Barefoot Running bad

Tag: no brainers

  • Why I have comments turned off

    I have the comments turned off on this blog for a number of reasons. Mainly because I have no desire or energy to engage in discussion with the barefoot running community. They have already proved how irrational and nonsensical they are in previous discussions; how they totally misrepresent and misquote research; and how they are totally incapable of addressing the actual issues that get raised. Instead they resort to attacking the messenger and not the message. I have lots of emails attacking me and not one of these emails actually addressed the issues I raised. All the emails do is keep on proving me right. Trying to rationally discuss the actual issues is no different to discussing religion. You cannot get anywhere with them and they do everything they can to avoid the issue.

    All my attempts to engage in discussion in the past have been dismal failures as they are not capable of sticking to the issues, which is why I choose to remain anonymous. I will blog soon with some of the emails I get, so you can see exactly how they can not address the issues (I even had one email me today accusing me of being an evolution denier and to get over myself, etc etc! Where have I even said anything about evolution? – notice how they accuse me of that and try to abuse me, but are totally incapable of addressing any issues I raise? It’s the old tactic, that if you can’t debate the point, abuse the messenger. What if I am an evolution denier or not, what has that got to do with the issues I raise. Rather than accuse me of something and take ‘pot shots’ at me, why not actually address the issues? I have a lot more emails that I will quote later).

    I have also in the past posted many comments on blogs about barefoot running pointing out things like, for example:  “You do realise that there is not one study that has shown running shoes cause injury?“; “you say that the heel impact is the cause of running injuries – can you actually tell us what injury you are actually talking about as research has not linked one single injury to high heel impacts“;  “You claim that the injury rate in runners has been going up recently, what evidence do you have for that? The published evidence is that this is not the case“; “The Kerrigan study was not even on osteoarthritis, so you cannot claim the osteoarthritis is caused by running shoes based on that study” and also we know that runners get no more osteoarthritis than the general population; “Lieberman in Nature did not show that barefoot running caused less injuries, so you cannot make that claim based on his research (even Lieberman had to post that on his website to stop people interpreting his research that way)”; etc. Guess what? NONE of them got approved for publication. Why is that? Why are they afraid of the truth? Is it because it does not fit with their agenda?

    I do appreciate the occasional email I do get from a barefoot runner who are embarrassed at claims made by other barefoot runners (such as the two barefoot sites that lied about the Kerrigan research) as it makes them all look bad. I had one yesterday that wanted to distance themselves what they called the ‘Church of Barefoot Running’ and the nonsensical claims they make. They did make one criticism of what I write, that I will accept – that I am labelling the entire barefoot running community based on the public comments of a select few barefoot runners. They are probably right. But, perhaps they need to take this up with those in the barefoot community who make the nonsensical and irrational claims, as the public can only judge barefoot running based on the public comments made by those in that community.

    I do get a number of emails demanding I turn on comments. Why should I allow barefoot runners who are not capable of sticking to the issues raised, make nonsense claims, and take ‘pot shots‘ comment here when my comments on barefoot running blogs do not get approved. You can’t have it both ways.
    {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}

  • 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}

  • 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}

  • Do barefoot runners fly in aeroplanes?

    We have all seen one of the arguments that they love to make to support barefoot running. The argument goes something like: We were created to run barefoot. We are not born with running shoes. Because we were created that way then we should run barefoot. You know the story that they try to tell.

    We weren’t created to fly either, but we get in planes all the time. There are a lot of other things that we were not created to do, but still do. Are barefoot runners going to give up flying and all these other things?

    Do you see the absurdity of their argument? I bet that they won’t see it this way, as they like having it both ways (see: The lack of evidence for running shoes? – you can’t have it both ways!). They like being extremely critical of research that does not support their cause, but then do not apply the same standards of evaluation to research that supports their cause (see Intellectual Dishonesty). You can’t have it both ways.

    Either barefoot runners have to give up this nonsense argument that we were created to run barefoot or stop getting on planes. You can’t have it both ways.

    {openx:248}

    Credit is due to this thread at Podiatry Arena for the idea for this post.

  • Where are all these impact injuries that runners are supposed be getting an epidemic of?


    Again, this is something that only exits in the minds of the anti-running shoe lobby. I have already shown how they have misused the research to scam us into believing that there is no decrease in the rate of injury from the alleged improvement in running shoes over the years. Some have even tried to claim there has been an increase. They are making this up as there is no data to support it.

    Libermann et al in the first sentence to his paper on barefoot running says “Running can be most injurious at the moment the foot collides with the ground”. I notice that they supplied no citation to back this claim up. In that work of semi-fiction, ‘Born to Run’, Chris McDougall makes numerous unsupported claims about impact injuries. Robbins et al in their editorialization of what is otherwise good research, talk about the sensory illusion that soft running shoes can cause alterations in impact behaviours and this makes running shoes increase the risk for impact injuries in runners. I could go on and cite many more examples and claims that get made about impact causing injury in runners.

    What do all these claims and the many more numerous ones have in common? They don’t even tell us what an impact injury is. They provide no evidence of impact even causing overuse injuries in runners. The reason is because there is no such thing as impact causing overuse injuries in runners! They are all making it up and perpetuating the myth! Why would they do that for?

    There is not one study that has shown higher impacts cause an increased risk for injury! (Obviously I am not talking about the extreme high impacts that might cause an acute fracture).

    What are the common injuries that runners get:

    Patellofemoral pain syndrome/anterior knee pain (Runners Knee) – none of the studies done on this have linked it to impact.

    Medial tibial stress syndrome (shin splints) – not one of the prospective risk factors studies done on this has linked it to impacts.

    Plantar fasciitis (heel pain) – not one of the risk factor studies have linked this to impacts.

    Stress fractures – none of the studies done on this have linked it to impact.

    I should not need to cite any more examples, as these make up most of the overuse running injuries. If you do not believe me, do this: Pick any injury. Do a literature search on the studies that have looked at what increases the risk for that injury. Notice how none of them find impact as a problem?

    In fact the opposite is the case. We need higher impacts from weight bearing activity to prevent osteoporosis and make the bones stronger! (The research evidence on this is unequivocal).

    Where are all these people getting their information from about the myth of impacts causing overuse injuries in runners and it reaching epidemic proportions? Why are they perpetuating the myth? Why are they making this into a problem? Why are they making up this epidemic? Is it because they have an agenda to promote and the myth suits their purposes? High impacts being a problem in runners only exists in the minds of those with an agenda.

    {openx:248}

  • The problem with n=1 and ‘evidence’


    You often see barefoot runners responding to comments about the lack of evidence for barefoot running by doing one of two things:

    1. They point to evidence. However, when you look at it, it’s not evidence (they are really good at doing this intellectual dishonesty. For example, see how they fell for some of the research: Hook, line and sinker).
    2. They claim that they have all the evidence they need as they can run barefoot and they know some others that have successfully transitioned to barefoot. If they think this is ‘evidence’, then it is really further evidence of how they delude themselves. They need to go back to school to learn what the word ‘evidence’ means.

    Within medical and health research, there is what is known as a hierarchy of evidence. At the top of the hierarchy are the meta-analyses that combine data from several prospective randomized controlled trials. At the very bottom of the hierarchy is the individual experiences. The n=1 (ie research involving one person individual experience) is not research. It is just one persons individual experiences. These experiences can be flawed or misinterpreted. Let’s look at examples and analogies:

    I think everyone is clear on the evidence of the risk of harm of smoking during pregnancy, yet a number of women still smoke during pregnancy. Often when asked why they are doing it, they respond with something like, ‘My friend smoked during pregnancy and she had no problems’. That is pretty much the sort of argument that barefoot runners like to make. They have a friend that can run barefoot, therefore it must be OK, despite all the scientific evidence. Well, this kind of argument is not acceptable in the context of smoking and pregnancy, why is acceptable in the barefoot running community? I will concede that there is NO evidence that barefoot running is harmful, but there is NO evidence that it is beneficial either, despite the claim that the barefoot runners like to make – in this pregnancy and smoking analogy, the evidence for barefoot running is knowing some others that do it! That is NOT evidence.

    Would you like to be operated on by a surgeon that has only done one of a particular type of procedure before? Would you be happier about it if the surgeon had a couple of other surgeons they knew who had also done the procedure? What kind of evidence is this? I assume you can see where this analogy is going…

    Any number of medical and health treatments that people swear work have been shown not to work by good clinical trials. There are no good trials on if barefoot running is beneficial or not, yet the barefoot running community constantly talk about the evidence of the n=1. This kind of evidence is not acceptable elsewhere, so why is it acceptable to the barefoot running community?

    How often do you see comments that go something like “I used to get all these injuries and now that I run barefoot, I don’t”. Lets dissect that kind of comment. How do you know that the injuries are less because of the barefoot running?:

    • most runners tend to go through phases of getting more injuries and then not getting injuries. It is just the way it happens. So, how do we know that a particular individual that transitions to barefoot running was not just due to enter a phase of less or no injuries. The reduction in injury could be due to this and NOT the barefoot running (but then again it may not be).
    • now that they are running barefoot, there is a good chance that they are now running on a softer surface. Maybe the lack of injuries is due to surface and nothing to do with the barefoot running (but then again it may not be).
    • maybe at the same time they transitioned to barefoot running, they also started doing more stretching exercises. The reduction in injury could be due to that and nothing to do with the barefoot running (but then again it may not be).
    • maybe they changed how many sugars that they have in a cup of coffee in the morning at the same time they started barefoot running.  Maybe that is the reason for the no injuires (but then again it incredibly unlikely to be the reason, but we can not rule it out).

    Can you see where this is heading? It is often easy to blame the most obvious factor and not consider other possible intervening factors. It does not mean that the barefoot running was the reason or not the reason, it is just you cannot jump to that conclusion based on individual experiences (or are you happy for a surgeon to operate on you who has done something once and knows a few others that have also done it?).

    Why are individual experiences so flawed? For those who want to explore this further, I suggest you read: Why do ineffective treatments seem helpful?. While this is written in the context of medical and health interventions, and about how an individual’s own clinical experiences can be flawed, the principle can be applied here to an individual’s experiences with what they perceive as the benefits to themselves of barefoot running. If you want to make claims about your experiences, that’s fine, but convince me first that you understand what this article is talking about. Otherwise stop making the silly claims about what you think is evidence.

    {openx:248}

  • What has happened to injury rates? Are running shoes to blame?

    You can often read comments or statements to the effect that running shoe technology has allegedly improved massively over the last 20-30-40 years, yet when you look at the epidemiological studies of running overuse injuries, there has been no change. The barefoot running community tend to use such statements as evidence that running shoes are bad. You also see many claims in barefoot running books and websites, that the injury rate is actually going up. But like other bits of intellectual dishonesty, they just do not seem to get it and repeatedly twist things to suit their agenda.

    Yes, if you look at the marketing of running shoes and the technological development of running shoes, there is an apparent improvement in the features that are claimed to help reduce running injuries.

    Yes, if you look at the old and more recent prevalence and incidence of running overuse injury studies, the rates of injury are pretty similar (as an aside, most comments I have seen in running barefoot books, on running forums and barefoot running websites on this, show that they do not even know the difference between the words ‘incidence’ and ‘prevalence’, so how can you trust any interpretation they make of the research of they can’t get the basics right?).

    But, if you dig a little deeper, the comparisons between then and now do not stack up to scrutiny. You will not be able to find a single epidemiologist (the specialists who do these sorts of studies for a living) who would agree that the comparisons between the older studies and the newer studies are valid. If they are adamant you can’t do this, then why do the anti-running shoe community think they can do it?

    Why can’t you compare them? Because:

    • The populations used are different in different studies
    • The selection of the populations are different in different studies
    • The definition of an injury was different in different studies
    • The collection of the data was different in different studies
    • Running has changed over time (I came across a comment recently that the average marathon time in the 80’s was 3hr 8min and these days its around 4hr 20mins – how can you compare these two different populations?)

    On the surface, it does appear the injury rate across studies over time has not changed, but dig below the surface and you cannot make that comparison. It’s simply not valid. If you want to beat up on running shoes, you are going to have to find something else rather than dig a bigger hole for yourself using this data.

    {openx:248}

  • Are Podiatrists snake oil salespersons?

    One thing you quickly learn about the barefoot running community, in general, is that they are very sensitive to criticism and cannot engage in rational discussion about the issues (more on that later). Instead they resort to name calling and use other diversion tactics, which is a classic sign of people arguing from a position of weakness. One classic line I came across recently was a barefoot runner trying to defend barefoot running from a criticism by calling Podiatrists the biggest snake oil salesmen of all time (they should have said salespersons!). Typically, they could not defend the criticism and had to introduce this attack rather than deal with the actual issue. See the Wikipedia entry if you do not know what is meant by snake oil.

    What intrigues me is that what if Podiatrists are snake oil salespersons or not, what has that got to do with barefoot running?

    There are podiatrists who are even barefoot runners and even promote barefoot running! (see this). Are they also snake oil salespersons? A look at some of the discussion on podiatry forums will show that podiatrists are not opposed to barefoot running. However, most podiatrists seem to take the position I take here and that is they have a problem with the intellectual dishonesty in the barefoot running community, the misrepresentation of research by the barefoot running community and the non-scientific nonsense that they espouse. Just becuse a Podiatrist (or for that matter, any other type of health professional) point this out, rather than deal with the issue raised, they come out with a criticism of Podiatrists.

    Podiatrists are really good at critical self analysis of the underpinnings of their professional work. For more see these discussions on snake oil and their criticisms of their own. I do not see the barefoot running community doing the same self critical analysis. For example, is the barefoot running community going to hold accountable the two barefoot running websites that blatantly lied about the Kerrigan research? (see Hook, line and sinker).

    However, I still do not see what all this has to do if barefoot running is good or bad and why some in the barefoot running community try to defend barefoot running by attacking podiatrists. It’s really a nonsensical argument.

    But anyway, lets address the concept of Podiatrist’s being snake oil salespersons. I assume they are saying this as Podiatrists use foot orthotics as one tool of many in their armamentarium used to treat overuse injuries in runners. Physical therapists, orthopaedic surgeons, chiropractors, pedorthists, etc also use foot orthotics for the same reason. Are they also snake oil salespersons?

    Do foot orthotics work? I challenge anyone to find me one (just one will do) study that shows foot orthotics do not work (I know they cannot, as there are none!). Every single study that has looked at this (and there are over 200) has shown foot orthotics work. Most of those studies were not even done by Podiatrists! Even the ones with bad methods and flaws still showed they work. The ones with good methods and minimal or no flaws still showed they work. Have those who choose to call podiatrists snake oil salespersons read any of these? I doubt it.

    The patient satisfaction studies show people are satisfied with their foot orthotics; the outcome studies show people get better with foot orthotics; even the well designed randomised controlled trials show that those in the foot orthotics treatment group get better. Most of the results of these studies show that there are 70-80-90% satisfaction, improvement in outcomes etc with foot orthotics. Where does anyone ever get the impression that foot orthotics do not work? There is certainly more evidence accumulated for the use of foot orthotics than there is evidence for the benefits of barefoot running.

    As the numbers show 70-80-90%, that’s still 10-20-30% of the time that they were not helpful. But those figures are pretty consistent with most medical interventions. For example, surgical procedures do not work all the time; antibiotics do not work all the time. Are surgeons and family practitioners snake oil salespersons because their surgery or antibiotics did not work 100% of the time?

    Why do foot orthotics not work in those 10-20-30% of the time? Could be they were the wrong prescription; could be due to biological variation (i.e. antibiotics do not work all the time); could be that they should not have been used in the first place; could be a failure of the runner to follow instructions; could be any number of reasons. At the end of the day, there is a failure rate for every medical, surgical, pharmaceutical, mechanical or physical therapy. Should they not be used because of that reason?

    My advice to the barefoot running community: Stick to the issues; discuss and debate the issues and stop throwing up nonsensical oneliners when you feel you are backed into a corner. You are only showing the weakness of your position when you resort to those tactics.

    {openx:248}

  • Hook, line and sinker!

    This will have to go down as an all time classic to show just how intellectually challenged the barefoot running movement is. They fell for this study ‘hook, line and sinker’! This is the study in question here: The Effect of Running Shoes on Lower Extremity Joint Torques.

    It has been widely touted on barefoot running websites and on running forums by the barefoot nutters as proof that running shoes are bad and barefoot running is better. I wonder if they realize how big a fool they are making of themselves with this. It is obvious that they did not even read the research.

    Let’s look closer. Here is the press release that accompanied the publication of the research: Running shoes may cause damage to knees, hips and ankles touting that running shoes may cause knee osteoarthritis! The media widely reported the press release. Did they even read the publication before carrying the press release? The study was looking at ankle and knee torques running with and without shoes. It was not even a study on osteoarthritis. Makes them look kind of dumb don’t ya think?

    Most barefoot running websites and running forums had the fanatics touting the research and making all sorts of nonsensical claims coming from it. Two of them even left out the ‘may’ in the title of the press release to claim that Running shoes cause damage to knees, hips and ankles – does that not show you how intellectually dishonest these people are? Why did they do that for, when the research did not come remotely close to showing that. Talk about being sucked in by what they want to believe. Here are these two websites: Barefoot Running Shoes & Barefoot Running.

    The second one has already changed their title in response to it being pointed out how dishonest they were. But we are on to them, as I have the screen shots of both of them here to shame them and expose them for what they are:

    Where in the research does it actually show what these headlines claim? Are these people blind or can’t they read?

    Have they also not read the research that shows that runners do not even get more osetoarthritis than the general population? If the claims that they are making were true, then why is there not more ostoarthritis in the running population?

    Let’s have a closer look at the research and what it means:
    They looked at a group of runners running on a treadmill without and with running shoes and comparing torques at at the knee and ankle joints. They showed that the torques were higher when wearing shoes (that’s all they showed – i.e. nothing to do with joint damage or osteoarthritis!)

    Problem Number One:
    They did this on a treadmill, so the results can only be generalised to a treadmill running population and not running in general! Treadmill running gait is very different to overground running gait – there is no propulsive phase (as the belt moves), the treadmill has some give in it (not like the road); etc. This will affect the results.

    Problem Number Two:
    They claimed they used a neutral shoe, but they used the Brooks Adrenaline which everyone (except them) seems to know that this is a motion control shoe. The Brooks Adrenaline is a good shoe, but would not have been the most appropriate shoe for a number of them and would have adversely affected the biomechanics in some of them. The choice of running shoe should have been individually prescribed. This will affect the results.

    Problem Number Three:
    There is a problem with them not applying a calibration factor to the center of pressure co-ordinates between the two conditions, which would affect the quality of the  inverse dynamic data analysis (the biomechanists will know what I mean here). This means that you cannot trust the numbers for the study.

    Problem Number Four:
    None of the runners were habitual barefoot runners. I would assume people who are not barefoot runners start off running very tentatively. This very tentative running would easily account for the lower ankle and knee joint torques when running barefoot in this study. Not only does this affect the results, it probably totally invalidates them!

    This is not a study to be sceptical of, it is a study that is totally nonsensical and meaningless that the running barefoot community fell for hook line and sinker because they wanted to believe (just like Fox Mulder on the X-files). Hey guys – its time you stood up and started being more intellectually honest.

    {openx:248}