around the word; understanding where the force/load differences are between forefoot v rear foot (and the influence of the shoes on that); observing in forums/social media runners having trouble with injuries... ...
I think I'm right! ... but who knows... maybe the other Simon?
What do you think of my questions? (you can just answered yes or no... even with no evidence)
Do you think that moving to a minimalist shoe from a maximalist shoe have no risk to develop the type of injuries Craig named, like a MT stress fracture?
Do you think that maximalist shoes doesn't decrease the stress on the foot -generally-?
Do you think that traditional shoes doesn't increase EKAM?
Do you think that maximalist shoes lowering the risk of injuries on long term?
You are not impressing me, all you are doing is attempting to shift the burden of proof. I can list my curriculum vitae too, if you think that would help? Now, you made the contentions, the burden of proof is with you, not I. So, that evidence if you would please, Blaise...
Alternatively, you could wind your neck in, admit that actually you cannot support the contentions you made through either direct or indirect published evidence and apologise for wasting my time. I won't hold my breath though. Next...
Five major points - barefoot vs shod
Linear Mode
