Barefoot Running bad

Category: Barefoot Runners

  • Barefooter Giving Potentially Fatal Advice

    This was recently brought to my attention.

    Those with the vascular and neuropathic complications of diabetes are at a significant risk of amputations with death as a fatal complication of that. They need to take special care to avoid any trauma to the lower limb. For this reason all the guidelines from all the national organizations around the world are that these people should be wearing shoes around the home to prevent the kid of trauma that leads to these potentially fatal complications.

    Imagine the outrage when a barefoot fanatic was advising those with diabetes to go without footwear when a question was asked at Yahoo Answers about this. Fortunately the absolute fool that advised that was told in no uncertain terms how dangerous the advice was.

    Luckily they did withdraw the advice when their idiocy was pointed out to them. What is does show is how blindly they promoted their barefoot agenda without did not stop to think about the consequences. This was no doubt dangerous. Kudos to those who responded to this irresponsibility at Yahoo Answers. Also what was telling was the deafening silence from the barefoot community in coming forward to condemn the potentially fatal advice being given.

    {openx:248}

  • Definitive Evidence that Barefoot Running Really Does Make You Blind

    No sooner than I wrote about the possibility of barefoot running making people blind, Dr Nirenberg has come back with another post about  Barefoot Running With Eyes Wide Open which clearly proves beyond doubt that barefoot running does indeed make you blind.

    He claims: 

    The weight of the scientific evidence which supports barefoot running has reached such an elevated level that no one can seriously dispute it any longer

    There is absolutely no scientific evidence that shows that! The only people that believe that are barefoot runners! No one in the scientific or biomechanics community is agreeing with that. Are you telling me that the entire biomehanics community is “no -one“? These people are the people that study human motion for a living and have no vested interest in the outcome of the research.

    Here is the evidence that he offers up:

    German study determined that inadequate shoes worn as children is correlated to the increased prevalence of bunions and flat feet in today’s adults

    Here is the actual study:
    Wolf S, Simon J, Patikas D, et al. Foot motion in children’s shoes: a comparison of barefoot walking with shod walking in conventional and flexible shoes. Gait Posture. 2008;27:51-9

    There is absolutely nothing in that study to do with flat feet in today’s adults? It was only a study in children! Where did he get that from? Someone would have to be really blind to reach that conclusion from reading the study. Can someone show me anything about problems in adults in that study?

    He goes on:

    The average runner strikes the ground one thousand times per mile, thus they are highly susceptible to repetitive stress injuries (3). The greatest possibility for injury in a running foot occurs when it strikes the ground

    The refernce he uses for that claim is: van Gent RN, et al. Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2007;41:469-480

    … hmmmm nothing in that about impacts causing injury. No one has yet shown that high impacts are related to injury.

    He further claims:

    One of the luminaries in foot research, Dr. Daniel E. Lieberman, recently stated in the science journal Nature that his research has proven that barefoot runners generate smaller collision forces than shod runners.

    A “luminary” in foot research? Dr Lieberman has only done one piece of foot research! Certainly does not make him a luminary. I guess to the blind, he might be called that. Again, where is the evidence that high impacts even cause injury? Yes, there is less impact under the heel in barefoot runners, but why not mention the greater load under the forefoot and going through the Achilles tendon when running barefoot? The biomechanics community have generally dismissed the scientific validity of Lieberman’s work. The only people who have not are the barefoot runners. Why is that?

    Dr. Lieberman’s research showed that since many running shoes on the market today feature stiffened soles and arch supports these lead to a reduction in arch strength due to the weakening of the muscles of the foot

    Can someone please show me where in Lieberman’s research they did anything on the stiff soles and arch supports in running shoes leading to a reduction in arch strength? Where did Lieberman publish this research on arch strength? How can anyone read Lieberman’s study that was not even on arch strength and claim that it was. How blind do you have to be to see that when you read his paper?

    A notable Canadian study stated that when a runner’s foot is shod in an athletic shoe, the sensations of running are minimized. Modern running shoes tend to isolate the foot from “sensing” the conditions and thus are responsible for the elevated frequency of injuries suffered by runners.

    Here is this study: Robbins SE, Hanna AM, Running-related injury prevention through barefoot adaptations. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1987;19:2:148-156

    Again, no one in the biomechanics community is taking this work seriously because of flaws that underpinned the methodology and the ‘editorializing’ of the research done by the authors. Could someone please show me where in this study that they even looked at injury rates? They certainly did not show that this was “responsible for the elevated frequency of injuries suffered by runners.” This notable Canadian study did not even look at injuries! How blind is Dr Nierenberg?

    The overwhelming medical evidence of these studies is more than sufficient to take the blinders off those who truly want to see and open their eyes to the reality that the preferred way to run is with bare feet.

    Like the claims made by Michael Warburton, Dr Nirenberg and the “evidence” he claims supports his conclusion, he has totally failed to provide anything to back up that conclusion.

    Thank you Dr Nirenberg for helping me prove that barefoot running does indeed make you blind. A clinician who is responsible for making clinical decision should be much better and much more critical at appraising research. 
    {openx:248}

    Previous post: Does Barefoot Running Make you Blind?

  • Does Running Barefoot Make You Blind?

    I am really starting to wonder about this. It’s is the only explanation I can come up with to explain what I am seeing. First, we had all the barefoot websites claiming that running shoes cause osteoarthritis based on a study that was not even about osteoarthritis. Then we had them all claiming that barefoot runners get less injuries based on Liebermann’s study that got published in Nature when the study was not even about injuries. I even had barefoot runners email me the Kerrigan et al study and say things like “this is all the proof you need”, when it did not prove anything. I even got an email last week asking what I thought about the Liebermann study and why would I not accept the proof from that. I have already discussed the Liebermann study and there was no proof in it that barefoot running was better (even Liebermann had to put a disclaimer on his website to distance himself from those sorts of conclusions being made of his research). I was really starting to wonder why these people were so blind and making all these kinds of conclusions when that was not what the research was showing.

    Now I finally have some proof that barefoot running does indeed make you blind:

    I was reading the self proclaimed America’s Podiatrist’s (Dr Michael Nirenberg) blog, who is a barefoot runner and read this:

    A stunning medical study has reversed conventional wisdom on runners who pronate moderate to severely: The researchers found that it’s actually preferable to ditch your athletic shoes!…

    It has long been believed that athletic shoes can provide additional stability to a running foot due to cushioning and binding, therefore controlling excessive pronation: but that erroneous common belief was turned completely on its head by this study!…

    Barefoot running now has the weight of clinical evidence to conclusively prove that it lessens over-pronation.

    Interesting claims. I thought I had been asleep at the wheel and missed some new amazing research on this. I am normally good at keeping on top of this. I will always go where the research evidence takes me. I would also have thought that a medical professional who has to make clinical decisions about people’s health would be good at analyzing the veracity of research and its applicability. I thought I had better go and look at the research he was claiming showed all this. I already had the research in my files and it certainly was not ‘stunning‘. All I can conclude is that he just proved that barefoot runners really are blind. The research did not come close to supporting the claims he was making. I fail to see how someone who you think you could trust with clinical decisions to treat patients based on research can get it so wrong when reading research.

    Let’s take a closer look:

    This is the publication that he was refering to: Joanna B. Morley, Leslie M. Decker, Tracy Dierks, Daniel Blanke, Jeffrey A. French, Nick Stergiou:  Effects of Varying Amounts of Pronation on the Mediolateral Ground Reaction Forces During Barefoot Versus Shod Running. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 2010, 2, 205-214

    Here is the abstract:

    Despite extensive research on running mechanics, there is still a knowledge gap with respect to the degree of relationship between mediolateral ground reaction forces (ML-GRF) and foot pronation. Our goal was to investigate whether differences exist in ML-GRF among runners that exhibit different degrees of pronation. Seventeen male and 13 female recreational runners ran with and without shoes while ML-GRF and frontal kinematics were collected simultaneously. Subjects were divided into groups based upon their peak eversion (low pronation, middle pronation, high pronation). Discrete parameters from the ML-GRF were peak forces, respective times of occurrence, and impulses. No significant differences were found between groups regarding the magnitude of ML-GRF. Based upon the relative times of occurrence, the peak medial GRF occurred closer to the peak eversion than the peak lateral GRF. Findings support the idea that the ML-GRF have less to do with pronation than previous research suggested.

    Notice that there is nothing in the abstract that supports the ‘stunning‘ claims made by Dr Nirenberg. If you read the full study, it’s clear that the researchers showed none of what ‘Americas Podiatrist’ was claiming and no where do they even state what he was claiming. I am sure the authors of the study would not be impressed knowing that this sort of intrepretation was being made of their research. And this interpretation came from a medical professional who should know better when it comes to reading and appraising research! If you do not believe me, read it yourself and please show me where any of this was shown by that research? It wasn’t even ‘clinical evidence’! I would have though that a medical professional would know the difference between ‘clinical‘ and ‘labartory‘ research, but apprently not. There are even comments to the article that Dr Nirenberg wrote praising what he wrote. Did those barefoot runners even read the study that he is quoting or is this blind praise?

    Why does barefoot running make people so blind? If it does not make them blind, then why is it that when they read research they reach conclusion that no one else does, let alone the study’s authors? Does anyone have another explanation?
    {openx:248}

  • Stress Fractures in the Vibram FiveFinger’s ‘Barefoot’ Shoe

    I was being somewhat facetious in my 2+2=5 logic to show that barefoot runners get more stress fractures. As the barefoot running community tend to apply that logic to so much they claim, my point was why can’t I? Now we have more and more reports surfacing of metatarsal stress fractures occurring in the Vibram Five Fingers, so it appears that my 2+2=5 logic may not have been far off the mark.

    We already know that there is not a shred of evidence that running shoes cause injury and a recent publication goes some way to showing that they may be actually protective, which is kind of amusing as I get emails from barefoot runners who say they have proof that running shoes cause injury. What is there proof? It’s usually that they got an injury themselves in a running shoe! This only confirms what I claimed about the barefoot running community’s understanding about what evidence is and how such a claim is nonsensical.

    However, if the barefoot running community can make those sorts of claims based on the n=1 experience, then I can make the claim that Vibram Five Fingers causes stress fractures! Why can’t I make such a statement? I know of at least one person that got one (here is another; and more at Podiatry Arena). Is that not enough? Of course its not, but does show up the silly claims that get made about running shoes. We already know that they like having it both ways.

    Of concern is some of the discussion going on around the Vibram Five Fingers, with one barefoot runner claiming that the cause of the stress fracture was not doing enough barefoot running which, at best, is extremely irresponsible. And they wonder why the nutters label gets attached to them.

    If you follow some of the discussions on barefoot running sites and forum threads, they are trying to dismiss this apparent epidemic of stress fractures in the Vibram Five Fingers as being due to training errors and not really the fault of the Vibrams or the barefoot running. Yet when a runner gets an injury in a running shoe, it the fault of the shoe and not a training error. See how illogical these people are? They can’t keep on having it both ways.

    {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}

  • Why do no elite runners run barefoot?

    What Mary thinks of barefoot runners

    If barefoot running was so great, then why are there no elite runners doing it? Why have no world records been broken when running barefoot? Don’t you think that every elite runner and their ‘staff’ have looked at everything that could possibily give them a competitive edge? Why have they chosen not to run barefoot? Even the elite runners from African nations who grew up barefoot choose to run in running shoes – why is that?

    The only elite runners that have run barefoot were Abebe Bakila (and we all know that he could only break the world record when he started wearing running shoes)  and then there was Zola Budd, but thats one out of how many over how many years? And even she has stopped running barefoot and gone back to running shoes, so I guess the barefoot running community can scratch her off their list of barefoot running pin-ups as well (that leaves them with no one!). As she told the Guardian:

    “I no longer run barefoot,” she said. “As I got older I had injuries to my hamstring. I found that wearing shoes gives me more support and protection from injuries.”

    I do know that a few elite runners do some drills barefoot, but do distance themselves from the exaggerated and nonsensical claims made by the barefoot running community, as well as the intellectual dishonesty.

    I did come across this message posted on Podiatry Arena by a barefoot runner trying to explain why elite runners do not run barefoot:

    “Why do most non-elite runners wear running shoes? It’s because of (1) multi-million dollar marketing budgets from running shoe companies – they had me for 20 years, and (2) Fear. Fear stoked by podiatrists such as yourself.”

    See how deluded these people are? Do you really think that elite runners and their staff are that stupid that that would fall for running shoe company marketing hype and fear stoked by podiatrists? These sorts of statement are insults to the intelligence of elite runners. Who would you rather want to believe: The eilte runners who go to great lengths to find every edge that they can or those nutters who make statements like that? Who do you think is more intelligent? Who do you think has deluded themselves because the ‘want to believe‘? Do you think they also wear tinfoil hats?

    If barefoot running is any good, then the elite runners would be doing it. Ever wonder why they are not? Surely this says something?

    {openx:248}

  • Abebe Bakila as a ‘pinup’ runner for the barefoot fanatics

    Fans and supporters of barefoot running love to point out the achievements of the marathon runner, Abebe Bakila. He won the 1960 Rome  Olympic marathon in a time of 2hr 15min. He did this barefoot. His achievements are hailed and worshiped by the barefoot running community. You often see him touted and talked about on barefoot running websites. What they do not tell you is that he subsequently won the 1964 Tokyo Olympic marathon in a world record time of 2hr 12min wearing shoes! Why do the barefoot runners not talk about that?

    According to Wikipedia:

    He did enter the marathon, this time wearing Puma shoes. While he had spoken with Kihachiro Onitsuka of the future Asics company, he was pursued actively by Adidas and Puma, ultimately deciding to wear Puma shoes.

    He did not break the world record running barefoot; he broke the world record using running shoes!

    {openx:248}