Dear Flats Brigade:
I posted this on another thread. Please actually read fully the research you are citing, and the conclusions that the authors of that research actually draw, and the criticisms of their reviewers.
The data produced so far are not conclusive on the effectiveness of running in flats.
Note:
To stress again, there is no evidence that running in flats is closely analagous to running barefooted: because flats do dampen sensation, they may well be more dangerous than running in low/ lightweight trainers. We just don't have the relevant experimental evidence to answer this question.
In spite of the Flats Brigade's pretense to science, the relevant controlled experiments just haven't been conducted. The data are do not answer the relevant questions.
In the paper that Jag 1 cites, the author are in fact, very cautious, apparently in response to the criticisms of reviewers. In their abstract they note that there are no published controlled experiments. That is, the evidence is indeterminate. This is the abstract, which isn't mentioned in the other threads:
Running barefoot is associated with a substantially lower prevalence of acute injuries of the ankle and chronic injuries of the lower leg in developing countries, but well-designed studies of the effects of barefoot and shod running on injury are lacking. Laboratory studies show that the energy cost of running is reduced by about 4% when the feet are not shod. In spite of these apparent benefits, barefoot running is rare in competition, and there are no published controlled trials of the effects of running barefoot on simulated or real competitive performance.
Moreover when you read what the referee says about this paper, its pretty clear that the referee is very cautious!!! Here are some excerpts:
"As acknowledged in the present review, evidence that barefoot running reduces risk of injury appears to be entirely observational. As such, it is premature to recommend barefoot running for reducing the incidence of running-related injuries. Evidence of a beneficial effect of barefoot running on performance is better–possibly Level II–but as the author correctly identifies, randomized controlled trials are needed with performance in real or simulated competitions"
and
Also not addressed in this review is the issue of the role of shoes in the etiology of stress fractures, a common injury in distance runners. The consequences of a stress fracture, particularly those in the feet, are distressing. Tarsal navicular stress fractures may remain undiagnosed for months and are notorious for poor healing. If the fracture is managed non-surgically (non-weight-bearing cast for 6 to 8 weeks), return to sport can take up to six months. Painful fracture non-union requires internal fixation (Bojanic and Pecina, 1997; Khan et al., 1994; Weinfeld et al., 1994). Metatarsal stress fractures are also common in runners (Weinfeld et al., 1994)
He makes numerous other observations. I suggest you read the paper and review in its entirety for yourself!
The paper:
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm
The review:
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0103/cb.htm
Look I'm not out to bash anyone on this cite. And I enjoy a decent debate. I have personally learned much from Trackhead, LaWolf and others.... But I bought into the flat hype, and I got injured -- and I did everything by the book. Over a certain threshold of training in flats only, I fractured my foot. That's why I'm pretty emphatic about the need for better research before ditching cushioning altogether. I'm back to running about 70% in NB 900s with very slight sorbothane inserts, and I seem to have retained all my efficiency, legs speed, midfoot landing, etc. etc.... but my feet generally feel better. Note: I do not give a shit about the shoe industry etc..., and agree that current products generally suck. But they may well be less dangerous than flats.
Johnston
