Where are the shoe studies?
Serious question: was there a science media flurry like this back in the 70s when the bouncy shoe went on the market? Were there studies showing how a thick, cushioned heel improves performance and safety? Or how the “rugged ballet slipper” usually worn by runners at the time failed to meet the needs of the casual runner?
It’s nice that these barefoot studies come out and affirm what I’ve been pretty sure is true for a while now, even though I think being able to feel the ground is a more important factor of barefoot running than the shoe heel. But these studies are meaningless. They prove nothing and totally miss the point. The point has nothing to do with running or any science other than the dismal one: economics.
It is not the responsibility of the consumer to prove he doesn’t need a product. The retailer has to convince the customer their product is worth the price and DOES WHAT IT CLAIMS TO DO. (That’s not an “angry” all-caps, but rather a “this is important” all-caps. Is bold better?) The only study worth pursuing is one that verifies running shoe marketing claims.
I’ve got feet, they have nerve endings, and I figure those nerve endings are there for a reason. And they’re free. If you want to learn how to use them, you can. If you don’t, that’s ok too. But the fact is, if the science behind shoe design is sound, I shouldn’t be able to do what I’m doing.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
Ok, so I am officially intrigued, what with all the other stuff on the interweb lately about barefoot running. However, it’s -25 with piles of snow and ice everywhere here. Is there a minimal shoe that would emulate the bare foot for now?… we don’t dismantle our igloos here until about mid-june, and the barefoot fad may have passed by then…;0)
Zataod: I hope they have a funny commercial. If it’s not funny during the Super Bowl, I don’t notice it.
Neil Z: Are you suuuuuure you want some kool-aid?
Generally I wouldn’t recommend starting with a minimalist shoe, but winter sucks. Nothing emulates running barefoot, an activity that requires direct sensory input from the ground to the feet, but it’s easier to run “as if” barefoot in some shoes than others. If you can find a cheap aqua sock, that’ll do the trick. In the meantime, practice in your house. Jog in place, focusing on being as quiet as you can. Jumping rope is a really good complimentary exercise (again, as quietly as you can). Sudden stops are your enemy.
Read this a billion times:
http://runningbarefoot.org/?page_id=455
And feel free to ask me any questions.
Angie: Thanks. It’s my contrarian nature…
Hmmm, another blow to the “shod” companies.
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/science/article_ff3b38ba-08f8-5eee-b0b0-49491d52365d.html
Jamoosh: I wish Vibram’s would lay low for a while. Seeing their name attached to all things barefoot will make people wonder if this is all a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune…
Josh — The fact that Vibram partial funded this research brings up an interesting point. How much research will really be done on this topic? Who is going to fund it?
Without funding, research won’t get done. And generally, unless there is a profit to be made, there isn’t much incentive to fund research.
Where is the profit in barefoot running? It’s the cheapest recreational activity around. You don’t really need any special equipment. Maybe a watch. Maybe a some anti-chafing stick. But other than that, you just need shorts and a shirt (or maybe not shirt in the summer).
Zataod: Right. Barefooters are advocating fiscal responsibility, which is a big no-no in these Keynesian times. It’s interesting that we feel pressured to “prove” why money shouldn’t be spent. In a rational (Hayekian) world, shoe-wearers would be asking the shoe companies why barefooters don’t need their product.
I think the plan is for Nike to roll out the shoe studies during the Super Bowl.