This debate has been going on for a while. It led, indirectly, to legal action against running-shoe companies Vibram and Adidas.
Advocates of barefoot running and minimalist-shoe running maintain that running without normal running shoes is better, and makes you less prone to injury.
Here is the thrust of their argument.
As a Podiatrist I have no problems with occasional barefoot running, or minimalist-shoe running.
I do have a problem with the "barefoot running is better for all" approach though.
Here's why:
Our feet were designed to work barefoot, agreed. But barefoot on a multitude of surfaces.
Homo sapiens is nothing if not adaptable. Our feet work well on a mixture of hard, flat, undulating, soft - even up a tree if that's where you have to go for food.
In the West, where most of us walk around on hard, flat surfaces for over 90% of the time, we find it more comfortable to wear shoes or sandals, at least for some of the time - because we were not designed solely for hard and flat surfaces.
Shoes and sandals cushion and create a comfortable interface between the ground and our feet. Having that little half-inch heel doesn't hurt either.
Creationist or evolutionist?
Whether you hold that we were created in God's image in the Garden of Eden some eleven thousand years ago, or that we have evolved from ancestors living millions of years ago doesn't make much difference as far as establishing what our feet were designed for.
As far as we know there was no concrete in the Garden of Eden. It's a certainty that there was no concrete two million years ago - maybe the odd flat rock.
Have a look at the skeleton here. He's way over eleven thousand years old, and his leg bones (and probably foot bones) are much the same as yours or mine. He's designed for adaptation, and fast and adaptable ambulation over a variety of surfaces.
He's probably not designed to live for more than forty or fifty years. Back then slowing down meant starve or be eaten. Joint wear-and-tear did not happen to the extent that joints ceased to function, as happens now. The entity ceased to function long before individual joints.
Our legs and feet have not miraculously evolved in the time we've been living on hard, flat surfaces.
Genetic changes of that magnitude take much longer than a couple of hundred years to happen.
The reality is that we still possess lower limbs which have been designed for adaptation, and fast and adaptable ambulation over a variety of surfaces.
Barefoot running for any length of time on a hard, flat surface is not natural, and therefore somehow good for you. Some barefoot running on an appropriate surface like sand may be good for you. Running barefoot all the time is a fad, and likely to cause injury in the long-term.
Minimalist or barefoot running shoes were born from the need for some barefoot runners to wear some protective footgear.
Predictably, as they developed so did the advertising hype - based, it would seem, on less than robust research results......
SportsOneSource are reporting:
Vibrams FiveFingers Sued over Health Claims
Advocates of barefoot running and minimalist-shoe running maintain that running without normal running shoes is better, and makes you less prone to injury.
Here is the thrust of their argument.
As a Podiatrist I have no problems with occasional barefoot running, or minimalist-shoe running.
I do have a problem with the "barefoot running is better for all" approach though.
Here's why:
Our feet were designed to work barefoot, agreed. But barefoot on a multitude of surfaces.
Homo sapiens is nothing if not adaptable. Our feet work well on a mixture of hard, flat, undulating, soft - even up a tree if that's where you have to go for food.
In the West, where most of us walk around on hard, flat surfaces for over 90% of the time, we find it more comfortable to wear shoes or sandals, at least for some of the time - because we were not designed solely for hard and flat surfaces.
Shoes and sandals cushion and create a comfortable interface between the ground and our feet. Having that little half-inch heel doesn't hurt either.
Creationist or evolutionist?
Whether you hold that we were created in God's image in the Garden of Eden some eleven thousand years ago, or that we have evolved from ancestors living millions of years ago doesn't make much difference as far as establishing what our feet were designed for.
As far as we know there was no concrete in the Garden of Eden. It's a certainty that there was no concrete two million years ago - maybe the odd flat rock.
Have a look at the skeleton here. He's way over eleven thousand years old, and his leg bones (and probably foot bones) are much the same as yours or mine. He's designed for adaptation, and fast and adaptable ambulation over a variety of surfaces.
He's probably not designed to live for more than forty or fifty years. Back then slowing down meant starve or be eaten. Joint wear-and-tear did not happen to the extent that joints ceased to function, as happens now. The entity ceased to function long before individual joints.
Our legs and feet have not miraculously evolved in the time we've been living on hard, flat surfaces.
Genetic changes of that magnitude take much longer than a couple of hundred years to happen.
The reality is that we still possess lower limbs which have been designed for adaptation, and fast and adaptable ambulation over a variety of surfaces.
Barefoot running for any length of time on a hard, flat surface is not natural, and therefore somehow good for you. Some barefoot running on an appropriate surface like sand may be good for you. Running barefoot all the time is a fad, and likely to cause injury in the long-term.
Minimalist or barefoot running shoes were born from the need for some barefoot runners to wear some protective footgear.
Predictably, as they developed so did the advertising hype - based, it would seem, on less than robust research results......
SportsOneSource are reporting:
Vibrams FiveFingers Sued over Health Claims
Quote:
| A group of five law firms has filed a class-action suit against Vibram USA Inc and Vibram FiveFingers LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging the company used deceptive statements about the health benefits of barefoot running. |
Quote:
| The lawsuit asserts that; 1) health benefits claims Vibram FiveFingers has used to promote the shoes are deceptive; 2) that FiveFingers may increase injury risk as compared to running in conventional running shoes, and even when compared to running barefoot; 3) that there are no well-designed scientific studies that support FiveFingers claims. |
No comments:
Post a Comment