A recent study in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise compared the injury rates between forefoot strikers and rearfoot strikers showed that there was a higher injury rate in the rearfoot striking group. Here is how Vivobarefoot and several other blind barefoot runners interpreted this study:

Memo to Vivobarefoot:

1. What makes this an official study? It is no more “official” that any other study ever published!
2. The study was retrospective. You need to look up the difference between retrospective and prospective study designs. Retrospective studies actually prove nothing!
3. It was done on almost elite level college runners. You cannot generalize the results of that to non-elite runners!
4. It was not even on barefoot running! They were all wearing shoes!
5. I assume you are not aware of all the issues that have been raised in a number of places now re the way the statistical analysis was done that raises some questions about the results.

Hang your head in shame for the way you have interpreted this study. The barefoot community should be embarrassed by this intellectual dishonesty if it want to be taken seriously

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.

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.

What is the relationship between barefoot running and plantar fasciitis?

In the research by Liebermann et al published in Nature, in the discussion they made the somewhat remarkable claim that:

“Furthermore, many running shoes have arch supports and stiffened soles that may lead to weaker foot muscles, reducing arch strength. This weakness contributes to excessive pronation and places greater demands on the plantar fascia, which may cause plantar fasciitis.”

As their research results was not about this, you would expect them to cite a reference to back up that claim. Those with an agenda never let a little fact like no one has actually shown that get in their way. They made this up.

There is no evidence that running shoes lead to weaker arch muscles. There is no evidence that weak arch muscles contribute to excessive pronation (in fact weak intrinsic foot muscles actually lead to a high arch supinated foot which is the opposite!). There is no evidence that this even causes plantar fasciitis. There is evidence that foot orthotics actually strengthen muscles and certainly NONE that they weaken muscles! Never let it be said that those with an agenda won’t let a little intellectual dishonesty get in their way!

If we look at Michael Warburton’s review on barefoot running that I totally demolished, he claimed:

“One of the most common chronic injuries in runners is planter fasciitis, or an inflammation of the ligament running along the sole of the foot. There is some evidence that the normally unyielding plantar fascia acts as the support for the medial longitudinal arch, and that strain on the proximal fascial attachment during foot strike leads to plantar fasciitis (Robbins and Hanna, 1987). Barefoot running may induce an adaptation that transfers the impact to the yielding musculature, thus sparing the fascia and accounting for the low incidence of plantar fasciitis in barefoot populations (Robbins and Hanna, 1987).”

He quotes Robbins and Hanna, 1987 as the reference for barefoot running accounting for the lower incidence of plantar fasciitis in barefoot populations – Robbins and Hanna never showed that (they did make that claim up though)! There is NO evidence that there is less plantar fasciitis in barefoot populations. Robbins et al in all their study’s never even did a study on plantar fasciitis, so I do not undertsand how people can use Robbins and Hanna as a reference to back up the claim when thats not what they showed! More intellectual dishonesty!

Then you can read claims on barefoot websites that make claims typically like this:

It stands to reason that if habitually barefoot people don’t experience Plantar Fasciitis while those of us with shoes and arch supports do, there has to be a reason.  That reason is likely that their feet are strong while ours are weak.

How much more intellectual dishonesty are these people capable of? They wonder why so many do not take them seriously and think they are nutters? Come up with the evidence and data if you are going to make such bold statements. I will be the first to change my mind when someone does.

Of all the risk factor studies that have ever been done on plantar fasciitis, NONE of them have linked plantar fasciitis to a weakness of muscles or the use of running shoes. There is not even the tiniest shred of evidence to even suggest that it is. Why are none of the studies finding these factors being claimed for plantar fasciitis? Why are those with an agenda making up these claims for?

Plantar fasciitis is due to too high a load in the plantar fascia that is higher than what the structure can adapt to. A number of risk factors have been shown by the evidence to increase the risk for plantar fasciitis – all of those factors increase the load in the plantar fascia. The treatment of plantar fasciitis involves using strategies to reduce that load and to get the tissues to heal. It does not matter if you run barefoot or not.

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.

I just wish there were more hours in the day to write about this. The barefoot runners need to follow Confucius’s advice:

When in hole, it’s a good idea to stop digging

They continually provide copious amounts of material to demonstrate how irrational and illogical they are. I have so much to respond to and there is just not enough time in the day to deal with it all. Just today, I came across this gem from Twitter, in which a barefoot runner was engaged in a discussion with a podiatrist and made this statement:

the default is BARE FEET

The default is barefoot? Given that 99.99% of runners use running shoes, then the default is not barefoot. The default is using running shoes! See how irrational and illogical these people have become?

They tried to use this argument that barefoot was the norm to put the onus on the running shoe industry to show that running shoes were actually beneficial. I agree, the running shoe industry should be doing this. But what is wrong with the barefoot ‘industry’ showing that barefoot running is actually beneficial? (which NO research has yet shown, despite claims by barefoot runners). Just because there is yet no published research on the benefits of running shoes does not mean that they are not beneficial and barefoot running is better! (see this post). See how irrational and illogical these people have become? They can’t have it both ways!

Is barefoot the norm or default? Of course it’s not!

We have all seen one of the arguments that they love to make to support barefoot running. The argument goes something like: We were created to run barefoot. We are not born with running shoes. Because we were created that way then we should run barefoot. You know the story that they try to tell.

We weren’t created to fly either, but we get in planes all the time. There are a lot of other things that we were not created to do, but still do. Are barefoot runners going to give up flying and all these other things?

Do you see the absurdity of their argument? I bet that they won’t see it this way, as they like having it both ways (see: The lack of evidence for running shoes? – you can’t have it both ways!). They like being extremely critical of research that does not support their cause, but then do not apply the same standards of evaluation to research that supports their cause (see Intellectual Dishonesty). You can’t have it both ways.

Either barefoot runners have to give up this nonsense argument that we were created to run barefoot or stop getting on planes. You can’t have it both ways.

Credit is due to this thread at Podiatry Arena for the idea for this post.