Home Forums Marketplace Table of Contents Events Member List Site Map Register Mark Forums Read



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.


Tags: , ,

There is no barefoot running debate

Reply
Submit Thread >  Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Google Submit to Yahoo! This Submit to Technorati Submit to StumbleUpon Submit to Spurl Submit to Netscape  < Submit Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #361  
Old 14th June 2012, 03:42 PM
Craig Payne's Avatar
Craig Payne Craig Payne is offline
Moderator
Professor of Life, The Universe and Everything
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,839
Join Date: Aug 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 91
Thanked 820 Times in 567 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Podiatry Arena members do not see these ads
I too question the value of any prospective study. It would be interesting, but no more. I have seen many statements in the barefoot community, things like “we need a prospective study to prove barefoot is better” .. well duh! … that is a really bad approach to science to start with and is just showing the preconceived biases to whatever results might happen. How will they respond if the results do not show that?

In the previous big thread on barefoot running debate there was some discussion surrounding the issues of prospective studies and its design (eg biggest problem is the intention to treat analysis of those who cannot transition to barefoot; the selection vs self-selection of participants; etc). At best all a perfectly designed prospective study can tell us is the global injury rates between the groups under study.

Of what use is that information? Bragging rights? What impact will it have on clinical practice?

For example, let’s assume that the injury rate is lower in those who run barefoot. Let’s assume that we have a runner in front of us with PTTD, what do you do? Just tell them to start running barefoot and they will be fine? ….. of course not. They probably should NEVER barefoot run or forefoot strike, as the joint moments involved with PTTD already high and will be even higher with forefoot striking and to do so is a recipe for disaster (not to mention litigation for malpractice). We already have a number of anecdotal reports where runners who got PTTD and tried the barefoot advice and ended up with reconstructive rearfoot surgery, never to run again due to the disability. How will the results of any prospective study change the clinical decision making in these situations?

Example two: What if they have anterior compartment syndrome? Should forefoot striking/minimalism/barefoot be considered as part of the treatment plan? It will not matter what the results of some global prospective study on injury rates show, but based on this thread, the answer is probably yes.

My question is, how would a global injury rate prospective study be any use in informing the clinical decision process in those two examples?
__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie | Latest Blog Post: Review of Lieberman et al’s (2010) paper in Nature on Barefoot Running
God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
Thread Starter
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #363  
Old 11th July 2012, 07:13 PM
BEN-HUR's Avatar
BEN-HUR BEN-HUR is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 541
Join Date: Sep 2007
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 83
Thanked 102 Times in 80 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne View Post
I too question the value of any prospective study. It would be interesting, but no more. I have seen many statements in the barefoot community, things like “we need a prospective study to prove barefoot is better” .. well duh! … that is a really bad approach to science to start with and is just showing the preconceived biases to whatever results might happen. How will they respond if the results do not show that?
That is a very good point Craig. Believe your premise (i.e. "preconceived biases") to be true & set up research in an attempt to confirm this premise could potentially affect ones perception of the results/data... & subsequent interpretation/conclusion. Even setting up research based around an incorrect premise will potentially lead to false/incomplete/swayed results (subconsciously... or worse, consciously). It can certainly affect objectivity in science research & potentially influence the following of where the evidence is leading - should be directing us. There has been some history of this type of "bad approach to science" (i.e. premises/"preconceived biases" based on a philosophical world view or to support one's agenda) for some time within some fields of science... with some more heavily influenced/affected than others.

With critics/analysers on both sides of the fence (so to speak)... & various perspectives/viewpoints allowed to be assessed within discussion/research; honesty & true enlightenment should prevail on the issue of the more appropriate foot attire &/or foot strike for various individuals. It will be good then to have confidence in some degree of established evidence/criteria for clinical advice to our patients. There is much to be done in this area of which fields such as Podiatry have a strong future in. It may require (in part) unlearning what we have learned... & starting from the ground up.
__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.
Reply With Quote
  #364  
Old 13th July 2012, 07:45 AM
stickleyc stickleyc is offline
Senior Member
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 32
Join Date: Oct 2009
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Regrettably, I had to miss ACSM this year. Had I known Kevin and Irene were going to debate, I would have made more of an point of going.

I am curious though, from anyone who was there, if there was any noteworthy advancement in the discussion in the debate between Irene and Kevin.

Specifically, in a post prior to the meeting, Kevin was mentioning the gait retraining research Irene is doing. While this is interesting, I am still struck by the fact that the thesis of Irene and others seems to weigh so heavily on tibial acceleration as the "end-all" factor. While I see the value of controlling tibial accelerations, I have also read gait retraining studies aimed at controlling knee adduction moment and yes (for Simon), leg stiffness and these approaches seem to have as much merit for controlling injuries.

So, any new highlights from the recent debate, especially as it relates to the gait retraining of tibial accelerations?

Cris
Reply With Quote
  #365  
Old 13th July 2012, 07:53 AM
Admin2's Avatar
Admin2 Admin2 is offline
Administrator
 
About:
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cyberspace
Posts: 3,818
Join Date: May 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 15
Thanked 131 Times in 116 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by stickleyc View Post
I am curious though, from anyone who was there, if there was any noteworthy advancement in the discussion in this debate.
Not sure it was exactly noteworthy!: Running economy in shoes vs barefoot
Reply With Quote
  #366  
Old 13th July 2012, 08:21 AM
Kevin Kirby's Avatar
Kevin Kirby Kevin Kirby is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
 
About:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,430
Join Date: Nov 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 400
Thanked 2,105 Times in 1,160 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by stickleyc View Post
Regrettably, I had to miss ACSM this year. Had I known Kevin and Irene were going to debate, I would have made more of an point of going.

I am curious though, from anyone who was there, if there was any noteworthy advancement in the discussion in the debate between Irene and Kevin.

Specifically, in a post prior to the meeting, Kevin was mentioning the gait retraining research Irene is doing. While this is interesting, I am still struck by the fact that the thesis of Irene and others seems to weigh so heavily on tibial acceleration as the "end-all" factor. While I see the value of controlling tibial accelerations, I have also read gait retraining studies aimed at controlling knee adduction moment and yes (for Simon), leg stiffness and these approaches seem to have as much merit for controlling injuries.

So, any new highlights from the recent debate, especially as it relates to the gait retraining of tibial accelerations?

Cris
Cris:

I learned more from talking to Joe Hamill in Manchester a few weeks ago than by debating with Irene. Joe wasn't so sure that this "gait retraining" is actually a long-lasting treatment. He thought that most studies point toward the fact that people will tend to always go back to what makes them more metabolically more efficient during running, regardless of how they are "retrained".

Irene said herself during our debate that it takes approximately 8 sessions at $80.00/session to successfully gait retrain a runner ($640.00). Just imagine the amount of time off work and transportation costs that all those visits would require and what the additional effective cost would be. Certainly, custom foot orthoses seem like a bargain to treat running injuries considering their lower cost, their long-term effects, their short adjustment period and absence of hours of time to "retrain" and the volume of research data that show they are very effective forms of treatment for running injuries.

Irene did say that her goal was to get all of her runners out of orthoses. Don't think that many of my runner-patients would be too happy with that prospect, especially not for $640.00, especially with almost no research to back up the theory of gait retraining and the especially with the great success most of my runner-patients and thousands of other runners over the past quarter century have had with their custom foot orthoses.

Actually, it is a little odd for me to hear any well-respected clinical researcher state that their goal is to get runners out of orthoses. What is so bad about custom foot orthoses? Are they any worse than eye-glasses? What would we think of a researcher that had a goal of wanting to get everyone out of glasses by doing "eye-retraining exercises"?
__________________
Sincerely,

Kevin

**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College

E-mail: kevinakirby@comcast.net
Website: www.KirbyPodiatry.com

Private Practice:
107 Scripps Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825 USA
My location

Voice: (916) 925-8111 Fax: (916) 925-8136
**************************************************
Reply With Quote
  #367  
Old 13th July 2012, 04:17 PM
efuller efuller is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,266
Join Date: Jun 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 22
Thanked 407 Times in 338 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby View Post
Actually, it is a little odd for me to hear any well-respected clinical researcher state that their goal is to get runners out of orthoses. What is so bad about custom foot orthoses? Are they any worse than eye-glasses? What would we think of a researcher that had a goal of wanting to get everyone out of glasses by doing "eye-retraining exercises"?
I have some acquaintances who are big fans of the book "28 Days to Reading Without Glasses: A Natural Method for Improving Your Vision by Lisette Scholl". Basically, you do eye exercises to strengthen your focusing muscles. Sound familiar. Using that example, I would rather rest my eyes by using the glasses. I would also rather "rest" my posterior tibial muscle with a medial heel skive orthosis. I just hope that people who get this "natural" is better advice are smart enough to listen to their bodies.

Eric
Reply With Quote
  #368  
Old 13th July 2012, 05:06 PM
toomoon's Avatar
toomoon toomoon is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 470
Join Date: Aug 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 15
Thanked 89 Times in 58 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

All of Irene's examples in relation to gait retraining are completely anecdotal if the last presentations I heard her give in Melbourne are anything to go by.that said, gait retraining in the correct setting can be extremely useful.
I also had the chance to debate her in relation to barefoot running at this meeting, and it is like talking to a brick wall. All the usual stuff is trotted out with no real science.
I have to admit I am completely puzzled by this given her excellent academic track record.
Maybe she has some gun research up her sleeve we shall soon be exposed to? But.. I somehow doubt it
Reply With Quote
  #369  
Old 17th October 2012, 03:21 PM
NewsBot's Avatar
NewsBot NewsBot is offline
The Admin that posts the news.
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Zoo, where all good monkeys should be
Posts: 13,303
Join Date: Jan 2006
Marketplace reputation 53% (0)
Thanks: 13
Thanked 576 Times in 467 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Is There Evidence to Support a Forefoot Strike Pattern in Barefoot Runners? A Review
Daniel S. Lorenz and Marisa Pontillo
Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach November/December 2012 vol. 4 no. 6 480-484
Quote:
Context: Barefoot running is a trend among running enthusiasts that is the subject of much controversy. At this time, benefits appear to be more speculative and anecdotal than evidence based. Additionally, the risk of injuries is not well established.

Evidence acquisition: A PubMed search was undertaken for articles published in English from 1980 to 2011. Additional references were accrued from reference lists of research articles.

Results: While minimal data exist that definitively support barefoot running, there are data lending support to the argument that runners should use a forefoot strike pattern in lieu of a heel strike pattern to reduce ground reaction forces, ground contact time, and step length.

Conclusions: Whether there is a positive or negative effect on injury has yet to be determined. Unquestionably, more research is needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn.
Reply With Quote
  #370  
Old 17th October 2012, 04:50 PM
Craig Payne's Avatar
Craig Payne Craig Payne is offline
Moderator
Professor of Life, The Universe and Everything
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,839
Join Date: Aug 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 91
Thanked 820 Times in 567 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewsBot View Post
At this time, benefits appear to be more speculative and anecdotal than evidence based. Additionally, the risk of injuries is not well established....... Whether there is a positive or negative effect on injury has yet to be determined.
After 368 posts in this thread (and whole lot of other threads) and all the claims about all the alleged "science" that supports barefoot running, we still have none and what I said in the first post of this thread stands:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne View Post
As I have repeatedly said in numerous posts in numerous threads, I have nothing against barefoot running; what I object to is the misuse, misrepresentation, misquoting and misinterpretation of the science by the Evangelists from the Church of Barefoot Running.

That is where the debate is. It is not about if barefoot running is good or not, it is about the way the science is being used. I always go where the evidence and science takes me.
__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie | Latest Blog Post: Review of Lieberman et al’s (2010) paper in Nature on Barefoot Running
God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
Thread Starter
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Translate This Page

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Achilles tendon: running barefoot vs running shod? Simon Spooner Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses 8 13th May 2013 09:13 PM
Barefoot Running Debate Kevin Kirby Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses 1134 12th July 2011 12:10 PM
Barefoot running jerseynurse Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses 31 21st December 2009 04:29 PM
Running barefoot vs running with shoes sezuni Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses 32 6th October 2005 03:26 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

Finding your way around:

Browse the forums.

Search the site.

Browse the tags.

Search the tags.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:38 AM.