{"id":396,"date":"2012-01-28T03:30:55","date_gmt":"2012-01-28T03:30:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/runningbarefootisbad.com\/?p=396"},"modified":"2015-09-22T06:34:59","modified_gmt":"2015-09-22T06:34:59","slug":"vivobarefoot-hang-your-head-in-shame","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/runningbarefootisbad.com\/vivobarefoot-hang-your-head-in-shame\/396\/","title":{"rendered":"VIVOBAREFOOT, hang your head in shame"},"content":{"rendered":"

A recent study in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise<\/a> compared the injury rates between forefoot strikers and rearfoot strikers showed that there was a higher injury rate in the rearfoot striking group. Here is how Vivobarefoot<\/a> and several other blind<\/a> barefoot runners interpreted this study:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Memo to Vivobarefoot:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. What makes this an official study? It is no more \u201cofficial\u201d that any other study ever published!<\/li>\n
  2. The study was retrospective. You need to look up the difference between retrospective and prospective study designs. Retrospective studies actually prove nothing!<\/li>\n
  3. It was done on almost elite level college runners. You cannot generalize the results of that to non-elite runners!<\/li>\n
  4. It was not even on barefoot running! They were all wearing shoes!<\/li>\n
  5. I assume you are not aware of all the issues that have been raised in a number of places now re the way the statistical analysis was done that raises some questions about the results.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Hang your head in shame for the way you have interpreted this study. The barefoot community should be embarrassed by this intellectual dishonesty<\/a> if it want to be taken seriously<\/p>\n

    \n