Shoe wearing vs non-shoe wearing populations

by admin on January 30, 2010

A number of studies have compared the prevalence of foot problems in shoe wearing and non-shoe wearing populations. They quite clearly showed that there are more foot problems in the shoe wearing population. Why is it that the barefoot running community promote these types of study as supporting barefoot running? I just do not understand what they have to do with barefoot running.

But, is this another case of intellectual dishonesty by the barefoot running nutters? How do you actually know that the footwear was the cause of the higher number of foot problems? In many of the studies that have reported on this, there were ethnic, genetic and age differences between the two populations. How do you know that this was not the reason for the difference in the prevalence of foot problems and nothing to do with the shoes? How do you know that the shoe wearing populations did not spend more time on their feet and this was the reason for the increased prevalence and nothing to do with the shoes? How do you know that the shoe wearing population did not spend more of their time on hard surfaces than the non-shoe wearing population and the hard surface is the reason for the increased prevalence of the foot problems?

Why is it that when the barefoot runners tout these studies as supporting barefoot running and they do not acknowledge these possible shortcomings in the research? Why do they not acknowledge the other possible explanations? Is it because they are so blind in their faith, that they just want to believe?

I am not for one minute saying that the shoes are not to blame (they probably are), I am just pointing out that this sort of conclusion cannot be drawn from these sorts of studies and that the barefoot runners are distorting the results to suit their cause. Why do they continually to that for?

I still do not understand what this has to do with barefoot running.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: