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.
Thanks for the info Kevin...I heard Irene speak at ACSM last summer with Lieberman and then thought I saw a number of poster presentations on barefoot running that had both Drs. Hamill and Davis' names on them so I made an apparently incorrect assumption.
Thanks for the info Kevin...I heard Irene speak at ACSM last summer with Lieberman and then thought I saw a number of poster presentations on barefoot running that had both Drs. Hamill and Davis' names on them so I made an apparently incorrect assumption.
Joe and Irene have been coresearchers on a number of very important papers over the years. However, I don't think that they are in agreement on the benefits of barefoot running since Joe just recently debated Irene on barefoot vs shod running at a conference last month in Minneapolis.
I think Irene is a brilliant researcher, we have lectured together at many national and international conferences over the last 10+ years, and we are good friends. However, I can't agree with her on many of the statements she makes in her lectures on barefoot running and other topics. What else is new....I don't agree with someone on everything!
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
...and they wonder why they get ridiculed so much!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne
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.... 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.
The sheer volume of this list would seem to suggest that science definitely supports barefoot and minimalist shoe running.
....when in reality not a single one of the studies they listed actually supports it Why do they get it so wrong? What is it that they see in those studies that says barefoot/minimalist is better than traditional shoe wearing? Why do they continually misuse, misrepresent, misquote and misinterpret the research?
Why do they continually misuse, misrepresent, misquote and misinterpret the research?
Honestly, Craig, people who makes lists of reference articles that don't support their views but then claim that the referenced articles support their views are either 1) ignorant of the scientific method, 2) dishonest people who have an agenda, or 3) so religiously attached to their ideology that logic and reason will not get in the way of their pursuit of attracting others into their religious sect.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Honestly, Craig, people who makes lists of reference articles that don't support their views but then claim that the referenced articles support their views are either 1) ignorant of the scientific method, 2) dishonest people who have an agenda, or 3) so religiously attached to their ideology that logic and reason will not get in the way of their pursuit of attracting others into their religious sect.
I will start running barefoot tomorrow if the evidence tells me its better ... until then ...
I will start running barefoot tomorrow if the evidence tells me its better ... until then ...
Funny that. I was talking to Ryan Hall recently ( USA Marathoner 2:04... can run a bit).. he told me he was gonna take up running barefoot or minimalist the day someone passed him running barefoot or minimalist.. can't see that day coming anytime soon
I am happy to issue a challenge to anyone to point to any one of the research based articles listed on the site I linked above that they claim supports barefoot running over shod running and I will show why it doesn't.
I am happy to issue a challenge to anyone to point to any one of the research based articles listed on the site I linked above that they claim supports barefoot running over shod running and I will show why it doesn't.
Blaise.. are you there? Craig has a challenge for you..
I am happy to issue a challenge to anyone to point to any one of the research based articles listed on the site I linked above that they claim supports barefoot running over shod running and I will show why it doesn't.
Craig and Simon:
If I were to take up your challenge, this is one of the few articles I would use:
Am J Sports Med. 2012 May;40(5):1060-7. Epub 2012 Mar 16.
Forefoot running improves pain and disability associated with chronic exertional compartment syndrome.
Diebal AR, Gregory R, Alitz C, Gerber JP.
Source
MAJ Angela R. Diebal,DPT, Keller Army Community Hospital, West Point, NY 10996. angie.diebal@us.army.mil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Anterior compartment pressures of the leg as well as kinematic and kinetic measures are significantly influenced by running technique. It is unknown whether adopting a forefoot strike technique will decrease the pain and disability associated with chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) in hindfoot strike runners.
HYPOTHESIS:
For people who have CECS, adopting a forefoot strike running technique will lead to decreased pain and disability associated with this condition.
STUDY DESIGN:
Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS:
Ten patients with CECS indicated for surgical release were prospectively enrolled. Resting and postrunning compartment pressures, kinematic and kinetic measurements, and self-report questionnaires were taken for all patients at baseline and after 6 weeks of a forefoot strike running intervention. Run distance and reported pain levels were recorded. A 15-point global rating of change (GROC) scale was used to measure perceived change after the intervention.
RESULTS:
After 6 weeks of forefoot run training, mean postrun anterior compartment pressures significantly decreased from 78.4 ± 32.0 mm Hg to 38.4 ± 11.5 mm Hg. Vertical ground-reaction force and impulse values were significantly reduced. Running distance significantly increased from 1.4 ± 0.6 km before intervention to 4.8 ± 0.5 km 6 weeks after intervention, while reported pain while running significantly decreased. The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) significantly increased from 49.9 ± 21.4 to 90.4 ± 10.3, and the Lower Leg Outcome Survey (LLOS) significantly increased from 67.3 ± 13.7 to 91.5 ± 8.5. The GROC scores at 6 weeks after intervention were between 5 and 7 for all patients. One year after the intervention, the SANE and LLOS scores were greater than reported during the 6-week follow-up. Two-mile run times were also significantly faster than preintervention values. No patient required surgery.
CONCLUSION:
In 10 consecutive patients with CECS, a 6-week forefoot strike running intervention led to decreased postrunning lower leg intracompartmental pressures. Pain and disability typically associated with CECS were greatly reduced for up to 1 year after intervention. Surgical intervention was avoided for all patients.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Firstly, my challenge was about the list of articles on the site I linked above and they do not have that one there, so you loose on that one
Secondly, it was a small sample size and there was no control group, so we have no way of knowing if the results were not due to the placebo or Hawthorne effects. It was just an uncontrolled case series which is only one step up the hierarchy of evidence ladder from an anecdote, so you loose on that one as well!
HOWEVER, having said..... that I am currently writing an essay for a book chapter on where does knowledge for clinical practice come from and what to do in the absence of evidence and at what stage should clinicians change clinical practice ...... I am using that study as an example.
One of the principles I use is what I mentioned in this thread on Dennis's foot typing about what to do in the absence of evidence:
1) Theoretical coherence
2) Biological plausibility
3) Consistent with the available evidence
So in that uncontrolled case series on anterior compartment syndrome, despite its limitations, the results were dramatic (all subjects were spared surgery) and there is a theoretical coherence and plausibility and it is consistent with the available evidence ...... when forefoot striking it is theoretical and plausible that the anterior tibial muscle does not work as hard as when heel striking ... which is consistent with the evidence...... so it makes sense it would help anterior compartment syndrome.
So do you change practice based on that study?
At one end of the spectrum we have the anecdotes from nutters who think everyone should do what they do as it worked for them, and at the other end of the spectrum you have the EBM aficionados who sit behind a computer and never have to make a clinical decision that you should not change practice until there are enough RCT's to collate into a meta analysis ... and then you change practice.
So do you change practice based on that study? I think we should based on the biological plausibility, theoretical coherence and consistent with the available evidence, despite the weakness of the study. I think we should be transitioning those with anterior compartment syndrome to forefoot striking ... I I will give you that one
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Craig Payne For This Useful Post:
Firstly, my challenge was about the list of articles on the site I linked above and they do not have that one there, so you loose on that one
Secondly, it was a small sample size and there was no control group, so we have no way of knowing if the results were not due to the placebo or Hawthorne effects. It was just an uncontrolled case series which is only one step up the hierarchy of evidence ladder from an anecdote, so you loose on that one as well!
HOWEVER, having said..... that I am currently writing an essay for a book chapter on where does knowledge for clinical practice come from and what to do in the absence of evidence and at what stage should clinicians change clinical practice ...... I am using that study as an example.
One of the principles I use is what I mentioned in this thread on Dennis's foot typing about what to do in the absence of evidence:
1) Theoretical coherence
2) Biological plausibility
3) Consistent with the available evidence
So in that uncontrolled case series on anterior compartment syndrome, despite its limitations, the results were dramatic (all subjects were spared surgery) and there is a theoretical coherence and plausibility and it is consistent with the available evidence ...... when forefoot striking it is theoretical and plausible that the anterior tibial muscle does not work as hard as when heel striking ... which is consistent with the evidence...... so it makes sense it would help anterior compartment syndrome.
So do you change practice based on that study?
At one end of the spectrum we have the anecdotes from nutters who think everyone should do what they do as it worked for them, and at the other end of the spectrum you have the EBM aficionados who sit behind a computer and never have to make a clinical decision that you should not change practice until there are enough RCT's to collate into a meta analysis ... and then you change practice.
So do you change practice based on that study? I think we should based on the biological plausibility, theoretical coherence and consistent with the available evidence, despite the weakness of the study. I think we should be transitioning those with anterior compartment syndrome to forefoot striking ... I I will give you that one
Craig:
Thanks for that analysis. You and I are on exactly the same page regarding our thought processes in regards to these matters. Will be looking forward to reading your essay since it sounds like a good one.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
So in that uncontrolled case series on anterior compartment syndrome, despite its limitations, the results were dramatic (all subjects were spared surgery) and there is a theoretical coherence and plausibility and it is consistent with the available evidence ...... when forefoot striking it is theoretical and plausible that the anterior tibial muscle does not work as hard as when heel striking ... which is consistent with the evidence...... so it makes sense it would help anterior compartment syndrome.
As an aside, if the anterior tibial muscle is not working as hard when forefoot striking compared to rearfoot striking, then that muscle would be stronger in the rearfoot strikers ... so it makes a mockery of the myth about barefoot running strengthening muscles
Why do they get it so wrong? What is it that they see in those studies that says barefoot/minimalist is better than traditional shoe wearing? Why do they continually misuse, misrepresent, misquote and misinterpret the research?
Craig, why do you barefoot running skeptics respond to alerts without actually reading the original blog post and linked posts? If you had, you'd see I was critical of the current research as a means of justifying barefoot running. Your anti-barefoot zealotry is blinding you to the handful of barefoot runners that apply any degree of skepticism to the practice.
Craig, why do you barefoot running skeptics respond to alerts without actually reading the original blog post and linked posts? If you had, you'd see I was critical of the current research as a means of justifying barefoot running. Your anti-barefoot zealotry is blinding you to the handful of barefoot runners that apply any degree of skepticism to the practice.
Dogmatic podiatrists...
Jason:
Welcome to Podiatry Arena.
I have read your postings before on your Barefoot Running University website and do appreciate many of the points you make. I have also read a few of your thoughts about what I have written regarding barefoot running so I can see you are trying to be fair and reasonable at times. http://barefootrunninguniversity.com...running-shoes/
And then on other blogs, you and your barefoot running buddies don't seem to think I know anything about running or running shoes or, as you call them, "foot coffins". Very scientific and undogmatic, Jason. http://www.wpcreations.net/barefoot/...st-kevin-kirby
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Robillard
Kirby often talks about the need for foot coffins due to the fact that people have run in foot coffins for years, which is true.
The sheer volume of this list would seem to suggest that science definitely supports barefoot and minimalist shoe running.
Certainly having a list of 43 articles, most of which show no research evidence that "supports barefoot and minimalist shoe running", and then making the rather unusual statement that "The sheer volume of this list would seem to suggest that science definitely supports barefoot and minimalist shoe running" does not seem at all scientific to me.
Tell me, Jason, how does listing 43 articles, with none of them having any scientific research evidence that shows that barefoot running produces fewer injuries than running in shoes "support barefoot running"?
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Certainly having a list of 43 articles, most of which show no research evidence that "supports barefoot and minimalist shoe running", and then making the rather unusual statement that "The sheer volume of this list would seem to suggest that science definitely supports barefoot and minimalist shoe running" does not seem at all scientific to me.
Tell me, Jason, how does listing 43 articles, with none of them having any scientific research evidence that shows that barefoot running produces fewer injuries than running in shoes "support barefoot running"?
Kevin- I am impressed you have read as much of my drivel as you have. My penchant for hyperbole and conjecture usually drives the skeptics off. :-)
The "...sheer volume..." quote has to be taken in the context of the rest of the post. I'm not suggesting this research lends conclusive support to barefoot or minimalist shoe running. I'm suggesting the current "research" (quotes intended to note most is not experimental in nature) should not be used as a rationale to recommend barefoot or minimalist shoes.
This entire topic is fascinating. Contrary to the title of this thread, there IS a debate. There are far too many people that have made a successful transition to barefoot or minimalist shoe running to ignore. Likewise, the dangers of transitioning are real. The points you've made in the media are spot-on. I am annoyed by the extremists on both sides. It should be abundantly clear that the modern running shoe is flawed in both design and the method of fitting/prescribing (think teens conducting gait analysis at Dick's Sporting Goods). It should also be abundantly clear that barefoot running isn't a cure-all solution and shouldn't be recommended to everyone.
There's a middle ground somewhere, and we'll eventually find it through debate and further research. That requires some degree of open-mindedness.
By the way, I was the only person that supported you in that Barefoot Runners Society post... until I read your response to Campitelli's article. On that note- you never really did give your opinion on why shoes need heels... ;-)
Kevin- I am impressed you have read as much of my drivel as you have. My penchant for hyperbole and conjecture usually drives the skeptics off. :-)
The "...sheer volume..." quote has to be taken in the context of the rest of the post. I'm not suggesting this research lends conclusive support to barefoot or minimalist shoe running. I'm suggesting the current "research" (quotes intended to note most is not experimental in nature) should not be used as a rationale to recommend barefoot or minimalist shoes.
This entire topic is fascinating. Contrary to the title of this thread, there IS a debate. There are far too many people that have made a successful transition to barefoot or minimalist shoe running to ignore. Likewise, the dangers of transitioning are real. The points you've made in the media are spot-on. I am annoyed by the extremists on both sides. It should be abundantly clear that the modern running shoe is flawed in both design and the method of fitting/prescribing (think teens conducting gait analysis at Dick's Sporting Goods). It should also be abundantly clear that barefoot running isn't a cure-all solution and shouldn't be recommended to everyone.
There's a middle ground somewhere, and we'll eventually find it through debate and further research. That requires some degree of open-mindedness.
By the way, I was the only person that supported you in that Barefoot Runners Society post... until I read your response to Campitelli's article. On that note- you never really did give your opinion on why shoes need heels... ;-)
Jason:
You are not alone in making statements about this subject that may be emotionally-based. I sometimes also go a little overboard in my discussions on barefoot/minimalist running and make statements just for fun that aren't very scientific. I believe that this type of discussion is naturally inherent within these types of blog discussions....these discussions are often more like banter among friends rather than a scientific debate.
I agree that there is a middle ground that both the barefoot advocates and barefoot skeptics should be able to stand together on. Like most of the more vocal podiatrists here on Podiatry Arena, I really don't have a problem with a runner choosing to run either barefoot or in "minimalist shoes", which we previously called back in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, "racing flats". If barefoot or minimalist shoes make you run faster, farther, with less injuries, and run happier, then I am certainly all for it.
I do, however, find it rather amusing that many of the bloggers on your Barefoot Running University website speculate that I, or other sports podiatrists, are just out to make a buck by making custom foot orthoses for every runner we see. In fact, I am just as likely to have a runner get rid of a bad orthosis and change shoes as I am to suggest new orthoses. It is all about making the runner healthier and happier in my, and most other sports podiatrist's practices, not about making more money. Of course, podiatric treatment is not a guarantee of success of healing the runner's injuries. However, I do believe that sports podiatrists have a very good record over the past four decades of allowing thousands upon thousands of runners to continue running pain-free and without injury by suggesting appropriately designed running shoes and foot orthoses for our runner-patients.
I do have a problem with the extremists telling runners that all running shoes with a certain minimulm heel height differential (i.e. heel drop) or shoe sole thickness are "harmful" or are "shoe coffins" or will "cause injury". Since I was racing and training in "minimalist shoes" back in the early 1970s and throughout my long distance running-racing career for the UC Davis Aggies and Aggie Running Club (I ran in the first two Aggie Running Club centipedes at the Bay to Breakers), I know from my own personal 40+ years of running experience that there is a time and place for thinner soled running shoes with less heel height differential. However, I don't believe that all runners will benefit from such a transition, but some may do quite well with the move to either barefoot or "minimalist shoes". Most of the times, it requires a trial and error process to determine what shoe/treatment plan is best for each runner, but most times, we are able to suggest shoes/treatment plans that have high probabilities of success based on previous research and clinical experience of others who also treat injured runners on a daily basis.
All in all, I enjoy the discussions and ideas that the barefoot/minimalist running debate has brought to us both with more variety of running shoes and different ideas for possible treatment methods for our runner-patients. Even though I'm not as fast or in shape as I previously was back in the 1970s and 1980s, I still run regularly and see lots of runners, ranging from sprinters to ultramarathoners, locally and from other states in my practice on a daily basis.
Thanks again, Jason, for coming here to Podiatry Arena to contribute your thoughts. Hopefully your visit here wil be enjoyable and productive for all of us.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
On that note- you never really did give your opinion on why shoes need heels... ;-)
Jason,
I have a couple of specific questions for you since you are obviously well read in this field:
1) What influences do shoe heels have on gait kinematics and kinetics?
2) How might shoe heel height and/or design be manipulated to alter gait kinematics and kinetics in order to alter the stresses within specific tissues in a positive manner?
For example, we have some data which suggests that as heel height of shoes increases, knee abduction moment increases. While this may not be too good for someone with medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee, it might be helpful for someone with lateral compartment osteoarthritis of the knee.
What sort of shoe heel and/ or strike pattern might you recommend for someone with Achilles tendonosis and why?
All, I'm interested in why barefoot running and running in "minimalist" shoes does not result in the same gait:
"Although the thin condition provided almost no cushioning, differences were still shown between barefoot and this condition. Barefoot running may require a unique solution even compared to running in extremely minimal footwear." http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/vi... issertations
This PhD thesis also notes: "Cushioning magnitude is important to changes in running pattern, but other factors are involved. In some instances the most cushioned condition, which was a footwear conditions, resulted in similar behavior to the least cushioned barefoot condition. Footwear also limited tibial internal rotation more than not wearing footwear and altered sagittal thigh kinematics at TD. These results implied wearing footwear affect running patterns regardless of the cushioning shoes provide. More investigation is necessary to fully understand all the factors involved, but our research showed that cushioning magnitude is not the only factor affecting running patterns when footwear or running surface is altered."
Given that TenBroek investigated true barefoot, "minimalist" and heavily "cushioned" running shoes, I find it interesting that the heavily cushioned footwear "resulted in similar behavior to the least cushioned barefoot condition", whereas (by its omission), the minimalist footwear presumably did not. This is clearly not explained by mass effect nor cushioning. Might it be explained by heel height differential?
They also note that any form of footwear limits internal tibial rotation, regardless of sole thickness and cushioning (influence of the upper seems to be ignored in many of these discussions, BTW). This might or might not be a good thing.
I'd venture that the shoes sole can only alter three factors- load/ deformation, topography, and friction- this study seems to suggest that load/ deformation in isolation does not hold all the solutions. Given that the heel height differential was increased as cushioning was added to the shoes and that cushioned shoes showed "similar behavior to the least cushioned barefoot condition", then where does that leave us....?
Your anti-barefoot zealotry is blinding you to the handful of barefoot runners that apply any degree of skepticism to the practice.
Please show me where I am anti-barefoot. (you also might want to take note of what shoes that I use when I run)
Perhaps you should read what I write.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Robillard
you'd see I was critical of the current research as a means of justifying barefoot running.
So why did you say in your blog post that:
Quote:
The sheer volume of this list would seem to suggest that science definitely supports barefoot and minimalist shoe running.
Perhaps you could respond to my challenge above:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne
I am happy to issue a challenge to anyone to point to any one of the research based articles listed on the site I linked above that they claim supports barefoot running over shod running and I will show why it doesn't.
The Following User Says Thank You to Craig Payne For This Useful Post:
I am happy to issue a challenge to anyone to point to any one of the research based articles listed on the site I linked above that they claim supports barefoot running over shod running and I will show why it doesn't.
My inbox had some emails this AM ... a couple of them were quite toxic; one accused me of working for Nike (they must be posting the cheques to the wrong place!) ... what does that say?
One pointed me to Lieberman's paper in Nature as being proof that barefoot is better!! Apart from the fact that Lieberman published a statement on his website to distance himself from that sort of conclusion, all the study did was show that forefoot striking and rearfoot striking are different! The mean age between the two groups was massively different (this is more than enough to dismiss the study!); the African runners were eliminated from the analysis; they only looked at ground reaction force and did not look at or report what forces are higher in forefoot striking. (discussed here)
Another email pointed to Kerrigan's study that running shoes cause knee osteoarthritis, therefore barefoot is better. Duh? It was not even a study on osteoarthritis! And if running shoes causes knee OA, then there would be more knee OA in runners compared to non-runners .... every single study that has compared the rate of Knee OA in older runners and the general population have found no differences! (discussed here) ie running shoes do not cause osteoarthritis.
And then there was the one that recently looked at injury rates between forefoot and rearfoot strikers (discussed here). All the participants were wearing shoes (they were not even barefoot!) and there were 56 participants and they were almost elite level runners (hardly comparable to the typical runner). Compare that to Kleindienst (2003) - 471 runners; no difference between rearfoot and forefoot strikers concerning the frequency of injury. Walther (2005) - 1203 runners; no difference in incidence of injury between rearfoot and forefoot strikers; - who are you going to believe? How does that study prove barefoot is better?
The final amazing email (that just arrived as I typing this reply) asked me about the research that proves running shoes weaken muscles!!! THERE IS NO RESEARCH THAT SHOWS THAT!!! (discussed here)
Any wonder that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne
continually misuse, misrepresent, misquote and misinterpret the research?
My inbox had some emails this AM ... a couple of them were quite toxic; one accused me of working for Nike (they must be posting the cheques to the wrong place!) ... what does that say?
They do! But I do see the irony! Its always Nike that I get accused of working for. Never ASICS (hey Simon, any secret jobs going?) or Adidas. If anyone from Nike reads this, can you please check your records as you must be sending the payments to the wrong place!
I wear these shill accusations and ad hominem arguments like a badge of honor! If that is all they can do, what does it say about the position they are trying to defend?
(BTW, if anyone is interested, I just got back from an hour run in my NB minimus follwed by the 100 up drill barefoot!!!)
Just back from a school excursion trip with the Arena'ette's to the Botanical Gardens ... beats working.
My inbox only had one email challenging me and it was a classic and great fodder and goes even further to proving my claim! (not sure why I getting emails and they not posting in this thread?)
They were under the impression that this study from the list linked above was all the proof I needed:
Quote:
Richards, C.E., Magin, P.J., & Callister, R. (2008). Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence based?. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 43, 159-162.
1. It was nothing to do with barefoot! (except the lead author is a barefoot runner and wrote the only book on barefoot running I would actually recommend to read)
2. It was a systematic review that found the prescription of running shoes was not based on any evidence (what does that have to do with barefoot running?)
3. It did not report ANYTHING that was actually wrong with running shoes (just that there was no evidence!) ... and even if it did find something wrong with running shoes, what has that got to do with barefoot running?
Could someone please explain to me why people delude themselves into believing this study proves anything about barefoot running? I am sure the lead author, Craig Richards would not come close to making that claim based on this systematic review.
Due to time constraints, I'm not going to delve into the topic of possible injuries associated with heel to forefoot pitch... & the chicken vs. egg scenario in association with Achilles Tendinosis. Only to say that runners need to naturally condition themselves to a lower heel profile based on the now long history of the higher heel (to forefoot) profile running shoe... & if there is Achilles Tendinosis present, adding a temporary heel lift to help offload the tensile/eccentric forces would be a wise inclusion as part of the treatment regime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne
(BTW, if anyone is interested, I just got back from an hour run in my NB minimus follwed by the 100 up drill barefoot!!!)
I'm interested - I think it's great! Keep it up.
With that sort of training, it would be ironic if you (Craig) were to rock up to a Fun Run a year from now (by this time you could be wearing a Vibram FF shoe) & win the event - you would then be the 'barefooters' next pin-up boy (caption: "Vibram Fivefingerer wins race")... than later they would find out it was Craig Payne - that dude who runs that Podiatry Arena site . Possibly invoking an experience/emotions similar to the following...
[Anyway, it bit of inspiration goes a long way]
There have been questions in the past asking if this barefoot topic has adversely affected Podiatry/Biomechanics - or something to that effect. I think on the whole it has been very beneficial. It has helped us look at issues from a different perspective as well as give us reassurance in what we do via looking deeper into the associated topics... & maybe even tweak our views somewhat to help gain greater insight into the bigger picture of biomechanics, running & Podiatry. It may even have been a sparking source to get us fitter & stronger during the process. On the other hand, it has certainly been bit of a time zapper - particularly when some people just refuse to follow the evidence & logic because the answers fall outside their world view paradigm.
With that sort of training, it would be ironic if you (Craig) were to rock up to a Fun Run a year from now (by this time you could be wearing a Vibram FF shoe) & win the event - you would then be the 'barefooters' next pin-up boy (caption: "Vibram Fivefingerer wins race")... than later they would find out it was Craig Payne - that dude who runs that Podiatry Arena site .
Probably not going to happen ... tomorrows run (the 1000 Steps in Fern tree gully - those in Melbourne know this run) will be in my supermaximalist Hoka One One's.
I love my Hokas. They are now my preferred running shoe for running on harder surfaces.
__________________
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
Re: There is no barefoot running debate
Why do they get it so wrong? What is it that they see in those studies that says barefoot/minimalist is better than traditional shoe wearing? Why do they continually misuse, misrepresent, misquote and misinterpret the research?
. Possibly invoking an experience/emotions similar to the following...
tomorrows run (the 1000 Steps in Fern tree gully - those in Melbourne know this run) will be in my supermaximalist 
Linear Mode
