hey all you idiots who think barefoot running is a "fad"

johnny langenwanker wrote:

"Barefoot running on the proper surface..."

-Jack Daniels

I don't run on the proper surface. I run on pavement.

I'm inspired by the barefoot movement, but I'll take 12 or more millimeters of cushioning please.

SniperNoSniping wrote:

your an idiot

ummmm wrote:

you do realize that spikes are incredibly minimalist to best copy barefoot running. because the less shoe you have the faster you are going to run. granted the actually spikes in the shoes give you more traction when running at high speed on the track, basically they help out on the turns in fast races. so it doesn't really seem to make sense that spikes make you think barefoot running isn't the best way to run, it seems it would lead you to the exact opposite conclusion.

But you do concede that people using a human invention, spikes, have an advantage over people who use only what evolution provided, when the goal is to run faster on natural surfaces?

Yeah, he never had shoes back in my day but it was hard to get a footware sponsor after I got three medals in the Neanderthal Olympics in 10,004 BC.

Aghast wrote:

So no research should be trusted as all the research is of dubious quality. Therefore, you cannot tout the research as evidence for why we should all run barefoot. QED

SniperNoSniping wrote:

And who is doing the research for the cushioned running shoe?

Ohhh, the people selling them.

The "pro-barefoot" research is published and subject to peer review. You or I could get our hands on the data.

The "pro-running shoe" research, if any exists, has never been published. The data, if it exists, is held in a vault at Nike. Does that make any sense?

no shoes here wrote:

Aghast wrote:

So no research should be trusted as all the research is of dubious quality. Therefore, you cannot tout the research as evidence for why we should all run barefoot. QED

The "pro-barefoot" research is published and subject to peer review. You or I could get our hands on the data.

The "pro-running shoe" research, if any exists, has never been published. The data, if it exists, is held in a vault at Nike. Does that make any sense?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18424485

And the "pro-barefoot" research includes things like the following (quoted from the study mentioned early in this thread)

"A running shoe, selected for its neutral classification and design characteristics typical of most running footwear, was provided to all runners."

I don't have numbers in front of me, but I'm pretty sure it has been shown that the majority of the population exhibits some degree of over-pronation. Seems like giving each runner a neutral shoe would be a pretty simple way to skew a studies results against "typical ...running footwear". It even said in the study the runners had "no history of injury". Why not study what happens to their body when they run in the shoe that has gotten them to the point of "no history of injury"!!!

Maybe this is the choice of shoe didn't matter:

http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/hc/healthtips/11/201008runningshoes.cfm

Please find me studies which show:Controlled trials in which the study population included adult recreational or competitive distance runners, the exposure was distance running, the intervention evaluated was barefoot or minimal running shoes, and the outcome measures included either running injury rates, distance running performance, osteoarthritis risk, physical activity levels, or overall health and wellbeing. These well validated studies of barefoot running don't exist.

no shoes here wrote:

Aghast wrote:

So no research should be trusted as all the research is of dubious quality. Therefore, you cannot tout the research as evidence for why we should all run barefoot. QED

The "pro-barefoot" research is published and subject to peer review. You or I could get our hands on the data.

The "pro-running shoe" research, if any exists, has never been published. The data, if it exists, is held in a vault at Nike. Does that make any sense?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18424485

Aghast wrote:

Please find me studies which show:

Controlled trials in which the study population included adult recreational or competitive distance runners, the exposure was distance running, the intervention evaluated was barefoot or minimal running shoes, and the outcome measures included either running injury rates, distance running performance, osteoarthritis risk, physical activity levels, or overall health and wellbeing.

These well validated studies of barefoot running don't exist.

Do such well validated studies exist for shod running? (I know they don't.)

If you're running shod without injuries, great. Keep doing it.

But the vast majority of one-time runners quit the sport. They're all around you - former runners who now bike or swim or sit on a couch because their knees hurt or their back hurts. Those who still run are a minority, and even most of those suffer injury each year.

With this background, why spend $100 several times a year on shoes that change your natural (the way you were born) stride, and don't seem to do a good job of preventing injury?

I was on the "shod side" for years before I looked at my own injury history to try something different. And then I started to look at the data. Wow.

Honestly - are you just arguing for the sake of arguing, or have you looked the data?

Sorry I meant to reply to the poster who wrote:"The "pro-barefoot" research is published and subject to peer review. You or I could get our hands on the data.The "pro-running shoe" research, if any exists, has never been published. The data, if it exists, is held in a vault at Nike. Does that make any sense?"This is wrong as as I pointed out no data exists showing barefoot intervention decreases injury rate or improves performance.Also I take offense at this comment"They're all around you - former runners who now bike or swim or sit on a couch because their knees hurt or their back hurts. Those who still run are a minority, and even most of those suffer injury each year."That is not me and I am still very actively running and racing and have always been a shod runner.

I hope someone has thought to survey podiatrists over the last couple of years. I would be very interested to know the how the incidence of various running injuries has fluctuated, namely PF. From my own circle of friends and acquaintances I know many more who have developed issues trying to go to BF/minimal than have gotten away from injuries by going BF/minimal.

OldManRunner wrote:

"It becomes difficult to know who to believe when world famous athletes endorse running shoes and are quoted as saying that these are the finest you can buy...a lot of them will promote a brand of shoe while actually running in shoes which are nothing like the ones you would buy."

-Arthur Lydiard

Was there a point to putting this quote in there? It has NOTHING to do with your original subject line of barefoot running.

I'd say the correlation is pretty crystal. But I'll break it down for you.

1) Massive, massive amounts of people succumb to popular opinion, because it is popular.

2) Massive, massive amounts of people succumb to ideas marketed to them by corporations.

3) A large percentage of a shoe company's marketing plan is oriented around athletes effectively endorsing a product with their times.

All three not only harm (if not prevent) rational discourse, they also contribute to our culture's worldview, our culture's reigning paradigm, of the rule of fashionable fads. The current popularity of barefoot running may be a fad. Barefoot running itself is not. (The term "fad" was in the title, since you seem to be concerned about direct proof of relevance)

most of the world's best runners grew up walking and running without shoes, but the key is that they had dirt roads to do it on.

NJ Possible wrote:

johnny langenwanker wrote:

"Barefoot running on the proper surface..."

-Jack Daniels

I don't run on the proper surface. I run on pavement.

I agree with you...to a certain extent. Anyone attempting to transition into minimalist or barefoot running must do it slowly. Especially if you are running predominantly on pavement...but I don't think that automatically discounts an individual from minimalism. We have to remember everyone's body is different. Not all barefoot cultures originated from strictly grassland areas. Some humans can take it, some can't. I agree it should never be black and white absolutism, though.

That kind of mentality is what lead to the present vibram fad - what lead to people breaking bones in their feet because they went from a lifetime of running on mixed surfaces with maximum cushioning, straight into vibrams.

The FACT to remember is, most importantly, that the case of one person's failure or success with barefoot running or cushioned shoes should not define any kind of absolute truth, nor should it give any absolute indication as to what the rest of the world does. Trends should be looked at objectively and with an open mind.

Two things that predominantly influence my thinking:

1. Large amounts of people began getting injuries that never existed before when the running shoe boom started with jogging boom in the 60's and 70's.

2. Cultures in history and around the world, from various environments, run very high mileage with minimalist footwear, without an epidemic of injuries.

That doesn't tell me what I should do absolutely. In just encourages introspection into my own running past of injuries/non-injuries, and gives hints as to how I should go about my future.

The reason I write all this is not to preach a Barefoot Boom, as cool as that would be. I'm just sick and tired of hearing how one guy got injured from wearing vibrams and his one drinking buddy heard about it at a bar and decided to post it on letsrun as proof that the barefoot movement is all a sham. I'm also sick and tired of people listening to elites, as though their race times indicated some sort of innate understanding of the sport. And perhaps most clearly, I'm sick and tired of shoe companies and running stores having such a powerful hold over their customers.

All three of those things discourage the kind of rational thinking people need in order to determine what is truly best for them.

1. Large amounts of people began getting injuries that never existed before when the running shoe boom started with jogging boom in the 60's and 70's.

This is because a larger amount of people were running than ever before, so they are going to get injuries. It happens.

another shoe guy wrote:

I hope someone has thought to survey podiatrists over the last couple of years. I would be very interested to know the how the incidence of various running injuries has fluctuated, namely PF. From my own circle of friends and acquaintances I know many more who have developed issues trying to go to BF/minimal than have gotten away from injuries by going BF/minimal.

I don't doubt that you know many who have developed issues running in these new "minimal" shoes. Although I'd be stunned if you don't also know many runners (or former runners) who were injured wearing traditional running shoes, MBTs, or whatever.

But minimal shoes are not what I - or most advocates of BAREFOOT running - are talking about.

Minimal shoes are a red herring thrown in by shoe companies - who need to have something to sell, right? - and podiatrists - who need to have some injury to fix.

laughingostrich wrote:

1. Large amounts of people began getting injuries that never existed before when the running shoe boom started with jogging boom in the 60's and 70's.

This is because a larger amount of people were running than ever before, so they are going to get injuries. It happens.

True. You are right. But many common injuries today were actually created during the running boom. Meaning, they didn't really exist before. I don't think that is solely because of numbers. There were still a relatively large number of people who ran before 70's came along, just like there were a lot of people who listened to The Shins before Garden State came out. If the Shins caused Plantar fasciitis, I think we would've known about it when they had one or two million fans, before they got kinda huge.

Plantar fasciitis, and runner's knee, and many forms of running-related tendonitis, didn't really exist before running shoes. Try and find a case of PF before 1960. I haven't. And apparently they don't teach you history in medical school, because the trainers and doctors I asked said they had no idea when the first documented case of most running-related injuries was.

Vin Lannanna has also weighed in pro-minimalism:

"I believe that when my runners train barefoot they run faster and suffer fewer injuries."

Read more:

nerp wrote:

If minimalist shoes are superior to regular shoes, why is it that not one of the major companies have done away with their traditional shoes in favor of "superior" shoes? If they really are that much better, surely that would have a major market advantage.

Because no one in their right mind would pay $200 for a pair of running shoes that had a simple durable nylon upper and a simple durable hard rubber sole.

Also the $10 shoes would last much longer than what is typically produced by shoe companies.

I might vote pro barefoot if we were not a nation of fatasses.

When I visited my daughter in France and we were at the airport, she pointed out the difference in the size of the people at all the gates and how slim most other people were compared to those at the American gate. Fat Americans running barefoot will inundate an already crowded health insurance system.