American Council on Exercise Evaluates Benefits of Vibram FiveFingers® Shoes ...

Barefoot TJ

Barefoot TJ

Administrator
Staff member
Mar 5, 2010
21,534
7,060
113
#1
#2
Saw it, and a few others sent

Saw it, and a few others sent it to me as well.

My assumption is that the final "testing" was done on a treadmil, how else do you explain the 50% heel striking when barefoot?

On Dr. Lieberman's Harvard "track" HE doesn't find that.

I figure their testing is about as accurate as the center for food testing or whatever that "food police" orginization is called.

CU testing was equaly flawed, as was much of "PURG's".

Real scientific studies take time and money, it's unfortunate that so many will read that barefoot/minimalist is so harmful.
 
#3
I know.  Much of these

I know. Much of these reports are BS. We just report the news around here, then let you all decide for yourselves.
 
#4
First of all, you can't

First of all, you can't assume they used a treadmill when the article states that they used "a 20-meter runway". Still have an objection to that, fine. But at least check what the study actually did.



Beyond that, I don't see what the objection to this study is. It certainly does NOT say "that barefoot/minimalist is so harmful". Keeping in mind that it's on a rather small scale (16 people), it finds that some people -- when asked to try Vibrams only 6 times, for 20 minutes each, and only asked, not monitored -- continue to run as they're used to running.



What does this say? Most of all, that transitioning to barefoot is not entirely effortless, that it (at a minimum) requires some extra self-consciousness. Is this new? More importantly, is this unwelcome? Think about how BFT leads off his "So you wanna start barefoot running" page -- "Before you answer that question, let me explain why I think barefoot or minimal footwear running may not be good for you. It is not good if you are thinking it is some sort of cure-all that only requires taking off your shoes and starting to run injury free without radical changes in the way you may have been thinking of running up to now." That splash of cold water is a very good thing, because it selects those people who are willing to make a real change.



And that's exactly what the ACE is promoting as the takeaway message. From the NYT article on the same study: "Cedric Bryant, the chief science officer for the American Council on Exercise, said the study shows how important it is for new barefoot and Vibram runners to pay attention to form and slowly transition out of traditional shoes." (He's later quoted to the same effect. Link: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/are-barefoot-shoes-really-better/)



The implicit message is, 'If you're not willing to do that, this may not be for you.' Not very different from what dedicated barefooters like BFT have been saying. That message strikes me as being fair and accurate, and I can't find much to argue with in the overall study, either. I profoundly disagree with the idea that this is some attack on bfr.
 
#5
 "The other half of the women

"The other half of the women kept the same form whether running barefoot, in Vibrams or in their cushy running shoes — landing first on their heels as they propelled themselves along."

I had read this in the NY Times article, and thought what TJ posted was the same. They did not mention the 20 meter runway in the NY times article.

This is the part of the story I was refering to.

I can't believe for a minute that 50% of the subjects were heel striking while running barefoot on a non-forgiving surface.

The 20 meter runway must have been just as forgiving as a treadmil is.
 
#6
Jackie, seriously, of course,

Jackie, seriously, of course, we advocate running form correction in or out of shoes, that's not the issue here. Like Board pointed out:

50% of the subjects were heel striking while running barefoot on a non-forgiving surface.

Barefoot! My ass! Besides, the treadmill is a much more forgiving surface than the ground, well, until you take your eye off the belt. Whoops!

The 20 meter runway must have been just as forgiving as a treadmil is.

I take issue with this as well. Put them out there in the real world and measure the change there. Most people don't run on treadmills or short runways. They are artificial. Let's measure what is real.
 
#8
All I know is that an MD

All I know is that an MD surgeon sent me the link first accompanied by an "I told you so".

I believe that the message to the general public from that article summerizing the study was that barefoot/minimalist/five finger running is bad for you and your joints, just as bad or worse than shod running is "known" to be.

Not a promo for the movement when the conclusion is that 50% of barefoot/minimalists are worse off then when shod.

Again, Drs. Lieberman and Davis's research proves otherwise.

I'll assume their research is more controlled and give their results more credibility.
 
#9
@Longboard: Again, if you

@Longboard:



Again, if you don't know, don't "assume". That's all I said, and it's not too much to ask.



@TJ:



"Jackie, seriously, of course, we advocate running form correction in or out of shoes, that's not the issue here."



I wasn't questioning your advocacy of this, not in any way. I was pointing out what this study tested -- it wasn't much more than a 'take your shoes off and try it'-type study. Why should I be angry that half the people, given only two weeks of merely suggested practice, didn't change their form? Nor is anyone claiming that this disproves ANYTHING bf running advocates have said for a long time. So why the vitriol?



"Barefoot! My ass!"



Wait, you're saying they weren't actually barefoot? You're saying the researchers flat-out lied?



"I take issue with this as well. Put them out there in the real world and measure the change there. Most people don't run on treadmills or short runways. They are artificial. Let's measure what is real."



Well, I disagree -- for a lot of people, treadmills are very real. Many people do most of their running on treadmills, even when it's 70 degrees and dry (whatever you or I may think of that). And "real" will vary widely depending on the individual runner.



But beyond that, the overall tenor of the reaction just makes me sad. Instead of replying with, 'Good little study, but I think the percentage of bf heel-strikers would be lower on a harder surface than what they probably used' (a statement that I would agree with, even if I'm not sure the % would be 0%), I find people just blasting the study because of the results, none of which is particularly surprising, even from our perspective. Personally, I just want honest studies, and this strikes me as an example.
 
#10
Yes, I don't buy the study

Yes, I don't buy the study about the heel striking. They must have had the treadmills set at elevation. Ha!

Seriously, I wasn't trying to be ugly with you, just showing my distaste for their claim of 50%. Forgive me if I came across that way.

But I do not and will not ever believe that the treadmill is the best most fair platform for testing running technique, barefoot, minimal, or traditionally shod. The "ground" forces you to move. It's artificial. Plain and simple. Just like shoes are artificial.
 
#11
Longboard wrote:All I know

Longboard said:
All I know is that an MD surgeon sent me the link first accompanied by an "I told you so".

I believe that the message to the general public from that article summerizing the study was that barefoot/minimalist/five finger running is bad for you and your joints, just as bad or worse than shod running is "known" to be.

Not a promo for the movement when the conclusion is that 50% of barefoot/minimalists are worse off then when shod.

Again, Drs. Lieberman and Davis's research proves otherwise.

I'll assume their research is more controlled and give their results more credibility.
Click to expand...



That's not the message, not at all. It's far more nuanced that that.



At the same time, you're right, the study is not a "promo". But I don't want promos, I want honesty. That's why I liked that quote from BFT that I posted above, and that came from inside the bf running community, telling some people that it may not be for them.
 
#12
Humor me, Jackie, please

Humor me, Jackie, please visit our About link below, May or may not have much to do with this converstation, but it gives you a feel for who we are here. (The last paragraph, mostly relates.)
 
#13
Barefoot TJ wrote:Yes, I

Barefoot TJ said:
Yes, I don't buy the study about the heel striking. They must have had the treadmills set at elevation. Ha!

Seriously, I wasn't trying to be ugly with you, just showing my distaste for their claim of 50%. Forgive me if I came across that way.

But I do not and will not ever believe that the treadmill is the best most fair platform for testing running technique, barefoot, minimal, or traditionally shod. The "ground" forces you to move. It's artificial. Plain and simple. Just like shoes are artificial.
Click to expand...



But again, that doesn't apply. It may have been a forgiving surface (I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me), but it was not a treadmill. That much is clear.
 
#14
You and I are posting at the

You and I are posting at the same time. I hope you're seeing my posts.
 
#15
Barefoot TJ wrote:Humor me,

Barefoot TJ said:
Humor me, Jackie, please visit our About link below, May or may not have much to do with this converstation, but it gives you a feel for who we are here.
Click to expand...



As I said above, "I wasn't questioning your advocacy of this, not in any way. I was pointing out what this study tested..." I still think this applies. I am not attacking your message, which I happen to believe in. But I can still believe you are wrong in attacking someone else. That is an entirely different question.
 
#16
Okay, I'll live with that. 

Okay, I'll live with that. We disagree. I gotta get some sleep now. I have a 3-week old squirrel to feed in two hours.
 
#17
The article states that 50%

The article states that 50% of the subjects ended up heel striking when running barefoot resulting in an increased potential for damage as well as injury.

I believe the study was flawed and as such gives readers a false impression of what happens when people switch from shoes to barefoot, discouraging some from ever even trying it.

There are large differences when reading study results published in peer reviewed journals vs those that the media just picks up on directly from the researchers, and since the general public can't be expected to take the time to analyze each one they are frequently misinformed.

We are doing a service here by questioning the validity of a small study that concluded that 50% of the women tested heel struck when making the transition to barefoot when the researchers fail to inform the readers that on hard surfaces (where most people who run for exercise, competitive racing, or fitness do their activity) the percentage is close to zero.

Most people have only heard anecdotal stories about BFR, and are for the first time reading a scientific study on it in The New York Times.

The researcher's findings are patently incorrect as they apply to the majority of runners, and they deserve to be called out on it.

It is their responsibility to include in their discussion that hard surfaces like concrete or asphalt or TarMcAdam in all other studies yielded no such heel striking results.

Since they didn't, it's up to us.

BTW, my surgeon friend now knows that the study was meaningless thanks to my explanation and will continue his search for info debunking the automatic transition to mid-foot landing.

I don't think he'll find it.
 
#18
As I've said above, pointing

As I've said above, pointing out shortcomings in the study is fine. But all good studies are limited. What I object to is the idea that anything short of full advocacy must be an attack.



That said, looking into it, I'm not convinced it's true that it's impossible to heel-strike while bf on hard surfaces. There was an old discussion here about bf runners continuing to heel-strike:



http://barefootrunners.org/forum-topic/university-wisconsin-study-shows-shorter-strides-are-better



And in the Lieberman Nature article, most of the shod runners continued to rear foot strike when barefoot (83% in the US, 62% in Kenya).
 
#19
Was it Dr. Irene Davis'

Was it Dr. Irene Davis' earlier work then that showed a 50% reduction in joint shock as the majority of subjects switched to a forefoot strike when barefoot?

I remember her ABC T.V. interview which also featured KenBob.

It seems that Lieberman's reports a flatter landing with less of a heel strike rather than the absence of a heel strike.

Now it has me wondering.......since I'm pretty much a whole foot at a time lander....I never considered that a heel strike....maybe it is by Lieberman's definition?

Either way, I wonder what the new study was calling a heel strike...maybe that's where the confusion lies.

Possibly those heel strikers WERE reducing the shock and landing flatter than typical for them but the researchers falsly assumed an increase in injury risk, while Lieberman sees it as a lighter on the joints heel strike than the same runner while shod.

As I re-read the Nature article, it seems that Lieberman found that formerly shod runners land lighter when barefoot by landing flatter while still being considered heel striking, while the new study finds 50% heel striking but does'nt differentiate between a lighter heel strike or not, and then goes on to assume the increased injury potential.

It will be interesting to see what the other researchers find, maybe the midfoot landing is not required for injury prevention, just a flatter than shod landing.

I hope so!
 
#20
Okay, let's start this baby

Okay, let's start this baby up again today.

Some people will still heel strike regardless of the surface when running barefoot, but NOT 50% of them. I refuse to believe this. I wish we knew for sure what the surface used was. The article doesn't give us this information. (I will have to hunt for the real deal when I get a moment, if I get a moment.) Harder surfaces are more self-correcting, since they are less forgiving.

In order to run my best, I have to run barefoot. I still heel strike if you put me in something other than bare feet. Even the most minimal of shoe (VFFs, huaraches) will make me believe I can heel strike "and get away with it." Softer surfaces tend to do this as well. Depending on the terrain and elevation (and I like to add shoes to the terrain category, and elevation too), we will heel strike anyway. Heel striking is also fine as long as you don't make every landing a heel strike. But many people will correct their form once they've been running for a period of time and warmed up.

What I wonder about is the time duration and limited number of participants in this study. From my reading this article "based on the study," it reads that each participant ran each way (Trad, BF, and Min) 7 times over 20 meters. Were they warmed up enough, I mean had they been running barefoot for some time during that session, since some people start out cold with their form and improve as they cover more ground. Running 7 times over 20 meters each time is not conclusive enough for me. So if they were just looking for a first reaction to the introduction to barefoot running, then they need to say that this study wasn't exhaustive but a down and dirty quickie.

I also wonder if because most women wear high-heels at work and out and about in everyday life if that doesn't contribute to possible heel striking versus the men when taking off the shoes. I mean I used to wear some seriously high heels at times when I was younger. The only way to walk in those things was to heel-strike. After years of wear, when taking them off, does the tendency to heel strike just go away? I think not, and I think this could sway the numbers. I think it would be wise to find women (and men) who live a zero-drop lifestyle and have them take part in these studies. I would be fascinated to find out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Support Your Club

Xero Shoes Huaraches

Forum statistics

Threads
19,163
Messages
183,663
Members
8,706
Latest member
hadashi jon

Latest posts

Share this page

Share this page
Top Bottom
Back
Menu