http://www.runresearchjunkie.com/barefoot-running-current-state-of-the-play/
Hey y'all, we're part of the crankosphere *sigh*
Hey y'all, we're part of the crankosphere *sigh*
Craig Payne's a podiatrist, for him to accept barefoot running, he would have to admit almost everything he was taught and practices is wrong. Not likely. Jason has wrestled with Payne a bit on Payne's forum. The hostility he experienced there was frightening. A scary place on the rantosphere. Payne's favorite part of any debate seems to be banning his interlocutor. He really relishes that.http://www.runresearchjunkie.com/barefoot-running-current-state-of-the-play/
Hey y'all, we're part of the crankosphere *sigh*
It's hard to prove, if one doesn't study it. I'll bet that the podiatrists who are most critical have not even examined a single person who is habitually unshod. Here's a tribe. Go forth and study.Anyway, the way I read those study quotes was that barefoot running may very well make sense in evolutionary and biomechanic terms, it's just that it's hard to prove. I guess that depends on what one considers proof.
In order to do that, one would have to study the habitually unshod and shod and compare the biomechanics. Then develop a rehabilitative program to condition the foot to whatever is the ideal state, or the best compromise given a person's current starting point.Also, they conclude that not everyone will be able to transition to bfr if they've spent a lot of their lives in shoes. That could be true, but I don't know of any conclusive proof for that.
Longboard has another thread on natural and unnatural things.We want to take nature as the default, and assume that most people can return to a natural mode of doing something until proven otherwise, no?
Sid, not sure if you are replying to me, or just adding to my point, so just to be clear, those aren't my thoughts; I was paraphrasing the study. I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that we evolved to run barefoot. To assert otherwise is lunacy, in my humble opinion. The onus is on those who wish to show that the introduction of footwear of various designs improves upon nature's design.It's hard to prove, if one doesn't study it. I'll bet that the podiatrists who are most critical have not even examined a single person who is habitually unshod. Here's a tribe. Go forth and study.
http://bit.ly/1bJoZH.
I think we already have good evidence that the modern running shoe changes the gait of most people.In order to do that, one would have to study the habitually unshod and shod and compare the biomechanics. Then develop a rehabilitative program to condition the foot to whatever is the ideal state, or the best compromise given a person's current starting point.
Yes, it's easier to sort out what is natural evolution and what is cultural evolution in some areas than others. Bones evolve much more slowly than soft tissues like skin. Skin color can begin changing within a few generations. One anthropologist reckoned that a African group transplanted to Norway would evolve white skin within about 20,000 years, assuming strict endogamy of course, and whatever cultural adaptations would be necessary for survival. Diseases also evolve quickly, but our culture is constantly finding ways to adapt to them (vaccines, eradication of pests, etc.). But our basic gait has been in place for over a million years, according to Lieberman. In that sense, it is natural, whereas eating highly processed foods, for example, isn't, but could be, given enough time to adapt. Likewise, it isn't natural for light-skinned people to spend a lot of time under the tropical sun, although some of us adapt better than others. Cultural adaptations like medical cures and preventive creams and such will probably take care of that before natural adaptations do.Longboard has another thread on natural and unnatural things.
We want to take nature as the default...
Critical Podiatrists, go forth and study!Sid, not sure if you are replying to me, or just adding to my points
I was thinking more of a global longitudinal study similar to those conducted by the WHO, to study the differences between habitually shod and unshod, with the goal of gathering enough evidence to solidify any recommendations for shod vs. unshod.I think we already have good evidence that the modern running shoe changes the gait of most people.
It would probably be difficult to conduct such a study for barefoot running, since most villager-type runners, once they begin serious training, start wearing shoes, and most barefoot runners in North America and Europe haven't grown up running barefoot. But for just walking and standing, I think there already have been studies (I don't have the references though) showing that many of the foot ailments found in affluent populations wearing bulky and/or heeled shoes aren't nearly as prevalent among unshod populations.I was thinking more of a global longitudinal study similar to those conducted by the WHO, to study the differences between habitually shod and unshod, with the goal of gathering enough evidence to solidify any recommendations for shod vs. unshod.
They've done this for other conditions.
www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/en/
That's what the Catholics say for lay folks looking to get laid, but only if married."Nature is the default." Simple that. 'Nuff said.
No need to limit the epic study to runners. Non-running shoddies can have pretty bad foot problems, too.It would probably be difficult to conduct such a study for barefoot running...
Didn't I say that in the next sentence? And I note that there already have been such studies, not longitudinal, but comparative. I was supporting your suggestion, in steel otter woods.No need to limit the epic study to runners. Non-running shoddies can have pretty bad foot problems, too.
Hey, part of my field research was funded by the NSF, so whatever I casually observed is fact. As the Wizard of Oz taught us, it's the credentials that count.Sid and Lee: you are both hitting on some of the biggest problems with human subject/lifestyle study in general. Usually, it must be observational rather than controlled, and if the research is controlled, the sample sizes tend to be so small and the subjects tend to be special subgroups of some sort (not truly selected randomly because it isn't often possible).
Observational studies need to be waaaaay more carefully designed than the ones we are seeing posted here.
And moreover, ouchie feet are not as interesting or important to those who fund health research (not companies but like nsf) as are diseases such as diabetes, cancer, cardiac problems, etc.
So the research is left to those with an interest in showing whatever it is they want to show. As long as the sample sizes are small, even one experiment could show positive results even when there are none. If they do more, and only publish those that show significance, well, there ya go, cite this here paper as "proving" something.
None of the above can show us what improvement we can expect in our lives and our foot functioning by trying to get away from the thick shoes that deformed our feet in the first place. What "rehab" does work best, I wonder?
Not sure how that study could be designed, Sid, but it is far more interesting than anything else I've seen posted recently.Good idea. Let's do it.
Exactly, I'd like to see studies with enough statistical power to cause a societal sea change similar to that of cigarette use.Observational studies need to be waaaaay more carefully designed than the ones we are seeing posted here.
Amen brother, although, just like cigarettes that make you cough the first time you try smoking, unhealthy shoes make one's feet (or knees, back, hips) hurt until you get used to them. If only those experiences would commonsensically tell us that they're bad for us, but fashion seems to override good sense until science confirms it. Humans are funny that way.Exactly, I'd like to see studies with enough statistical power to cause a societal sea change similar to that of cigarette use.
Even worse, parents stick their kids' feet in shoes. Kids don't know any better, and some have bunions in their teens.Amen brother, although, just like cigarettes that make you cough the first time you try smoking, unhealthy shoes make one's feet (or knees, back, hips) hurt until you get used to them.