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 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.

Who is opposed to barefoot running? The barefoot running community have a track record of playing the person and not the ball and always like to go after or criticise the perceived opponents of barefoot running rather than rationally discuss the issues. Why do they have to criticise these opponents? Is barefoot running really that bad that it cannot stand on its own two feet (excuse the pun)? Is barefoot running really that bad, that the only way for the barefoot runners to justify what they do is to attack the opponents of barefoot running?

Who are these opponents of barefoot running? Are they real or are they figments of the imagination of the barefoot runners?

The most obvious targets of barefoot runners are Podiatrists and the running shoe companies.

A check of the popular podiatry forum, Podiatry Arena, shows that they have had many discussions on barefoot running.  None of the Podiatrists who post there seem to be opposed to barefoot running. They are like me and just object to the way the barefoot running nutters twist and manipulate the research and are intellectually dishonest when it comes to interpreting and representing the research (and in the case of two barefoot websites exposed here, they lie about it). They also seem to object to the consistent way that barefoot runners always avoid discussing issues and attack the person (ie play the person and not the ball).

A regular commentator on barefoot running, Craig Payne commented on Podiatry Arena: 

I not opposed to barefoot running….it’s just the fanaticism and irrationality of so many of its supporters. How they blindly accepted and reported the above research is a perfect example of exactly what I am saying.

It’s called the Straw Man argument. ….characterise your opponents position as something it’s not and then go after or refute that characterisation. They never really refute the original proposition. The barefoot runners are really good at that. …but we can see through them.

Are there actually any podiatrists who are opposed to barefoot running? (I have made my views very clear many times). Barefoot runners like to use Podiatrists as the ‘bogey man’ — but how many podiatrists actually are against barefoot running? If you look at all the threads we have had on the topic, it’s all been about how the barefoot runners misuse, misrepresent and misunderstand the research and how they promote the badly done research.

Simon Bartold, a podiatrist who works for ASICS said pretty much the same thing in the same discussion and never said he had any opposition to barefoot running. Kevin Kirby in a debate in Runners World magazine never came out and said he opposed barefoot running. Do you notice how many of the pro-barefoot running comments do not really deal with any of the issues that Kevin Kirby raised and just attack him. This is what the barefoot running community do (ie play the person and not the ball).

Ian Griffiths, a sports podiatrist in the UK wrote an article evaluating the Liebermann et al and Kerrigan et al studies that the barefoot running community fell for. The critique was not too dissimilar to mine here. He then got himself into a debate with a barefoot runner on twitter and the best that the barefoot runner could come up with was that he was biased as he treats injuries. Yes, he does treat injuries, but what about the issues Ian raised in the critique? Why not deal with or refute them?  See that this is the best that they could come up with! (I not biased by that one as I do not make a living treating injuries).

Robert Isaacs summed it up nicely: 

It takes far less knowledge and thought to attack the messenger than it does to attack the message. It’s easy, anyone can do it. And It diverts attention nicely away from the science.

There are even Podiatrists who are barefoot runners and openly promote it. They are obviously not opposed to barefoot running.

It is really hard to find any podiatrists actually opposed to barefoot running. I can find many expressing caution about doing it, which is exactly what the barefoot running community express as well. The only difference is that health professionals have professional accountability and are licensed to practice and have laws governing what they do. The barefoot runners giving advice do not have that accountability for bad advice (for example, I have seen no one in the barefoot running community hold accountable the two barefoot running websites that lied about the Kerrigan research. Why is that?)

What about the running shoe companies? Are they opposed? Not according to statements made by them (but we know that the barefoot running community will not agree with that because of their tin foil hats). The barefoot running community make extraordinary claims about how bad running shoes are, but none of it is backed up by any evidence. There is evidence that they are being intellectually dishonest about and claim it shows running shoes are bad, but it does not. They have been extremely silent on the most recent research that shows running shoes may reduce injury and increase endurance .

But what if running shoes are bad or not, what has that got to do with the merits of if barefoot running is good or bad? Why do the barefoot runners even care? See the point I am making? If barefoot running was any good, it would stand on its own merits and not stand on attacks on imaginary problems with the running shoe industry.

The opponents of barefoot running are a figment of the imagination of the barefoot running community. As the barefoot running community have demonstrated that they cannot rationally discuss issues and continually misrepresent research, then the only thing left is to attack these so called opponents. Does that just not show you the weakness of the position that they are arguing from?

Is barefoot running really that bad, that it cannot stand on its own merits? Is barefoot running that bad, that the only way the barefoot running community can defend barefoot running is to attack opponents. My advice to the barefoot running community: Start playing the ball and not the person.

If barefoot running was so great, then why are there no elite runners doing it? Why have no world records been broken when running barefoot? Don’t you think that every elite runner and their ’staff’ have looked at everything that could possibily give them a competitive edge? Why have they chosen not to run barefoot? Even the elite runners from African nations who grew up barefoot choose to run in running shoes – why is that?

The only elite runners that have run barefoot were Abebe Bakila (and we all know that he could only break the world record when he started wearing running shoes)  and then there was Zola Budd, but thats one out of how many over how many years? And even she has stopped running barefoot and gone back to running shoes, so I guess the barefoot running community can scratch her off their list of barefoot running pin-ups as well (that leaves them with no one!). As she told the Guardian:

“I no longer run barefoot,” she said. “As I got older I had injuries to my hamstring. I found that wearing shoes gives me more support and protection from injuries.”

I do know that a few elite runners do some drills barefoot, but do distance themselves from the exaggerated and nonsensical claims made by the barefoot running community, as well as the intellectual dishonesty.

I did come across this message posted on Podiatry Arena by a barefoot runner trying to explain why elite runners do not run barefoot:

“Why do most non-elite runners wear running shoes? It’s because of (1) multi-million dollar marketing budgets from running shoe companies – they had me for 20 years, and (2) Fear. Fear stoked by podiatrists such as yourself.”

See how deluded these people are? Do you really think that elite runners and their staff are that stupid that that would fall for running shoe company marketing hype and fear stoked by podiatrists? These sorts of statement are insults to the intelligence of elite runners. Who would you rather want to believe: The eilte runners who go to great lengths to find every edge that they can or those nutters who make statements like that? Who do you think is more intelligent? Who do you think has deluded themselves because the ‘want to believe‘? Do you think they also wear tinfoil hats?

If barefoot running is any good, then the elite runners would be doing it. Ever wonder why they are not? Surely this says something?

Off course they are not, but they have deluded themselves into believing that they have. Barefoot runners are an insignificant fringe* minority. The last few running events I have been to, I went out of my way to look for barefoot runners. I found NONE. So, based on my unscientific observation of the 30 000 or so people that were at these two events, let’s say there was a couple I missed, then that means that barefoot runners make up 0.00006% of runners. Is that going to impact on the running shoe industry? Of course its not!

It is funny how the barefoot running community think they are impacting on the industry. Recently the Brooks CEO blogged about barefoot running and this email below was sent out by the Chief Runner at Road Runner Sports:

Both were interpreted on the barefoot running websites as signs they were having an impact. No, it’s just that the media are picking up the nonsense being espoused by the barefoot movement and  the running shoe industry need to get some facts out there. Clearly the barefoot running movement is assuming that they are more important than they really are.

Get over it guys, you are nothing more than an unimportant small insignificant fringe* minority.

*See the Wikipedia entry where barefoot runners are described as “fringe”. Attached is a screenshot in case someone goes in and edits it: