Barefoot Running bad

Author: Craig

  • The Advertising on this Site

    This is a good one. I get a lot of emails (hate mail) and they all have one thing in common: They all prove what I am saying is right! None of them actually address the issues I raise and just take pot shots at me and do things such as attack my anonymity and call the site a joke (glad I can amuse you, but I would have thought that this barefoot nutter is a bigger joke). Notice how they resort to those tactics as they are obviously incapable of any rational discussion of the actual issues raised. This is a common theme with the barefoot running community in general when it comes to attempts to to debate and have rational discussions.

    A recent common theme in some emails is to attack me for the advertisements for running shoes that appear on the site as part of the Google Adsense program and the eBay Partner Network. As  I have already stated, I get NO funding from the running shoe industry, though the tin foil hat wearers will probably not want to believe. Anyone who is familiar with the Adsense program knows that you have very limited control over the content of the advertisements. Google crawls the page and the algorithm determines what the page is about and does its best to deliver the most relevant advertisements from their inventory. I do not decide what is shown. For information of the critics, I made a whole $1.65 last week from the advertisements. Advertisements for running shoes, for barefoot products, etc may or may not show up.

    However, I am happy to be accused of having no credibility because I have the advertisements here. I am happy with those accusations because:

    1. It proves me right in that these nutters are incapable of addressing the issues and have to use tactics like this. Having advertisements do not change the issues!
    2. It also should prove that the vast majority of the barefoot running websites have no credibility either, as they have advertisements on them as well! Should all websites with advertisements on them be considered as having no credibility? See how nutty these people are? How many times have I wrote on this site something like “you can’t have it both ways”.

    And besides, what if I did get funding from the running shoe industry, how does that actually change the issues that get raised? All it would do is that it would give the nutters another opportunity to attack me and show their irrational cult like behaviour and not address the actual issues raised. Can you see how irrational they are?

    They can criticise me for having some advertisements that Google might serve up for running shoes, but they will not criticise the barefoot running websites for having advertisements on them! I did not see a single barefoot running website try to discredit Liebermann et al’s study because they accepted funding for their study from a barefoot company, yet they try and discredit me becasue I get a few indirect bucks from the running shoes via the Google advertisements. How irrational is that? You can’t have it both ways!

    Thanks to all those who keep proving me right.

    {openx:248}

  • Do running shoes cause osteoarthritis?

    Do running shoes cause osteoarthritis? According to a lot of barefoot running websites and blogs they do. Where do that get that information from? They either seem to have made the claim up or based it on the press release that accompanied the Kerrigan et al study. Which is just another case of intellectual dishonesty as Kerrigan et al did not even do a study on osteoarthritis! How can you claim running shoes causes osteoarthritis based on research that did not even look at osteoarthritis? !!!! And we exposed two barefoot websites that even lied about it (how can we trust anything else they say if they do that?).

    What does the actual evidence say from those who actually did a study on osteoarthritis? Given that 99.99% of runners use running shoes, then if running shoes caused osteoarthritis, then you would expect to see more osteoarthritis in runners compared to the general population, wouldn’t you? Like the well documented track record of not letting facts get in the way of a good story, the barefoot running community conveniently ignore that fact that there is no more osteoarthritis in the running shoe wearing population compared to the general population. This has been clearly shown in numerous studies now. Lets look at a few of them:

    Rogers et al way back in 1985 showed that:

    here is no association between moderate long distance running and the future development of osteoarthritis. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that neither heavy mileage nor the number of years running are contributory to the future development of osteoarthritis.

    Before than in 1975, Puranen et al found no more OA in the hips of former elite runners. Lane et al in 1986 found that:

    Running is associated with increased bone mineral but not, in this cross-sectional study, with clinical osteoarthritis.

    Lane et al in 1993 showed:

    In summary, running did not accelerate the development of radiographic or clinical OA of the knees

    A more recent study in Germany by Schmitt et ak (2006) conlcued:

    Osteoarthritis of the knee joint is rare in former elite marathon runners. The risk of osteoarthritis of the hip joint seems to be higher than in control subjects who do not engage in much sport.

    Running shoes do not cause osteoarthritis. Get over it.

    {openx:248}

  • Barefoot and saving gas!

    This is too good an opportunity to pass up. If anyone ever wanted evidence as to just how nutty these people really are. Just check out this post on how its claimed that by driving the car barefoot you can save gas. And they expect to be taken seriously. This kind of nonsense only makes us laugh at them even more.

    {openx:248}

  • Plantar fasciitis and barefoot running

    What is the relationship between barefoot running and plantar fasciitis?

    In the research by Liebermann et al published in Nature, in the discussion they made the somewhat remarkable claim that:

    “Furthermore, many running shoes have arch supports and stiffened soles that may lead to weaker foot muscles, reducing arch strength. This weakness contributes to excessive pronation and places greater demands on the plantar fascia, which may cause plantar fasciitis.”

    As their research results was not about this, you would expect them to cite a reference to back up that claim. Those with an agenda never let a little fact like no one has actually shown that get in their way. They made this up.

    There is no evidence that running shoes lead to weaker arch muscles. There is no evidence that weak arch muscles contribute to excessive pronation (in fact weak intrinsic foot muscles actually lead to a high arch supinated foot which is the opposite!). There is no evidence that this even causes plantar fasciitis. There is evidence that foot orthotics actually strengthen muscles and certainly NONE that they weaken muscles! Never let it be said that those with an agenda won’t let a little intellectual dishonesty get in their way!

    If we look at Michael Warburton’s review on barefoot running that I totally demolished, he claimed:

    “One of the most common chronic injuries in runners is planter fasciitis, or an inflammation of the ligament running along the sole of the foot. There is some evidence that the normally unyielding plantar fascia acts as the support for the medial longitudinal arch, and that strain on the proximal fascial attachment during foot strike leads to plantar fasciitis (Robbins and Hanna, 1987). Barefoot running may induce an adaptation that transfers the impact to the yielding musculature, thus sparing the fascia and accounting for the low incidence of plantar fasciitis in barefoot populations (Robbins and Hanna, 1987).”

    He quotes Robbins and Hanna, 1987 as the reference for barefoot running accounting for the lower incidence of plantar fasciitis in barefoot populations – Robbins and Hanna never showed that (they did make that claim up though)! There is NO evidence that there is less plantar fasciitis in barefoot populations. Robbins et al in all their study’s never even did a study on plantar fasciitis, so I do not undertsand how people can use Robbins and Hanna as a reference to back up the claim when thats not what they showed! More intellectual dishonesty!

    Then you can read claims on barefoot websites that make claims typically like this:

    It stands to reason that if habitually barefoot people don’t experience Plantar Fasciitis while those of us with shoes and arch supports do, there has to be a reason.  That reason is likely that their feet are strong while ours are weak.

    How much more intellectual dishonesty are these people capable of? They wonder why so many do not take them seriously and think they are nutters? Come up with the evidence and data if you are going to make such bold statements. I will be the first to change my mind when someone does.

    Of all the risk factor studies that have ever been done on plantar fasciitis, NONE of them have linked plantar fasciitis to a weakness of muscles or the use of running shoes. There is not even the tiniest shred of evidence to even suggest that it is. Why are none of the studies finding these factors being claimed for plantar fasciitis? Why are those with an agenda making up these claims for?

    Plantar fasciitis is due to too high a load in the plantar fascia that is higher than what the structure can adapt to. A number of risk factors have been shown by the evidence to increase the risk for plantar fasciitis - all of those factors increase the load in the plantar fascia. The treatment of plantar fasciitis involves using strategies to reduce that load and to get the tissues to heal. It does not matter if you run barefoot or not.

  • Why I Chose to Remain Anonymous

    I have chosen to remain anonymous for one main and one minor reason.

    The main reason is that I wanted to make this site about the issues and not the person. I wanted to expose barefoot runners for the claims they make and not who they are. One thing you learn really quickly about the barefoot running community in general is that when they are challenged they show a remarkable ability to avoid the message and go after the messenger.

    For example, I have even seen one commentary on barefoot running attacked because of the physique of the person doing the writing was not the physique of a runner! How low is that? See how low they stoop? What has someone’s physique got to do with it? We can only assume if this is the only refutation of the issues raised, they obviously could not refute the issues. I have also seen another attempt to refute a different critique on barefoot running by attacking a couple of spelling mistakes in the article. See how they cleverly diverted attention away from their inability to actually refute the critique. There are numerous more examples I can use, and you want to see some of the emails I get!

    I have had emails demanding to know who I am. I have also had emails making all sorts of nonsensical claims (I will have fun addressing those on another day!). I have had NO emails addressing the issues. If you think that by remaining anonymous hurts the credibility of what I write, then so be it. I prefer to make it about the issues and not the person. I could have posted under a fake or made up name and then suddenly I have some credibility – but the issues I write about are still the same! See how silly the claims about my anonymity are? One thing that all those barefoot bloggers and forum posters who have attacked my anonymity have shown is that they cannot address the issues (if you do not believe me, then check them out). Rather than attack my anonymity, how about addressing the issues, for example:

    None of these questions or issues have anything to do with my identity.

    The minor reason I have chosen to remain anonymous is that I do participate in several running forums and my identity is no secret. I did respond once to a barefoot runner who posted some nonsensical interpretation of some research that did not come close to showing what they claimed (they do this a lot). I politely pointed out that they were wrong and why they were wrong. All hell then broke loose. They went ballistic. They did not like to be publically made a fool of. They went after me. They literally stalked me into every thread I posted a message in, no matter the topic. They were soon banned from the forum. They rejoined twice more (against the forum rules) to continue stalking and harassing me and were promptly banned. They then  found my email address and followed up with abusive emails to me; they even went as far as finding out which college I went to and made comments on that! After a while, they obviously tired of it, but not before I involved the police. I am sure the barefoot running community in general would not condone this kind of behaviour, but this is the level that some nutters go to.

    Stick to the issues. They are more important than worrying about who I am.

    {openx:248}

  • “Barefoot Runners Get More Stress fractures”

    Well they don’t really, but why can I not make up that headline like that as the barefoot running community do it all the time (see Intellectual Dishonesty). Surely if they do it, why can’t the rest of us do it? Mainly because we are not that irresponsible and dishonest.

    But, here is my logic behind the headline: Stress fractures have been related to muscle fatigue in the this study: The Influence of Muscle Fatigue on Electromyogram and Plantar Pressure Patterns as an Explanation for the Incidence of Metatarsal Stress Fractures (the study did not actually show that, but they speculated that in the discussion and title –  but the barefoot community do not let little facts like that get in the way of how they interpret and tout research that they pretend supports their cause, so give me some latitude here). And we have this study: Motion control shoes may reduce the injury risk in runners (my fake headline!)  that was recently published and suggested that there is less muscle fatigue in motion control running shoes (the study did not actually show what my fake headline claimed,  but the barefoot running community do not let little facts like that get in the way of how they interpret and tout research that they pretend supports their cause, so give me some more latitude here).

    So now let’s apply the 2+2=5 logic that the barefoot running community apply so often and conclude that shod runners get less stress fractures. They get less stress fractures as they have less muscle fatigue and more muscle fatigue is associated with stress fractures. This means that barefoot runners must get more stress fractures in comparison.

    This is the logical conclusion, isn’t it? But, I am not that irresponsible as I know there is not one study that shows there are more stress fractures in barefoot runners. So I am not going to make the claim that barefoot runners get more stress fractures.

    The point I am trying to make, is that this is the typical way the barefoot running community act in making their extraordinary unsupported claims. They make them up. They misrepresent and misinterpret research. They even lie about research. Then they pretend the research supports what they are doing, when it does not.

    {openx:248}

  • Who is opposed to barefoot running?

    Who is opposed to barefoot running? The barefoot running community have a track record of playing the person and not the ball and always like to go after or criticise the perceived opponents of barefoot running rather than rationally discuss the issues. Why do they have to criticise these opponents? Is barefoot running really that bad that it cannot stand on its own two feet (excuse the pun)? Is barefoot running really that bad, that the only way for the barefoot runners to justify what they do is to attack the opponents of barefoot running?

    Who are these opponents of barefoot running? Are they real or are they figments of the imagination of the barefoot runners?

    The most obvious targets of barefoot runners are Podiatrists and the running shoe companies.

    A check of the popular podiatry forum, Podiatry Arena, shows that they have had many discussions on barefoot running.  None of the Podiatrists who post there seem to be opposed to barefoot running. They are like me and just object to the way the barefoot running nutters twist and manipulate the research and are intellectually dishonest when it comes to interpreting and representing the research (and in the case of two barefoot websites exposed here, they lie about it). They also seem to object to the consistent way that barefoot runners always avoid discussing issues and attack the person (ie play the person and not the ball).

    A regular commentator on barefoot running, Craig Payne commented on Podiatry Arena: 

    I not opposed to barefoot running….it’s just the fanaticism and irrationality of so many of its supporters. How they blindly accepted and reported the above research is a perfect example of exactly what I am saying.

    It’s called the Straw Man argument. ….characterise your opponents position as something it’s not and then go after or refute that characterisation. They never really refute the original proposition. The barefoot runners are really good at that. …but we can see through them.

    Are there actually any podiatrists who are opposed to barefoot running? (I have made my views very clear many times). Barefoot runners like to use Podiatrists as the ‘bogey man’ — but how many podiatrists actually are against barefoot running? If you look at all the threads we have had on the topic, it’s all been about how the barefoot runners misuse, misrepresent and misunderstand the research and how they promote the badly done research.

    Simon Bartold, a podiatrist who works for ASICS said pretty much the same thing in the same discussion and never said he had any opposition to barefoot running. Kevin Kirby in a debate in Runners World magazine never came out and said he opposed barefoot running. Do you notice how many of the pro-barefoot running comments do not really deal with any of the issues that Kevin Kirby raised and just attack him. This is what the barefoot running community do (ie play the person and not the ball).

    Ian Griffiths, a sports podiatrist in the UK wrote an article evaluating the Liebermann et al and Kerrigan et al studies that the barefoot running community fell for. The critique was not too dissimilar to mine here. He then got himself into a debate with a barefoot runner on twitter and the best that the barefoot runner could come up with was that he was biased as he treats injuries. Yes, he does treat injuries, but what about the issues Ian raised in the critique? Why not deal with or refute them?  See that this is the best that they could come up with! (I not biased by that one as I do not make a living treating injuries).

    Robert Isaacs summed it up nicely: 

    It takes far less knowledge and thought to attack the messenger than it does to attack the message. It’s easy, anyone can do it. And It diverts attention nicely away from the science.

    There are even Podiatrists who are barefoot runners and openly promote it. They are obviously not opposed to barefoot running.

    It is really hard to find any podiatrists actually opposed to barefoot running. I can find many expressing caution about doing it, which is exactly what the barefoot running community express as well. The only difference is that health professionals have professional accountability and are licensed to practice and have laws governing what they do. The barefoot runners giving advice do not have that accountability for bad advice (for example, I have seen no one in the barefoot running community hold accountable the two barefoot running websites that lied about the Kerrigan research. Why is that?)

    What about the running shoe companies? Are they opposed? Not according to statements made by them (but we know that the barefoot running community will not agree with that because of their tin foil hats). The barefoot running community make extraordinary claims about how bad running shoes are, but none of it is backed up by any evidence. There is evidence that they are being intellectually dishonest about and claim it shows running shoes are bad, but it does not. They have been extremely silent on the most recent research that shows running shoes may reduce injury and increase endurance ;-).

    But what if running shoes are bad or not, what has that got to do with the merits of if barefoot running is good or bad? Why do the barefoot runners even care? See the point I am making? If barefoot running was any good, it would stand on its own merits and not stand on attacks on imaginary problems with the running shoe industry.

    The opponents of barefoot running are a figment of the imagination of the barefoot running community. As the barefoot running community have demonstrated that they cannot rationally discuss issues and continually misrepresent research, then the only thing left is to attack these so called opponents. Does that just not show you the weakness of the position that they are arguing from?

    Is barefoot running really that bad, that it cannot stand on its own merits? Is barefoot running that bad, that the only way the barefoot running community can defend barefoot running is to attack opponents. My advice to the barefoot running community: Start playing the ball and not the person.

    {openx:248}

  • Minimalist shoe vs conventional shoe for plantar fasciitis

    I got am email asking me what I thought of the recent study in the Physician and Sports Medicine about those with plantar fasciitis improving more in barefoot or minimalist shoes (Nike Free) compared to conventional shoes. Here is the abstract:

    Plantar fasciitis is a common injury to the plantar aponeurosis, manifesting as pain surrounding its proximal insertion at the medial calcaneal tubercle. Pain is typically worse in the morning when getting out of bed, and may subside after the tissue is sufficiently warmed up. For running-based athletes and individuals who spend prolonged periods of time on their feet at work, plantar fasciitis may become recalcitrant to conservative treatments such as ice, rest, and anti-inflammatory medication. Exercise-based therapies have received only limited attention in the literature for this common problem, yet they are becoming increasingly validated for pain relief and positive tissue remodeling at other sites of similar soft-tissue overuse injury. This study reports on pain outcomes in individuals experiencing chronic plantar fasciitis while wearing a shoe with an ultraflexible midsole (Nike Free 5.0) (FREE) versus a conventional training (CON) shoe in a 12-week multielement exercise regimen, and after a 6-month follow-up. Adults with >or= 6-month history of painful heel pain were recruited and randomly assigned to wear 1 of the 2 shoes. All subjects completed the same exercise protocol. A visual analogue scale item tracked peak pain in the preceding 24 hours taken at baseline, 6- and 12-week points, and at the 6-month follow-up. Twenty-one subjects completed the program (9 FREE; 12 CON). Both groups reported significant improvements in pain by the 6-month follow-up, and the FREE group reported an overall reduced level of pain throughout the study as a result of lower mean pain scores at the midpoint and post-test compared with the CON group. The exercise regimen employed in this study appears to reduce pain associated with chronic plantar fasciitis, and in doing so, the Nike 5.0 shoe may result in reductions in pain earlier than conventional running shoes.

    The data presented in the study did not support the conclusion made by the authors and this shows how easy it is to jump to conclusions based on just reading the abstract. The data may have actually shown the opposite to the authors conclusion!

    When researchers publish their research, they like to publish it in what are called high impact journals. This is a complicated formula based on a number of factors. Due to competition only the best research theoretically makes it into the high impact journals. Because of this, poorer quality research theoretically makes it into the lower impact journals. The Physician and Sports Medicine is a lower impact journal. To publish a randomized controlled trial (like the above one) in a high impact journal, then the reporting almost always has to comply with the CONSORT standards. This is a standard method of analysing and reporting the results of randomized controlled trials agreed to by the editors of many of the high impact medical journals. This allows for a high level of transparency in analysis and reporting. Most of the low impact medical journals also adhere to this standard, but based on the above research, the Physician and Sports Medicine does not appear to.

    In the above research, those with plantar fasciitis were given a standard treatment protocol with the only difference being one group kept their conventional running shoes and the other group were given the Nike Free. Their analysis showed non-statistically significant greater initial improvement in the group using the Nike Free (which is problematic conclusion on its own, but I won’t go that way). What the abstract does not say (but the full publication does say) is that the symptoms of two subjects in the Nike Free got so bad that they had to withdraw from the study, so their data was not included in the final analysis. One of the key tenants in the CONSORT statement for the analysis of randomised controlled trials is what is known as ‘intention to treat’ analysis, in that the data from those who withdraw need to be included in the analysis. So the pain scores from the two subjects who got worse in the Nike Free’s who had to withdraw should have been included in the analysis. I am sure you can see if they had done that, the results from the study would have been very different. The results would have probably have been no difference between the two groups or even the Nike Free group doing worse (as two subjects got that bad they had to withdraw!).

    I do not know why the Physician and Sports Medicine allowed publication of this study without the ‘intention to treat’ analysis which is the accepted ‘gold standard’. One thing I do know is that this study will find its way into the teaching resources of research methods courses as a classic on how to understand ‘intention to treat’ analysis and why it is important.

    I did check around the barefoot running websites and was pleasantly surprised that they were not touting this research as being evidence for minimalist running shoes (or even barefoot running!). Good on them for that. They will certainly be making fools of themselves if they did and providing more evidence of their intellectual dishonesty.

    {openx:248}

  • Motion control shoes may reduce the injury risk in runners

    I wonder how the barefoot running community will respond to this one? Despite claims by the anti-running shoe lobby, there is NO evidence that running shoes do any harm (see: Intellectual Dishonesty), now we have some research that shows that motion control shoes do some good. How will they respond to that?

    Here is the abstract that appeared in the American Journal of Sports Medicine:

    Motion Control Shoe Delays Fatigue of Shank Muscles in Runners With Overpronating Feet
    Background: The motion control shoe is a well-developed technology in running shoe design for controlling excessive rearfoot pronation and plantar force distribution. However, there is little information on the leg muscle activation with different shoe conditions.
    Hypothesis: The motion control shoe can prevent excessive shank muscle activation and delay fatigue.
    Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.
    Methods: Twenty female recreational runners with excessive rearfoot pronation were tested with running 10 km on a treadmill on 2 days. Participants wore either a motion control running shoe or neutral running shoe on each day. Activities of their right tibialis anterior and peroneus longus were recorded with surface electromyography. The normalized root-mean-square electromyography and median frequency were compared between the 2 shoe conditions.
    Results: Significant positive correlations were found between the root-mean-square eletromyography and running mileage in both the tibialis anterior and peroneus longus in the neutral shoe condition (P <.001). The median frequency dropped in both shoe conditions with mileage, but paired t tests revealed a significantly larger drop in the neutral shoe (P < .001 for peroneus longus, P = .074 for tibialis anterior).
    Conclusion: The motion control shoe may facilitate a more stable activation pattern and higher fatigue resistance of the tibialis anterior and peroneus longus in individuals with excessive rearfoot pronation during running.
    Clinical Relevance: The motion control shoe may increase the running endurance, thus reduce overuse injuries, in athletes with unstable feet during long-distance running.

    Now, if I was as irresponsible as some barefoot running websites in which they tout research they imagine supports barefoot running (see those two barefoot websites that lied here), I would be perfectly entitled to use this headline for the research: Motion Control Shoes Improve Endurance and Reduce Injuries.

    Why can’t I say that? This is the way the barefoot running websites write headlines for research that they totally misrepresent to promote their cause. Why can’t I do the same? Maybe because I am not so blinded by an agenda. I know the research did not actually show that (which is something that the barefoot running community try to get away with all the time. See: Intellectual Dishonesty).

    Lets take a closer look at the research and be honest about it:

    1. It was done on females, so the results may not apply to males (though there is no reason to doubt that it does not, but there are biomechanical differences between the way that males and females run).
    2. It was done on ‘pronators’, so the results cannot be generalized to non-pronators.
    3. It was done on a treadmill, so the gait there is not the same as overground running. It will be interesting if the anti-running shoe community are going to try and dismiss this study as it was done on a treadmill, but were happy to accept the Kerrigan et al study which was also done on a treadmill, but we know that those with an agenda like having things both ways.
    4.  They used the Adidas Supernova cushion and the Adidas Supernova control, so everything is ok there, except they probably should have used the term ‘cushion’ rather than ‘neutral’.
    5. I checked in with a professor who knows more than me about electromyography to see if there were any issues there and he had found no issues.
    6. It was funded by an independent grant and not by the running shoe industry.

    What did they find?

    This study compared the lower leg muscle recruitment with and without fatigue in recreational runners who have excessive foot pronation when running with different footwear. The results revealed that motion control footwear was able to maintain more stable activity in the TA and PL muscles and delay fatigue of these muscles with prolonged running better than neutral cushioned footwear.

    That’s all they found. They did not find that “Motion Control Shoes Improve Endurance and Reduce Injuries”.

    However, if we want to extrapolate and develop some theory from that research, then yes, the data is suggestive that there would be less fatigue in the leg muscles in those with a pronated foot when wearing a motion control shoe. This should translate to a better endurance performance and a theoretical reduction in injury risk. But, we are not as irresponsible to jump to definitive conclusions as this was not a study on endurance or injury (not like the barefoot running community who made up headlines about the Kerrigan et al study claiming that running shoes cause osteoarthritis, when it was not even a study on osteoarthritis!)

    How will the barefoot running community respond to this study? My money is on they will ignore it as it does not fit in with their agenda.

    {openx:248}

  • Is barefoot running the norm or default?

    I just wish there were more hours in the day to write about this. The barefoot runners need to follow Confucius’s advice:

    When in hole, it’s a good idea to stop digging

    They continually provide copious amounts of material to demonstrate how irrational and illogical they are. I have so much to respond to and there is just not enough time in the day to deal with it all. Just today, I came across this gem from Twitter, in which a barefoot runner was engaged in a discussion with a podiatrist and made this statement:

    the default is BARE FEET

    The default is barefoot? Given that 99.99% of runners use running shoes, then the default is not barefoot. The default is using running shoes! See how irrational and illogical these people have become?

    They tried to use this argument that barefoot was the norm to put the onus on the running shoe industry to show that running shoes were actually beneficial. I agree, the running shoe industry should be doing this. But what is wrong with the barefoot ‘industry’ showing that barefoot running is actually beneficial? (which NO research has yet shown, despite claims by barefoot runners). Just because there is yet no published research on the benefits of running shoes does not mean that they are not beneficial and barefoot running is better! (see this post). See how irrational and illogical these people have become? They can’t have it both ways!

    Is barefoot the norm or default? Of course it’s not!

    {openx:248}