A few good articles for barefoot/minimalist people

Does anyone know any sites (besides Mizuno) that list heel/forefoot heights for various shoes?

I'm still wondering about heal heights too.

the Other Jeff Lebowski wrote:

Well, basically everyone in western society has lowered functional performance in their feet thanks to a lifetime of shoes.

And whether you think the article is overly speculative or the theories havent been sufficiently tested, I don't need some researcher's OK to know that the points made in this article are absolutely true; I've seen the difference in my own life and training. Think a little for yourself, don't waste another decade in overbuilt shoes ruining your feet for a study to come out telling you it's ok. Ditching "normal" trainers was the single best thing Ive ever done for my running performance and health.

i'm not saying its not true, but this article gives no evidence, other than speculation, that a lower heel height is better.

you say you don't some research, that you KNOW the points are true because you've had experience. well, how about this: for centuries people believed the sun and the moom revolved around the earth. they had lots of experience in witnessing it. every morning the sun came up and then went down. it was predictable, and useful too - they could chart it accurately and predict occurences of seasons, eclipses. they had lots of pseudo-empirical data that told them the sun and the moon revolved around the earth.

and guess what! it turned out the sun didn't revolve around the earth, but the moon did. that the moon actually DID revolve around the earth didn't PROVE that the way of thinking was correct by the ancients.

likewise - we don't know whether lower heel height is better for you. this article gives nothing but pseudo-empirical data to support its argument.

actual, peer reviewed, real research would be nice.

oh yeah, podiatry management magazine is a business magazine - not a peer reviewed academic journal.

So why do so many people ASSUME that it is better for them to wear big, bulky trainers with high heals? Many people are injured all the time, many people get stress fractures, so why do so many people wear them, there is no proof that they help anyone.

eyah wrote:

So why do so many people ASSUME that it is better for them to wear big, bulky trainers with high heals? Many people are injured all the time, many people get stress fractures, so why do so many people wear them, there is no proof that they help anyone.

i never said that bulky shoes were the way to go. i just said they're isn't any research one way or the other. it might be that minimalist are better, it also might be hogwash.

what is wrong with these articles is that they are mere speculation - a useful hypothesis sure, but nothing that shows that minimalists are better. these are just one guys opinions - however logical they may seem. there is no research at all to back up his claims, just a lot of, "yeah, that's happened to me."

and looking at the e. africans and saying, wow! they're barefoot, doesn't mean automatically that the being barefoot contributes heavily to their athtletic prowess.

here's a great example:

"There's not a single bear in sight-the 'Bear Patrol' is working like a charm"

"That's specious reasoning," Lisa retorts

"Thanks, honey," Homer says to her, adoringly

"According to your logic," she says, picking up a stone from their lawn, "this rock keeps tigers away"

"Hmmm. How does it work?"

"It doesn't."

"How so?" Homer asks further

"It's just a rock," she says. "But I don't see a tiger, anywhere."

"Lisa," concludes Homer, while pulling out his wallet, "I want to buy your rock."

ok, here are some actual studies, though i haven't been able to find publication - so take it as you will.

finally - this guy seems to be doing a lot of investigating:

he might be a good guy to contact!

The problem with that last site is that he only studies 10mi/wk runners. Why would he even bother testing runners who run that little?

So why do so many people ASSUME that it is better for them to wear big, bulky trainers with high heals? Many people are injured all the time, many people get stress fractures, so why do so many people wear them, there is no proof that they help anyone.

The main reason most people assume that built up athletic shoes are better is because they have been put out by companies that have invested a lot of money into r&d. I'm not totally sure what to make of the heel-height issue, there really isn't a lot of conclusive research on the matter other than those four articles it seems.

intuitively, the heel-height seems like a bad idea, since it limits the range of motion etc. What I don't understand myself though is why then all the shoe companies of pretty much every type, dress, athletic, whatever, seem to insist on having some degree of heel lift. It seems like if having a true "flat" is so much more efficient, which it certainly does intuitively, and for that matter actually wearing them, that Nike, Adidas, etc. would design their shoes differently. There wouldn't be anything to lose on their part doing so. If it were as obvious and clear-cut as the articles make it out to be, it would be amazing for these companies to not at least offer training shoes that are flat in addition to their normal ones

I'm not totally sure what to make of this issue, as I pronate a lot when I run. Most shoe store guys say I need heavy motion control shoes, but of everything I've tried the lighter weight DS trainer fits and feels the most comfortable, and I haven't had any injuries with it. Oddly enough, I seem to have the best "stability" when wearing cross-country flats with no heel-lift. I tried wearing relatively uncushioned shoes like that on the roads though and it seemed like too much. The DS Trainer feels okay for the roads though. I sort of wish someone would make a shoe with no heel lift that also had some cushioning in it, I'm baffled as to why no such product exists.

check THIS out wrote:

http://www.staffs.ac.uk/isb-fw/Manuscr/Hreljac30.pdf

he might be a good guy to contact!

Thanks for the interesting links. I've got to say, though, that I'm not too impressed with this work, even if it does appear in peer-reviewed journals. The investigators who authored the first report (first .pdf file link) seemed enamoured with materials technology but not the least bit concerned with anatomy.

The second article (quote below) is just plain depressing (and not just for the sloppy editing). After all these years of R&D, you mean we don't even know how varying midsole density affects cushioning and stability!? What the hell have the guys in the Nike research labs been doing for the last 25 years?

If someone doesn't come out with an anatomically sensible shoe for the U.S. market real soon, I swear I'm going to break out the Exacto knife, grab an old pair of uppers, and come up with a prototype myself. Hey Trackhead, you're a shoe guy and a persuasive minimalism evangelist. Why don't you do it?

" . . . There has (sic), however, been conflicting results reported among researchers who have utilized subject testing only. While some researchers have found that subject tests

agree with the results of material tests regarding cushioning variables, with shoes having softer midsoles

producing lower initial vertical ground reaction forces (Devita & Bates, 1988), others have reported that

softer shoes produce greater initial vertical GRFs than harder shoes (Cavanagh, 1985; de Koning & Nigg,

1994; Kaelin et al, 1985; Snel et al., 1985). Still others have reported that there are no differences

between soft and hard shoes in terms of impact forces (Clarke et al., 1983; Nigg et al., 1987). Conflicting

results have also been reported in variables thought to be indicative of stability characteristics. Some

researchers have found that softer shoes allow greater amounts of pronation than harder shoes (Clarke et

al., 1983; de Wit et al., 1995), while others have reported the opposite (Kaelin et al., 1985). Still others

have concluded that there are no differences in the amount of pronation allowed by softer or harder shoes

(Stacoff et al., 1988).

With the contradictory results reported in these various studies, it is not possible to determine the true

effect of varying midsole density on cushioning and stability variables. The purpose of this study was to

objectively review the existing literature to determine the differences between running shoes with varying

midsole hardnesses in regard to some important cushioning and stability parameters."

sure man wrote:

The problem with that last site is that he only studies 10mi/wk runners. Why would he even bother testing runners who run that little?

i didn't say this guy was gospel, i said he might be a good guy to contact - as in, to see what research might be available.

all this stuff was gleaned from the internet by doing a basic google search.

i'm still amazed that people would read critically into scientific studies (like they should) and yet accept the musings of a podaitrist as gospel without so much as a whisper.

These are some good studies:

http://nhscc.home.comcast.net/l3_paper.htm

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm

Here's some answers from a guy who does research on this topic.

trackhead wrote:

These are some good studies:

http://nhscc.home.comcast.net/l3_paper.htmhttp://www.sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm

nice - some actual real studies. interesting conclusions from the last article.

i wonder how this relates to minimalist shoes. its an assumption - though a logical one - that minimalist shoes are better, since they mimic the foot's natural movement. but how much better, if at all?

the more minimal, the better. Most people will notice a signficant difference from a 12/24mm standard shoe to a 10/20 racer. And even bigger difference is noted if you go full time in a modified track spike or racing flat. I've gone from running in Kayanos to Tiger Paws and now full time in the H Street and Maxcat Street.

"Your shoes should be like thick pieces of skin."

--Arthur Lydiard

I just saw a very promising looking shoe from Asics due out 1 June. I can't remember the name, but it is essentially an alternative to the h street. Also, the adidas titan mesh comes out fairly soon (Feb, I think) and this should be another viable option.

The people writing these anti-shoe articles and reviews don't even try to be unbiased. I can go on PubMed and in a couple of seconds come up with articles that should have been included in any serious review of the field, but were not because they do not fit the preconceived ideas of the authors. Even this Robbins guy comes across as more of a crusader than a true scientist. Do you think he'd publish any findings that he came up with that did not support his crusade?

Article 1:

Int J Sports Med. 2001 Aug;22(6):414-9.

Footwear affects the behavior of low back muscles when jogging.

Ogon M, Aleksiev AR, Spratt KF, Pope MH, Saltzman CL.

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Innsbruck, Austria.

Michael.Ogon@uibk.ac.at

Use of modified shoes and insole materials has been widely advocated to treat low back symptoms from running impacts, although considerable uncertainty remains regarding the effects of these devices on the rate of shock transmission to the spine. This study investigated the effects of shoes and insole materials on a) the rate of shock transmission to the spine, b) the temporal response of spinal musculature to impact loading, and c) the time interval between peak lumbar acceleration and peak lumbar muscle response. It was hypothesised that shoes and inserts a) decrease the rate of shock transmission, b) decrease the low back muscle response time, and c) shorten the time interval between peak lumbar acceleration and peak lumbar muscle response. Twelve healthy subjects were tested while jogging barefoot (unshod) or wearing identical athletic shoes (shod). Either no material, semi-rigid (34 Shore A), or soft (9.5 Shore A) insole material covered the force plate in the barefoot conditions and was placed as insole when running shod. Ground reaction forces, acceleration at the third lumbar level, and erector spinae myoelectric activity were recorded simultaneously. The rate of shock transmission to the spine was greater (p < 0.0003) unshod (acceleration rate: Means +/- SD 127.35 +/- 87.23 g/s) than shod (49.84 +/- 33.98 g/s). The temporal response of spinal musculature following heel strike was significantly shorter (p < 0.023) unshod (0.038 +/- 0.021 s) than shod (0.047 +/- 0.036 s). The latency between acceleration peak (maximal external force) and muscle response peak (maximal internal force) was significantly (p < 0.021) longer unshod (0.0137 +/- 0.022s) than shod (0.004 +/- 0.040 s). These results suggest that one of the benefits of running shoes and insoles is improved temporal synchronization between potentially destabilizing external forces and stabilizing internal forces around the lumbar spine.

Article 2:

J Biomech. 1994 Oct;27(10):1213-22.

The mechanical characteristics of the human heel pad during foot strike in

running: an in vivo cineradiographic study.

De Clercq D, Aerts P, Kunnen M.

Department of Kinesiology and Sport Pedagogics, University of Ghent (RUG),

Belgium.

The compressive properties of the heel pad during the heel strike when running (barefoot and shod, two subjects, 4.5 m s-1) were studied by means of a high-speed two-dimensional cineradiographic registration (150 frames s-1) of an actual running step. Vertical ground reaction forces were measured with a force platform. In barefoot running the heel pad deforms to a maximal percentage deformation of 60.5 +/- 5.5%. In shod running the heel pad deforms only 35.5 +/- 2.5% and the nonlinear force-deformation relationship reflects an increasing stiffness when deformation rises. Although the amplitudes of the vertical ground reaction forces do not differ notably in both conditions, barefoot running implies a maximal deformation to the fatty heel tissue, reducing its functional role from shock reduction towards local protection of the heel bone. It is argued that embedding the foot in a well-fitting shoe increases the effective stiffness of the heel pad.

This second article is even misrepresented in the "Barefoot Running" article by Driscoll that is linked to above. Driscoll writes: "The entire plantar surface of the barefoot heel is in contact with the ground whereas the shod foot makes contact only with the posterior lateral edge of the heel. The greater plantar area covered for the barefoot runner leads to an increased deformation of the fatty heel pad and superior shock absorption. A barefoot runner ambling at 4.5 m/s can expect a maximum heel pad deformation of 60.5% (+/- 5.5%) compared with only 35% (+/- 2.5%) for a shod runner." It is obvious from even reading the abstract of the original paper that DeClerq and colleauges found that this greater heel deformation "reduc(es) its functional role from shock reduction towards local protection of the heel bone."

That is what's known as intellectual dishonesty. So, as soon as you find some unbiased reviews on this subject, please post them.

Stipe: Can you provide more details about those shoes?

JY: That first study is ridiculous. Why would they test heel strike while unshod. One of the purposes of running unshod or in minimalist shoes like the H Street is to land with bend knee on your midfoot or forefoot under your center of gravity. This has been found to put more stress on your ankle and lower leg but less stress on the knees and everything above.

Hey, I didn't design the stupid study, the point is that the authors of one review found that the study was good enough for them to use to support their case, even if it meant distorting the conclusions of the study's authors. My argument is not that it is a proven fact that running in minimal shoes is bad, but that the sources being quoted in this discussion are not trustworthy, as the authors are pursuing an agenda.

Didn't mean to sound like my comments were directed to you. I agree that most of the studies are very questionable in their utility. In fairness, I should note that this is a very difficult area in which to get scientifically significant results. You need to give runners months to adjust to new stimuli, like lower heeled shoes, but in that time a whole host of other factors can impact that runner. Oxygen cost studies are notoriously flawed for this reason.

All I know is that the H Streets do feel great once you get used to them.