I am going to borrow a statement that I came across on another site, “The Evangelists from the Church of Barefoot Running”. The Evangelists make some very strong statements that one of the main advantages of barefoot running is that you get less injuries (which has no evidence to support that) and that running shoes cause more injuries (which also has no evidence to support that). Is it really true that barefoot runners get less injuries than shod runners?
As there is no published scientific research on this, what can we go by:
1. There appears to be an epidemic of stress fractures in those using the Vibram Five Fingers
2. Pay a visit to any of the barefoot running sites and blogs and just look at how many are asking for advice for their injuries! (the very same sites that are claiming you get less injuries by running barefoot!).
3. Ask those health professionals who see a lot of sports injuries. Barefoot runners probably make up 0.1% – 0.2% of runners, so these health professionals should see about 1 -2 barefoot runners with injuries for every 1000 runners they see if the injury rates are similar. They will tell you that they are seeing substantially higher number of barefoot runners than that. This would suggest that barefoot runners are getting injuries at a greater rate than shoe runners (the opposite of what the Evangelists are claiming!)
4. Look at the emails I get. I do get a lot of emails from barefoot runners who tell me that they are proof that barefoot running causes less injuries as they are now injury free. I alos get just as many emails from those who got an injury from barefoot running (and many of them are bitter about the hype they were spun by the Evangelists). What does that prove? Let’s call it a draw, as no one involved in medical research would accept this as proof. I have no doubt that barefoot running does help some people with their injury profile, but I also have no doubt that it hurts other people. I know too many people who have had injuries from barefoot running and could not continue.

The amusing thing in all of this is that the Evangelists are dismissing the injuries that barefoot runners get as being due to training errors and not due to the barefoot running. Yet in the same breath the will blame running shoes for the injuries in runners that use them. Why can those injuries in those who wear running shoes also not be due to training errors as well? You can’t have it both ways.

It is clear that barefoot running is not going to be a general solution to running injuries. If anything, the circumstantial evidence is that it puts you at greater risk for an injury. This is the opposite of what the Evangelists are claiming.

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 apprasiing research. 

Previous post: Does Barefoot Running 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?

Here are some rhetorical questions for the barefoot running community in general to consider:

Why do you try to dismiss what I write about because there are advertisements on this site for running shoes? Are you also dismissing what is written on barefoot running websites because they have advertisements for barefoot running shoes, barefoot running books and barefoot running workshops? You can’t have it both ways.

Why do you dismiss what podiatrists say about barefoot running as they have a vested interest in treating injuries? Are you also going to dismiss the research by Liebermann et al in Nature because he has a vested interest considering he is a barefoot runner and a barefoot running shoe product sponsored his research? Are you going to dismiss everything Chris McDougal says as he has a vested interest in selling a book and getting speaking fees? You can’t have it both ways.

Why do you try and dismiss the apparent epidemic of stress fractures in those using the Vibram Five Fingers as being due to training errors? Why can’t the injuries that runners get in running shoes be due to training errors as well? You can’t have it both ways.

Why are you critical of me for not having comments turned on at this site, when my comments never get approved for publication when I attempt to comment on barefoot running sites? You can’t have it both ways.

Why did you claim that running shoes cause osteoarthritis based on a study that was not even about osteoarthritis? Why did these two barefoot running sites lie about the Kerrigan et al research?

Can you tell me which injuries are actually caused by the high impacts that you claim running shoes are responsible for? Which injury actually has high impact as a risk factor?

Can you show me the research that shows there is an increased epidemic of injuries in runners as you keep claiming there is?

Do you really believe that driving a car barefoot can save gas?

Where is the evidence that running shoes cause any injuries? Why do you ignore the evidence that they might be helpful? You can’t have it both ways. There is less research for the benefits of barefoot running than there are for the benefits of running shoes!

Where is the evidence that running shoes weaken muscles? Foot orthotics have been shown to strengthen muscles, not weaken them, so why would running shoes weaken muscles? You can’t have that one both ways either.

Why do you claim the lack of evidence for the benefits of running shoes as proof that running barefoot is better? It is an illogical 2+2=5 type conclusion.

Why do no elite runners run barefoot? (Try and answer this one without insulting their intelligence)

Why do you claim the achievements of Abebe Bikala in winning an Olympic marathon running barefoot, but not mention that he could run faster and break a world record wearing running shoes?

Why do you claim the achievements of Zola Budd for competing in the Olympic 1500m barefoot, but not mention that she had to resort to wearing running shoes to prevent the injuries that she was getting?

How about explaining why I can’t make up headlines like Barefoot Runners Get More Stress Fractures?

Why did you claim that the Liebermann et al study in Nature supported barefoot running and showed barefoot running was better and showed there are less injuries in barefoot runners? The study showed none of that. Liebermann himself had to publish a disclaimer on his website to distance himself from what was being claimed from the research. You can’t have it both ways.

These are the issues. Why do you always attack the messenger and not the message? Why do you always take pot shots at those critiquing barefoot running and never address the actual issues that they raise? Why are you so irrational? Is it because you can not actually address the issues being raised, so have to resort to these attacks? Stick to the issues.

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.

I got an interesting email from someone who I assume is a barefoot runner. The email simply said “this is all the proof you need” and it included a link to this.

This link is a reproduction of the press release from the Kerrigan et al study, which I described as:

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’!

Remember, this was the study that two barefoot running websites actually lied about.

This study proved nothing. I do have to agree with the sender of the email in that it is all the proof I need. It’s all the proof I need to further show how gullible and blind the barefoot running community is. How else can I interpret the email? They obviously fell ‘hook line and sinker’ for the press release that accompanied the research.

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.

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.

Do running shoes cause osteoarthritis? According to a lot of barefoot running websites and blogs they do. Where do that get that information from? They either seem to have made the claim up or based it on the press release that accompanied the Kerrigan et al study. Which is just another case of intellectual dishonesty as Kerrigan et al did not even do a study on osteoarthritis! How can you claim running shoes causes osteoarthritis based on research that did not even look at osteoarthritis? !!!! And we exposed two barefoot websites that even lied about it (how can we trust anything else they say if they do that?).

What does the actual evidence say from those who actually did a study on osteoarthritis? Given that 99.99% of runners use running shoes, then if running shoes caused osteoarthritis, then you would expect to see more osteoarthritis in runners compared to the general population, wouldn’t you? Like the well documented track record of not letting facts get in the way of a good story, the barefoot running community conveniently ignore that fact that there is no more osteoarthritis in the running shoe wearing population compared to the general population. This has been clearly shown in numerous studies now. Lets look at a few of them:

Rogers et al way back in 1985 showed that:

here is no association between moderate long distance running and the future development of osteoarthritis. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that neither heavy mileage nor the number of years running are contributory to the future development of osteoarthritis.

Before than in 1975, Puranen et al found no more OA in the hips of former elite runners. Lane et al in 1986 found that:

Running is associated with increased bone mineral but not, in this cross-sectional study, with clinical osteoarthritis.

Lane et al in 1993 showed:

In summary, running did not accelerate the development of radiographic or clinical OA of the knees

A more recent study in Germany by Schmitt et ak (2006) conlcued:

Osteoarthritis of the knee joint is rare in former elite marathon runners. The risk of osteoarthritis of the hip joint seems to be higher than in control subjects who do not engage in much sport.

Running shoes do not cause osteoarthritis. Get over it.

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.