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?

Again, this is something that only exits in the minds of the anti-running shoe lobby. I have already shown how they have misused the research to scam us into believing that there is no decrease in the rate of injury from the alleged improvement in running shoes over the years. Some have even tried to claim there has been an increase. They are making this up as there is no data to support it.

Libermann et al in the first sentence to his paper on barefoot running says “Running can be most injurious at the moment the foot collides with the ground”. I notice that they supplied no citation to back this claim up. In that work of semi-fiction, ‘Born to Run’, Chris McDougall makes numerous unsupported claims about impact injuries. Robbins et al in their editorialization of what is otherwise good research, talk about the sensory illusion that soft running shoes can cause alterations in impact behaviours and this makes running shoes increase the risk for impact injuries in runners. I could go on and cite many more examples and claims that get made about impact causing injury in runners.

What do all these claims and the many more numerous ones have in common? They don’t even tell us what an impact injury is. They provide no evidence of impact even causing overuse injuries in runners. The reason is because there is no such thing as impact causing overuse injuries in runners! They are all making it up and perpetuating the myth! Why would they do that for?

There is not one study that has shown higher impacts cause an increased risk for injury! (Obviously I am not talking about the extreme high impacts that might cause an acute fracture).

What are the common injuries that runners get:

Patellofemoral pain syndrome/anterior knee pain (Runners Knee) – none of the studies done on this have linked it to impact.

Medial tibial stress syndrome (shin splints) – not one of the prospective risk factors studies done on this has linked it to impacts.

Plantar fasciitis (heel pain) – not one of the risk factor studies have linked this to impacts.

Stress fractures – none of the studies done on this have linked it to impact.

I should not need to cite any more examples, as these make up most of the overuse running injuries. If you do not believe me, do this: Pick any injury. Do a literature search on the studies that have looked at what increases the risk for that injury. Notice how none of them find impact as a problem?

In fact the opposite is the case. We need higher impacts from weight bearing activity to prevent osteoporosis and make the bones stronger! (The research evidence on this is unequivocal).

Where are all these people getting their information from about the myth of impacts causing overuse injuries in runners and it reaching epidemic proportions? Why are they perpetuating the myth? Why are they making this into a problem? Why are they making up this epidemic? Is it because they have an agenda to promote and the myth suits their purposes? High impacts being a problem in runners only exists in the minds of those with an agenda.

You often see barefoot runners responding to comments about the lack of evidence for barefoot running by doing one of two things:

1. They point to evidence. However, when you look at it, it’s not evidence (they are really good at doing this intellectual dishonesty. For example, see how they fell for some of the research: Hook, line and sinker).
2. They claim that they have all the evidence they need as they can run barefoot and they know some others that have successfully transitioned to barefoot. If they think this is ‘evidence’, then it is really further evidence of how they delude themselves. They need to go back to school to learn what the word ‘evidence’ means.

Within medical and health research, there is what is known as a hierarchy of evidence. At the top of the hierarchy are the meta-analyses that combine data from several prospective randomized controlled trials. At the very bottom of the hierarchy is the individual experiences. The n=1 (ie research involving one person individual experience) is not research. It is just one persons individual experiences. These experiences can be flawed or misinterpreted. Let’s look at examples and analogies:

I think everyone is clear on the evidence of the risk of harm of smoking during pregnancy, yet a number of women still smoke during pregnancy. Often when asked why they are doing it, they respond with something like, ‘My friend smoked during pregnancy and she had no problems’. That is pretty much the sort of argument that barefoot runners like to make. They have a friend that can run barefoot, therefore it must be OK, despite all the scientific evidence. Well, this kind of argument is not acceptable in the context of smoking and pregnancy, why is acceptable in the barefoot running community? I will concede that there is NO evidence that barefoot running is harmful, but there is NO evidence that it is beneficial either, despite the claim that the barefoot runners like to make – in this pregnancy and smoking analogy, the evidence for barefoot running is knowing some others that do it! That is NOT evidence.

Would you like to be operated on by a surgeon that has only done one of a particular type of procedure before? Would you be happier about it if the surgeon had a couple of other surgeons they knew who had also done the procedure? What kind of evidence is this? I assume you can see where this analogy is going…

Any number of medical and health treatments that people swear work have been shown not to work by good clinical trials. There are no good trials on if barefoot running is beneficial or not, yet the barefoot running community constantly talk about the evidence of the n=1. This kind of evidence is not acceptable elsewhere, so why is it acceptable to the barefoot running community?

How often do you see comments that go something like “I used to get all these injuries and now that I run barefoot, I don’t”. Lets dissect that kind of comment. How do you know that the injuries are less because of the barefoot running?:

• most runners tend to go through phases of getting more injuries and then not getting injuries. It is just the way it happens. So, how do we know that a particular individual that transitions to barefoot running was not just due to enter a phase of less or no injuries. The reduction in injury could be due to this and NOT the barefoot running (but then again it may not be).
• now that they are running barefoot, there is a good chance that they are now running on a softer surface. Maybe the lack of injuries is due to surface and nothing to do with the barefoot running (but then again it may not be).
• maybe at the same time they transitioned to barefoot running, they also started doing more stretching exercises. The reduction in injury could be due to that and nothing to do with the barefoot running (but then again it may not be).
• maybe they changed how many sugars that they have in a cup of coffee in the morning at the same time they started barefoot running.  Maybe that is the reason for the no injuires (but then again it incredibly unlikely to be the reason, but we can not rule it out).

Can you see where this is heading? It is often easy to blame the most obvious factor and not consider other possible intervening factors. It does not mean that the barefoot running was the reason or not the reason, it is just you cannot jump to that conclusion based on individual experiences (or are you happy for a surgeon to operate on you who has done something once and knows a few others that have also done it?).

Why are individual experiences so flawed? For those who want to explore this further, I suggest you read: Why do ineffective treatments seem helpful?. While this is written in the context of medical and health interventions, and about how an individual’s own clinical experiences can be flawed, the principle can be applied here to an individual’s experiences with what they perceive as the benefits to themselves of barefoot running. If you want to make claims about your experiences, that’s fine, but convince me first that you understand what this article is talking about. Otherwise stop making the silly claims about what you think is evidence.

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:

Enough is enough. After being around the running community for many years, you soon get to notice that in general, members of the barefoot running community are not particularly bright people. They try to promote barefoot running as an alternative to the use of running shoes. To do this they grasp at straws, use nonsense arguments, misunderstand research and are not very rational in their approach. They believe everything they read unless its something positive about running shoes. They are fanatical. They are as bad as the loony left of politics and the radical religious fanatics (they are probably vegetarians too!). Because of that they cannot take part in reasoned discussions or debates about barefoot running and use tactics worse than politicians to avoid answering the questions asked of them.

I am not talking about the occasional barefoot runner or the runners who use a small amount of barefoot running as part of a balanced training program. I am talking about those who use the “philosophy” of “barefoot running” and try to impose it on others. Someone has to keep them accountable for the nonsensical unscientific mumbo jumbo that they espouse.

This site will systematically deconstruct the claims made by barefoot runners. If you follow some of the debates on barefoot running you will see the fools they make of themselves with the claims they make. As soon as you deconstruct one argument, they throw up another equally bad one. They then usually have a dummy spit and start name calling. They really just do not get it. Hopefully this site will help them get it.

Hate mail can be sent here: info@runningbarefootisbad.com

Please Note: This site receives NO funding from anyone or anything associated with the running shoe industry.