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
  #181  
Old 13th January 2012, 11:35 AM
Simon Spooner's Avatar
Simon Spooner Simon Spooner is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: "I'm sick of flags - whatever colour. There's only one flag - the white flag.": Paul Hewson
Posts: 7,764
Join Date: Aug 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 448
Thanked 1,059 Times in 772 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Podiatry Arena members do not see these ads
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDP View Post
there is no debate possible with a lot of people on this site. Unfortunately.
"Podiatry Arena is a forum for discussion by podiatrists and other foot health professionals about all aspects of podiatry." Why should I debate anything with a lawyer here? Or someone who makes the coffee at IBM? Or anyone who isn't a foot health professional? That is what you are missing, Alex. Some podiatrists here are well and truly fed up with people such as yourself writing on here. Nothing personal. End of story. Goodbye.
__________________
Who? What? When? Why? Yeah? And? So? What?

"My mission drive is to open up my eyes, 'cause the wicked lies and all the sh!te you say..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4NW5S1UTPQ

"Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition."
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #182  
Old 13th January 2012, 11:47 AM
CraigT CraigT is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 590
Join Date: Oct 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 57
Thanked 73 Times in 55 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
SA: I heard barefoot running is good.
B: Barefoot running is bad.
A: Yeah? Where's the evidence?
B: Barefoot running is bad, I'm a professional.
I must have missed where someone here said barefoot running is bad... Can you show me?

What I have seen is health professionals who have a responsibility to more than just themselves pointing out that barefoot running is not a panacea for all running injuries- there is no scientific evidence that it is.
So... What is more responsible- suggesting that barefoot running is the solution to all running ills... And if you get injured trying it that the only reason is that you did too much too soon,
OR,
barefoot running is something that MAY be useful as a component of training, but must be carefully considered as it may not be for EVERYONE...
__________________
Craig Tanner
Podiatrist
ASPETAR-
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
Doha
QATAR

http://www.aspetar.com/
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 13th January 2012, 01:36 PM
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDP View Post
We should. And I, for one, am grateful that podiatrists do. In Western medical literature the mechanism of peer review is very important and it is good to see that it is being taken seriously. Twisting facts is very dangerous and somehow scientists from both sides are susceptible to it, therefore peer review is a good thing.

However what you now get is this:

A: I heard barefoot running is good.
B: Barefoot running is bad.
A: Yeah? Where's the evidence?
B: Barefoot running is bad, I'm a professional.

The aura of being a professional means squat. You still have to prove that you're right. And that's where there is no debate possible with a lot of people on this site. Unfortunately.

I encourage you to read the 1000+ post thread originally on the barefoot debate. If you read that discussion without preconceived notions you will see your imaginary ABAB conversation above is not accurate. By the time this thread started, I think alot of people were sick of the having to make the same arguments over and over to the zealots.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to stickleyc For This Useful Post:
Craig Payne (13th January 2012)
  #184  
Old 13th January 2012, 03:09 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: 4,928
Join Date: Aug 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 95
Thanked 852 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDP View Post
However what you now get is this:

A: I heard barefoot running is good.
B: Barefoot running is bad.
A: Yeah? Where's the evidence?
B: Barefoot running is bad, I'm a professional.

The aura of being a professional means squat. You still have to prove that you're right. And that's where there is no debate possible with a lot of people on this site. Unfortunately.
What debate?
Your whole premise is wrong:
"B: Barefoot running is bad." ... where is anyone saying that? That was the whole point of my first post in starting the thread!! (I just back from a run in my NB Minimus's; tomorrow's run will be the my maximalist Hoka One One's!).

I only debating the rhetoric and propaganda; no one is claiming that people should not be running barefoot. Just look at the nonsense that is being espoused on some barefoot blogs about the recent study: Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners. How can you debate with people like that? That just opening themselves to ridicule and making fools of themselves.

It suits the church of barefoot running to have have an enemy (ie shoes and podiatry). As I discussed in another thread, I recently asked at a seminar of 150 podiatrists who was opposed to barefoot running ... there was none, so you have to question why the Church make that claim. Where are they getting there information from? I can only conclude that they are making it up as it suits them.

I read this yesterday on Steve Magness blog. He was talking about the crossfit debate - nothing to do with this topic, but the observation is astute:
Quote:
Crossfit exploits a couple different natural reactions people have to get people on their bandwagon. First, they create a straw man “us vs. them” mentality. We’ll go over this straw man tactic a bit later, but they try and cultivate this idea that just because it’s different and new means its got to be better. They throw in some pseudoscience or misinterpretation of science and they’ve bolstered their selling point.
...and the pattern repeats itself.
__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie | Latest Blog Post: Review of Lieberman et alís (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
  #185  
Old 14th January 2012, 03:39 AM
AlexDP AlexDP is offline
Member
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 20
Join Date: Jan 2012
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne View Post
What debate?
Your whole premise is wrong:
"B: Barefoot running is bad." ... where is anyone saying that? That was the whole point of my first post in starting the thread!! (I just back from a run in my NB Minimus's; tomorrow's run will be the my maximalist Hoka One One's!).

I only debating the rhetoric and propaganda; no one is claiming that people should not be running barefoot. Just look at the nonsense that is being espoused on some barefoot blogs about the recent study: Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners. How can you debate with people like that? That just opening themselves to ridicule and making fools of themselves.

It suits the church of barefoot running to have have an enemy (ie shoes and podiatry). As I discussed in another thread, I recently asked at a seminar of 150 podiatrists who was opposed to barefoot running ... there was none, so you have to question why the Church make that claim. Where are they getting there information from? I can only conclude that they are making it up as it suits them.

I read this yesterday on Steve Magness blog. He was talking about the crossfit debate - nothing to do with this topic, but the observation is astute:...and the pattern repeats itself.
Well, I can agree with what you write here. Barefoot runners do have the tendency to make it an us versus them debate. One has to wonder though why they would do that. Pretty much the only logical explanation would be that either: a) they really aren't getting injured anymore the way they used to or b) they're just having a lot of fun barefoot running.

Personally I think it's about b). Barefoot running is fun. In the summer I do it all the time to strengthen my ankles (I play soccer). I don't run 50 miles barefoot though and I don't intend to either.

The barefoot church as you call it is part of something bigger though. It seems as if we're confronted with a "back to our roots" movement. You see paleo/primal diets, people lifting heavy weights, running barefoot.. all in an attempt to be what we once were. It's a form of revolt against the obese, sedentary society we have become. That is why it has become a question of sentiment. I'd argue that in the eyes of barefoot runners, podiatrists would probably represent part of that lazy, weak and obese society numbed by television and fast food.

What surprises me is not the attitude of these barefoot runners, who after all have not had an education about foot mechanics, but rather the attitude of podiatrists who instead of providing evidence resort to mocking and ridicule. Is it understandable after being so violently attacked? Definitely. Yet one does wonder why there's no evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 14th January 2012, 12:07 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: 4,928
Join Date: Aug 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 95
Thanked 852 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDP View Post
Yet one does wonder why there's no evidence.
Thats my only issue. How often do you read the claims about all the scientific evidence that is supposed to support barefoot running? In the earlier big barefoot running thread (>1000 posts), many barefoot runners posted that kind of statement, yet when challenged they never came back to produce the evidence or if they did come back, none of the evidence the produced actually supported what they were saying. (look at the discussion in the thread on Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: a retrospective study and the claims about the "evidence" being made)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDP View Post
Pretty much the only logical explanation would be that either: a) they really aren't getting injured anymore the way they used to or b) they're just having a lot of fun barefoot running.

Personally I think it's about b). Barefoot running is fun.
I have no problem with (b).

As for (a), there is no doubt a lot of runners with an injury history are now running injury free barefoot/minimalist. There is also no doubt that there are a lot of runners who are getting an injury barefoot:
- just ask anyone who treats a lot of running injuries about how many barefoot/minimalist runners they treat - its way higher as a proportion than the number that are running barefoot/minimalist
- just check all the barefoot forums at all the runners who are asking advice on for there running injury (yet those same websites claim barefoot running is a way to get rid of the injuries!

Some of that "medical" advice given to them on those forums is appalling! I am now aware of two posterior tibial tendon dysfunctions who have gone on to need osseous reconstruction in the rearfoot and they will never run again because of the advice given on barefoot forums - they were advised strongly to run thru it etc etc (my advice for a post tib dysfunction in runners is to give up running for 6 months - its that serious!). I caught a comment recently from a colleague who talked about several met stress fractures in barefoot runners that went on to complete breaks that needed surgical plating! - never seen that in a shod runner. (see The Barefoot Running Injury Epidemic)

Barefoot/minimalist running is NOT a panacea for overuse injuries. I use the term "Church" to indicate that those "Evangelists" are trying to convert people to the "religion" as it is a panacea! Why do they find it necessary to ram it down peoples throats?

For the sake of boring people, I will repeat this:
Rearfoot striking --> greater rearfoot impact
Forefoot striking --> greater rearfoot inversion moments; greater forefoot dorsiflexion moments; greater ankle dorsiflexion moments; maybe less knee adduction moments

All all depends on what your injury history is or what tissues need to off-load as to which one you should be doing. If there is an injury history related to any of the joint moments that are greater in forefoot striking, then get back on the rearfoot (eg post tib dysfunction is due to increased rearfoot inversion moments....might explain what I mentioned above!) etc etc.
__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie | Latest Blog Post: Review of Lieberman et alís (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
  #187  
Old 15th January 2012, 09:35 AM
AlexDP AlexDP is offline
Member
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 20
Join Date: Jan 2012
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne View Post
Thats my only issue. How often do you read the claims about all the scientific evidence that is supposed to support barefoot running? In the earlier big barefoot running thread (>1000 posts), many barefoot runners posted that kind of statement, yet when challenged they never came back to produce the evidence or if they did come back, none of the evidence the produced actually supported what they were saying. (look at the discussion in the thread on Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: a retrospective study and the claims about the "evidence" being made)I have no problem with (b).
I agree that I don't see any evidence in favour of barefoot running. I see a lot of people saying that it worked for them - as an individual. There simply aren't good studies about it. What I find strange and slightly amusing however is that it's the barefoot runners who should provide the evidence according to many podiatrists. That does not make sense at all.

Like it or not, we were born without shoes. Therefore the default position is barefoot. It is what it is. Let's accept that. Then you have companies making shoes to protect your feet. I think we can also all agree that they do protect your feet from sharp object. No problem there. However now we have companies saying they make running shoes which protect your knees, ankles, hips etcetera.. We also have podiatrists making orthotics, without ever having made sure these things actually work. I say the burden of evidence is on these companies and on the people making these orthotics.

Thing is: this changes when you have a company that makes "barefoot running" shoes. They also claim this shoe prevents injuries. Therefore they also have to come up with evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne View Post

As for (a), there is no doubt a lot of runners with an injury history are now running injury free barefoot/minimalist. There is also no doubt that there are a lot of runners who are getting an injury barefoot:
- just ask anyone who treats a lot of running injuries about how many barefoot/minimalist runners they treat - its way higher as a proportion than the number that are running barefoot/minimalist
- just check all the barefoot forums at all the runners who are asking advice on for there running injury (yet those same websites claim barefoot running is a way to get rid of the injuries!

Some of that "medical" advice given to them on those forums is appalling! I am now aware of two posterior tibial tendon dysfunctions who have gone on to need osseous reconstruction in the rearfoot and they will never run again because of the advice given on barefoot forums - they were advised strongly to run thru it etc etc (my advice for a post tib dysfunction in runners is to give up running for 6 months - its that serious!). I caught a comment recently from a colleague who talked about several met stress fractures in barefoot runners that went on to complete breaks that needed surgical plating! - never seen that in a shod runner. (see The Barefoot Running Injury Epidemic)

Barefoot/minimalist running is NOT a panacea for overuse injuries. I use the term "Church" to indicate that those "Evangelists" are trying to convert people to the "religion" as it is a panacea! Why do they find it necessary to ram it down peoples throats?

For the sake of boring people, I will repeat this:
Rearfoot striking --> greater rearfoot impact
Forefoot striking --> greater rearfoot inversion moments; greater forefoot dorsiflexion moments; greater ankle dorsiflexion moments; maybe less knee adduction moments

All all depends on what your injury history is or what tissues need to off-load as to which one you should be doing. If there is an injury history related to any of the joint moments that are greater in forefoot striking, then get back on the rearfoot (eg post tib dysfunction is due to increased rearfoot inversion moments....might explain what I mentioned above!) etc etc.
I can agree with that, but hell, people only want a quick answer .
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 15th January 2012, 11:53 AM
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: 4,928
Join Date: Aug 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 95
Thanked 852 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Revisiting this:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDP View Post
I see so called professionals mocking people from their ivory towers, failing to provide any evidence whatsoever.
I only mock those who deserve it. Can you explain why so many barefoot runners lie about research for? Should we not hold them accountable for that?
Have a look at posts#24 & 25 in this thread: Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: a retrospective study. How can anyone with any resemblance of a brain came remotely close to defending what VIVOBAREFOOT are saying?

This just confirms what I said in the first post of this thread:
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.
Rather than getting better, its getting worse. Worse still is that the gullible are still falling for what they are saying.
__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie | Latest Blog Post: Review of Lieberman et alís (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
  #189  
Old 15th January 2012, 12:04 PM
AlexDP AlexDP is offline
Member
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 20
Join Date: Jan 2012
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne View Post
Revisiting this:Have a look at posts#24 & 25 in this thread: Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: a retrospective study. How can anyone with any resemblance of a brain came remotely close to defending what VIVOBAREFOOT are saying?

This just confirms what I said in the first post of this thread:Rather than getting better, its getting worse. Worse still is that the gullible are still falling for what they are saying.
I have got to admit that IS a spectacularly poor interpretation of that study. Makes no sense whatsoever. And besides, there are quite a few problems with that study anyway. Thing is though.. Vivo Barefoot are a shoe company. They say they make a shoe that will let you run injury free. In this case Vivo Barefoot will have to prove that claim. In reality there's no difference whatsoever between Nike or Vivo Barefoot, because they both claime to make shoes that reduce injuries.

All I am saying on the other hand is that it's weird that a lot of podiatrists on this forum place the burden of evidence on the barefoot runners. This isn't logical. If you design an orthotic and you give it to someone so he doesn't get injured, you should be able to back this up with evidence. Yet you're not. That is extremely odd, don't you think?
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 15th January 2012, 01:20 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: 4,928
Join Date: Aug 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 95
Thanked 852 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDP View Post
I In reality there's no difference whatsoever between Nike or Vivo Barefoot, because they both claime to make shoes that reduce injuries.
Are Nike claiming that?
Quote:
All I am saying on the other hand is that it's weird that a lot of podiatrists on this forum place the burden of evidence on the barefoot runners. This isn't logical. If you design an orthotic and you give it to someone so he doesn't get injured, you should be able to back this up with evidence. Yet you're not. That is extremely odd, don't you think?
Nope. There are now over 50 patient satisfaction, clinical outcome studies, retrospective, prospective, randomized controlled trials on foot orthotics. Every single one of them has shown foot orthotics work. Not one of them has shown they don't. Most of them were not even done by Podiatrists! Where are you getting your information from that: "you should be able to back this up with evidence. Yet you're not". The evidence is unequivocal!
__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie | Latest Blog Post: Review of Lieberman et alís (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
  #191  
Old 16th January 2012, 01:00 AM
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: 4,928
Join Date: Aug 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 95
Thanked 852 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDP View Post
I In reality there's no difference whatsoever between Nike or Vivo Barefoot, because they both claime to make shoes that reduce injuries.
Are Nike claiming that?
As a follow up, I was intrigued what Nike were actually claiming, so I searched their website and found no claims from Nike that they make shoes to reduce injury. I could not find the claim on the Asics or Adidas website either (there may be, but I could not find it; or they made the claims elsewhere). I was surprised.

ADDED: I just went through the adverts in the Feb 2012 Runners World (Australian edition) and there were surprisingly NO claims made by the running shoes adverts about injury except one. ...... and that was from a minimalist shoe company!! ... don't figure!
__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie | Latest Blog Post: Review of Lieberman et alís (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
  #192  
Old 16th January 2012, 01:31 AM
CraigT CraigT is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 590
Join Date: Oct 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 57
Thanked 73 Times in 55 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
As I follow up, I was intrigued what Nike were actually claiming, so I searched their website and found no claims from Nike that they make shoes to reduce injury. I could not find the claim on the Asics or Adidas website either (there may be, but I could not find it; or they made the claims elsewhere). I was surprised.

ADDED: I just went through the adverts in the Feb 2012 Runners World (Australian edition) and there were surprisingly NO claims made by the running shoes adverts about injury except one. ...... and that was from a minimalist shoe company!! ... don't figure!
IF they could conclusively prove they could reduce injury they would be all over it in marketing. But would probably also leave themselves open to legal action (toning shoes????).

Make no mistake though- they are trying and testing designs with the aim of decreasing injuries... not all the money goes to marketing.
__________________
Craig Tanner
Podiatrist
ASPETAR-
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
Doha
QATAR

http://www.aspetar.com/
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 16th January 2012, 01:35 AM
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: 4,928
Join Date: Aug 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 95
Thanked 852 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigT View Post
IF they could conclusively prove they could reduce injury they would be all over it in marketing. But would probably also leave themselves open to legal action (toning shoes????)..
So are all the minimalist running shoes opening themselves up to litigation based on the claims that they are making?

(Here is the thread on toning shoes litigation: Reebok faces lawsuit over toning shoe from unsatisfied customer)
__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie | Latest Blog Post: Review of Lieberman et alís (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
  #194  
Old 16th January 2012, 01:53 AM
mike weber's Avatar
mike weber mike weber is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: stockholm sweden
Posts: 3,829
Join Date: Apr 2009
Marketplace reputation 50% (0)
Thanks: 179
Thanked 588 Times in 423 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne View Post
So are all the minimalist running shoes opening themselves up to litigation based on the claims that they are making?

(Here is the thread on toning shoes litigation: Reebok faces lawsuit over toning shoe from unsatisfied customer)
Yep if the claims can be proven to be wrong.

Same as everything.
__________________
Mike Weber.



KINGSWOOD - Sucker Punch
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 16th January 2012, 02:29 AM
AlexDP AlexDP is offline
Member
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 20
Join Date: Jan 2012
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne View Post
Nope. There are now over 50 patient satisfaction, clinical outcome studies, retrospective, prospective, randomized controlled trials on foot orthotics. Every single one of them has shown foot orthotics work. Not one of them has shown they don't. Most of them were not even done by Podiatrists! Where are you getting your information from that: "you should be able to back this up with evidence. Yet you're not". The evidence is unequivocal!
That's not exactly unequivocal evidence. It shows that it works for some patients to some degree. I think we both agree on the fact that barefoot running also works for some patients to some degree. I have used orthotics in the past and they did reduce my injuries. However I now also incorporate barefoot running without orthotics and my injuries are gone. Both seemed to have a positive effect on me.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 16th January 2012, 02:31 AM
AlexDP AlexDP is offline
Member
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 20
Join Date: Jan 2012
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne View Post
As a follow up, I was intrigued what Nike were actually claiming, so I searched their website and found no claims from Nike that they make shoes to reduce injury. I could not find the claim on the Asics or Adidas website either (there may be, but I could not find it; or they made the claims elsewhere). I was surprised.

ADDED: I just went through the adverts in the Feb 2012 Runners World (Australian edition) and there were surprisingly NO claims made by the running shoes adverts about injury except one. ...... and that was from a minimalist shoe company!! ... don't figure!
1. The fact Nike don't explicitly claim it tells you something - they are very hesitant to say it works.
2. Nike do claim it, only they do it implicitly.
3. So? Same rules apply to the minimalist shoe company.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AlexDP For This Useful Post:
Horseman42 (16th January 2012)
  #197  
Old 16th January 2012, 03:21 AM
Horseman42 Horseman42 is offline
Banned
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 20
Join Date: Jan 2012
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Like it or not, we were born without shoes. Therefore the default position is barefoot. It is what it is. Let's accept that.
I agree. Glad to see I'm not the only stating that the default is barefoot.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 16th January 2012, 03:37 AM
CraigT CraigT is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 590
Join Date: Oct 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 57
Thanked 73 Times in 55 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Like it or not, we were born without shoes. Therefore the default position is barefoot. It is what it is. Let's accept that.
I agree. Glad to see I'm not the only stating that the default is barefoot.
Yes. Very good. You are both equally ridiculous.
__________________
Craig Tanner
Podiatrist
ASPETAR-
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
Doha
QATAR

http://www.aspetar.com/
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CraigT For This Useful Post:
Tuckersm (16th January 2012)
  #199  
Old 16th January 2012, 03:45 AM
Horseman42 Horseman42 is offline
Banned
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 20
Join Date: Jan 2012
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Yes. Very good. You are both equally ridiculous.
More adhominem attacks, I see. How is this professional??
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 16th January 2012, 04:19 AM
CraigT CraigT is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 590
Join Date: Oct 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 57
Thanked 73 Times in 55 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
More adhominem attacks, I see. How is this professional??
There are some reasonable arguments for the benefits of barefoot running (for some).
The fact that we are born barefoot is not one of them.
You have found someone else who agrees with you- yes another person who, like you, does not manage foot and gait problems for a living.
You are a nurse- correct? Do you prescribe anti-biotics?
__________________
Craig Tanner
Podiatrist
ASPETAR-
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
Doha
QATAR

http://www.aspetar.com/
Reply With Quote
  #201  
Old 16th January 2012, 04:43 AM
AlexDP AlexDP is offline
Member
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 20
Join Date: Jan 2012
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigT View Post
There are some reasonable arguments for the benefits of barefoot running (for some).
The fact that we are born barefoot is not one of them.
You have found someone else who agrees with you- yes another person who, like you, does not manage foot and gait problems for a living.
You are a nurse- correct? Do you prescribe anti-biotics?
I never said I agreed with Horseman.

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

If you had read my posts before you came to such a conclusion, you'd have noticed that I never claimed that barefoot running is either better or worse. Fact is: we don't know. I'd appreciate it if you'd read my posts before calling me ridiculous, because quite obviously you have no clue about what I have said.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 16th January 2012, 04:52 AM
AlexDP AlexDP is offline
Member
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 20
Join Date: Jan 2012
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Spooner View Post
"Podiatry Arena is a forum for discussion by podiatrists and other foot health professionals about all aspects of podiatry." Why should I debate anything with a lawyer here? Or someone who makes the coffee at IBM? Or anyone who isn't a foot health professional? That is what you are missing, Alex. Some podiatrists here are well and truly fed up with people such as yourself writing on here. Nothing personal. End of story. Goodbye.
That you could be liable would be one reason to.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 16th January 2012, 04:54 AM
Horseman42 Horseman42 is offline
Banned
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 20
Join Date: Jan 2012
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

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

If you had read my posts before you came to such a conclusion, you'd have noticed that I never claimed that barefoot running is either better or worse. Fact is: we don't know. I'd appreciate it if you'd read my posts before calling me ridiculous, because quite obviously you have no clue about what I have said.
This is my position as well. It's what I was saying earlier, and is now what I'm being ridiculed on.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 16th January 2012, 04:58 AM
Horseman42 Horseman42 is offline
Banned
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 20
Join Date: Jan 2012
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

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

What evidence, or tests do we have for the running shoes, were they ever tested to the default position??
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 16th January 2012, 10:50 AM
CraigT CraigT is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 590
Join Date: Oct 2005
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 57
Thanked 73 Times in 55 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
I never said I agreed with Horseman.
Actually I said that he agreed with you- and he has now said it again...

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

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

Quote:
Medication that has been tested and re-tested several times over. We have a CPS manual listing all the drugs and tests that were done to support the efficacy of all medication. All tested against the default position that being not taking the drug or anti-biotic .
So this medication can be used by everyone at any time?
So there are never side effects? Everyone responds the same way?
The point is that there are reasons for such controls.
Do you really think that running shoes need such controls?

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

And another thing- I will let you into a little secret- if you don't swallow all the marketing that running shoe companies spew forth, then you will be on the same page as most Podiatrists... we do actually sift through the bullsh!t to be able to provide good recommendations to our patients. That includes conventional running shoes as well as barefoot ones...
__________________
Craig Tanner
Podiatrist
ASPETAR-
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
Doha
QATAR

http://www.aspetar.com/
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 16th January 2012, 11:13 AM
David Wedemeyer's Avatar
David Wedemeyer David Wedemeyer is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Posts: 858
Join Date: Mar 2008
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 409
Thanked 155 Times in 106 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Spooner View Post
"Podiatry Arena is a forum for discussion by podiatrists and other foot health professionals about all aspects of podiatry." Why should I debate anything with a lawyer here? Or someone who makes the coffee at IBM? Or anyone who isn't a foot health professional? That is what you are missing, Alex. Some podiatrists here are well and truly fed up with people such as yourself writing on here. Nothing personal. End of story. Goodbye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDP View Post
That you could be liable would be one reason to.
Alex could you please clarify this statement, it comes off as a veiled threat?
__________________
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright

David G. Wedemeyer, D.C., C.Ped.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 16th January 2012, 11:15 AM
blinda's Avatar
blinda blinda is offline
Podiatry Arena Veteran
 
About:
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,184
Join Date: Feb 2008
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 799
Thanked 903 Times in 523 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Wedemeyer View Post
Alex could you please clarify this statement, it comes off as a veiled threat?
I also read it as such. What exactly is your motive for joining this forum, Alex?
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 16th January 2012, 11:17 AM
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: 4,928
Join Date: Aug 2004
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 95
Thanked 852 Times in 587 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDP View Post
That's not exactly unequivocal evidence. .
What is not unequivocal about it? Every single study done worked show they work. Its that simple. You will not get stronger evidence for anything else!

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

Have you even actually read any of the >50 studies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDP View Post
1. The fact Nike don't explicitly claim it tells you something - they are very hesitant to say it works.
2. Nike do claim it, only they do it implicitly.
3. So? Same rules apply to the minimalist shoe company.
So its unacceptable for Nike to implicitly claim it and its acceptable for a minimalist company to explicitly claim it?
__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie | Latest Blog Post: Review of Lieberman et alís (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
  #209  
Old 16th January 2012, 12:13 PM
AlexDP AlexDP is offline
Member
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 20
Join Date: Jan 2012
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne View Post
What is not unequivocal about it? Every single study done worked show they work. Its that simple. You will not get stronger evidence for anything else!

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

Have you even actually read any of the >50 studies?

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

As for those studies... Let's look at some other things. I am sure that everyone on this forum knows that strong glutes and hamstrings prevent anterior knee pain and are also a major factor in preventing ACL tears. Every somewhat respectable strength and conditioning coach out there (I'm thinking Eric Cressey, Kelly Bagget) knows that strong glutes encourage forefoot running. This change in gait is very obvious when you have someone do a specific glute exercise: you will notice that the person will walk on the ball of his foot immediately afterwards. The connection between the forefoot and the glutes is there. Now if you sprint barefoot, you will land on the ball of your foot. This will strengthen your glutes. Therefore barefoot sprinting does play a role in making people better athletes. The connection between ankle sprains and a weak gluteus medius has also been proven. My point in all this is: barefoot running, or at least barefoot sprinting, is pretty much something every strength coach has been using to improve athletes and make them less injury prone AND there is proof it works.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 16th January 2012, 12:17 PM
AlexDP AlexDP is offline
Member
 
About:
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 20
Join Date: Jan 2012
Marketplace reputation 0% (0)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Re: There is no barefoot running debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Wedemeyer View Post
Alex could you please clarify this statement, it comes off as a veiled threat?
I was merely saying why my opinion could be relevant. It is nowhere near a veiled threat. I currently do not have any foot or ankle injuries, I am completely healthy and I combine barefoot running with shod running and soccer.

As for my motives for joining this forum: I am very interested in how the human body works and I do a lot to expand my medical knowledge. I realise that I am not a professional (one can only have so many degrees) and therefore I was very interested in reading professional opinions about barefoot running, which has helped my ankle and knee a great deal. I am not a barefoot fanatic however and I think there is a time and place for it, but it is not for everyone all the time.
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 08:13 PM
Barefoot Running Debate Kevin Kirby Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses 1134 12th July 2011 11:10 AM
Barefoot running jerseynurse Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses 31 21st December 2009 03:29 PM
Running barefoot vs running with shoes sezuni Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses 32 6th October 2005 02:26 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 09:28 PM.