New Barefoot Running Research From Harvard

Adam Daoud wrote:

I suppose I could have said in the original post that the study was partially funded by Vibram USA. I had simply never considered it an issue while conducting research. Harvard strictly enforces that the right of free scholarship (to choose the nature and direction of research inquiries) cannot be compromised

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~research/managing_your_research/managing705.pdf

. We had multiple funding sources for this study. Along with Vibram was the National Science Foundation, American School of Prehistoric Research, The Goelet Fund, and Harvard University.

. . .

Keep the comments coming.

Sorry, but I don't think that's enough disclosure. At the outset of the study, Vibram issued a press release stating that it had "commission[ed] Harvard researcher" Daniel E. Lieberman "to assess the advantages, and challenges of running in FiveFingers."

(see page 14)

I'd like to see full disclosure of the arrangement with Vibram. Obviously, sponsorship doesn't change laboratory equipment readings, but it sure can influence the design of the study, and it sure as heck can influence the conclusions and the way that they are articulated or used.

There are no established criteria for identifying skeletal adaptations to distance running (if any such things even exist). I'm familiar with the review paper you cite and it does not provide any data in support of such criteria - Table 1 is rank speculation. And how you manage to peg the origin of those adaptations at 2 mya is pretty amazing, given the paucity of hominid postcranial fossils from 2.8 to 1.9 mya, and the relative scrappiness of subsequent material.

There's also a real problem with the way you're framing the question. Even if hominids engaged in endurance running, you're assuming they did so "safely and effectively" (and habitually). That's a classic Panglossian view of evolution - everything we did, we must have done really well. Except evolution usually doesn't optimize. Also, it's pretty hilarious to think that, of all the hazards encountered by early hominids running after prey in the middle of the day (the Lieberman scenario), impact stress-induced injuries would be the selective factor. Me, I'd put my money on slipping and falling, or some other traumatic injury. Or running past one of the many many large carnivores that would gladly (and easily) have preyed on said early hominid.

(Lest anyone be confused, let's be clear here: humans evolved, it's a fact, and there is an abundant fossil record attesting to that. What we have here is a disagreement over the specifics of how that happened.)

I did read it, and I did not refer to any of the media coverage. But please note that most people CAN'T read your paper, since most people don't have subscriptions to Nature. And even if they do, Nature papers (as with most scientific papers) are not written to be widely comprehensible.

Also, the researchers clearly bear *some* responsibility for how their work gets presented in the press - Nature clears their press release with the corresponding author, and the institution certainly works with the lead author on their press release, both of which strongly guide the journalists in framing their stories (because they usually can't understand much of the paper itself).

Citation? Any data on how gait changes over a long run?

It's not whether you considered it an issue. It's whether other people might. Conflict of interest is about appearances.

That's irrelevant. The worry is not that Vibram was telling you guys what to do. The concern is that taking funding from a company with a fiscal interest in a certain outcome of the study creates bias. It certainly creates the appearance of bias, which is also bad. The only thing that Harvard (and other universities) "strictly enforces" is the nature of the formal agreement between the investigator and the funding source. Harvard doesn't police research for bias, because it can't.

That you also got funding from other sources, including NSF, actually makes the thinking here seem even more dubious. Why take on a corporate sponsor with a vested interest in the research when you already have funding from multiple sources (which likely dwarfs the amount provided by Vibram)?

But if you want to argue that corporate sources of funding for research are no cause for concern, go for it. There's a large literature that comes to a different conclusion, as do most people.

Sure you will. That's why people try to get papers into Nature, rather than a more specialized journal - so it gets noticed more. Becoming known, either in the running community or the research community (citation index anyone?), provides benefits. To claim that your promotion of your work is altruistic is disingenuous.

Accepting that forefoot-striking is more "efficient" than heel-striking, this may translate into improvements on the injury-prevention front but it does not translate into improvements in terms of speed. Were it otherwise, one would expect that racing would be dominated by forefoot-strikers, given the level of competition and the fact that a one-second per mile improvement translates into 26+ seconds in a marathon.

The only study of which I am aware of where elites strike shows relatively few on the forefoot.

http://tinyurl.com/lky622

Since natural selection does not create a perfect organism but only one very good at the task at hand -- such as being able to run long distances to catch worn-out prey -- barefoot running is not inherently superior to running in shoes. But shoes may allow someone who is faster with a heel-strike than with a forefoot-strike to run faster because the shoes provide protection for the heel and thus allow for a heelstrike, even with the added weight of a shoe on each foot. Like this guy:

http://tinyurl.com/ydxuubc

The two most recent developments in running I'm sick of hearing about:

-ultra marathons

-vibrams and barefoot running.

Both things seem to be embraced by the same type of people.

bulky running shoes, fanny packs, energy gels, fuel belts, ipods, garmins, tech shirts, etc etc etc

they make running more comfortable for the penguins, but really aren't necessary for us folks who just want to get out and run. that garbage just slows us down.

nobody suggests the penguins should immediately go barefoot. if they did, it would cause injuries, we all know that. beginning runners pretty much get injured no matter what they do. you need strong feet and proper running form to go barefoot, which most folks in western societies need to work up to.

anecdotally, all my little aches and pains (top of foot, behind knee, side of hip) go away when i run in my 5-fingers. i'm a believer. unfortunately they look totally ridiculous so i only wear them after dark. i use them for 10-20% of my running, the rest of the time i'm wearing the skinniest adizero's i can find.

EZ10Miler wrote:

The two most recent developments in running I'm sick of hearing about:

-ultra marathons

-vibrams and barefoot running.

Both things seem to be embraced by the same type of people.

Ultra running is not a recent development, although there has definitely been a rise in popularity in recent years.

I hate how people automatically shoot down studies based on the funding of it.

This is why you look at the data, and the statistical analysis, of the study.. and why you don't simply read the abstract..

Some of you should use your minds a little more. How could the funding possibly affect good statistics?

Finally, it got published in Nature. Therefore, it should be seen, automatically, as legitimate.

Agreed. Like mountain running, barefoot running and ultramathoning are promoted by people who are simply too slow to compete at the olympic distance sports.

make shoes better wrote:

The study was also funded by the NSF, which makes Vibram funding look like mashed potatoes. Again, lots of other studies found the same conclusion, before Vibrams even existed. This study just happened to get more attention because it was done by a well-respected Anthropologist at Harvard.

I don't doubt that NSF provides much more funding of university-related research than Vibram does. But what about funding of this particular study, or funding of this particular lab, or payments to particular members of this research team?

Isn't it possible that part of the reason for the greater attention to this study is Vibram's marketing of minimalist footwear, which includes its announcement of this study in its marketing materials? I have known many, many "well respected" professors and researchers at Harvard, but their affiliation with Harvard doesn't mean that they get air play or press in the general media whenever they churn out a "study."

Again, I welcome research in this area, and I'm delighted to see products like Vibram FiveFingers. But this kind of financial arrangement, especially without full disclosure of the details, is very troubling to me. So, although no one has to give me the time of day, I'd love to see full disclosure of the relationship between Vibram and the people involved in this study.

Have you ever been to the world mountain running championships?

as;kljweio wrote:

Have you ever been to the world mountain running championships?

Yeah, this guy looks fast enough:

fizzy stuff wrote:

Agreed. Like mountain running, barefoot running and ultramathoning are promoted by people who are simply too slow to compete at the olympic distance sports.

I'm thinking you had better start mountain running or running ultras, as I'm certain you're too slow to compete at the olympic distance sports.

Type of Elephant wrote:

I hate how people automatically shoot down studies based on the funding of it.

This is why you look at the data, and the statistical analysis, of the study.. and why you don't simply read the abstract..

When I pointed out the Vibram funding, I said, "That alone doesn't invalidate the findings, of course."

And I did read the whole paper. Had I just read the abstract, I would not have known about the Vibram funding (since such things are mentioned in the acknowledgements ... at the *end* of the paper).

Until there are studies that show things like:

"The benefits of running a 15x400 workout barefoot when you are preparing to race a 5k are ..."

or

"A 30 minute tempo run is more effective when run barefoot because ..."

I'm sticking to my regular neutral trainers.

fizzy stuff wrote:

Agreed. Like mountain running, barefoot running and ultramathoning are promoted by people who are simply too slow to compete at the olympic distance sports.

yes, they are both for extremists. Im not saying you should wear something rediclous like the nike shox, but running in a "footglove" is equally as stupid.

26.2 miles is plenty far to see who's fast. You start running much farther and it's just a survival test.

A lot of these concerns reveal much inconsistency. Brooks, Nike, whoever, does their own research, in their own labs, with their own employees conducting the research. And these are the shoes all the nay-sayers keep going out and buying.

Then a study is partially funded by what is now a partial shoe company, it is done independently of that company, and then PEER REVIEWED and published, and they call foul.

The science will speak for itself.

As cited, everyone studied in this one (http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/04/running-technique-footstrike.html) was wearing shoes. Their conclusions also suck: their advice: "Why would you want to change your foot landing to begin with? Science has little to offer you in support of this. And so my advice, having read this far (well done!), is to forget about the possibility that you're landing "wrongly", and just let your feet land where, and how they land, and worry about all the other things you can when you run!"

Yeah, heel strike and don't worry about it because that certainly isn't changing how you run.

This is the science (thank you Harvard peeps and such!) that needs to be done before we can have studies about doing workouts or tempo runs w/o shoes. Until then, refuse to think critically and stick to your heavy shoes and heel strike for such things if you wish, but I will be running efficiently with less impact in my barefeet/VFF/racing flats with modified heel.

------------

[quote]EZ10Miler wrote:

yes, they are both for extremists. Im not saying you should wear something rediclous like the nike shox, but running in a "footglove" is equally as stupid.

quote]

Why? Just passing these people off as "extremists" and then thinking you have made your point self-evident isn't working.

I commented on the first link above. Your second link proves nothing. KK is both wearing shoes AND running downhill in that picture. And how does one snapshot prove he is "faster with a heel-strike than with a forefoot-strike"?

It bothers me how there is so much EXTRA stuff put onto many shoes these days. I would much prefer shoes that are suited specifically to their function, not how much "neat" looking design stuff they have added to them. And, I sure don't want to pay EXTRA for all these EXTRA and necessary designs put on shoes. I wouldn't at all mind if most shoe companies fire most of their fashion designers. Part of why many shoe companies put all this EXTRA stuff on their shoes is so they can make some EXTRA money (and hence take money from many people in which it is not EXTRA to them. Consider for example all the high school kids whose parents are just making meet, but are recommended they buy some $100+ pair of shoes at a running store so they can run track).

This is the science (thank you Harvard peeps and such!) that needs to be done before we can have studies about doing workouts or tempo runs w/o shoes. Until then, refuse to think critically and stick to your heavy shoes and heel strike for such things if you wish, but I will be running efficiently with less impact in my barefeet/VFF/racing flats with modified heel.

--------------------------------------------------------

I am following this debate critically and with a (somewhat) open mind. I never said heavy, I do tend towards lightweight, and my wear patter indicates that I am not a heel striker.

I don't disagree that the research needs to start where it is, but it just isn't applicable to me at this point. Your input could be though. How much faster have you gotten since switching to bf/vff? Have you set lots of PR's? Were you a good runner before, or more like a Chris McDougal?