Great article on barefoot/minimalist running!

Finally, someone is telling the other side of the story.

Great Post!

Amazing how I always kick the minimalists' asses when i see them at races. Minimalists are always really slow. But at least they have really strong feet! And by the way, I am really fu cking slow.

Mark said it with much better verbiage (and a much more credentialed background) then I would ever be able to, but I agree with every word he said!

That post addresses some of the concerns that many people have with the whole barefoot/forefoot fad. Check out www.endurancescience.com/blog for more analysis of the oxygen cost, injury potential and performance benefit (or lack thereof) from forefoot running

endurancescience wrote:

That post addresses some of the concerns that many people have with the whole barefoot/forefoot fad. Check out

http://www.endurancescience.com/blog

for more analysis of the oxygen cost, injury potential and performance benefit (or lack thereof) from forefoot running

why are you relating barefoot with forefoot striking? is this what their article is stating? the two are not necessarily related. oxygen cost with barefoot minimalist running. wooo , why does anyone wear flats/spikes in a race if they are going to be using more oxygen . keep drinking the kool-aid :$

This is just rediculous. The assertation that there are no studies that show that traditional footware increases injuries is false.

And besides, its not difficult to see the conflict of interest going on there.

This study actually just talks about POSE, not midfoot strike, or even a forefoot strike other than POSE. Actually its not even a study. Just a look at a study done in '04 on athletes who had only been using POSE for 12 weeks.

I dont know why its called Endurance Science. It should be called Endurance Speculation Based on Really Old Studies.

Satoris wrote:

This is just rediculous. The assertation that there are no studies that show that traditional footware increases injuries is false.

And besides, its not difficult to see the conflict of interest going on there.

Maybe. But just think, if everyone in Boulder suddenly went minimalist, I'm sure Mark would have an influx of folks visiting him in his clinic with all of their various ailments brought on by the sudden change.

He once told me a great story about when the POSE method suddenly became big, there was an inordinate number of calf injuries. So many, in fact, that he wrote a letter to the fellow who coined the POSE method thanking him for all of the business. Of course, this was meant as a joke, but Mr.POSE didn't find it amusing. Just sayin.

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at, or the need to be insulting.

If you are actually serious in asking about the relationship between forefoot and barefoot runnig, ask any proponent of either. They will tell you that in both: 1) injuries are reduced, 2) running economy improves, and 3) performance is enhanced.

One of the key ideas of barefoot running is that it "makes" you run on your forefoot. That is the relationship between the two. I think that the scientific evidence doiesn't support this in the average runner (as always, individual results may vary). I also think that the rate of injury in forefoot/barefoot runners is far higher than is usually acknowledged by proponents. It's unfortunate that the people making money off this movement (i.e. POSE) gloss over this not insignificant fact.

I hope I've answered your question, assuming it was a question and not just an attack.

Minimalist running is a major cause of hemolysis. I know more than one formerly-healthy person w/ RBC issues after starting training in Frees.

doo doo wrote:

This study actually just talks about POSE, not midfoot strike, or even a forefoot strike other than POSE. Actually its not even a study. Just a look at a study done in '04 on athletes who had only been using POSE for 12 weeks.

I dont know why its called Endurance Science. It should be called Endurance Speculation Based on Really Old Studies.

Well, the domain name for

was already taken. Plus it would take along time to type.

Unfortunately, there aren't any decent studies on forfoot running that aren't about POSE, so it's difficult to comment from a scientific point of view. 12 weeks doesn't seem very long, but it is far longer than most people would devote to trying a radically new technique and is longer than the POSE people suggest is needed to get benefit.

Finally, you think research from 2004 is old?

A very good article, and a very fair one if I'm honest. I tend to wear lighter shoes, but that's personal preference. A teammate only wears thick cushioned trainers because that's what works for him.

Too many people go the barefoot/minimal route thinking "oh it'll make me stronger, so it's all good" without really considering and studying what's going on biomechanically.

There was not one peer-reviewed study cited in this article. Yet, if you are willing to do just a little digging you can find at least 20-30 articles with implications indicating the contrary position.

The Straw Man here is that everyone suddenly starts running their normal training (concrete, asphalt, track, etc) barefoot or minimalist, and the avalanche of injuries begins. This is like throwing someone who can't swim into the ocean and saying "See! People aren't meant to go into water without a boat!"

Plaatjes' stating that he doesn't care about what shoes he sells to customers is disingenuous at best. BRC and other purveyors of high-margin footwear would be out of business tomorrow if people were to know what really makes a good shoe (and it isn't in even a "minimalist" $85 dollar shoe)

maybe so, but how many of them are long term studies?

i tend to think of it this way: the pharmaceutical industry does really long studies on experimental drugs before they are even considered for regular use by physicians. granted some of the drugs can have severe life altering effects and running is just a hobby, two different worlds. usually that time frame for new drugs is in years, not weeks or even months like you see with any of the barefoot/minimalist studies. i would love to see someone do a multi year study on minimalism with 100+ participants. i think it would really shed better light on what benefits/disadvantages it has and who can benefit. until then i am on the fence. i am just so tired of seeing people claim that barefoot/minimalism is better because it worked for them. everyone is different and there are lots of people out there that it hasn't worked for and won't work for. until then, experiment and find out what works for you.

Completely agree. Unfortunately, you'll never see a study like that - it's logistically difficult and no not likely to be in anyone's (i.e. company's) financial interest. My feeling is that the scientific evidence is limited, but what there is doesn't support an across the board adoption of forefoot/barefoot/pose/chi/whatever.

It is irresponsible to do longitudinal studies on barefoot running/minimalism. People will get wrecked. Famous CU runner had both knees wrecked running in shit shoes for 4 years. Isn't running competitively anymore. He is the best example of a long-term study I can think of. Not using his name.

The statement that most stands out in Plaatjes commentary is the conclusion, both because that's the way he chooses to end his commentary, and because of the confirmed impartiality you would hope from an athlete, competitor turned entrepreneur of his caliber:

"Walking and running barefoot certainly can serve as a useful tool in strengthening muscles and increasing proprioceptive awareness. It should be done gradually and with the guidance of a professional to analyze if a person’s mechanics will allow for the transition."

The minimalist/non minimalist dialectic, as it happens on all contentious issues in proactive environments, is at high risk of polarization: some circumstance-driven (could POSE have chosen a worse name for itself irrespective of purported validity?) Some, a direct result of fair economic competition.

We all know that unless you have really extreme physical conditions, static tests are not enough to determine the forces which work on runners limbs. We also all know that precise dynamic tests are time consuming to execute and expensive. So to cite only one example for decision-making is accurate but incomplete.

To go further in a non polarized manner, it would be good for Plaatjes to source some of the data he uses (eg 95% of running and racing on asphalt) and to further post it on here (not just facebook) and go beyond the generic concept of "professional".

There's a whole bunch of real, certified, trustworthy professionals out there. The problem is they don't agree on everything. Plaatjes perspective maybe somewhat unique in that he has a very high profile curriculum.

This would in the very least help to identify his way of approaching decisions about running (how much to train, where to train, what apparel to buy ect) and in fact could help establish some basic guidelines to help those who are especially new to the sport. I am thinking particularly first timers and kids.

Otherwise, it just becomes another "for or against" come-to-me-i-know-best type of issue which goes nowhere.

No no, it was not an attack. Basically I was just trying to say that although yes, it does seem a conflict of interest for a running shoe store owner to promote minimalism, in his case he's "benefitted" (as far as his PT practice goes) FROM minimalism, people drastically changing running methods, etc. as well. So I do not believe that he would have any reason to "abuse" his credentials in a way by promoting anti-minimalist/POSE/whatever else simply to make sure that his running shoe business stays afloat. Because whether people are buying his shoes or not, he's still in buisiness because the folks who have undergone drastic changes in footwear and form just end up coming to him for their resulting injuries. That was a long winded explanation, sorry for the verbiage.

Different strokes for different folks. That's my personal take on the issue. I have no beef with anyone trotting down the trail in bare feet.