So there’s a study going around that I’m not going to even link to that has all the shoe-wearers in my life rubbing their orthotics in my face. OK, not really. The only person to bring it up to me was Viper in an effort to get my dander up. It’s a hobby of his. Some people are pretty when they’re angry. Others, ugly. I’m amusing.
As a general practice, here’s a good way to think critically about the methodology of any study about anything: imagine the conclusion were the opposite. I’m pretty sure if the study in question showed barefooters to be more efficient, most of our ilk would say “see? More evidence I’m right.” The shoe fetishists would snort, pointing out the many obvious flaws in the study. Since it’s the other way around, the gloating smug hat and the sour grapes hat are switched.
That’s all beside the point I’d like to make, however. All barefoot running studies are bunk because
1. We don’t know the extent of the adaptations and compromises our feet have made to accommodate the shoe environment
2. We don’t know if those adaptations and compromises need to be reversed in order to run barefoot
3. If we do need to reverse these adaptations and compromises, we don’t know which adaptations and compromises to reverse, how long it takes to reverse them, or if it’s even possible to reverse them at all.
When studying a barefoot runner’s foot, you’re not just looking at a foot without a shoe on it. You’re looking at a foot with a history, one that probably involves a lot of shoes. Not just recent history, either, but a foot that likely spent it’s formative years inside footwear. How would this foot be different if it was bare for it’s entire existence? All barefoot running studies seem to assume there would be no difference at all.
Let’s take two barefooting beginners, one grew up taking karate classes, all barefoot in a dojo, the other grew up dancing in cowboy boots on a never-ending tour of Oklahoma!. Who is going to be more efficient? Should they be the same, just because their shoes are off? If you were to study their gait and form and efficiency, do you think their different histories would matter? If you do, how would you go about accommodating for those differences? How many other aspects of their lives affect their barefootery, one way or another?
There’s too much chaos. Sure, you’ll find plenty of correlations here and there, just enough to confirm anything you’d like the data to say.
Here’s an idea. Get 1000 dogs, put shoes on them. They keep their shoes on for most of the day every day of their lives. They play in shoes, they walk in shoes, they run in shoes. Their paws grow into the shape of their shoes. After a few years, let 500 of those dogs go bare-paw for an hour each day (then it’s back to shoe time). Once these newly bare-paw dogs adjust to the weirdness of having their paws exposed, test the running efficiency of all of the dogs on a treadmill twice. Once in shoes, once bare-pawed.
What’s that? You want to add dogs that have never worn shoes to the study? What kind of crazy hippie cult let their dogs run around without shoes? What if they step in poop?
Anyway, what’s sadder than the idea of 1000 dogs spending most of their lives in shoes? Except for, maybe, an entire species who do so because they think they need to, and cling to sensationalist media to justify their fears.
I trust only one study and that is the study of one person…me! Barefoot running changed my life forever, and that’s good enough for me.
I’m with you, except I don’t even trust myself. I find the perpetual state of uncertainty to be comforting.
Barefoot running is in the process of changing my life. Glad to hear their are lots of others out there too.
Worth noting, I think, is that the most recent “barefoot” study was in fact conducted using socks. As you know, there is a large difference in traction, especially on a treadmill. Also, the shoe they used was the Nike Mayfly, the lightest racing flat the company makes. It was hardly suggesting the Triax for everyone.
True. The sock thing doesn’t bug me because it’s not the same as barefoot (of course, it does bug me a little), but rather no experienced barefooter would put socks on to avoid getting blisters on a treadmill. Socks on a treadmill is a big ol’ friction fest.
Still, efficiency is going to be greatly effected by how a runner trains. A better conclusion to draw from this study would be that in order to LEARN how to run barefoot efficiently, you need to run barefoot more than one hour a week for three months a year.
So, those little Adventure Dog Boots at REI are not going to help my dog run better on trails?
Ha, probably not. I will say this, however – some dogs in daycare don’t like the gravel. The paws of new dogs always get a little irritated. Over time, most dogs learn how to move more gently on that surface in addition to their paws getting tougher. There are a few who either never learn or their paws aren’t capable of getting tough enough, so they actually might be good candidates for the boots.
I also wish they’d stop analyzing runners on treadmills and drawing conclusions for all runners. Everyone runs differently on treadmills vs. over ground. Regardless, studies are stupid. I’m no longer in school. Why do I bother reading these research reports?
I wouldn’t mind the studies on the treadmill so much if they didn’t automatically apply the conclusions to real running (sorry, treadmill fans. You’re not running if the ground is moving for you). So if we ignore all the other issues of this study and take the findings at face value, it shows shoes to me more efficient than feet on a treadmill. I’m not sure I’d disagree with that, either.
Agreed, most shoes are evil. However, our Sockwa G2 feels like a sock so your feet don’t have to cram into anything. Try it, it’s unlike anything else. Closer to barefoot and according to some, healthier for you.
DZ
Founder
Oh, I don’t think shoes are evil. They’re inanimate objects incapable of moral properties. I’d be more than happy to try out your product, but that would have to wait until it’s cold out. So feel free to send me a pair in December or so, if you’d like me to review them for you.
Are you suggesting barefoot running studies are junk and suggesting to do a study to prove barefoot running studies are junk
Have you seen dogs in shoes? They look stupider than those barefoot running hippies. http://youtu.be/LXwjvcgDDEw
There’s another “dog in shoes” video on the side with an appropriate title: “Why Dogs Bite People.”
This one is pretty great too.
Putting shoes on these animals is borderline animal cruelty.
Good thing we’re not animals.
Wait…
There is a lot of truth in this post. I think a think a lot of people (perhaps even the researchers themselves) misconstrue the purpose of a scientific study. It isn’t to definitely conclude that “Barefoot is better” or “Barefoot is not better”, but rather to show that the experimental data (however strongly) indicates that barefoot may be better (or not). The best effect such a study can have is to prompt individuals to experiment on themselves.