New Umass study with interesting results...

[Barefoot Mary]

Donno if anyone has seen this yet. If so, sorry about the duplicate posting. The study's Abstract is here:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a933410094~frm=abslink

The Runners World artice about it is here:

http://peakperformance.runnersworld.com/2011/02/feb-28-new-study-says-barefoot-running-is-different-from-minimalist-shoe-running-what-does-this-mean-we-still-dont-know.html?cm_mmc=nutrition-_-03172011-_-nutrition-_-BLOG%3a%20Peak%20Performance%20by%20Amby%20Burfoot



I like it! It really does back up the barefoot before VFFs reasoning that most barefoot and indeed minimalist runners have. Barefoot seems to trump shoes every time for naturally good form. Although, I wish they had used actual zero-drop shoes in the experiment. If so this study is almost silly, discrediting Nike Frees rather than taking a perspective on feeling the ground vs. ALMOST feeling the ground with thin protection.

 

[pilotrunner]

Thanks for the links,

Thanks for the links, Mary.

Cheers,

 

[stomper]

This looks like the most

This looks like the most significant thing to come out in quite a while. I'll have to read the whole thing rather than just the abstract, but it seems to support a notion we've been kicking around a lot here -- which is that minimalist is different than barefoot.

 

[Abide]

I don't think they looked at

I don't think they looked at zero drop minimalist shoes though? I'm curious to hear your thoughts after you read it Stomper.

 

[stomper]

hey people-- the (fairly

hey people-- the (fairly comprehensive) academic databases I have access to won't give me the full text to this article. If anyone can send me a pdf reprint please send me a PM. thanks!

ps. i wrote the lead author and asked for a reprint which usually works but you never know how fast they'll reply.

 

[Barefoot TJ]

Having this in the Library

Having this in the Library would be nice, Stomper and Sara. Hint, hint. ;-)

 

[stomper]

right, working on it, tj... i

right, working on it, tj... i just need to read the whole document first. abstracts can be deceptive.

 

[stomper]

Got a copy-- thanks ajb.This

Got a copy-- thanks ajb.

This is a curious paper that I'll summarize better when Sara and I update the Library soon.

They used healthy college-age runners with conventional heel striking styles and then studied their running forms in various shoes and barefoot. These runners were not accustomed to running barefoot, and the authors say they did not coach them to run in any particular way.

The patterns of impact forces generally didn't change between models of shoes, but did differ between wearing shoes and going barefoot. The differences between barefoot and shod were similar in general sense to results from the Lieberman and Kerrigan studies... which is to say, barefoot looked easier on the body. In this study, the differences between shod and barefoot were very likely caused by the fact that these runners, accustomed to running in shoes, did not stop heel striking until they were completely barefoot.

Which is basically what a lot of us have been noticing. Some people can continue heel striking in very minimal shoes.

Abide, the most minimal shoes used in the study, had 4 mm of padding in the heels and 0 mm of padding in the front (there was apparently a thin outsole under the whole thing). That seems pretty minimal to me, but I'm not following the specs of all the new shoes, so I could be wrong. No "flat" shoes were used in the study.

So, basically, without any instruction, these runners kept banging their bodies up even in the thin shoes. Minimal shoes might not be an improvement (in terms of the forces they experience) for anyone unwilling to change their style. Going truly barefoot seems to cause a change in style without any instruction.

All of this supports the advice we've been giving here... that people should learn barefoot before going to minimal.

However, it's all based on a sample size of just 10 college age runners, so as reasonable as these take home messages are, this paper is more suggestive than definitive.

 

[khyricat]

interesting, I can't wait to

interesting, I can't wait to be able to read the entire article.. but your right- if their sample was only 10 runners, and they didn't work on form first it cannot be considered definitive, just suggestive.. it's not enough to move things to the evidence based side of things like some studies are..

 

[Abide]

Yeah Stomper you are right

Yeah Stomper you are right that is a pretty small drop, I would guess a zero drop shoe wouldn't change the foot strike either.

 

[pilotrunner]

A small drop heel to toe and

A small drop heel to toe and a very small sample segment.

Thanks for the synopsis.

Cheers,

 

[Barefoot TJ]

Thanks, Stomper.  Good news

Thanks, Stomper. Good news though that it backs up what we preach around here: Barefoot first, barefoot best (for most situations, most runners).