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.
A recent article in Podiatry Today magazine was just published online by a "medical advisor" for Vibram USA. Any one care to add to the comments in this article?
**************************************************
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
A recent article in Podiatry Today magazine was just published online by a "medical advisor" for Vibram USA. Any one care to add to the comments in this article?
I'm reading these papers and articles at present and from these data it would appear there's not a lot of difference between peak forces forefoot to rearfoot and although many other articles talk about lower forces when barefoot and forefoot striking some data appears to show higher peak forces. Some like to emphasize rate of loading at initial strike and this tends to be greater in rearfoot strike but not by a lot. There's a lot about force peaks and rate of loading but not so much about how those forces act about joints of interest with regard to moments. Considering the point of application of forces it seems likely that moments about joints would be higher with forefoot striking even if the peak forces were lower, which they are not. I particularly like the study that looked at over 300 elite runners, actually running, and hi speed videoed them to reveal how they strike. Only 1% were forefoot strikers and they were not anywhere near the winning times.
I have an open mind because I used to barefoot run when I was doing a lot of karate but I think the running style changes mostly to assist in avoiding injury by sharp object such as stones and cobbles and gravel because it gives you a little extra time to feel the ground before committing to full and sudden loading, if you feel something sharp you can quickly skip to the opposite foot.
Regards Dave
__________________
Descartes seems to consider here that beliefs formed by pure reasoning are less doubtful than those formed through perception.
The Following User Says Thank You to David Smith For This Useful Post:
Sorry, off thread I know...but I`m surprised that Hicks wasn`t a contender for quote of the year, considering the frequency of this genius` quotes on the forum.
Sorry, off thread I know...but I`m surprised that Hicks wasn`t a contender for quote of the year, considering the frequency of this genius` quotes on the forum.
A recent article in Podiatry Today magazine was just published online by a "medical advisor" for Vibram USA. Any one care to add to the comments in this article?
Kevin.. I spend an inordinate amount of time last year looking at, discussing and debating the issue of barefoot and minimalist running with a variaty of people. The highlight was in Austin Texas in December where I debated Blaise DuBois who presented material of such an unbelievably questionable nature I was forced to publically unleash my patented Bulls#it detector upon him, an experience he apparently did not enjoy. At least he had the grace to admit he was roundly thrashed in the debate. It could well have been he who wrote this article for Podiatry Today ( he believes everyone should run minimalist, especially if you are grossly overweight, a child or a beginner).
So at the end of all this, I came to the conclusion it is a waste of time for anyone with any sort of balanced, scientific approach to running, biomechanics, injury, physiology.. etc to engage with these people in any sort of discussion.. period. You will just be vwasting hours of your valuable life with no reward iof any kind.
These peoeple are simply not interesdted in the relevant questions, but just pushing their own barrow, for whatever it is they are selling.. and trust me.. they are ALL selling something.
So my New Year's resolution, which I should have applied half way throughh 2011, is to let go.. let 'em bang on about whatever the heck they want, coz at the end of the day, they know they are after all, just salesmen.
Kevin.. I spend an inordinate amount of time last year looking at, discussing and debating the issue of barefoot and minimalist running with a variaty of people. The highlight was in Austin Texas in December where I debated Blaise DuBois who presented material of such an unbelievably questionable nature I was forced to publically unleash my patented Bulls#it detector upon him, an experience he apparently did not enjoy. At least he had the grace to admit he was roundly thrashed in the debate. It could well have been he who wrote this article for Podiatry Today ( he believes everyone should run minimalist, especially if you are grossly overweight, a child or a beginner).
So at the end of all this, I came to the conclusion it is a waste of time for anyone with any sort of balanced, scientific approach to running, biomechanics, injury, physiology.. etc to engage with these people in any sort of discussion.. period. You will just be vwasting hours of your valuable life with no reward iof any kind.
These peoeple are simply not interesdted in the relevant questions, but just pushing their own barrow, for whatever it is they are selling.. and trust me.. they are ALL selling something.
So my New Year's resolution, which I should have applied half way throughh 2011, is to let go.. let 'em bang on about whatever the heck they want, coz at the end of the day, they know they are after all, just salesmen.
Simon:
Thanks for the advice.
The problem is that I actually enjoy making the barefoot/minimalist runners squirm by engaging them in debate. This process forces me to be better aware of the research on this subject and, since I did the Runner's World Magazine interview nearly two years ago on barefoot vs shod running with Barefoot Ken Bob Saxton, my decades long interest in running biomechanics has truly been renewed.
Very few of these people that I debate realize that I read nearly every piece of research on running biomechanics back and devoured all of Benno Nigg's and Peter Cavanagh's books and papers during my biomechanics fellowship in 1984-85 and during my early years of practice. In addition, I have been giving lectures on running biomechanics for the past quarter century to podiatry students and podiatrists both nationally and internationally.
So for someone like me, a competetive distance runner turned sports podiatrist, with a very keen interest and training in the physiology and biomechanics of running, this barefoot vs shod running stuff is like all icing on the cake for me. It is one of the intellectual battles that I feel I am very well suited for and that I really don't mind participating in as a sidenote to my otherwise busy private practice and other academic committments.
Looking forward to seeing you again in Manchester in June.
BTW, how was the honeymoon?
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
I debated Blaise DuBois who presented material of such an unbelievably questionable nature I was forced to publically unleash my patented Bulls#it detector upon him, an experience he apparently did not enjoy. At least he had the grace to admit he was roundly thrashed in the debate. It could well have been he who wrote this article for Podiatry Today ( he believes everyone should run minimalist, especially if you are grossly overweight, a child or a beginner).
Dear Simon,
Don't think I didn't enjoy the debate. Your bul**** detector was funny... but biased, unscientific (Best example of cherry picking) and just good to convince an unscientific audience. If people of podiatry Arena want see your weak argumentation and your lack of criticism on science they can read our exchange at the Austin debate on the blog of The Running Clinic. http://www.therunningclinic.ca/blog/...e-on-footwear/
Will be in Australia soon... another debate?
Blaise
P.S. if you have time, you didn't answer some important questions:
1. If someone starts a running program, which kind of shoe would you recommend to this person?
2. What type do you recommend to children and teenagers who run?
3. Do you really think the anti-pronation technologies control pronation?
4. Do the shoes sold by ASICS prevent from injuries?
5. Do you consider that your references quoted in Austin were valid to justify the prescription of « big bulky shoes » (>95% and more of ASICS’s market) ?
Dear Simon,
Don't think I didn't enjoy the debate. Your bul**** detector was funny... but biased, unscientific (Best example of cherry picking) and just good to convince an unscientific audience. If people of podiatry Arena want see your weak argumentation and your lack of criticism on science they can read our exchange at the Austin debate on the blog of The Running Clinic. http://www.therunningclinic.ca/blog/...e-on-footwear/
Will be in Australia soon... another debate?
Blaise
P.S. if you have time, you didn't answer some important questions:
1. If someone starts a running program, which kind of shoe would you recommend to this person?
2. What type do you recommend to children and teenagers who run?
3. Do you really think the anti-pronation technologies control pronation?
4. Do the shoes sold by ASICS prevent from injuries?
5. Do you consider that your references quoted in Austin were valid to justify the prescription of « big bulky shoes » (>95% and more of ASICS’s market) ?
Blaise:
It would be much more fun to debate these topics if we had some better research to hang our hats on. As for now, this barefoot/minimalist shoe thing simply has not made a big dent in the running shoe sales here in Sacramento (which has a huge running community) or in California in general, but certainly "minimalist shoes" are more common than they used to be. I'm all for runners self-selecting which shoe works best for them and if a runner chooses a "minimalist shoe" and isn't having problems with this minimliast shoe then I don't have any problems with that.
However, this continuous use of terms such as "big, bulky shoes" by you, being obviously used by you as a negative term, is truly unscientific since we all know that there are tradeoffs with all types of shoe designs. In addition, your creation of the term "proprioceptive heel strikers", a term which you cannot define adequately, again weakens your case because it demonstrates that you are now trying to create a term that allows you to backtrack and qualify that maybe some of the 90% of heel strikers may actually be running "correctly" by "proprioceptively heel striking", whereas early on in the debate, the minimalist-barefoot advocates basically preached that if you were heel-striking that you were running incorrectly.
I do, however, agree with you on the fact that the running shoe companies have been making their shoes more complex, more expensive and not much more effective at preventing injurues over the past decade. Gimmics have been added to running shoes for the past 25 years that were advertised as being helpful when, in fact, they were useless modifications that seemed to simply allow the shoe company to claim that they had enhanced their running shoe. In fact, in most instances these useless modifications simply allowed the shoe companies to charge more money for the shoe with no benefit to the runner either in performance, comfort or injury prevention. In addition, some of these modifications led to more running injuries, not fewer injuries.
So, even though I am not in agreement with many of the minimalist shoe advocates and all of what they preach, I do think that having this larger variety of running shoes on the market may eventually force the shoe manufacturers to simplify their running shoes, make them lighter and hopefully also make them less expensive so that the runner may be able to find the most comfortable and lightweight shoe that allows them to run injury free on the surfaces they run on.
That being said, I currently am enjoying running in my Hoka One One Bondis and think that the "maximalist shoe" may be the next big thing within the running shoe industry.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
It would be much more fun to debate these topics if we had some better research to hang our hats on
Agree... for the moment we can analyze what we have... even if it's grey, there is a tendency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
I'm all for runners self-selecting which shoe works best for them
Agree... but consumers need to have the choice... and we need to offer the choice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
However, this continuous use of terms such as "big, bulky shoes" by you
I love those terms because it means 3 things
1. It's Shoes
2. there are too Big
3. there are Bulky
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
I do, however, agree with you on the fact that the running shoe companies have been making their shoes more complex, more expensive and not much more effective at preventing injurues over the past decade. Gimmics have been added to running shoes for the past 25 years that were advertised as being helpful when, in fact, they were useless modifications that seemed to simply allow the shoe company to claim that they had enhanced their running shoe. In fact, in most instances these useless modifications simply allowed the shoe companies to charge more money for the shoe with no benefit to the runner either in performance, comfort or injury prevention. In addition, some of these modifications led to more running injuries, not fewer injuries.
100% agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
I do think that having this larger variety of running shoes on the market may eventually force the shoe manufacturers to simplify their running shoes, make them lighter and hopefully also make them less expensive so that the runner may be able to find the most comfortable and lightweight shoe that allows them to run injury free on the surfaces they run on.
As for now, this barefoot/minimalist shoe thing simply has not made a big dent in the running shoe sales here in Sacramento (which has a huge running community) or in California in general, but certainly "minimalist shoes" are more common than they used to be.
I already showed you that data in another thread. I can't be bothered looking it up again for you.
__________________ Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
I already showed you that data in another thread. I can't be bothered looking it up again for you.
Craig, no you didn't. You told me you asked 3 friends what they thought about the sales of "motion control" shoes. That is not a market survey and nothing more than a guess.
My point is that in spite of you or Kevin speculating about the direction of the shoe industry, you really don't have any conclusive data about the direction of sales of the various categories of shoes.
Craig, no you didn't. You told me you asked 3 friends what they thought about the sales of "motion control" shoes. That is not a market survey and nothing more than a guess
Nope. They weren't "friends". They were contacts within running shoe companies who asked I not identify them and not reveal the actual figures. They had no reason to lie to me. It was not a guess, it was based on their sales figure. I also quoted you this industry source, discussed in this thread: Running shoe sales are up despite trend to minimalist running
Quote:
The latest statistics from sporting goods market research firm SportsOneSource show that sales for barefoot-friendly, minimalist running shoes are up more than 280 percent over the same period last year. Regular running shoes have also shown growth since last year
__________________ Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
[quote=Blaise Dubois;243068]Dear Simon,
Don't think I didn't enjoy the debate. Your bul**** detector was funny... but biased, unscientific (Best example of cherry picking) and just good to convince an unscientific audience.
Awww Blaise.. time to change the record mate.. it just is not cutting the mustard!
look.. this is what you have said.. in you lecture in Montreal in September 2011, and then repeated most of this during our debate in December. Anyone can choose, if they wish, although I would not advise it, to read this on your website..I quote verbatim
“The promotion and prescription of technology shoes is currently done by ignorance by health professionals”.. well, I know quite a few of those health professionals who contribute on this forum. None are ignorant, many I consider experts, in the true sense of the word, on athletic footwear. For you to call us all ignorant is rude and misinformed.
“ it is also done by shoe retailers by biased information obtained most of the time from big shoe companies”.. this is also very offensive to the many very dedicated and very well informed retail experts who are very capable of making their own minds up on information presented to them. Still I understand you are about to start charging people to learn about shgoe fitting techniques, so you must be an expert in this field as well.
You went on to say “it is done by shoe companies by financial interests”.. this is a bit rich coming from someone who charges 600 bucks to attend one of your workshops to hear you very biased viewpoints Blaise..time to step up to the plate and admit EVERYONE is selling something, not the least you..
You then went on to say “the technologies presented annually by running shoe companies have no solid scientific evidence”.. I then told you about
Research at the University of Melbourne* shows the ASICS Gel Melbourne OA shoe reduces knee load (KAM). This shoe has been specially designed with features including a variable density midsole to reduce knee load
(* Australian Research Council Linkage grant to K Bennell, T Wrigley and R Hinman at the Department of Physiotherapy with ASICS as the industry partner (LP0990671)
I also presented you with copies of the gender resrach I was directly involved with at Melbourne University which led DIRECTLY to technology first introduced into the ASICS Kayano 16.
From here you said “shock absorbing shoes do not lower the stress put on the skeleton, I talk here about knees hip and back” I pointed out that in as yet unpublished data, Clark and co workers 2011 found Vibram resulted in ground reaction force being much higher, around 4 times as much. This is indicative of a rapid increase in force – ie. high frequency force from a non-cushioned impact
(Clark et al 2011).
then you said "shock absorbing shoes do not lower the stress put on the skeleton,”
sorry mate, the compelling body of scientific evidence shows that 'big bulky shoes":
Alter accelerations
Reduce pressure
Change dangerous frequencies
Protect from the environment
Reduce torques and joint moments
Influence injury patterns
Your next gem was “the absorption and antipronation systems in shoes do not lower injury and do not improve comfort”
To this I pointed out that Kinchington et al 2011 found
A footwear programme consisting of athlete education, prescription of footwear, and frequent rotation of footwear resulted in a
lower incidence of injury [p<0.005] and higher comfort ratings [p<0.001] (Kinchington et al, Journal of Sports Science Nov 2011)
you decided this was no good as a reference because it looked at rugby players. I pointed out that it looked at training in rugby, during which the players ran in running shoes. I also pointed out the fact that i had taken the time to contact the author and he confirmed that the results would easily be extrapolated to running. I agree this is not evidence, but personal communication is valid. take how you like.
From this I cited "Effects of motion control footwear on running: A systematic review (Cheung et al, Journal of Sports Sciences, 2011)
“Results revealed that motion control footwear was effective in reducing the amount of foot pronation AND the peak vertical impact during running”. you somehow ,managed to get the results of this study exactly the wrong way around and told our audience that Cheung agreed with you. Read the paper again. That is not true.
You went on to say “if we take the shoes of people who have run with modern big shoes, 80% will change their biomechanics and run this way after only a few steps”.. that is simply not true Blaise.. that is your reality.
You then made a series of sweeping statements, where the response should be very brief. they were:
“traditional shoes change natural biomechanics”
Blaise.. what the hell is "natural biomechanics??
“it changes the muscle contraction sequences”
Of course it does, just as minimalist footwear and barefoot running does
“the modern shoe increases the vertical loading rate, which is associated with stress fractures”
This is categorically not true.. do not believe everything Lieberman tells you.. read the literature.
from here it got progressively worse.. you said “we also know that big shoes weaken foot tissues”
I will leave it to Podiatry Arena contributors to challenge this.. I can not be bothered it is such a false and rediculous statement.
Then this...."many studies on the subject and bring deformities like hallux valgus”
show one Blaise.. and read Perera, A.M., et al, J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2011; 93:16050-61 “footwear probably more important in progression than causation”
There is Not a single study anywhere in the scientific literature implicating athletic footwear in the development of Hallux valgus.. it may make an established condition worse, but it does not cause it.
You then said "I recommend minimalist to the beginner, to the overweight”
Bloody hell.. your physio business must be booming.. do you recommend it to people with diabetes also?
then this..."Are you a heel striker? The cause is the shoe”
Maybe that is where I will leave this... a comment like that does not require a response.
Anytime at all you would like to revisit the debate Blaise, I am more than up for it.
The Following User Says Thank You to toomoon For This Useful Post:
Anytime at all you would like to revisit the debate Blaise, I am more than up for it.
Hope that we will do it... in Australia
Your argumentation again is one of the best example of cherry picking I saw in my "debater" life... and again, it's more politics than science and clinic.
I answer to most of your quote on my blog http://www.therunningclinic.ca/blog/...e-on-footwear/ and will specifically comment more on your famous studies by the way of your video tape in Austin... I think it can be very educative.
At the opposite of some people on this arena, with who I'm not agree but with who I enjoy debating because their large knowledge (ex: Craig and Kevin), I start to think that your bias is bigger than I was thinking and your knowledge smaller.
By the way, again, you didn't answered to my questions... again... and again...
Your argumentation again is one of the best example of cherry picking I saw in my "debater" life... and again, it's more politics than science and clinic.
I answer to most of your quote on my blog http://www.therunningclinic.ca/blog/...e-on-footwear/ and will specifically comment more on your famous studies by the way of your video tape in Austin... I think it can be very educative.
At the opposite of some people on this arena, with who I'm not agree but with who I enjoy debating because their large knowledge (ex: Craig and Kevin), I start to think that your bias is bigger than I was thinking and your knowledge smaller.
By the way, again, you didn't answered to my questions... again... and again...
See you in March
Blaise
Perhaps Blaise instead of the comments you could provide a list of the papers which back up your side with some evidence.
Your blog is not really evidence
while English man not be your 1st language if you have evidence it would be easy to make a point then link to a paper.
Perhaps Blaise instead of the comments you could provide a list of the papers which back up your side with some evidence.
Your blog is not really evidence
while English man not be your 1st language if you have evidence it would be easy to make a point then link to a paper.
Hi Mike,
The blog of the running clinic is a place to debate... a lot of unscientific quote for many different debaters... and I feel great with that, it's make progressed ideas... like here on Podiatry Arena.
English is not my first language... sorry for the form, hope you understand me... the important is the content
In my lecture in Austin (with Simon) I presented and explained 250 articles (an unpublished systematic review on the running shoe topic). If you have a specific question, it will be a pleasure to give you references... And if you have the possibility, the 3 days course I'm teaching expose all those evidence.
If you have a specific question, it will be a pleasure to give you references...
Hi Blaise,
I just read this entry on your blog and have a few references I'd like if possible please:
1. The references that more minimalist shoes improve performance (assumed from your contention that runners should only wear PECH shoes if they are not interested in improving performance)
2. The reference that backs up your claim that less than 11% of the running population should wear PECH shoes, the rest should be in minimal shoes.
I just read this entry on your blog and have a few references I'd like if possible please:
1. The references that more minimalist shoes improve performance (assumed from your contention that runners should only wear PECH shoes if they are not interested in improving performance)
2. The reference that backs up your claim that less than 11% of the running population should wear PECH shoes, the rest should be in minimal shoes.
Thanks in advance
Ian
been waiting for the response that has not come Ian... not really surprising. just been listening to one of his podcasts wiith an Aussie physio.. amongst other things he says
treadmill running does not change biomechanics
video is not needed to assess running gait.. it can all be done by eye and a biomechanical assessment takes 10 minutes
barefoot technique is the gold standard
increased vertical loading rate, increased braking forces, increased vertical displacement and increased heel strike ALL come from shoes
shoes cause heel striking
80% of people running barefoot run midfoot and forefoot.. (a position directly challenged by 2 recent studies)
if you heel strike in shoes, the body is not able to protect from injury.. gosh I wonder what happened to passive and active shock attenuation mechanisms.. and leg stiffness.. and proprioception, which, contrary to popular opinion, still happens even in the shod state???
finally.. the best way to run safely is to run barefoot.. although he does acknowledge that this is not always practical..
I gave up about 15 minutes into the hour long podcast unfortunately..
Hi guys,
Just very busy
I will be answer to those questions soon,
But I suppose that Simon don't answer to my questions not because he is busy but because he have no answers!!!
Hope you will be part of the next debate in Australia Simon...
Soon your video from Austin...
Blaise
Sorry mate.. I was busy with other things..!
Hmmm.. the questions..... here are my answers
1. If someone starts a running program, which kind of shoe would you recommend to this person?
err... it totally depends on the person
2. What type do you recommend to children and teenagers who run?
ummm... it totally depends on the child or the teenager
3. Do you really think the anti-pronation technologies control pronation?
No.. not at all
4. Do the shoes sold by ASICS prevent from injuries?
Yes absolutely
5. Do you consider that your references quoted in Austin were valid to justify the prescription of « big bulky shoes » (>95% and more of ASICS’s market) ?
my oath i do.. read 'em again Blaise
so that was pretty easy..
I do not think I will be able to join you on your Oz tour unfortunately. I will be in North America.. I am lecturing in Montreal And Quebec.. your stomping ground I believe!
by the way... I wish you would get your facts straight.. my bulls*itometer just went into overdrive again..
5. Do you consider that your references quoted in Austin were valid to justify the prescription of « big bulky shoes » (>95% and more of ASICS’s market) ?
dunno where you get this stuff from, but the figures you quote are not even close to the mark.. actually I do know where you get it from and there is no sunshine there..
"Tackling the 10 Myths of Barefoot Running"
Linear Mode
