Vibram FiveFingers Cause Metatarsal Stress Fractures?

These threads should be merged and re-named the "barefoot running thought of the day".

Website is a little creepy. Vibrams look like foot condoms. You know - for safe running.

 

Simon, first THANK YOU for the positive note and and the words of encouragement. I agree with you completely about it not being a great idea to insist on one path.

It is great to know you work as a consultant for Asics. Saturday I ran 19 miles in Asics, Sunday 13 miles in Nike and this morning 7 miles in VFF before work. This thread started out as somewhat of a witch hunt against VFF and I believe that is wrong. My experience with those shoes has been nothing but extremely positive. Would I ever consider only wearing VFF? Heck no! I'll use my Asics, Nikes, Adidas as the workhorses and VFF for a totally different purpose. I just want to share the reasons for why I have found to have such a positive experience with VFF. Metatarsal stress fractures are extremely common in runners. Runners have been getting them for a lot longer than VFF have been around. Enter VFF which have virtually no impact protection and of course you are going to see stress fractures. The same group of people who can't even protect their feet with protective shoes are now wearing not much more than a pair of slippers to run. Why would you expect anything but the worst?

The Asics I wore Saturday where the GT 2140 trail shoes. For those that don't know what they are, they are heavy duty, stability trail shoes. I don't even need a stability shoe but I have them anyway. These shoes are tanks, I can run over anything in them without even knowing there is a war going on beneath my feet. Today I wore VFF which couldn't be more opposite. Other than some light protection against sharp things, I can feel just about everything on the ground. So with the model of Asics I have, my feet felt sealed and protected in a vault. With VFF, little to no protection with great sensitivity. What a great contrast! It feels wonderful to go from one extreme to the other. I love wearing both shoes for totally different reasons.

Yesterday I sat down and extended my foot. While doing so, I flexed and contracted as many of the muscles as I felt I had control over. I rotated my foot on my ankle and observed as much motion as I possibly could from my foot and ankle. I put on a VFF and did the same thing. There was some limiting of mobility but minimal. I then put on a Nike Air Max and tightened it down. While there was ankle mobility and I could barely move any part of my foot other than slightly wiggle my toes. The difference in mobility between being barefoot or wearing VFF and wearing Nike Air Max was so profound it could be measured with a ruler.

All I have ever read, learned and experienced with respect to exercise and strength building is that limiting motion is not a good thing. It will limit strength building efficiency and effectiveness. You need to use full range of motion to gain the best results. While traditional running shoes are great for protection, there are trade offs.

I have documented every mile I've run by the specific brand and model of every pair of running shoes I have worn since the beginning of 1982. I know exactly how pairs and pairs of different types of running shoes have behaved and I have had great success wearing traditional running shoes over that time frame without injury. I have no interest in screwing with a formula.

Now enters VFF! Believe me, I have seen the gimics over the years, everything about VFF says fad and gimic. I was going to pass on VFF but with all of the commotion on this forum, I just couldn't do it. So now after documenting 72,000 miles on every brand and model of running shoes that I've worn, all of a sudden I test out a pair of VFF. The difference I feel between wearing VFF vs traditional running shoes is remarkable. I don't really need to debate that difference, it is very real to me and I am comparing this to 72,000 miles of experience. I do know what to expect from a pair of running shoes. After years and years, miles and miles of running, all of a sudden there is a marked difference in how my feet, legs and lower back feel. Hmmm, in spite of ranting and raving unsubstantiated claims, maybe there is something to all of this hysteria.

As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on VFF. I will need to run in them for several thousand miles before I draw my own definitive conclusions. Trust me, I will ultimately run that far in them. For now, I'll enjoy the occasional run or walk in VFF and I will pay close attention to ensure I am safe and free of metatarsal stress fractures.

 

"Run barefoot, wear five fingers" is still oxymoronic. I can't wait for a longitudinal on these. After the day I've had today and the runners I've been working with, I'd actually love barefoot running to be the way forward, if only to keep 'em out of my office. Unfortunately, I doubt it will stop their training errors. When will these people understand that rest is part of training :bash:

 

Craig, I'll take your questions as rhetorical and I completely agree with your point. Not being a member of their church, I'm certainly not in a position to answer for them. I think the barefooters approached this completely wrong. They came out like they had discovered the holy grail while proclaiming that running shoes cause injury and running shoe companies are bad. What a bunch of crap. That's my way of saying their claims are unsubstantiated. I am truly grateful for the billions of dollars that running shoe companies have invested in running shoe technology because I have certainly benefited from it over the years. Look how far running shoes have come over the past 35 yrs.

My only hope is that the barefooters have influenced the running shoe companies in the way they are thinking and that the companies do look at alternatives to the traditional shoes they have been developing. Not to do away with the traditional shoe but to add alternatives. Unfortunately, we know that at least in the running shoe and basketball shoe market, what sells and what actually works can be two different things. I don't even want to think about how many good models of running shoes have been ruined with "upgrades" that where targeted more at selling shoes than improving their performance.

 

I doubt very much that you are using the full range of motion in any of your joints while running unless you have a pre-existing pathological limitation, regardless of the footwear. Sorry to burst that bubble.

P.S. why is it that when I put orthoses in the shoes of runners that frequently I see no kinematic changes, yet their symptoms resolve?

Answer options:
placebo?
they'd have got better anyway?
kinetics cause injury, orthosis change kinetics, it is possible to change kinetics without an observable kinematic change?

So, if we can extrapolate from this (and we can), why is it that when I put some runners in neutral shoes and then compare them in, for example, a pair of GT 2140, I'll often see no kinematic changes? Indeed, why is it that sometimes when I increase the "pronation control" of running shoes in an individual, they actually pronate more?

Shall we ask the experts or those with "barefoot" in front of their names? I can tell you this, Dana, those that regularly contribute to the biomechanics forum here, could answer these question at the drop of a hat. At the moment you may or may not be able to. Stick around and you will.

 

Ian, thank you for attaching the Mayer study. A very interesting read and now I know the full findings for the control group as well as the other groups. I'm not sure it was a good connection to the effect of running shoes that the unknown author of the website was trying to make but that is OK, I agreed with his conclusion even without trying to use this study.

I am addicted to the Arena, I have learned a lot, I've found the discussions very interesting. I would also like to feel that I can add my point of view from time to time.

 

Like the Nike free for example? Which was developed and launched when? Prior to or after the barefoot running boom?

Here's what astounds me: the notion that these multi-million dollar companies might actually not have looked into barefoot running and invested in the best technology to analyse running in all kinds of footwear as well as barefoot. Moreover, that these brands don't want to improve performance in their sponsored athletes by offering them the best possible footwear to achieve this and rather wish to injure their public. Screw what the experts and professional athletes say, lets ask someone with "barefoot" in front of their name... 'cause they're sure to know the answer; "I wish my cousin (barefoot) Nag was here, he'd know the answer" -from the start of 3 feet high and rising.

Which brings us to Hicks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_69yvFZH9U basically you can replace "Judas priest fans" with "runners"; "suicide" with "injured" (although in my experience the injuries that many runners achieve is due to their own suicidal outlook on their sport); "band" with "running shoe manufacturer"- you get the idea, if you don't like "cursing" don't look.

P.S. I've been analysing people walking and running barefoot as well as shod for the best part of 20 years, which is why when a certain study suggested that barefoot runners often strike forefoot first, I wasn't in the slightest bit surprised. Yet for the very same reason I can also tell you there are also a large number of barefoot runners that don't strike forefoot first. Similarly, I can tell you that some shod runners strike forefoot first, while others don't. Why do runners modulate their leg stiffness in different ways?

 

Kevin, in addition to a half dozen admins/moderators, there are only 31 people with more than 300 posts. I don't think it would take long to hit 300 if you are involved in the discussions.

I have a masters degree in Business specializing in finance and econometrics. I have been working for IBM as either a senior analyst or middle manager for over 28 yrs. I have had as many as 300 people under my direction at certain times. To put it mildly, I am an analytical geek.

Kevin, I have read many of your posts that date back over 5 yrs!

As far as durability, I know there are many contributing factors and many that I'm not even aware of. I'll give you the ones I think have been most important starting with good genes and good luck!

Whenever I've undertaken anything, I have always put a lot of effort into learning before leaping. Running was no different, I read an enormous amount on training philosophy and theory even in high school when starting out as a runner. I quickly learned the value of rest and recovery as an integral part of training at a very early age. I also learned the importance of making changes gradual such as increasing training levels etc.

I somehow survived the 70's and 80's without injuring myself by following published training principles and always wearing GOOD shoes. At least they where good for the time period. I have been in a life long search for the perfect running shoe. I really don't think it exists so instead of the perfect running shoe, I have many pairs of running shoes. I know this is anecdotal but my guess is that by having many pairs of shoes and rotating them, if I do have a hot spot, or there is a weak characteristic in the shoe, by changing shoes, I am changing the dynamics and hopefully reducing the stress that otherwise might have led to injury.

Going into the 90's the Heart Rate Monitor became readily available and the way of thinking with respect to injury prevention came with it. The premise is that an elevated resting HR is a good indicator of over training and over training can lead to injury. I not only measured my resting HR but using linear regression I plotted my Average HR against my average pace for 100's of my runs. Armed with that plot, after a run I would compare pace and avg HR of the run to what is expected on the plot. If my HR was higher than expected for a given pace and distance, I knew to back it down the next day. If lower, it was a green light to crank it up. I still am following it today. I believe the only way I survived endless 150 mile weeks with individual long runs of 35 to 50 miles at a time was through the use of heart rate feedback.

Currently, even at my age of 53, my resting HR is 34 bpm. If on a given morning it registers over 40 bpm, I know it is a good idea to back off at least a little.

The final factor comes from a bit of wisdom from Dr. George Sheehan that has stuck with me. He used to say that if you are having injury problems, the first place to look is your feet. A day does not go by that I don't first assess how my feet feel when I get up. That first assessment regarding pain, stiffness, flexibility helps me pick out the running shoes I plan to wear, the distance, pace and type of surface I plan to run on. I know the assessment is subjective by after all of these years, I feel I do know my feet and they haven't failed in guiding me to a life of freedom from injury. Sheesh, I am so convinced that your feet are the window to injury free running that I have become a member of the Podiatry Arena!

 

Simon, Nike Free has been out for about 4 yrs. Before that they used to have what they coined "fit" technology. They used to have these yellow nylon shoes with very light, thin simple white phylon soles and single black buckle over the top of the foot. I forget the name of these shoes but they where out there in the mid 80's. To answer your question, Nike has been looking at Nike Free type shoes in some form or another almost as long as they have been a shoe company.

As far as the latest barefoot movement, if you mark that by when the Tarahumara hit the ultra marathoning scene in the US, that was 1992 when the anthropologist, Steve Fischer started to bring them to the US to run in some of the 100 mile trail runs. The Tarahumara are at least what got people like barefoot Ted, Chris McDougall and Micah True all worked up over it.

I don't think it is an on or off proposition. I think the big companies are offering the big time athletes their best shoes. I for one am convinced that I can run much longer and faster in traditional running shoes than something like VFF and forget barefoot, I won't run that way. The question I have is what about adding the use of VFF as part of your training? I know we can debate this one but I also know how my feet feel after wearing them.

There is concept called "cost of cushioning" when a running, come hell or high water, gravity is going to cause impact and impact is going to be dissipated. The dissipation is going to happen from the ground, the shoe, the foot, the leg, joints or somewhere else in the body and in some combination. Runners modulate their leg stiffness (joints, muscles) in different ways as an integral part of the factors involved in impact dissipation.

I'm sure you know the answers to these questions. I'm not sure if you are asking me to see if I know or if you are trying to teach me something. I do know I am willing to learn. So if I answered incorrectly, please let me know.

Dana

 

Why? What should they add?

Tell me what the relationship is between surface stiffness and leg stiffness? Then tell me if running on compliant surfaces is more metabolically efficient than running on stiffer surfaces, while you're there, tell me about the relationship between surface stiffness and running injury frequency, tell me about elastic energy storeage and viscoelastic tissues and rate of loading.... Then enlighten me, tell me about the "cost of cushioning"? And while you're there answer my questions about kinetics versus kinematics that I posted previously. Then I'll tell you about working for IBM as an analyst. Except, I'd never be so bold as to pretend I know your job. as well as you do.

Teaching is my aim, and my aim is true. But I'm not sure if you really have an interest in learning, or whether you just want to tell us all about how you've run for X number of years revolving your shoes and how great it feels (for you).

P.S. Never saw a barefoot runner or anyone who was interested in it until after the McDougal book. The yellow nylon shoes might have been "mayfly"

 

Dana:

No matter what I said earlier, when I was in my "mean phase" (BTW, which I learned from the evil Simon twins, Spooner and Bartold), your analytical approach and knowledge level is very, very good for an individual with no formal medical training. Compliments to you for your accomplishments, both in running training/racing and in your understanding of the science of running. Very impressive.

My apologies to you for being so rude initially. I hope you stick around here since I am really starting to enjoy your posts....your contributions here on Podiatry Arena could be a very positive learning experience for many of us.:drinks

 

Prof. Kirby, stop feeling bad about yourself for your "awkward" comments and then trying to blame them on someone else :drinks. Before we proclaim the genius, let's try to assess prior learning and find out what is known and not known.

I'm fascinated by the "cost of cushioning" statement... forget all my other questions, Dana. Lets focus on this one: what exactly is the "cost of cushioning"?

Long time no speak, Kevin.

 

Simon, as I've stated multiple times and I apologize for repeating myself again. Wearing VFF provides an incredible feel to my feet, legs and lower back. I feel that I haven't experienced in 72,000 miles of running in traditional running shoes. At the risk of being shot down on this forum for saying why that is, I'll let you guess. There one thing you can't do on this forum, convince me of how I feel after wearing traditional running shoes vs VFF.

1) The relationship between surface stiffness and leg stiffness is first affected by shoe stiffness and cushion. Surface stiffness, leg stiffness AND shoe stiffness/cushion will provide sufficient absorption to equal impact from body weight.

2) A person running on compliant surfaces will NOT be more metabolically efficient than running on stiffer surfaces. It obviously takes more work to push off of a forgiving surface that probably also has less traction.

3) For me personally, the relationship between surface stiffness and running injury frequency is completely neutral. I don't get injured regardless of the surface. For runners who do get injured, the stiffer the surface, the less impact absorption there is, the more friction and the more impact that must be absorbed by the shoes and the body.

4) As far as tendons go, elastic energy storage can have different mechanical properties base on load such as the difference between flexion and extension and that with age, those tendons can be become stiffer, stronger and less extensible. It is believed that cyclic flexion minimizes the function of visioelastic tissue such as in ligaments which may place increasing demands on the nueromuscular system which can lead to injury. Therefore, in combination, loading can cause imbalance and lead to injury.

5) Finally, what more is there to say about the cost of cushioning? I agree, the outcome has to do with the interplay of the relationships of 1-4.

I'll need to post this and go back to see your question about kinetics vs kinematics, I didn't see it before. I'm not sure of the point in answering though.

I never pretended to know your job. That sounds a bit defensive. You can have my job.

I do know Grete Waitz was the poster child for the yellow shoes.

Simon, hostility is not a good way to teach if that is your aim. But with that said, in spite of your condescending effort, I did learn some things. Now to think about kinetics vs kinematics.

Dana

 

I was hoping you would attend the iFAB meeting in Seattle so we could fly some paper airplanes again.....maybe even Bartold will be there?.....but you had to go to some rock concert closer to your neighborhood!! Where are your priorities, Dr. Spooner?!:drinks

I'll try to call tomorrow.

 

Now I see your question about kinetics vs kinematic change. This is exactly what I have been trying to say for many posts. I know you've all heard this, I rotate many pairs of active running shoes and have remained injury free. I believe by doing so there is kinetic change and I sincerely doubt for my feet there is any kinematic change. More on this in a second.

Do you really need me to answer the question about increasing pronation control may cause more pronation? I'll give a hint...."control".

Simon, you didn't burst any bubbles, you just didn't read what I wrote. I was talking about my feet and ankles not any joint. I also was not talking about running using full range of motion on any joint or with my feet or ankles. That would be impossible, I'd fall down.

I was talking about how the range of motion is related to exercise efficiency as relates to building strength. The training effect tells us that the body reacts to stress by becoming stronger. Ultimately the body will adapt to that stress and plateau. If it doesn't adapt it will injure. Assuming a plateau, you can reintroduce that stress by changing the kinetics. By doing so the body will then further adapt and become stronger. For your orthoses example, I would say that even though there may not be kinematic change, the foot is adapting, possibly becoming stronger and the symptoms are relieved.

The point in my previous post is that by changing clunky running shoes to light weight shoes and back AND by introducing shoes that require a lot of work from the foot your are dramatically changing kinetics and gee whiz, you might see positive results.

When observing the movement or I should say the lack of it when wearing my Nike Air Max 2009, it made me think of something. I might as well strap my feet like clumps of meat to two boards with duct tape. Of course not completely true since they do allow for some bending in my toes. I paid $160 for these things so it wasn't like I didn't think they would work. They do work very well! but holy pedestrian batman, they are awfully clunky.

Simon, please save the hostility, it really doesn't help.

 

Simon, see my other posts. I'm almost afraid to try to describe the cost of cushioning because I really don't want to get ridiculed any more. It grows tiring. I don't know if I passed your earlier tests. I don't know if it matters, really.

Dana

 

You don't need to apologise, just stop repeating yourself, please.

You miss the point, leg stiffness will modulate in order to maintain a constant centre of mass displacement. Running shoes just add another spring in series. And when we speak about surface stiffness we are actually talking about the interface(s) between the foot and the ground. Newton's third law of motion states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, otherwise we'd fall through the earth when we strike the ground. But that's not the point, the point is that we know that the body modulates leg stiffness in response to the surface stiffness, increased surface stiffness = decreased leg stiffness and vice versa- to maintain a constant centre of mass displacment. Increased leg stiffness = decreased metabolic cost and decreased injury prevalence... Need the references? I should have thought someone who's been a runner as long as you should know the work of Tom Mcmahon and his later contributors inside out?

You wrong- do you want the references?

Once again, you wrong- do you want the explanation and references? Just ask... nicely.

I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean.

Humour me, since I think your explanations of 1-4 are incorrect, try to explain it in other terms.

You've no idea about my emotions toward you. Moreover, you appear to have mistaken me for someone who cares about your feelings. Regardless, your interaction with me will lead to learning. And the great thing is this: I don't expect you to like me for it.

"everything you know is wrong- Watch more TV"- "They live"- John Carpenter

 

Dana. In response to your posts, I'm sure you were a great for IBM and that you enjoy your running, but an expert on lower limb biomechanics you are not. Have a nice life. I'm too tired and too bored of this continue with you. I'm rotating my bed, it feels great to me.

 

If you read what I said you wouldn't need to ask the question and I wouldn't need to repeat myself.

I didn't miss the point and no I don't need references. You missed what I said.

why is that?

Regarding your question, surfaces themselves are not metabolically efficient or inefficient. So your question is stupid. The person running on various surfaces will show a change in measured HR for a given pace. OK, I spoke too soon it is the difference in friction not softness/firmness. Yes I know all about mushy tracks designed for speed. No, I don't need references.

So now with respect to surface stiffness and running injury frequency, you are telling me that I'm wrong that it doesn't make a difference for me? Maybe you should parrot what was defined as surface stiffness in the study you read. You can also tell me what all the stink is about VFF if surface stiffness doesn't matter.

Sorry, I can't repeat myself. Besides your question was vague so I'm done guessing at what you mean.

With regards to the cost of cushioning, I'm done. Go figure it out for yourself. Just pull out your references.

Where did you get that from? I said nothing about your emotions toward me, sorry to deflate your ego. What are you talking about? Someone who cares about my feelings? What? You don't expect me to like you for it? What? I don't get what you are talking about. Maybe you should send references.

 

Dana:

After your last set of rude responses to Dr. Spooner, where he was honestly trying to educate you on some of the scientific evidence from running biomechanics research, I have changed my mind again about you.

Maybe it would be better if you moved along to another forum where you can be the teacher, not the student. It seems like you, unfortunately, think you know much more than you really do. Too bad.....and I was just starting to look forward to teaching you a little about running biomechanics.

Happy running.:drinks

 

I was looking forward to catching up on this thread tonight with a fine bottle of merlot and some Cashel Blue, but find myself wanting to attach the battery charger to next door's tortoise-shell or feed the prize carp in the town pond to the heron that flies over every morning. I'm just glad I'm not twenty years younger and stuck the pin in Plymouth otherwise I'd still be doing time. Politeness never kills, especially under provocation. That's usually when it works best.

 

Is the Mark Russell "School of etiquette" up and running now?

 

Not quite. Thought I would use charm first, for a change.

 

Kevin, Simon's method of education was to ask 20 questions, wait for a response then shoot me down in ridicule followed by a suggestion to read reference material without providing any information. That is not teaching. The exchange was contentious, hostile, condescending and pompous. You found it to be education and found me to be rude. That's OK if that's what you think.

Now you are asking me to leave the forum. I have seen many others chased off of this forum with childish and contentious debates. This is a first to be directly asked to leave, wow.

Have you ever wondered why there are only 31 people on this forum who post with any regularity? The whole thing is laughable, 31 people passing the latest study they just read back and forth and you think you have it all figured out. Looking in from the outside, I see all of you in a box, unwilling to look outside and see other points of view. You are paralyzed from having original thought, insight or creativity. If it is not first demonstrated in a study, you can not think on your own. It is absolutely taboo to show insight based on experience, you must have a supporting study as if it is a license to think.

If your plan of teaching me about running biomechanics was to do so with ridicule, hostility and contentiousness, that's OK, I'll pass.

Kevin, it is OK to change your mind about me. I find it unfortunate that there are so many people on this forum with their guard held up so high that they can't see beyond it.

I sincerely have an interest in your profession and sincerely want to learn but it looks like I will be better off subscribing to places like BJSM and reading the studies for myself. I would never expect you to be helpful enough to guide me through something like that. It just amazes me how a group of professionals can openly treat someone who has expressed an interest in your very profession as badly as I've seen happen on this forum. It is really pretty sad actually. I know there are some very good, open, smart and understanding people here, I just don't think they are the vocal ones I have had to deal with. For the vocal ones, you ought to be ashamed of yourself and how you have represented the Podiatry profession.

Dana

 

I asked questions, I didn't shoot you down. It is teaching...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

But you need to be willing to learn.

 

The following all came from a single post that you wrote:

-just stop repeating yourself
-You miss the point... Need the references?
-I should have thought someone who's been a runner as long as you should know.....
-You wrong- do you want the references?
-Once again, you wrong- do you want the explanation and references?
-I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean.
-Humour me, since I think your explanations of 1-4 are incorrect...
-You've no idea... Moreover, you appear to have mistaken.....
-I don't expect you to like me for it.

Here are two questions for you. Is this type of dialog used in the Socratic Method? Do you think this type of dialog is conducive to learning?

I was rude and I regret my reaction to the dialog above. Willingness to learn is one thing, ability to learn is another. It appears that I am unable to learn when confronted with the dialog you have selected. The solution is simple, I should go and learn from someone who's methods are a tiny bit more positive.

Dana

 

here's how I see it:

You'd repeated the same comment continuously, you have even apologised for the fact that you kept repeating it.

Reading is part of education. Hence the expression "(s)he is well read", indeed at the top Universities here, one reads for a degree.

Tom Mcmahon's work on compliant track surfaces and the effects of compliant surfaces on improved performance was published in 1979, I'm amazed that someone who claims to have knowledge of running research should not be aware of this work. Or any of the subsequent work which has demonstrated improved performance when running on compliant surfaces. Yet since it clearly contradicts your answers, obviously you were unaware of it. Which is why I said:

See above.

Once more, see above. Not everyone is ready to accept that what they have believed to be the truth is actually incorrect. I am pretty busy at the moment and to give my time freely to someone who is not interested in the answer is a pointless exercise, hence I asked if you wanted the explanation and the references. You obviously didn't. So I saved myself the effort by asking that question.

I've always found that honesty is the best policy, rather than try to bull****, when I don't understand something that has been written, I'll tell the author that I don't understand the meaning of their statement.

I still think they were incorrect, and I'm still waiting for an explanation of the "cost of cushioning" what does it cost?

Nice editing. No you do have no idea of my feelings toward you. How could you? And I really, really don't care what you think of me.

According to Carl Rogers, when we try to teach we often cause harm because in order to change a mindset we must make the individual question their own understanding, this is often accompanied by feelings of resentment and distrust.

Have you learned anything?

Good bye and good luck with your future. Hopefully you can find a forum with contributors of a similar level of expertise as those here, but a site were they will agree with you rather than draw attention to your erroneous points of view.

 

Simon, minutes before you posted this comment, I posted the following.

Can you see the fundamental difference between our points of view? You are waiting for a longitudinal study to surface on VFF, I am out actually seeing for myself what these shoes will and will not do. A study will be interesting to me as well. I will be able to compare it's findings to my own experience.

While I am running in VFF for thousands of miles, I am recording my own data. I use linear regression to plot, compare Average Heart Rate to Average Pace over a given course. With time, I will have enough data to know if there is a statistically significant difference in my running efficiency when wearing VFF vs traditional running shoes. For that matter, I will also know this across multiple models of VFF and multiple models of traditional running shoes.

What I record and analyze will be nothing in comparison to the studies I have read on ground reaction forces that have been posted on this forum but that is not the point. I will learn what I want to know, do these shoes work with respect to running efficiency as measured by heart rate.

You have invested years in academics pertaining to feet. While you where studying feet, I was out using them.

You have observed that I have an unwillingness to learn. What you observed was an unsuccessful attempt on my part to show that you might be able to learn from someone with experience.

I have been reading a lot and I am learning. I wouldn't be here if I didn't want to learn. I am even learning about topics like Orthotic Reaction Forces. I would not have had a clue to think about the relationship of the surface angle with the components of vertical load and shear while applying load if you hadn't mentioned it. Interesting, in my words, I would say the result might be a blister and an achy foot.

When it comes to something like VFF, while you are waiting for a longitudinal study, it might be possible for you to learn by trying out a pair for yourself. If that is out of the question, you could discuss with someone who has tried them out. I might be totally wrong but with all the discussion, I wonder if there is anyone on the Podiatry Arena that might like some feedback on VFF after I've had a chance to put a few thousand miles on them. In the absence of the longitudinal study we are all waiting for, they might have some feedback that they can think about when formulating their recommendations to their clients. They might discourage people from wearing them but knowing people won't listen, they might gain some insight about how to at least prevent or reduce injury while wearing them.

By the way, I do know who Tom McMahon was. He lived in a town next to where I grew up in the suburbs of Boston. I just needed my memory jogged it has been a long time since I read track research. If you look in one of my earlier posts I mentioned "Mushy" tracks, I was thinking of him, forgot his name and failed to make the connection. I remember vaguely about his track at Harvard, that it improved running times by a few percent but more importantly, there was a huge reduction injuries. Wasn't it something like in half? I would have liked to have run on his track to experience first hand what it felt like. That is all I remember about the study. When I read it, there was no need for me to commit much more to memory, my focus was geared towards running on natural surfaces which is where the bulk of it takes place now. When I think of things like compliant surfaces, I am thinking about the difference between running of dirt vs asphalt or concrete. Sorry for the simplicity but it is real life, it is practical and it is what happens every day.

I will continue to read and learn. I will continue to read the comments and opinions of people on this forum and read the studies that get attached. While I'm doing that, you mind find it interesting to get out of your chair and try out your feet.

Regarding feet, how could I ever be a match for you academically? You have forgotten more about feet from an academic perspective than I will ever learn. As far as actually using feet to cover distance over ground, I'm not sure you would ever be a match for me. We both have something to offer, I can appreciate how smart you are and how much you know from research of your own and others. I don't know if you appreciate what I may have experienced with my own two feet.

So with that, while you are in your office reading someone's research, I will be out running up and down 13,000 foot passes in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. You of all people know how absolutely amazing our feet are, I would encourage you to use them as much as you can. Life is short.

Dana

 

You assume I'm not trying this footwear for myself. N=1 is not necessarily good science though. Hence I'm looking forward to an adequately powered longitudinal study. They gave me knee pain- in my good knee by the way.

it'll still be a single subject study. Since when did linear regression test for statistical differences? Moreover, why do you assume it will be a linear relationship? Let me get this right, you have heart rate as your dependent variable- right? And you want to model the relationship between heart rate and running shoe? So unless you have hundreds of different kinds of running shoe, regression analysis will not be valid, since you'll only have the number of co-ordinate pairs as the number of different running shoes you have. i.e. if you collect data from 6 different types of running shoe, n = 6, linear regression would be invalid for such small numbers. Moreover, what would the independent variable be? Type of shoe? This would not be a continuous variable, so how would this influence your choice of statistical modelling?

Do you understand statistical power and beta error? While your single subject study may provide useful data for you, it doesn't allow me to extrapolate to the general population. So you might find that vibram five fingers decrease your heart rate compared to other shoes- great, but if we looked at 200 people and found that you were the only one that they did reduce heart rate in, what should I conclude? Dana, you only have to care about one person, I have to care for thousands.

So was I. So, I have the knowledge and the experience- and you have the experience...

Once again, you seem to take the point of view that you are experienced and that I am not. Patronising- yes, but I'll let it pass.

Like you said: "you would not have had a clue".

Forgive me if I come across a little short.

 

Simon you win.

Dana

 

It's never been about winning or losing for me, it's always been about education and learning. This is the reason that my colleagues and I write here. So that we may learn from each other. Your choice. You can bottle it now, or learn and educate.

 

Dana

Thank you for your excellent contributions to this illuminating thread - they have been well written and informative. I note you hail from Longmont. Coincidentaly, I spent some time in Boulder and Estes Park several years ago and enjoyed some fantastic climbing including a first ascent on Longs Peak. I was particularly impressed by one of the local crag-rats who used to climb barefoot - and to a far higher grade than I could manage. His agility and grip on hard rock routes was phenomenal. He said he had always climbed barefoot and had an incredible collection of routes to his name including several free ascents in Yosemite and I have always wondered whether our feet perform better shod or unshod. I realise there are many other factors that need consideration - and the debate on running and VFF certainly highlight several advantages in preventing injury, direct or indirect - but it would make an interesting study to compare the respective feet in shod and unshod populations and look at the impact on dysfuction and deformity over a lifetime. Another consideration on footwear design can be made in other sports - such as football (soccer). Hardly a month goes by without hearing about metatarsal stress fractures in Premiership players and the popular thinking suggests it may be down to the development of the lightweight soccer boot in recent years, yet one of our leading lights in podiatry -Cameron Kippen - suggests it may be down to the training rigours rather than boot design that is the primary factor in acquired stress fracture injuries. Perhaps he might be kind enough to give his view on this thread?


Thanks again for your contribution, Dana, and should you ever need any of our professional assistance I can thoroughly recommend a podiatrist whose family came from nearby Lyons and who now practises at the other end of the Rocky Mountain Road in Colorado Springs - Dr Sally Servold DPM - who I'm sure would be delighted to help.

Best wishes

Mark Russell

 

netizens

Someone mentioned my name?

Retired these days and working on a new home so 'don't get around so much anymore.'

Much is made in the media about stress fractures and association with 'light boots' but there is little real evidence to associate the two. The soccer slipper to the best of my knowledge appears to include all that is known about the sport plus the clever inclusion of new polymers. Genuine concerns were expressed when players used the cleats to rip and tear at the flesh of opponents but otherwise despite the focus on high profile players suffering from 'generic'stress fractures there is no independent evidence of 'cause and effect.

Fractures of the middle three metatarsals or March Fracture was well named and historically relates to 'square bashing' in military training. From the First World War on wards preparation for disciplined combat involved marching on hard parade grounds. Many new recruits suffered fatigue fractures from endless marching. As military sartoria developed and over the ankle boots were introduced, fatique fractures of the metatarsals were replaced with shin splints. The more enlightened countries realised whilst boots had their place in combat, physical exercise was best achieved wearing less restrictive footwear. There is reference to this in the literature relating to reported injuries in the Israeli and New Zealand recruits.

Over use of elite athletes has the same effect resulting in exhaustion and in those prone, fatigue fractures. Wayne Rooney is certainly a case in point where the man has such a punishing regime to earn his money he is prone to ‘niggling injuries’ which I would suggest have more to do with overall fatigue, serendipity and trauma with the ball (in the case of Wood's fracture) than anything else. The aftermath was pretty obvious at the recent World Cup with many marquee players distinctly off form after horrendously long playing seasons.

The media are always keen for a good story and have seldom let the truth come between them and a headlining scoop. The recent works on football boots and injuries from Dundee Univ (?) was quickly picked on and sensationalised somewhat. Good copy because of the impending FIFA World Cup but from what I read little more than conjecture.

In similar mode the disdain of ‘old farts’ ( Sir Alec being one on this occasion) uncomfortable with the new light boot (in bright colours) brought a tirade of complaint. No better way to criticise than demonise them as injury causing. No need for hard evidence when there are A & E experts were to hand to extrapolate concerns to the wider population of amateur footballers.

Quid pro quo

Football - its a funny old game
toeslayer

 

This could start a whole new debate....

Are you just talking about England?
Do you know this is actually true?
Most agree the sharpest (fastest, fittest) looking team at the world cup was Germany.
A good portion of their squad played with FC Bayern which won their 2 domestic cups and made the Champions League final... they could not have played any more games.
You may be correct that it was a factor, but it seems that some teams managed it better than others.

 

We had some players from a nearby country's national team in yesterday some of whom had some of the Adidas Adizero as worn by Messi. They are extraordinarily light...
The goal keeper has a pair of boots that felt quite heavy and had a traditional steel shank in them (which is surprising- didn't think they did that anymore). I gave him a wink and said 'thats to fix up the strikers in the light boots'- he just smiled.

 

New to this forum, but I thought I would share my own anecdotal evidence. I found this thread and forum today, while doing a search about Vibram's and stress fractures. I am fairly sure I have a stress fracture between the second and third metatarsal of my right foot. The area is tender to the touch, slightly swollen and bruised, and is painful even when at rest.

I also think I received this when running in Vibram Five Fingers. I integrated Vibram's into my workout routine about 6 months ago. I slowly, very slowly, eased up to about 1.5 miles a day, four days a week in VFFs. I then increased to 5k a day, 4 days a week. Twice I tried steadying out at 20k a week, twice I got what I am fairly sure are stress fractures.

Why I tried Vibrams: I had already had numerous injuries running with shoes. Most of my injuries with shoes, however, were related to my knees: patellofemoral pain syndrome. I decided to ease off of running with shoes and try a mixture of barefoot running/minimalist shoes. I had done quite a bit of research before taking the plunge. Gave myself a few months off of running while I read several studies, anecdotal evidence, and watched several videos on barefoot form. The main appeal to barefoot/minimalist shoes was the cost. They were far less money than other running shoes... up until the stress fractures, I felt far better running in Vibrams than in any other shoes I had bought. My knees never crackled or hurt. I still don't think I'll throw my VFFs out, because they are nice for hiking, excellent for water crossing, and also biking.

=====

My own conclusions: These are my own personal conclusions, and are NOT meant to be advice for anyone/a statement of Truth. Compared to other forms of exercise I've done, running is so much more difficult to do injury free. The initial appeal to running was that I didn't need a gym membership or a myriad of expensive gear. Just put on some shoes and start out my front door.

However, I have been trying to get into a steady running routine for two years now and always wind up getting injured. My conclusion is that running is more skilled than I initially thought. Running may, in fact, be healthy but only IF DONE CORRECTLY. And it's the IF DONE CORRECTLY part that is the real struggle. I don't think any footwear is going to prevent all injuries related to running. If anybody is to blame for numerous running injuries, it's not big shoe companies or barefoot enthusiasts, it's our culture which has bought into the notion that just running is healthy. Sure, anybody can run, but it requires so much more than footwear (or lack thereof) to also have it be healthy. If I look back over the past 10 years, during which time I have been exercising more and more seriously, the only conclusion that makes any sense is for me to avoid running: weight training, biking, swimming, hiking... all are things I have been able to do completely injury free. Whereas running, even sticking to a slow, steady program, seems to almost effortlessly lead to injury.

Sorry, that was kind of a downer of a first post.

Thanks,
Culley

 

Culley, some people are born to run, others are not. With respect to shoes, for those who have been given a gift of being able to run injury free, it really doesn't matter what they wear or don't wear. For those who are plagued with injuries from running, it's probably going to be a difficult journey regardless of what is worn.

Dana, who is a runner, not a podiatrist.

 

Culley:

Some people are blessed with feet and lower extremities which allow running to be nearly injury free in nearly any shoe. Others, like yourself, may get injured running in nearly any shoe. There are multiple solutions to your injury problem rather than continuing to treat your injuries with just changing types of shoes. You would probably do best by having an experienced sports podiatrist evaluate and treat you. Tell us where you are located geographically and, between those of us on this forum, we should be able to direct you to someone familiar with running injuries who can help you enjoy running more.

 

Thanks for the kind words, I am located in Madison, Wisconsin.

I must say, I still enjoy running, even with the injuries I have encountered. But it is hard to stay motivated when every couple months or so I have a new injury. Related to this thread, though, I really had hoped that running barefoot/in minimalist footwear would have been the solution I was looking for. However, if I'm honest with myself, I simply traded one set of injuries for another.

Culley

 

Some new information on this subject:

1. I was interviewed by a reporter for a large east coast newspaper a few weeks ago for an article that he is planning to write on Vibram FiveFingers causing metatarsal stress fractures. The reporter, himself, got a metatarsal stress fracture from running in the shoes.

2. I have information that a law firm in New York City is investigating filing a class-action lawsuit against Vibram for the metatarsal stress fractures that are occuring with their FiveFinger shoes.

Very interesting.