Science and BFR: Part 1

Nyal

Chapter Presidents
May 13, 2010
291
2
16
I just listened to the interview with Chris M on the Diane Rhemes show and my brain go to churning. I am, obviously, sold on the benefits and enjoyment of BFR and I should have been rooting for Chris more than I was. He seemed willing to contradict an individual who has studied the foot for a decade. He seemed to think he knew more about running than a real honest to Danko expert.

I have seen this pop up from time to time in blogs, in articles, and on the forums. Barefooters seem interested in opposing science. BFR may in fact be a cure all for many, many problems, and it is certainly more enjoyable for me, but we have to be honest and fair. We don't have enough science on this topic yet. There have been less than five studies done on the practice, and all of them did not directly address the question. Five studies, in terms of scientific literature, is nothing.

Chris seems to overstate the science, forgetting perhaps, that the vast body of our evidence is personal and anecdotal and is countered by a larger body of equally anecdotal evidence from the shod side. The point is we don't know yet. The hypothesis is sound, the early evidence is encouraging, but we don't know. It is possible BFR really is bad for you, or maked no difference at all. Not that that should matter. I run this way because it feels better than with the shoes.
 
Nyal wrote: He seemed willing

Nyal said:
He seemed willing to contradict an individual who has studied the foot for a decade.



He had studied conditions caused by shoe wearing for a decade, the foot for a few months, but never bothered studying what results from barefoot living/walking/running period.
 
 Perhaps, but he was still

Perhaps, but he was still the expert.
 
 the problem is how is he

the problem is how is he determined the expert? because he studied some stuff for 10 years? maybe that makes him an expert but on which part of the discussion? too many holes in the idea of an expert.

mcdougall on the other hand does sometimes lend to the idea that we are all just a bunch of overly opinionated, unbacked fanatics. the man is passionate about something that has made him famous and i dare say wealthy. it's pretty easy then to become a polarizing figure for a cause, especially if you have such a firm stance the way he does.

I am all for someone questioning the establishment of shoes, podiatry, and all thought processes about running. I mean why not question something that is obviously broken? The injury rates are astronomical compared to all other sports and it's the least violent so question away but make the debate about the right things. Yes this was a barefoot vs shod conversation but the debate should be about form and the proper approach more than whether or not everyone should be running without shoes.
 
 I spent about ten years

I spent about ten years learning history in university pursuant to getting an MA in history. I pounded my head over theoretics, cultural anthropology, learning three languages, learning paleography, folklore, etc. I have written more papers and had them torn apart by my peers in an effort to help me learn to think critically and within accepted practice within my field. I have spent thousands of hours in classes listening to lectures, more giving them, fielding assignments, writing assignments, and finally having my soul crushed defending two theses. I am trained as a social scientist and a historian.

Joe Q is interested in history, he likes to read and chooses whatever books he wants to read. In his spare time he may have discussions with like minded friends about interesting points. At night he watched documentaries about history. He has never written nor published anything before a board of peers, nor has he been forced to consider historiography.

I and Joe are invited onto a talk show discussing the validity of the Kensington Rune Stone. He maintains it is a genuine artifact. I disagree. Given that of the two of us only I can read Old Norse, only I can interpret the runes on the stone, only I am familiar with the anachronisms present in the vocabulary of the period, only I have a background in paleography which tells me that this particular use of inscription is highly unusual, who is the expert? Now when Joe Q calls me out like Chris did to that podiatrist, doesn't that seem little suspect?

This is not to say Chris and Joe are wrong, but of the two participants, one lacks the necessary background and also lacks the ability to elucidate the reasons for his positions. Chris is not an expert in podiatry, the podiatrist is. He spent the time and the money and the sweat and the heartache to know what he is talking about.
 
 very point my friend and i'm

very point my friend and i'm right there with you. the one thing mcdougall is is a voice and a very big one at this point. that book of his that has become much more than it was supposed to has put him in the forefront as the leader of the barefoot community when it should, in my opinion, one of two guys. I'll go with Ken any day and if not him then Ted. These guys I can call experts in the practice of barefoot running because they have the years of experience the way you have the years of education.

McDougall is obviously an intelligent guy and he knows that by calling out the doc the way he did he creates a spark and that will carry a long way even if he's not the authority. it's not about what you know but who you know and it's not about what you know but how you use what you know.
 
I think your analogy is

I think your analogy is highly flawed. Unless the podiatrist had spent those ten years studying the effects of barefoot vs. shod running on the foot and body in general, he is no more an expert than McDougall. I see plenty of times when theoretical general knowledge of a subject (i.e., the foot) is assumed to be superior to actual physical experience with a subject. As an educator, I am also intellectually biased AGAINST experts, since the people considered the "experts" in education are often the ones who have spent their life studying and refining theories, and little to no time actually interacting with children.



Let's say aliens land on Earth. Mr. Scientist gets the perfect chance, and spends the next ten years living with, studying, and learning about the aliens. Then he is invited on a talk show. He's the expert, right?



What if the other guest was one of the aliens? Does that still make Mr. Scientist the expert?



I understand that hard data studies are preferable in the long run to anecdotal experience, but did this expert actually have data on his side that refuted McDougall's arguments?
 
 Yup... McDougall didn't

Yup... McDougall didn't become a barefooter till he broke his toe in Vibrams which lead to him trying barefoot...then the barefoot light bulb went off...now he's one of us ... funny how things work sometimes.
 
I think it's important for

I think it's important for podiatrist to both understand the foot as it relates to movement inside a shoe AS WELL AS movement outside a shoe. Much of the therapy, insoles, and orthotics they prescribe REQUIRE shoes in order to "work." They don't take into account how to heal the foot aside from, away from shoes. (It's as if they think the human foot is defective right out of the "box.") Yet at the same time, they know enough about the foot's anatomy to reason that shoes with heels many times themselves are the culprit, why the patient is there seeking help in the FIRST place.

Just as Board said previously, "He had studied conditions caused by shoe wearing for a decade, the foot for a few months, but never bothered studying what results from barefoot living/walking/running period."

That's why I have such respect for Dr. Mike. He has the sense to know there is nothing wrong with the human foot, and that perhaps the influences of shoes on our feet is what is wrong.