Why are Minmalist Shoes bad for your health?

asg...

Two things: First, you're missing / misunderstanding my point. In accordance with the original poster's wishes, I stayed away from making a pro-Minimalist argument. Instead what I offered was the notion that for the last 30 or so years, we've accepted as gospel whatever the shoe companies and the ensuing tribal knowledge of the running community had told us. If anyone had asked the relevant questions then, and applied an ounce of scientific skepticism to the products that we were purchasing for millions of dollars a year, perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. But the fact remains that no one did ask those questions then, so here are. My post was merely encouraging people to approach both traditional shoes and minimalist shoes de novo - with a clean slate and without bias, as should have been done for the last three decades.

Second, you are correct that the hypothetical study to which you refer has not been done for barefoot shoes. Only recently has a study been done examining those questions on traditional shoes. I think the results will surprise you. Additionally, a recent study found that running truly barefoot and in Vibrams showed a significant improvement in running economy, which is often strongly determined by biomechanics, which plays right into injury rates. Finally, look at the work Daniel Lieberman at Harvard has done.

I will offer you these references, though, if you're interested and have access to scientific literature (if nothing else, you can read abstracts at NIH's PUBMED site):

"The effects of three different levels of footwear stability on pain outcomes in women runners: a randomized control trial," Ryan et al, British Journal of Sports Medicine 2010

"Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence-based?" Richards et al BJSM 2009

"Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners" Lieberman et al Nature 2010

"Biomechanical and physiological comparison of barefoot and two shod conditions in experienced barefoot runners," Squadrone et al Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2009.

Hooke's Law does apply to a rubber sole. It may not be a "perfect elastic linear spring", but then I never said it was. Actually, nothing is a "perfect elastic linear spring." As the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows, there will always be loss of energy due to entropy, preventing us from building a perfectly energy-efficient anything. But for our purposes a rubber sole has a spring constant which increases force in the opposite direction of impact. Your opinion that it is "bad science" is wrong.

Your entire argument seems to center around impact time, and if impact time is lessened the force will increase. A simplistic and faulty argument, since you incorrectly leave Hooke's Law out of your reckoning. Because if the strike time were all we were talking about that would be enough, but you forget the rebound of the rubber which does increase the force.

You have not shown that strike times for cushioned shoes are any longer than minimalist strike times. If the time taken is longer for cushioned shoes, you may want to keep in mind that the length of compression of the sole is also increasing which thereby increases elastic rebound force.

That's all just mental masturbation in the absence of real-world testing:

http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFootStrike.html

Coach Owl Birdo wrote:

That's all just mental masturbation in the absence of real-world testing:

http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFootStrike.html

SITE DISCLAIMER: The information provided is for educational purposes only, and is not a substitute for advice from a physician. Please see our User Agreement.

FUNDING DISCLAIMER: Research presented on this site was funded by Harvard University and, in part, by Vibram USA®.

*Bold added.

So basically, every scientist is a crook and a liar if his research validates the assumptions of a funding source? Is that the accusation you're making, another shoe guy? Since almost every standard running shoe carries a seal of approval of some alphabet soup organization, why do you trust them?

Try reading the articles instead of making ad hominem attacks. You might learn something, if you dare.

Your post at least suggested that all of the studies referenced by shoe companies might be biased based on the source and the funding. All I pointed out was that the same issue could be true of the Harvard study. Yes, Harvard is certainly a reputable educational institution, however if you think there is no chance that either a)the researcher ended up being biased based on the source of funding or b)the funding was provided because they knew the researcher already supported their point of view, you are the one being naive.

I have studied this issue carefully. I have learned a lot. I may not be a Harvard professor, however, I am sure I have far more experience with runners, running shoes and runners issues/injuries than he does. I also deal in the real world, not with a treadmill in a lab. Any study conducted using runners on a treadmill is fundamentally flawed because, unless you are a very regular (if not exclusive) treadmill runner, you are not likely to run with your customary stride. Any study that doesn't span a long enough time span to see what injuries eventually (ie metatarsal stress fractures) develop in a large group also gives an incomplete picture.

Why do I trust shoe companies ... who says I do? They are businesses and marketers, I know anything they say has to be taken with a grain of salt. What I trust is the anecdotal evidence of the thousands of runners I have dealt with. That includes people who have run for years with injures and I've transitioned them to a more minimal shoe and they have gotten healthier and run more. It now includes an even larger number of people who have gotten injured after switching to less (or no) shoe based on the popular movement of the day. By far it includes the largest number of runners who try a few things in the middle, figure out what level of cushioning and support work best for them, and go on to run for years with their biggest injury being achy knees or sore shins when they didn't replace their shoes quite soon enough.

Supposely they have a type of electromagnetic cell built into the sole that is not conducive to the body's own energy system. There is data available that supports this from the NHI.

I think "another shoe guy" makes some very good points. Minimalist shoes might be the right option...for the right people. Supportive running shoes might be the right option...for the right people.

It would be very, very hard to design a study that "proves" one type of shoe is better than another. You can take two identical guys, both with the same frame, level of pronation, and stride, but if one works at a desk all day and the other works on his feet, they're going to each be prone to different injuries that are completely removed from shoe choice. How does one correct for all of the variables? As the Harvard study showed, you can create a limited, artificial environment, but that doesn't translate well to the real world.

We're all experiments of one. Personally, I tried to wear racing flats for my runs (after doing the proper "step down" from lightweight trainers to marathon flats to shorter distance flats), and they didn't work for me. I never felt comfortable, and I was sore all the time. I went back to my Brooks trainers and have been running fine. But that's just me. Someone else might find that flats are their best option. And that's great. We (runners in general) have to realize that, like always, there's no magic bullet.

Generally true statement: Minimalist shoes are probably bad for your health because...you are not patient enough or lack the willpower to make them work for you.

Barriers to success with minimalist shoes (as opposed to other running shoes):

(a) transitioning abruptly or too quickly.

(b) failure to significantly shorten your stride.

(c) continued use of cushioned/heeled shoes during the rest of your daily life.

Some other barriers to success with minimalist shoes:

(d) Using a car daily to get to and from where you are going instead of walking.

(e) Sedentary desk jobs

(f) Pavement and concrete (Even during our daily lives)

(g) Taller and heavier runners. (Even fit individuals are on average taller than our ancestors.)

Again, I'm not saying minimalist/bf can't work, just that anyone who makes it sound like it is best for everyone (or a majority, or even a significant percentage) is missing a huge chunk of reality.

For God's sake, what is wrong with you?"fashionista's" , "Vibram's"??Why not "shoe's" while you're at it?