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*
Barefoot Running: Current state of the play
- Thread starter Maupuia
- Start date
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.
Most doctors are happy when they don't have to help you. A subset of podiatrists seems to be very hostile to the idea that most feet will function just fine without them and their orthotics. Wikipedia suggests why:
"Podiatry is a high paying specialty and was listed by Forbes in 2007 as the 15th best paid profession in the United States. [10] In 2012, average salary's of Podiatric Surgeons reached $250,000, while Non-Surgical Podiatrists earned an average of $170,000.[citation needed]"
Whenever monetary interest and scientific fact intertwine, one must be wary.
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.
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. I would think the evidence required for that claim would have to be a lot stronger than the biomechanical and evolutionary evidence used to promote barefoot running. 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?
"I previously wrote about the lack of evidence that supports barefoot running despite all the claims you still see appearing in the crankosphere blogosphere that there is a lot of scientific research that supports barefoot running (there isn’t)." " What I don’t understand is why the crankosphere blogosphere they still keeps talking about all the scientific evidence that supports barefoot running, but the reviews of the scientific literature all reach the conclusion that there is not theevidence … go figure!"
I guess we'll have to break it to these M.D.s , PTs and D.O.s that their research is actually not science?
I guess we'll have to break it to these M.D.s , PTs and D.O.s that their research is actually not science?
I'm finding it interesting how the view on barefoot running, and even minimal running, is going in the opposite direction of positivity. To be honest, I like it. I like that barefoot running is becoming "underground" again. Now that the "Born to Run" era is fading into non-existence (I was really getting tired if people asked me if I read "the book" at races), articles like this are popping up everywhere now.
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
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.
Longboard has another thread on natural and unnatural things.
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.
I think we already have good evidence that the modern running shoe changes the gait of most people.
I would be more interested in the latter study proposed. We already have anecdotal evidence from Nick, TJ, and others that transitioning back to a more natural gait isn't always possible. It would be interesting to see to what extent total time spent shod growing up and as adults (while somehow controlling for variation in heel-raise, arch support, stability, etc.) influences the success rate of transitioning back to minimalist or barefoot running.
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.
Yes, he can say, "Nature is the default." Simple that. 'Nuff said.
Critical Podiatrists, go forth and study!
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/
http://autos.yahoo.com/video/royal-deluxe-ii-000000400.html
No device shown, probably done old school.
No device shown, probably done old school.
I just thought the article begged the question of where are the same critical studies vis a vis the effectiveness of running shoes and orthotics at preventing and healing running injuries. As he (or the studies he cited - I forget which) state, those pesky aetiologies are tricky to pin down.
"The injury prevention potential of barefoot running is further complicated by the complexity of injury aetiology, with no single factor having been identified as causative for the most common running injuries."
The good podiatrist seems to be epoxied to the idea that conventional shodment is safer and tastier too!
"The injury prevention potential of barefoot running is further complicated by the complexity of injury aetiology, with no single factor having been identified as causative for the most common running injuries."
The good podiatrist seems to be epoxied to the idea that conventional shodment is safer and tastier too!
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.
In Mozambique, even most shod villagers are only wearing cheap flip-flops or sandals. But thanks to donations and first- and second-hand commercial networks, all of the same bulky shoes we have are now showing up in town stores and open-air markets.
That's what the Catholics say for lay folks looking to get laid, but only if married.
No need to limit the epic study to runners. Non-running shoddies can have pretty bad foot problems, too.
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.
Runners would be of interest because that's how this thread starts out, with Payne quietly yet obsessively ranting once again about barefoot running. But I don't know if such a study, comparative or longitudinal, would be possible, for the reasons I gave.
Although we could do a comparative attitudinal study among medical professionals, with the hypothesis that those most likely to profit from foot problems and the prescription of orthotics would be most hostile to barefoot running or really any practice that might alleviate or eliminate foot pathologies without medical intervention.
A podiatrist who's against barefooting or minimalist footwear but for bulky shoes is like a dentist who's against brushing but for eating candy.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly, I'd like to see studies with enough statistical power to cause a societal sea change similar to that of cigarette use.
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.
Even worse, parents stick their kids' feet in shoes. Kids don't know any better, and some have bunions in their teens.
Kids (and adults too) often buy shoes for style rather than fit. I'll bet that the majority of people purchasing VFFs got them because they were trendy, and not for the biomechanics.
After people's feet are wrecked, then they start looking for motion control and orthotics. It's insidious.
