Just came across this series of discussions on the Runners World site forum. I didn’t realize how “invested” some individuals are respect to “barefoot running”. It makes for interesting reading and thought.
barefoot running factsposted at 2/24/2010 12:49 PM CST
|
Posts: 52
First: 4/16/2008 Last: 3/15/2010 |
I have noticed that every time there is a discussion or article about barefoot running, Runner’s World tends to shy away from the facts and present only points of view and opinions. This has led many people to believe that there is only anecdotal evidence that supports barefoot running. There is always some “expert” that opposes barefoot running and claims to have been able to help people by fitting them in proper shoes. The truth is that all the latest scientific studies are in support of barefoot running. Anyone can have access to this information. Here is a link to a study that shows how running barefoot reduces impact forces. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08723.html Notice the year that the study was conducted. These studies are scientific fact, they are not my opinion. I have not seen any recent studies like this in support of shod running. Here is another link to a study about how shoes increase torque on the joints http://www.pmrjournal.org/article/S1934-1482(09)01367-7/abstract. News of these studies appear in other magazines and journals and they are presented as scientific advances. I guess RW is just protecting itself because of the money that it makes from running shoe advertisements. My advice to anyone that seeks the truth is to not look for this information from a source that is biased. The facts are out there you just have to search. |
| Posts from A muse are Hidden | Stop Ignoring A muse |
 |
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/24/2010 1:53 PM CST
|
Posts: 7981
First: 1/8/2008 Last: 3/15/2010 |
The nature article doesn’t claim that barefoot running is somehow better for you than shod running or that it reduces injury risk. The authors indicate a significant reduction in loading forces and impact forces but cannot conclude that these lessen chances of injury.
If you want to run barefoot — either a little bit or a lot — go for it. There’s certainly plenty of evidence that it isn’t bad for you, provided you take the time to transition carefully. After all, Lieberman’s study refers to habituated barefoot runners. He has a website, btw, with lots of excellent information about how to do this safely. |
| Posts from hillcruiser are Hidden | Stop Ignoring hillcruiser |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/24/2010 1:58 PM CST
|
Posts: 6938
First: 4/22/2008 Last: 3/15/2010 |
You’re late to the party on both those studies. They’ve been debated here on several threads and have had RW contributors writing bits on them. All studies have limitations and the two you cited are no exception. Unfortunately the biggest limitation is with the morons who interpret results and make unfounded inferences.
I don’t want to get in to this nonsense again about the limitations of using inverse dynamic simulation used in the second study and how that leads everyone without knowledge of what that is nor how the torques are obtained to the wrong conclusion. But since you clearly don’t have a background in biomechanics or gait analysis to critically evaluate those studies, here’s all you need to know: There has been no scientific study that has identified an increased risk of injury with either increased ground impact forces or joint torques. If barefoot works for you, great. It clearly doesn’t for many people. Don’t preach to me about how running barefoot is superior to or will reduce my risk of injury. You don’t have enough education or experience. |
| Posts from ExPhysRunner are Hidden | Stop Ignoring ExPhysRunner |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/24/2010 2:29 PM CST
|
Posts: 10161
First: 6/14/2006 Last: 3/14/2010 |
Reply to:
The nature article doesn’t claim that barefoot running is somehow better for you than shod running or that it reduces injury risk. The authors indicate a significant reduction in loading forces and impact forces but cannot conclude that these lessen chances of injury. If you want to run barefoot — either a little bit or a lot — go for it. There’s certainly plenty of evidence that it isn’t bad for you, provided you take the time to transition carefully. After all, Lieberman’s study refers to habituated barefoot runners. He has a website , btw, with lots of excellent information about how to do this safely.
Posted by A muse Just to add to the noise: http://www.sportsscientists.com/ Visit my blog; just click on the screen name. The blog offers some physiology, training and what I am reading these days! I have also added a place to suggest speakers/presenters for a running/triathlon conference in the Blog section.
|
| Posts from Road_Kill_Racing are Hidden | Stop Ignoring Road_Kill_Racing |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/24/2010 3:58 PM CST
|
Posts: 501
First: 1/14/2009 Last: 3/14/2010 |
It is truly remarkable what some people will accept as fact. Almost all articles published in peer reviewed journals are intended to be read and understood by other professionals (typically with phds) in that given field. They aren’t meant for the lay person. Then some journalist who may or may not have any expertise in the subject misinterprets it while “summarizing” it for the masses. Which is why we end up with headlines like “Exercise makes you fat!”
Run More…Run Faster…Recent Races:
Johnny’s Runnin’ of the Green 5 Miles 28:05 RIT Indoor Open Meet 1500M 4:22.3 My Running Life (Blog) |
| Posts from Racetraining are Hidden | Stop Ignoring Racetraining |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/24/2010 10:11 PM CST
|
Posts: 3572
First: 7/9/2006 Last: 3/15/2010 |
Run barefoot if you want to.
I don’t see anything new in the studies you site. The thing is serious runners are going to continue to wear shoes and spiked shoes for road, track and When the weather is nice I have run a mile or two on soft artificial grass surfaces. It feels good to take The slate has been cleared. All masters times are safe for good. Preparing for first Grand Masters races. Masters prs upcoming events: Distance Carnival 15k, Steamboat Springs HM, Georgetown to Idaho HM, Other Half HM, Moab Utah. Shorter events in between, including Summer Track Meets in Boulder.
|
| Posts from chapingo are Hidden | Stop Ignoring chapingo |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 9:25 AM CST
|
|
Posts: 52
First: 4/16/2008 Last: 3/15/2010 |
Reply to:
You’re late to the party on both those studies. They’ve been debated here on several threads and have had RW contributors writing bits on them. All studies have limitations and the two you cited are no exception. Unfortunately the biggest limitation is with the morons who interpret results and make unfounded inferences. I don’t want to get in to this nonsense again about the limitations of using inverse dynamic simulation used in the second study and how that leads everyone without knowledge of what that is nor how the torques are obtained to the wrong conclusion. But since you clearly don’t have a background in biomechanics or gait analysis to critically evaluate those studies, here’s all you need to know: There has been no scientific study that has identified an increased risk of injury with either increased ground impact forces or joint torques. If barefoot works for you, great. It clearly doesn’t for many people. Don’t preach to me about how running barefoot is superior to or will reduce my risk of injury. You don’t have enough education or experience.
Posted by hillcruiser I never claimed that there was a scientific study that has identified an increased risk of injury with either increased ground impact forces or joint torques. It is the running shoe industry that claims this. They are the ones making shoes which they claim reduce impact forces and excessive torque. So if these things don’t matter then why are we using their products ? Isn’t the burden of proof placed on them? Just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn’t make them a moron. Clearly the scientists that conducted this research are not morons. All scientific studies have their limitations. If you know of a study that says that using running shoes will reduce your risk of injury then I would love to see it wether it was done using inverse dynamic simulation or not. |
| Posts from chapingo are Hidden | Stop Ignoring chapingo |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 9:46 AM CST
|
|
Posts: 52
First: 4/16/2008 Last: 3/15/2010 |
Reply to:
The nature article doesn’t claim that barefoot running is somehow better for you than shod running or that it reduces injury risk. The authors indicate a significant reduction in loading forces and impact forces but cannot conclude that these lessen chances of injury. If you want to run barefoot — either a little bit or a lot — go for it. There’s certainly plenty of evidence that it isn’t bad for you, provided you take the time to transition carefully. After all, Lieberman’s study refers to habituated barefoot runners. He has a website , btw, with lots of excellent information about how to do this safely.
Posted by A muse When I said that the articles are in support of barefoot running, I just meant that they show how running barefoot does what the running shoe indusry claims that their shoes can do. |
| Posts from chapingo are Hidden | Stop Ignoring chapingo |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 9:55 AM CST
|
|
Posts: 52
First: 4/16/2008 Last: 3/15/2010 |
Reply to:
Run barefoot if you want to. I don’t see anything new in the studies you site. The thing is serious runners are going to continue to wear shoes and spiked shoes for road, track and cross country racing. There just faster with shoes on. When the weather is nice I have run a mile or two on soft artificial grass surfaces. It feels good to take the shoes off now and then but there is no way I would consider not training with shoes on when it comes to hard surfaces, etc..
Posted by Racetraining You are failing to see the implications of these studies. They are saying that running barefoot does what running shoes are meant to do. This news may not be new but it has been largely ignored. The proof is that you would never consider training on a hard surface while unshod. I also use flats for racing and training because I can run faster on the road with flats, but the Lieberman study implies that running on a hard surface without shoes reduces impact more than when running shod. Whether or not impact forces and excessive torque concerns you during training is up to you. |
| Posts from SillyC are Hidden | Stop Ignoring SillyC |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 10:12 AM CST
|
Posts: 503
First: 10/10/2009 Last: 3/15/2010 |
Reply to:
Reply to: You are failing to see the implications of these studies. They are saying that running barefoot does what running shoes are meant to do.
Posted by chapingo No, the first study shows that barefoot runners hit the ground with less impact force than shod runners. The second study shows that barefoot running generates less torque than shod running. These are very specific measurements. I don’t think they show that barefoot running does what shoes are meant to do, because I don’t think shoes are “meant to do” these specific things. Upcoming races
Great Bay Half Marathon, April 11th “Webster” Lake Triathlon, June 20, 2010 (Actually at Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg) |
| Posts from hillcruiser are Hidden | Stop Ignoring hillcruiser |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 10:14 AM CST
|
|
Posts: 6938
First: 4/22/2008 Last: 3/15/2010 |
I never claimed that there was a scientific study that has identified an increased risk of injury with either increased ground impact forces or joint torques. It is the running shoe industry that claims this. They are the ones making shoes which they claim reduce impact forces and excessive torque. So if these things don’t matter then why are we using their products ? Isn’t the burden of proof placed on them? Just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn’t make them a moron. Clearly the scientists that conducted this research are not morons. All scientific studies have their limitations. If you know of a study that says that using running shoes will reduce your risk of injury then I would love to see it wether it was done using inverse dynamic simulation or not.
Posted by chapingo Where does the running shoe industry claim there’s an increased risk of injury due to increased ground impact forces or joint torques? I’ve seen no such claim from them so why would the burden of proof for a statment they never made be placed on them? I won’t call someone a moron based on the fact he or she disagrees with me. I will do that based on his or her inability to accurately assess the results of a scientific study from which he or she draws unfounded conclusions. Actually, the scientists who conducted the second study you cited are indeed morons. They barely acknowledged in the conclusion that in an inverse dynamic simulation the compliance of the running shoe is not factored into the simulation in any way – they assume the shoe does not compress at all. Ground reaction forces are higher in running shoes compared to barefoot in large part BECAUSE THEY ARE MEASURED AT THE GROUND, NOT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOT. If you run an inverse dynamic simulation to determine joint torques and assume no compression of the midsole of the shoe you’re of course going to calculate higher joint torques – and they’re gonig to considerably overestimate the true joint torque. The authors of that study are morons for attempting to use that dependent variable in their study and the reviewers who allowed it to be published in that form are also morons. |
| Posts from Love the Half are Hidden | Stop Ignoring Love the Half |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 11:09 AM CST
|
Posts: 2639
First: 2/13/2009 Last: 3/14/2010 |
Real simple.
There are people out there whose livelihoods depend on running. They’ll do everything they can to shave every possible smidgen of time from their races. Winning vs. losing is worth millions to them. They wear shoes. All of them (or at least 99% of them). If barefoot running conferred any competitive advantage at all, you’d see a lot of world class runners competing barefoot. They don’t. That much is known. Here is what is thought may be the reason. What seems to happen is that you shorten your stride when you run barefoot. In fact, you shorten it so much that the effeciency you gain from losing the weight of a shoe is lost by the less efficient, shorter stride. (I know people are always talking about shorter strides being more efficient but, if you want to test it to the extreme, run as fast as you can but limit your stride to 6 inches. You’ll find it takes a huge amount of energy to move your body even a short distance). “What was the secret, they wanted to know; in a thousand different ways they wanted to know The Secret. And not one of them was prepared, truly prepared, to believe that it had not so much to do with chemicals and zippy mental tricks as with that most unprofound and sometimes heartrending process of removing, molecule by molecule, the very tough rubber that comprised the bottom of his training shoes.” 2 Mile – 12:34 (10/11/09) |
| Posts from chapingo are Hidden | Stop Ignoring chapingo |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 12:23 PM CST
|
|
Posts: 52
First: 4/16/2008 Last: 3/15/2010 |
Reply to:
Where does the running shoe industry claim there’s an increased risk of injury due to increased ground impact forces or joint torques? I’ve seen no such claim from them so why would the burden of proof for a statment they never made be placed on them?
Here is a link to the Nike store, where they claim that their technology gives you impact protection. Just click on the tab that says “technology”. http://store.nike.com//index.jsp?cp=USNS_KW_0611081618&country=US&lang_locale=en_US&cp=USNS_KW_0611081618&l=shop,search,c-1+100701/pn-1/sl-Nike%20Shox%20Shoes#l=shop,pdp,ctr-inline/cid-1/pid-285891 They claim to protect you from impact. The idea that you need protection from impact comes from them. This is only one of hundreds of examples I can find. I’m not saying that running barefoot is better or worse. I made it clear that I am keeping my opinion out of this. The running shoe industry claims that their shoes absorb impact and lessen torque more efficiently than an unshod foot. Please read my posts more carefully before you go on your next rant. Nothing will make someone look more like a moron than not having good reading comprehension. |
| Posts from chapingo are Hidden | Stop Ignoring chapingo |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 12:28 PM CST
|
|
Posts: 52
First: 4/16/2008 Last: 3/15/2010 |
Many world class runners spend at least some time training barefoot and doing foot strengthening exercises. That doesn’t mean that they race barefoot. That is not at all what this discussion is about. |
| Posts from Darkwave are Hidden | Stop Ignoring Darkwave |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 12:35 PM CST
|
Posts: 1155
First: 7/1/2007 Last: 3/14/2010 |
Reply to:
Real simple. There are people out there whose livelihoods depend on running. They’ll do everything they can to shave every possible smidgen of time from their races. Winning vs. losing is worth millions to them. They wear shoes. All of them (or at least 99% of them). If barefoot running conferred any competitive advantage at all, you’d see a lot of world class runners competing barefoot. They don’t.
Posted by Love the Half I’ve always wondered — why don’t triathletes run their running segment barefoot? Wouldn’t it save them transition time? A guaranteed 20 seconds or so off of their final finish time? And I’ve also wondered — why such urgency in convincing others of the benefits of barefoot running? If it makes you happy — great! But I really don’t spend a lot of effort evangelizing about the benefits of my personal footwear choice, and I’ve never understood why others feel this need. +++++++++++++ 35 year old woman; racing since June 2007. Training Log, Training/Race Report Blog Story behind avatar is here and here PRs:
|
| Posts from chapingo are Hidden | Stop Ignoring chapingo |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 1:00 PM CST
|
|
Posts: 52
First: 4/16/2008 Last: 3/15/2010 |
Reply to:
Reply to: I’ve always wondered — why don’t triathletes run their running segment barefoot? Wouldn’t it save them transition time? A guaranteed 20 seconds or so off of their final finish time? And I’ve also wondered — why such urgency in convincing others of the benefits of barefoot running? If it makes you happy — great! But I really don’t spend a lot of effort evangelizing about the benefits of my personal footwear choice, and I’ve never understood why others feel this need.
Posted by Darkwave It takes me 5 seconds to put on my running shoes with bungee laces. I run a lot faster on hard surfaces with racing flats than without shoes. The purpose of discussing barefoot running is to dispell the myths that the running shoe industry has created in order for people to buy their products. As a runner, I try to find hard scientific evidence about what is better for training. I think that in general, runners are very scientific when it comes to their training. If there are any benefits to be reaped by running unshod, then why would someone not want to know? I don’t run intervals because it makes me happy, I run them so that I can train close to lactate threshold. Likewise, I don’t run barefoot to feel happy, I do it to strengthen my feet and work on my running form. Although running in general makes me happy. |
| Posts from chapingo are Hidden | Stop Ignoring chapingo |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 1:14 PM CST
|
|
Posts: 52
First: 4/16/2008 Last: 3/15/2010 |
According to the companies that are selling the shoes this is precisely what they claim that running shoes will do. I did not make this up. Just read Nike’s description of one of their running shoes in this link http://store.nike.com//index.jsp?cp=USNS_KW_0611081618&country=US&lang_locale=en_US&cp=USNS_KW_0611081618&l=shop,search,c-1+100701/pn-1/sl-Nike%20Shox%20Shoes#l=shop,pdp,ctr-inline/cid-1/pid-285891 . Click on the tab that says “technology” and see for yourself. |
| Posts from Darkwave are Hidden | Stop Ignoring Darkwave |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 1:51 PM CST
|
|
Posts: 1155
First: 7/1/2007 Last: 3/14/2010 |
Reply to:
The purpose of discussing barefoot running is to dispell the myths that the running shoe industry has created in order for people to buy their products. As a runner, I try to find hard scientific evidence about what is better for training. I think that in general, runners are very scientific when it comes to their training. If there are any benefits to be reaped by running unshod, then why would someone not want to know?
Posted by chapingo But why is it so important to start these conversations? I’ve never felt the urge to start a thread “so what will it take to get you female runners to start taking calcium supplements?” or “hey guys, here’s another story about a woman runner with low bone density who didn’t eat dairy or take calcium supplements and got a stress fracture” Sure, I’ll weigh in and point to research if someone asks about it — but I feel no urge to prosthelytize (had to spellcheck that one). The topic of barefoot running (and also pose/chi) seems to engender a sort of active, even manic advocacy that you usually see in political or religious discussion. And I can’t figure out why. +++++++++++++ 35 year old woman; racing since June 2007. Training Log, Training/Race Report Blog Story behind avatar is here and here PRs:
|
| Posts from crazyiam2 are Hidden | Stop Ignoring crazyiam2 |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 2:51 PM CST
|
|
Posts: 74
First: 12/23/2009 Last: 3/9/2010 |
The biggest issue of the second study hasn’t even been mentioned. They used one shoe for all runners. It was a stability shoe. So there was no attempt to figure out what shoe is best for each runner. Maybe the tourqe was caused by improper shoe selection. |
| Posts from Racetraining are Hidden | Stop Ignoring Racetraining |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 2:57 PM CST
|
|
Posts: 3572
First: 7/9/2006 Last: 3/15/2010 |
Reply to:
Reply to: But why is it so important to start these conversations? I’ve never felt the urge to start a thread “so what will it take to get you female runners to start taking calcium supplements?” or “hey guys, here’s another story about a woman runner with low bone density who didn’t eat dairy or take calcium supplements and got a stress fracture” Sure, I’ll weigh in and point to research if someone asks about it — but I feel no urge to prosthelytize ( had to spellcheck that one ). The topic of barefoot running (and also pose/chi) seems to engender a sort of active, even manic advocacy that you usually see in political or religious discussion. And I can’t figure out why.
Posted by Darkwave +1 barefoot threads are almost as bad as pop up ads. The slate has been cleared. All masters times are safe for good. Preparing for first Grand Masters races. Masters prs upcoming events: Distance Carnival 15k, Steamboat Springs HM, Georgetown to Idaho HM, Other Half HM, Moab Utah. Shorter events in between, including Summer Track Meets in Boulder.
|
| Posts from chapingo are Hidden | Stop Ignoring chapingo |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 6:58 PM CST
|
|
Posts: 52
First: 4/16/2008 Last: 3/15/2010 |
Reply to:
Reply to: But why is it so important to start these conversations? I’ve never felt the urge to start a thread “so what will it take to get you female runners to start taking calcium supplements?” or “hey guys, here’s another story about a woman runner with low bone density who didn’t eat dairy or take calcium supplements and got a stress fracture” Sure, I’ll weigh in and point to research if someone asks about it — but I feel no urge to prosthelytize ( had to spellcheck that one ). The topic of barefoot running (and also pose/chi) seems to engender a sort of active, even manic advocacy that you usually see in political or religious discussion. And I can’t figure out why.
Posted by Darkwave You make a very good point. I don’t understand why this topic makes people react as if their whole moral code were being tested. I run with and without shoes. That’s right…I go both ways. I simply want to know if I should invest in the technology that shoe companies are selling. If one of their products can help me to not get injured, then I will invest in it. I am trying to find evidence from any scientific study that can back the claims that shoe companies make. I am not trying to convert anyone but I am attacked when I mention scientific studies that may improve the way shoes are made in the future. Maybe it’s because they have already invested a lot of money on shoes and they don’t want to find out if they’ve been had. Or they are tired of people telling them that they are going to get injured if they keep running barefoot. Either way, I like to be on the cutting edge and I feel that the burden of proof should be on the shoe companies that are asking for your money. What’s wrong with searching for facts? |
| Posts from chapingo are Hidden | Stop Ignoring chapingo |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 7:03 PM CST
|
|
Posts: 52
First: 4/16/2008 Last: 3/15/2010 |
Reply to:
The biggest issue of the second study hasn’t even been mentioned. They used one shoe for all runners. It was a stability shoe. So there was no attempt to figure out what shoe is best for each runner. Maybe the tourqe was caused by improper shoe selection.
Posted by crazyiam2 At least they conducted a study. The shoe company has no study of its own. In this case the burden of proof is on the shoe company. If there were a study that proved that the shoes do what they were supposed to do, then people wouldn’t be trying to figure out if it worked or not. The shoe company created the technology, yet they don’t have to prove that it works. Doesn’t this seem wrong to anyone else? |
| Posts from Nazaretti are Hidden | Stop Ignoring Nazaretti |
|
Re: barefoot running factsposted at 2/25/2010 7:17 PM CST
|
Posts: 1855
First: 12/12/2007 Last: 3/15/2010 |
If running shoes were classified as medical devices, they would never be approved by the FDA – no data supporting safety or efficacy. |
