NY Times Article--Barefoot Running

[Heartsoutwest]

Hey all! I've been a long time lurker on these podiatry posts, but this is my first time posting. Did anyone else see this article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/magazine/running-christopher-mcdougall.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp

Yikes. Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bobdolerson]

Thought it was interesting. I saw the same info/studies and video footage of barefoot vs. supported shoe running when those 5-finger shoes came out with no support.

I always feel faster without shoes, and definitely have more spring.

 

[NatCh]

Why "yikes?" What's your opinion?

 

[amaprez]

The podiatrist I shadowed was pretty opinionated against barefoot running and Vibram Fivefinger shoes in particular. His stance was that while we have evolved over the ages to run barefoot, that was not meant to include concrete (and to a lesser degree asphalt). Obviously it's a controversial topic because barefoot running is a huge billion dollar industry now. Hopefully over time more definitive research and clinical trials will yield the answer.

 

[NatCh]

The podiatrist I shadowed was pretty opinionated against barefoot running and Vibram Fivefinger shoes in particular. His stance was that while we have evolved over the ages to run barefoot, that was not meant to include concrete (and to a lesser degree asphalt). Obviously it's a controversial topic because barefoot running is a huge billion dollar industry now. Hopefully over time more definitive research and clinical trials will yield the answer.

Technical point: minimalist running shoes are a billion dollar industry. There are almost no costs involved with true barefoot running so it's probably about a $100 industry.

 

[that1guyfromFL]

Technical point: minimalist running shoes are a billion dollar industry. There are almost no costs involved with true barefoot running so it's probably about a $100 industry.

I needed a chuckle, thanks.

 

[amaprez]

Hahahah ya got me there Natch!

 

[Heartsoutwest]

Why "yikes?" What's your opinion?

The "yikes" was mainly due to the length of the article. I must admit, though, that I am more than a little leery of "barefoot"/"minimalist" running. I have done a decent amount of research on my own, and the argument I've heard against it that makes the most sense to me is the following:

Sure, human's bare feet at one point had to carry them many miles every day, but throughout the process of evolution, we eventually started wearing shoes. Since that time, human feet have evolved WITH shoes, and there should be no reason to think that human feet haven't adapted over the years to wearing shoes...thus debunking the "we were made to run miles and miles every day without shoes" argument--because that's not necessarily what we're still made for in the current day.

I also wonder if a person changed their running style to run as if they were barefoot (light on your feet, landing on the balls of your feet instead of pounding the ground with your heels), would they see the same "benefits" that barefoot runners see?

And as a personal anecdote, cushioned running shoes always helped me recover from my many running/stress-related injuries. I played soccer, and soccer cleats (a variant of "minimalist" as far as cushioning goes, but admittedly not what proponents of "minimalist" shoes are advocating) always made my injuries much, much worse.

And I have yet to hear a podiatrist support them, but I think it would be very interesting if one did. I would love to hear the argument there. (Not being sarcastic, would really love to hear it! )

I am very interested to see any long term meta-analysis studies--does anyone know when exactly they started collecting data on the barefoot running injury correlations?

 

[bobdolerson]

The "yikes" was mainly due to the length of the article. I must admit, though, that I am more than a little leery of "barefoot"/"minimalist" running. I have done a decent amount of research on my own, and the argument I've heard against it that makes the most sense to me is the following:

Sure, human's bare feet at one point had to carry them many miles every day, but throughout the process of evolution, we eventually started wearing shoes. Since that time, human feet have evolved WITH shoes, and there should be no reason to think that human feet haven't adapted over the years to wearing shoes...

I suppose other than adaptation on that sort of scale taking more than 3 generations...

thus debunking the "we were made to run miles and miles every day without shoes" argument--because that's not necessarily what we're still made for in the current day.

I dunno if I'd ever be so quick to claim something debunked from introspection.

I also wonder if a person changed their running style to run as if they were barefoot (light on your feet, landing on the balls of your feet instead of pounding the ground with your heels), would they see the same "benefits" that barefoot runners see?

I'd reckon so, but I think some of their arguments revolve around shoes necessitating "improper" running in an evolutionary context.

I am very interested to see any long term meta-analysis studies--does anyone know when exactly they started collecting data on the barefoot running injury correlations?

Me too. It's always nice to have meta-analysis backing up our treatments/recommendations.

 

[Heartsoutwest]

I suppose other than adaptation on that sort of scale taking more than 3 generations... I dunno if I'd ever be so quick to claim something debunked from introspection.

Yeah, I'm not necessarily totally agreeing with it, just that that's the argument/end result (or introspection/conclusion, if you will) I've heard. And it makes sense to me. Granted, we need hard science to back up any argument for or against any sort of running modality, and I'm not convinced we have that quite yet in this case.

With regard to your 3 generations comment, when exactly did human civilization start wearing shoes? If it wasn't hundreds upon hundreds of years, that would certainly put a kink in the armour (read: destroy) of the argument I presented.

 

[347932]

I believe shoes were first worn in biblical times along the lines of Abraham. I could be mistaken, but weren't Adam and Eve wearing shoes after they were ejected from the Garden of Eden?

If you don't believe all that stuff, shoes were worn in Ancient Egypt. I think it was to protect the feet of royalty from the hot sand.

All that being said, the barefoot phenom has nothing to do with shoes or lack thereof. It has to do with the TECHNIQUE and that has been around since the dawn of time. The technique was always there ( a la the Kenyan marathoners) but has only recently hit the mainstream. If you can adapt to the technique, it will work for you. If you can't, well, I'll see you in my office with met and Navicular fractures .

 

[347932]

And I have yet to hear a podiatrist support them, but I think it would be very interesting if one did. I would love to hear the argument there. (Not being sarcastic, would really love to hear it! )

Read the response to the blog here:

http://www.podiatrytoday.com/blogge...injuries-keys-diagnosis-and-patient-education

 

[Heartsoutwest]

I believe shoes were first worn in biblical times along the lines of Abraham. I could be mistaken, but weren't Adam and Eve wearing shoes after they were ejected from the Garden of Eden?

If you don't believe all that stuff, shoes were worn in Ancient Egypt. I think it was to protect the feet of royalty from the hot sand.

Yeah, that's what I was picturing too. Old hieryglyphic-ish type pictures.

All that being said, the barefoot phenom has nothing to do with shoes or lack thereof. It has to do with the TECHNIQUE and that has been around since the dawn of time. The technique was always there ( a la the Kenyan marathoners) but has only recently hit the mainstream. If you can adapt to the technique, it will work for you. If you can't, well, I'll see you in my office with met and Navicular fractures .

Oooh, I like that. Technique. Now THAT makes sense.

 

[bobdolerson]

I believe shoes were first worn in biblical times along the lines of Abraham. I could be mistaken, but weren't Adam and Eve wearing shoes after they were ejected from the Garden of Eden?

If you don't believe all that stuff, shoes were worn in Ancient Egypt. I think it was to protect the feet of royalty from the hot sand.

All that being said, the barefoot phenom has nothing to do with shoes or lack thereof. It has to do with the TECHNIQUE and that has been around since the dawn of time. The technique was always there ( a la the Kenyan marathoners) but has only recently hit the mainstream. If you can adapt to the technique, it will work for you. If you can't, well, I'll see you in my office with met and Navicular fractures .

Hehe, I don't think they wore cushioned shoes with padded soles and rubberized arches. It'd be an even further stretch to think as shoes have changed in minimal evolutionary time, we've even kept up with specific new shoe technology in terms of adaptation.

I understand they have shoes, but they're a stretch from what we have today.

I suppose also, evolution doesn't work with humans the way it works with other creatures. It does, but natural selection requires certain traits to predispose their carrier with a better fitness and chance of survival, and considering modern conditions...I don't think someone's ability to run in shoes has aided in their search for a mate.

It's not like we have to outrun predators.

 

[bobdolerson]

Read the response to the blog here:

http://www.podiatrytoday.com/blogge...injuries-keys-diagnosis-and-patient-education

Nice, thanks!

 

[Ferocity]

It's not like we have to outrun predators.

You sure about that?

 

[347932]

You sure about that?

Absolutely sure. You don't have to outrun them. You have to OUT THINK them. THAT doesn't require any shoes at all!!

 

[NatCh]

His stance was that while we have evolved over the ages to run barefoot, that was not meant to include concrete (and to a lesser degree asphalt).

I wonder if that doc would be okay with barefoot running on dirt trails?

 

[Heartsoutwest]

Nice, thanks!

Ditto, thanks! Very informative article/lecture.

 

[NatCh]

This just in...

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityn...tudy-backs-up-science-behind-barefoot-running

When do we get to see the paper?

 

[bobdolerson]

A study out of Philadelphia’s Temple University took a look at the science behind ‘barefoot’ running and found that the popular but super-thin glove-like shoes offer more flexibility than other shoes.

I thought this line was hilarious.

Study just in: Flexible shoes offer more flexibility than rigid shoes.

Where's some data regarding injury?

 

[Heartsoutwest]

This just in...

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityn...tudy-backs-up-science-behind-barefoot-running

When do we get to see the paper?

Isn't this the only "scientific" thing the press release says?:

"A study out of Philadelphia’s Temple University took a look at the science behind ‘barefoot’ running and found that the popular but super-thin glove-like shoes offer more flexibility than other shoes."

I mean, I don't think anyone would argue that super-thin shoes offer more flexibility than thicker shoes, since you're (practically) barefoot. Am I confused here?

Well, later in the article Dr. Whitney makes claims on them providing you with "more flexibility, better balance, more agility, [and] better toe strength." Like you said, though, I'm sure the article will shed light on how they're measuring flexibility, balance, and agility here.

Most importantly, why was this Temple study published in a Toronto news outlet? The only other source I could find it published in was a Richmond, VA news station. Odd.

 

[Heartsoutwest]

I thought this line was hilarious.

Study just in: Flexible shoes offer more flexibility than rigid shoes.

Where's some data regarding injury?

lol... I must admit, I scratched my head for about 5 minutes in an attempt to see if it could be construed in some other way.

But flexible shoes provide more flexibility... learn something new every day!

 

[NatCh]

Most importantly, why was this Temple study published in a Toronto news outlet? The only other source I could find it published in was a Richmond, VA news station. Odd.

Canadians and Virginians have low standards? They only know stiff kletterboots?

Kidding, kidding...