Oh, I see. Probably best to keep that discussion off this board, never mind out of this thread.
Future Research Ideas?
- Thread starter Barefoot_AK
- Start date
Throw the treadmills in the trash heap and do your research outside. How can you study a runner when he is not running in his natural habitat? I did a barefoot study on a treadmill; I wasn't as comfortable as I normally am, so my form could have been a little off, which would make my results invalid.
Shouldn't a truly scientific study be as accurate as possible? Doing these studies on treadmills, in my opinion, makes them ineffective and invalid.
Shouldn't a truly scientific study be as accurate as possible? Doing these studies on treadmills, in my opinion, makes them ineffective and invalid.
This equipment is the type of stuff that would allow me to record and capture running mechanics without needing a treadmill. Isn't this what everybody here is asking for? So far I'm thinking a good start might be investigating EMG activity of the extrinsic vs. intrinsic foot musculature versus shod/unshod conditions with both normally barefoot and normally shod runners...
I'm just honestly not much a fan of studies, period, no accusations intended. Maybe you'll devise the first one to convince me!
Perhaps a study of the effects of barefoot running on the human body generally, or the human foot specifically. What changes physiologically ? Does the foot get stronger, wider, taller ? Does the arch rise ? Does it affect different foot types differently ?
This may be more of a longer term experiment that you were looking for.
This may be more of a longer term experiment that you were looking for.
Maybe you could do a study that shows that studies done on treadmills are not valid. You could study studies.
What does your advisor say, and what are your advisor's interests?
You need to start with a good hypothesis, of course, and you need to be sure that you can collect data that tests your hypothesis. I honestly am not sure what a good hypothesis would be involving barefoot biomechanics.
You need to start with a good hypothesis, of course, and you need to be sure that you can collect data that tests your hypothesis. I honestly am not sure what a good hypothesis would be involving barefoot biomechanics.
I love science and I think studies and research are good. It's a way new things are discovered. But here is the problem.
A person will have an opinion.
If the study is done and proves that opinion to be right, it's a good study in that persons mind.
If it goes against the person's opinion, the person will pick apart the details of the study and find things to disclaim the study. (Look at what most of us did with the running shod is more efficient study).
Then the person will look at who funded the study an if the funding is questionable, that will disclaim the study.
If nothing can be found wrong with the details and funding, the person will chose to ignore the study and continue to do things his/her own way.
Behavior is almost impossible to change unless forced to do so.
Now on your study ideas, I think a cushioning study would be interesting also, but my opinion is that I strike harder with anything on my feet.
A person will have an opinion.
If the study is done and proves that opinion to be right, it's a good study in that persons mind.
If it goes against the person's opinion, the person will pick apart the details of the study and find things to disclaim the study. (Look at what most of us did with the running shod is more efficient study).
Then the person will look at who funded the study an if the funding is questionable, that will disclaim the study.
If nothing can be found wrong with the details and funding, the person will chose to ignore the study and continue to do things his/her own way.
Behavior is almost impossible to change unless forced to do so.
Now on your study ideas, I think a cushioning study would be interesting also, but my opinion is that I strike harder with anything on my feet.
That's a pretty strong statement when you consider the source
Naw, not really.
If the advisor is an expert on, say, hip abduction, then it makes sense for the OP to try to generate a hypothesis about hip abduction because the advisor will know how to design relevant tests.
Rickwhitelaw - this isn't a problem with science or studies, but how the results are reported in the popular media. Lazy, crappy journalists feel this compelling need to report "both sides" of every story, even when there really is no "other side". Most of the time, with science, there really is no "other side". If you think about the most basic example, imagine a scientist that finds a new species of fish. The report is "Here's my new species of fish! It's a polka dotted tuna!" Where's the, um, other side? There is none, and if there is one, the other side might be "I'd call that more of a 'spot' than a 'polka dot'". So the journalist digs deeper and deeper till he finds some loony willing to say, "It's not a tuna, and it's not polkadotted. It's a goldfish and you never found it." Hunh?
A case that hits close to home are the studies on barefoot running. Whenever they are reported, the more stupid journalists will dig up some podiatrist that knows NOTHING about BFR to make some "negative" comments. And then we read them and we're all like, "Hunh? I don't think this turkey knows jack about BFR". And we're right - he doesn't.
But BFR ultimately is not a big deal. This type of bad reporting has caused harm to society and even killed people. Back in the '80s and '90s, do you remember any "controversy" over whether or not HIV caused AIDS? You pretty much accept that AIDS is caused by a virus, right? Actually, there wasn't any scientific controversy over whether or not HIV caused AIDS. There was just one crazy weirdo with a fancy degree out at UC Berkeley (Peter Duesberg, FYI) that thought HIV didn't cause AIDS. I have insider information that he was actually going kinda nuts, too. Anyhow, he got a LOT of attention in the media and was given 50% of coverage, despite the fact that his opinion represented more like 0.00000001%. This killed people, because the South African government officials believed him. South Africa was for many years refusing to treat people with appropriate drugs, and instead were treating people with beet roots. It's estimated that this has killed about 400,000 people between 2000 and 2007. Eeek!
We're having this same problem again with climate change - dumb reporters are digging deeper and deeper to find a crackpot that will say "there is no such thing as global warming", and politicians are believing them.
Anyhoo, there are some news junkets that don't do this. The Economist has always been particularly awesome with not looking for controversy where there is none, and recently NPR announced some guidelines to stop the practice.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/28/1069264/-Bravo-NPR-?detail=hide
But the Economist and NPR are the gravy jobs and get the best journalists anyhow.
End rant.
I wonder who runs more consistently (within each individual's stated goals/program), shoddies or barefooters? I'd be willing to bet barefoot runners, as a whole, are more dedicated, and this probably has something to do with Mokaman's comment. If true, then barefoot running wins the fitness benefit contest. I also have the impression that people who do strength training with free weights are more dedicated than those who use machines. It involves fairly natural movements, which can become a lifelong addiction. Which is not to say that you could force a shoddy to run barefoot and they'd automatically become more dedicated. There's probably a selection effect going on. With the proper funding, I'd be willing to conduct such a study.
And in another 5 years, they'll be hunting YOU down and giving your opinion 50% of the news coverage. Here offering our opposing viewpoint is just some guy we found out running barefoot in Delaware.
Adam, I'm tellin' ya, man..... mainstream media is digging deeper and deeper every year to find a scientist that doesn't agree with global warming, and they keep doing this thinking that they are presenting "balanced" arguments. Each year, the anti-global warming experts in the mainstream media have less and less expertise in the relevant sciences. You're being fooled by fools on this one.
NickW
Guest
Are humans bad for the environment? Sure. But when even the guys who "discovered" global warming are starting to change their minds then, well, I'm not the scientist, they are.
