@Longboard: Again, if you
@Longboard:
Again, if you don't know, don't "assume". That's all I said, and it's not too much to ask.
@TJ:
"Jackie, seriously, of course, we advocate running form correction in or out of shoes, that's not the issue here."
I wasn't questioning your advocacy of this, not in any way. I was pointing out what this study tested -- it wasn't much more than a 'take your shoes off and try it'-type study. Why should I be angry that half the people, given only two weeks of merely suggested practice, didn't change their form? Nor is anyone claiming that this disproves ANYTHING bf running advocates have said for a long time. So why the vitriol?
"Barefoot! My ass!"
Wait, you're saying they weren't actually barefoot? You're saying the researchers flat-out lied?
"I take issue with this as well. Put them out there in the real world and measure the change there. Most people don't run on treadmills or short runways. They are artificial. Let's measure what is real."
Well, I disagree -- for a lot of people, treadmills are very real. Many people do most of their running on treadmills, even when it's 70 degrees and dry (whatever you or I may think of that). And "real" will vary widely depending on the individual runner.
But beyond that, the overall tenor of the reaction just makes me sad. Instead of replying with, 'Good little study, but I think the percentage of bf heel-strikers would be lower on a harder surface than what they probably used' (a statement that I would agree with, even if I'm not sure the % would be 0%), I find people just blasting the study because of the results, none of which is particularly surprising, even from our perspective. Personally, I just want honest studies, and this strikes me as an example.