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 will be very pleased when the real biomechanists start to weigh in on these findings of "increased impact forces" with heel-strike running rather than the medical doctors and anthropologists that just recently are becoming interested in foot and lower extremity biomechanics. I am aware of absolutely no scientific research which has correlated the passive (i.e. impact) peak of heel-strike running to greater risk of injury. However, I have noted in my sports medicine practice over the past 20+ years many runners who have converted to Pose or Chi running, which advocate more of a forefoot striking gait, will end up with Achilles tendon injuries, distal plantar fasciitis, and gastrocnemius-soleus muscle strains. Why is it never mentioned that these forefoot strikers also get injured while running and, sometimes, with far more debilitating injuries than do the heel strikers?
When will one of these "barefoot researchers" present a more balanced approach to the biomechanics of internal loading of structural components of the human foot and lower extremity? Just once I would like to hear one of them say something about the 80% of millions of runners who run as heel-strikers and in in shoes that aren't getting injured, rather than hearing how bad heel-striking running is for all runners because our ancestors ran barefoot without shoes.
I guess the best way to draw attention to your poor biomechanics research these days is to embrace barefoot running....why?.....because the media loves it!!
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
I love this...
"Many successful distance runners have competed barefoot, including the South African-born athlete Zola Budd.
This has caused researchers to question whether barefoot running might well be more efficient."
Ummmm.... Many?? and how many successful athletes DON'T run barefoot?
None of the Kenyans that I treat do any barefoot training.... and these are guys who train in Kenya doing 100mile+ per week. I do not know of any elite runners who do any racing barefoot.
I actually think some barefoot traing is useful... on natural surfaces in a controlled and progressive manner.
__________________
Craig Tanner
Podiatrist ASPETAR-
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
Doha
QATAR http://www.aspetar.com/
I have been contacted privately by someone who wanted to use some comments from Podiatry Arena's barefoot debates on their website. The website is still under construction, so I can not post the web site address yet. I did however get permission to post this below for your amusement:
Quote:
Enough is enough. After being around the running community for many years, you soon get to notice that in general, members of the barefoot running community are not particularly bright people. They try to promote barefoot running as an alternative to the use of running shoes. To do this they grasp at straws, use nonsense arguments, misunderstand research and are not very rational in their approach. They believe everything they read unless its something positive about running shoes. They are fanatical. They are as bad as the loony left of politics and the radical religious fanatics (they are probably vegetarians too!). Because of that they cannot take part in reasoned discussions or debates about barefoot running and use tactics worse than politicians to avoid answering the questions asked of them.
I am not talking about the occasional barefoot runner or the runners who use a small amount of barefoot running as part of a balanced training program. I am talking about those who use the “philosophy” of “barefoot running” and try to impose it on others. Someone has to keep them accountable for the nonsensical unscientific mumbo jumbo that they espouse.
This site will systematically deconstruct the claims made by barefoot runners. If you follow some of the debates on barefoot running you will see the fools they make of themselves with the claims they make. As soon as you deconstruct one argument, they throw up another equally bad one. They really just do not get it. Hopefully this site will help them get it.
"Many successful distance runners have competed barefoot, including the South African-born athlete Zola Budd."
Zola Budd hasnt ran competitvely for maybe 15-20 years. is this still they example they use?
also she was arguably a better cross country runner. did she also do this barefoot? i dont know
i'm a keen amatuer runner and i thought i'd try it. i have to say after around a month i could barely acheive heel contact my calf muscles were so sore.
it maybe did improve my posture a little but i couldnt sustain it, and could only do it on a treadmill or track. i'm afraid i wasnt brave enough to try my normal routes.
and apologies for my earlier link not working. my thanks to Mr weber for kindly sorting me out.
cheers
JB
Hi Simon!
I have a pair of retro Onitsuka Tiger running shoes... how close are these to the 70's versions?
Not planning to run in them...
Kevin- waffle sole? You are almost talking about an era where those soles were actually made using a waffle iron... pre lives?
Cheers
Hi Craig.. how's Qatar?
Every shoe in the Onisuka Tiger range is a faithful reproduction of an actual Tiger (now ASICS) competition model, most of them designed for Olympic use.
Kevin is an expert on the waffle sole.. invented in 1927.. coz he was running in them back then...: hehehe
Hi Craig.. how's Qatar?
Every shoe in the Onisuka Tiger range is a faithful reproduction of an actual Tiger (now ASICS) competition model, most of them designed for Olympic use.
Kevin is an expert on the waffle sole.. invented in 1927.. coz he was running in them back then...: hehehe
That waffle tread was absolutely the best for improving traction during running races/workouts on wet grass, which we did quite often in cross country meets in high school and college. Nope, Simon, I wasn't even "invented" until 1957...the year that Elvis starred in "Jailhouse Rock". I believe that, back then, Chuck Taylor's were "state of the art" for running shoes?
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
I will be very pleased when the real biomechanists start to weigh in on these findings of "increased impact forces" with heel-strike running rather than the medical doctors and anthropologists that just recently are becoming interested in foot and lower extremity biomechanics. I am aware of absolutely no scientific research which has correlated the passive (i.e. impact) peak of heel-strike running to greater risk of injury. However, I have noted in my sports medicine practice over the past 20+ years many runners who have converted to Pose or Chi running, which advocate more of a forefoot striking gait, will end up with Achilles tendon injuries, distal plantar fasciitis, and gastrocnemius-soleus muscle strains. Why is it never mentioned that these forefoot strikers also get injured while running and, sometimes, with far more debilitating injuries than do the heel strikers?
When will one of these "barefoot researchers" present a more balanced approach to the biomechanics of internal loading of structural components of the human foot and lower extremity? Just once I would like to hear one of them say something about the 80% of millions of runners who run as heel-strikers and in in shoes that aren't getting injured, rather than hearing how bad heel-striking running is for all runners because our ancestors ran barefoot without shoes.
I guess the best way to draw attention to your poor biomechanics research these days is to embrace barefoot running....why?.....because the media loves it!!
Gosh I could not agree more Kevin. I am finding this more and more frustrating. Just wondering when we will see Nigg 1981or LaFortune 1989 cited as conclusively establishing that impact forces do not collelate to injury.
Furthermore.. the body of evidence indicating higher impact forces are beneficial and necessary for the bone bank.
I am shocked to see a quality resarcher like Irene Davis putting her name to a paper that specifically links "overuse injury" to 'impact forces". There simply is not such a link in the scientific literature.
When are these guys gonna get real and present their data in a proper scientific manner and properly control for the variables.
It is a joke to be comparing current injury data of distance running to that of the 80's. In the 80's, the average marathon time was 3hours 8 minutes. today it is 4 hours 20 something. That tells us we were dealing with quality runners in the 80's with some real selection issues coming to the fore...
Maybe we should form a coalition of the pure and start getting the facts to the media. This is crazy..
That waffle tread was absolutely the best for improving traction during running races/workouts on wet grass, which we did quite often in cross country meets in high school and college. Nope, Simon, I wasn't even "invented" until 1957...the year that Elvis starred in "Jailhouse Rock". I believe that, back then, Chuck Taylor's were "state of the art" for running shoes?
Yes, and a tribute to the inventivenes of Bill Bowerman and his waffle iron. Funny the CT's are also going strong... just don't run in 'em! I might add that 1957 was a very fine year indeed for many of us ... did you hear the one about....
I am shocked to see a quality resarcher like Irene Davis putting her name to a paper that specifically links "overuse injury" to 'impact forces". There simply is not such a link in the scientific literature.
Agreed, Simon. I was going to say a similar thing when I read the line: "Furthermore,
many running shoes have arch supports and stiffened soles that may lead to weaker foot muscles, reducing arch strength."
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
I tried to post on the site but it doesn't allow me. Someone posted on the burden of proof. I wanted to say this:
In terms of the burden, it depends on who forwards the proposition and what that proposition is. In academic debate the affirmatives traditionally assume the burden of proof, i.e., to prove that the proposition is probably true. The negatives assumes the burden of rejoinder; to deconstruct the affirmative arguments. So if the shoe companies say that their shoes protect from injury- they should need to prove it; similarly if the barefoot community say that running barefoot protects from injury: they should need to prove it. As far as I can see, neither have the data to support such contentions.
I tried to post on the site but it doesn't allow me. Someone posted on the burden of proof. I wanted to say this:
In terms of the burden, it depends on who forwards the proposition and what that proposition is. In academic debate the affirmatives traditionally assume the burden of proof, i.e., to prove that the proposition is probably true. The negatives assumes the burden of rejoinder; to deconstruct the affirmative arguments. So if the shoe companies say that their shoes protect from injury- they should need to prove it; similarly if the barefoot community say that running barefoot protects from injury: they should need to prove it. As far as I can see, neither have the data to support such contentions.
I was just able to post on the site through my facebook account.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
I tried to post on the site but it doesn't allow me. Someone posted on the burden of proof. I wanted to say this:
In terms of the burden, it depends on who forwards the proposition and what that proposition is. In academic debate the affirmatives traditionally assume the burden of proof, i.e., to prove that the proposition is probably true. The negatives assumes the burden of rejoinder; to deconstruct the affirmative arguments. So if the shoe companies say that their shoes protect from injury- they should need to prove it; similarly if the barefoot community say that running barefoot protects from injury: they should need to prove it. As far as I can see, neither have the data to support such contentions.
Well said SImon! And absolutely true.
What the world of biomechanics (not the world of shoe companies) has.. I think.. established, is what type of loading is most likely to contribute to injury in sport. Furthermore, the quality studies have been able to demonstrate that athletic footwear across abroad range of categories, are protective of those likely injurious loads.
It remains a fact however, that up to this point, there has been no quality study establishing a direct link between any common sporting injury and the ability of footwear to positively influence this.
A fine and worthy project for people like us to address!
I kinda wish the barefooters .. along with the shoe zealots, would take a breathe and consider the wisdom of the statement.. " each of us is an experiment with a sample number of one"!
OK, Prof. down with the kids Kirby, you'll have an I-pad next! I did have a facebook account until somebody "broke into it" and started "having conversations with my friends" I found out when one of mates became offended and spoke to me in person about it and I hadn't got a clue what he was talking about. I decided to remove my account at that point.
to address!
I kinda wish the barefooters .. along with the shoe zealots, would take a breathe and consider the wisdom of the statement.. " each of us is an experiment with a sample number of one"!
Would be great to take a group of Mz twins with no previous running experience / injuries. Let one half of the twin pairs run in shoes and the other half run barefoot. Same training regime, same route etc. I stay awake at night dreaming of reading these kind of studies. Can't we just get on with it and legalise human cloning- it would make life so much easier.
Kevin wrote on t'other site:
"The concept of optimizing the shoe design for the runner’s unique physical and biomechanical makeup should be the mantra in the coming decades within the running shoe industry."
So why aren't they (running shoe manufacturers) designing shoes with a stiffness in the "metabolic efficient" range, at least for their elite persons? Or are they, Simon?
Kevin wrote on t'other site:
"The concept of optimizing the shoe design for the runner’s unique physical and biomechanical makeup should be the mantra in the coming decades within the running shoe industry."
So why aren't they (running shoe manufacturers) designing shoes with a stiffness in the "metabolic efficient" range, at least for their elite persons? Or are they, Simon?
well I can't speak for the others, but we certainly are. We have been very interested in the concept of "adaptive technology " for a long time now. So we are trying to figure out if shoe design can augment stiffness through a series of "metabolically efficient' ranges. Unfortunately, the only way we can do this is with cadvers in a jig we made, which is nowhere near as good as real live people... any volunteers?
The other big challenge is to take what is theoretically possible, and making it a practical reality in the real world of manufacturing. Fortunately, manufacturing techniques and materials technology are rapidly catching up to technical concepting.
One of the big things for me in this industry is sustainability, although in the absolute sense of the word this is not yet possible in the footwear industry. But I am not prepared to concept a shoe now unless it can be made without glue and PVC, and that does slow us down a bit.
There will be 2 new products in the next 12 months that I think will make people rethink the concept of athletic footwear, maybe even make the "minimalists" happy , even thoguh they are extremely complex. Dunno if they will work, but at least we are giving it a shot!
well I can't speak for the others, but we certainly are. We have been very interested in the concept of "adaptive technology " for a long time now. So we are trying to figure out if shoe design can augment stiffness through a series of "metabolically efficient' ranges. Unfortunately, the only way we can do this is with cadvers in a jig we made, which is nowhere near as good as real live people... any volunteers?
I don't understand why you can only do this with cadavers. We have a number of in-vivo studies which show the stiffness range over which metabolic cost is reduced. If we know the stiffness of the surface, i.e. concrete, or a specific track and we know the GRF data of the subject, why can't you just manufacture a shoe that creates an interface within the optimised stiffness range and test in-vivo? Perhaps I should come on board as a consultant, Simon? I have a City and Guilds in pattern cutting, and worked for a brief period as a last designer, if that helps ;-)
I don't understand why you can only do this with cadavers. We have a number of in-vivo studies which show the stiffness range over which metabolic cost is reduced. If we know the stiffness of the surface, i.e. concrete, or a specific track and we know the GRF data of the subject, why can't you just manufacture a shoe that creates an interface within the optimised stiffness range and test in-vivo? Perhaps I should come on board as a consultant, Simon? I have a City and Guilds in pattern cutting, and worked for a brief period as a last designer, if that helps ;-)
A man of many talents! One of the other very valued designers I work with is a toolmaker by trade, so he and you would get on well. Maybe you should come on board.. I need help in maintaining sanity!
We have been focussing on measuring strain in the pf with very thin implanted strain gauges and looking at how footwear may or may not influence this.
What you are suggesting is somewhat of the holy grail of footwear research, and is a little more difficult than it sounds because of the non homogeneity of footwear. gotta factor in troublesome things like harmonics. But if you have a way of doing this.. I am all ears..
A man of many talents! One of the other very valued designers I work with is a toolmaker by trade, so he and you would get on well. Maybe you should come on board.. I need help in maintaining sanity!
We have been focussing on measuring strain in the pf with very thin implanted strain gauges and looking at how footwear may or may not influence this.
What you are suggesting is somewhat of the holy grail of footwear research, and is a little more difficult than it sounds because of the non homogeneity of footwear. gotta factor in troublesome things like harmonics. But if you have a way of doing this.. I am all ears..
I'm just aware of studies in which they have altered the surface stiffness of treadmills and improved metabolic efficiency- this research didn't seem too worried about harmonics or plantar fascial strain, but rather on the net physiological cost. Perhaps a starting point might be to make a simple "minimalist" shoe with an homogenous sole of known stiffness in the correct range and measure VO2 max then compare various stiffness of soles? Alternatively, you could FEA model more traditional soles with their various laminars, and optimise stiffness characteristics in the model, then perform the in-vivo stuff. Just thinking out-loud Simon.
On another note, have you looked at non-Newtonian polymers?
Two very common 'fashion' shoes of recent years in my neck of the woods were the Nike Rift, and more recently the resurgence of the Plimsoll. I guess there is nothing new under the sun. Looking at the above pictures I can see they may well merely be descendents of Asics 1953 marathon shoe.
I'm just aware of studies in which they have altered the surface stiffness of treadmills and improved metabolic efficiency- this research didn't seem too worried about harmonics or plantar fascial strain, but rather on the net physiological cost. Perhaps a starting point might be to make a simple "minimalist" shoe with an homogenous sole of known stiffness in the correct range and measure VO2 max then compare various stiffness of soles? Alternatively, you could FEA model more traditional soles with their various laminars, and optimise stiffness characteristics in the model, then perform the in-vivo stuff. Just thinking out-loud Simon.
On another note, have you looked at non-Newtonian polymers?
Keep thinking out loud.. I like it! In relation to NNP's, we have presentations from companies with unbelievable materials all the time, and they would all be awesome to use in footwear. The only problem?... $$$.. and the almighty consumer sqeals like a porker coz at the end of the day, they have to pay for the technology. It is one of the great conundrums of the athletic footwear market, which has reached a critical mass where nearly anything you can think of is possible, but at a cost..
Two very common 'fashion' shoes of recent years in my neck of the woods were the Nike Rift, and more recently the resurgence of the Plimsoll. I guess there is nothing new under the sun. Looking at the above pictures I can see they may well merely be descendents of Asics 1953 marathon shoe.
Yup! funny about that.. and I have a sneaking suspicion we are going to see a lot more of this.. and a lot more injury. Thank God underpants are not made the way those Tabi-toes sneakers are.. imagine the chaffing!!
Keep thinking out loud.. I like it! In relation to NNP's, we have presentations from companies with unbelievable materials all the time, and they would all be awesome to use in footwear. The only problem?... $$$.. and the almighty consumer sqeals like a porker coz at the end of the day, they have to pay for the technology. It is one of the great conundrums of the athletic footwear market, which has reached a critical mass where nearly anything you can think of is possible, but at a cost..
What about for your elite boys and girls- surely as a design exercise the dollars don't count? The Bugatti Veyron cost more to manufacture than it originally sold for, it was a design exercise, but what an exercise in design! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Veyron
Re: Barefoot Running Debate
pre lives?
... did you hear the one about....
The Bugatti Veyron cost more to manufacture than it originally sold for, it was a design exercise, but what an exercise in design!
Linear Mode
