Blog #3: The Barefoot Professor

9/30/2017

Harvard professor Daniel Lieberman has ditched his trainers and started running barefoot. His research shows that barefoot runners, who tend to land on their fore-foot, generate less impact shock than runners in sports shoes who land heel first. This makes barefoot running comfortable and could minimize running-related injuries.

(i) What do you think about the results of this study?

(ii) Did the principal researcher (Daniel Lieberman) display any bias?

(iii) How do you think companies like Nike and Reebok would react to this research?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jrnj-7YKZE

FYI: Here is the link to a full article on this research as published in Nature (International Weekly Journal of Science):
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100126/full/news.2010.36.html

27 Comments

Sarah Abbott

9/20/2017 01:05:05 pm

This video was interesting to me. I have mixed feeling about the results of this research. First I agree that before the time of shoes many people ran with no shoes, and survived. I am skeptical of the idea that running barefoot is better for your feet and body. I don't doubt that the theory has some truth behind it because companies have already made vast changes to running shoes to make them lighter, less support and so forth. There is a barefoot shoe now that many runners use. However, I think that this method only works for certain foot types. I think to some degree he is slightly bias simply because it is his research he's trying to prove correct and that there is a possibility that his feet allow and don't require support while running. Personally, i have tried just wearing the barefoot shoes and they are not comfortable on my feet, where I know others that absolutely love them.
As for how companies would react to this research I have already touched on slightly above. I think that most companies have caught wind of this research and have altered or made new products to fit this research, hence the barefoot shoe. I think that if people began to fully agree with this research and say that their is no need for any kind of shoe the companies would not be impressed and I would assume try and convince otherwise. I think that this is very unlikely to happen simply because we live in such a consumer society and we believe what we are told and so if the companies tell us this is what we need than we will continue to buy their products.

John Vitale

9/20/2017 01:44:31 pm

The above comment was made from a student in one of my undergraduate classes by mistake. I left it up as she makes a few good points.
John

Dawn Kelly

10/1/2017 02:58:49 pm

From a personal perspective, for much of my teens I spent summers barefoot in Toronto. I kid you not. Hated shoes. The first week to ten days was a little challenging but, as my footpad thickened, it got so the sole of my foot was like the sole of a shoe. On the odd occasion when I trod on a piece of glass, it wouldn't pierce, usually. It would simply imbed and I'd notice the feeling and remove it before any damage was done.

For the last ten years, I've worn vibrate footies - those unsupported finger shoes - at the gym, on the Bruce trail and other trails, and yes, in my classroom. I'm not a runner. Oh, alright, I was in my youth but I hated it -even those I was really good at it - placed in the Toronto finals in elementary school for distance running. But again, I hated it, so I stopped as soon as I could - which proved to be high school because no one knew my history and so I wasn't called upon to continue running.

Anyway, I found this research fascinating. I am biased. I found his results made complete sense to me. I don't think he did show any bias. I think he showed curiosity. He gave barefoot running a chance. He switched the way he hit the ground - by the way, I also hit the ground the way the barefoot runners do when I'm in my footies or barefoot - which is often. I think he found it more comfortable and so, retrained himself.

Companies like vibram, would be all over this research in a positive way. Companies like Nike and Reebok would likely resist it and try to fund research that would refute it, is my guess.
Dawn

John Vitale

10/1/2017 05:34:27 pm

Considering the evolutionary timeline of humans, shoes are a very recent invention.

John

Juli Miller

10/2/2017 02:14:02 pm

Very interesting study!

I, myself, am a runner. I have tried everything from barefoot to neutral to full support with orthotics for running. It's very interesting that everyone you talk to has a different opinion on this depending on their perspective. My chiropractor, of course, does not support the barefoot running. However, he sells orthotics and makes money from this. I had knee and back pain and when I tried barefoot, eventually my knee pain went away as I changed my running style to more of a toe strike as explained in the video. I have since gone back to a neutral shoe but I try to focus on toe strike rather than heel to minimize the impact. Needless to say I really enjoyed the video that showed the impact graph and heat image of the foot strikes.

I don't think any bias was glaring on the part of the researcher. He went into the study as a runner but not as a barefoot runner. His hypothesis was to find out if heel strike style running could lead to impact injuries more than toe strike running. However, I didn't see evidence pointing to barefoot as causing less injury so I don't think you can make any conclusions based on the strike patterns. There are just too many variables when it comes to a person's biomechanics to prove this.

Footwear companies like Nike and Reebok would likely have arguments against this study but at the same time, they sell a variety of different styles of running shoes to appeal to all different running styles.

If you haven't read the book, Born to Run, it is an interesting read. However, there is much controversy and debate about his ideas of paleo style running.

“Blaming the running injury epidemic on big, bad Nike seems too easy - but that's okay, because it's largely their fault.”
― Christopher McDougall, Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen

I came across this interesting piece that shows a timeline for the barefoot debate. The author, Paul Ingraham gives a very interesting commentary about retrospective vs. prospective research. He says, "As a general rule, researchers can find almost anything they want to find in complex data, even when it’s not there at all, because it’s polluted with all kinds of confounding factors." He argues that there was not any difference in injury rates but in injury types.

https://www.painscience.com/articles/barefoot-running.php

I would love to know your thoughts on Paul's take on this!

John Vitale

10/2/2017 03:52:27 pm

Yes, when there is a lot of data, researchers can just about find anything they want. As I have said in a few previous posts, researchers are like accountants. Accountants can show a profit or a loss with the same numbers. Go figure (no pun intended) . . .

John

Dawn Kelly

10/9/2017 10:59:17 am

Thank you for that link, Juli. I was howling out loud two or three times. The first video in particular had me rolling off my stool. Too funny! It all makes so much non/sense. I do believe that belief biases belief, you know?
I'm a vibram believer - those shoes shown in the article are the exact pair I wear - too funny again. They work for me and so I believe they work - I'm biased, no question.

I loved that end frame when he took a flopper out of the frame. I cannot count the # of times I have gone down in that manner whether wearing hiking books, running shoes, birkenstocks or my fave vibrams. I've even gone down like that when the icers I was wearing on my winter hiking boots got caught on one another and literally threw me to the ground in mid sentence. I could not get up for a bit until I stopped laughing long enough to untangle myself. Oh my!
Great article! Thanks again.
Dawn

Kaitlin Brunetti

10/3/2017 04:23:32 pm

This was a really interesting video/ research study. I like how the researcher used the past as a guiding principle in the research - to see how people ran before shoes. I personally believe that many things become a craze/fad in society where people focus on the benefits being presented. The results of the study are interesting to me. It reminds me of a research that was recently in the news about giving peanuts/ peanut butter to young children before the age of 3. For years it was believed that children should not be exposed to peanuts and now recent research suggests that they should be given it to expose them and build immunity - suddenly all of our past interpretations of research on the matter changed. Research studies are always revealing new statistics and I find we lean towards what is most current, trending and recent.

Everyone has different feet/ foot styles and especially when running, people hit certain pressure points on their feet. This is a difficult study to claim “one size fits all” and demonstrates the importance of presenting all facts. There are many different types of shoes on the market and many shoes have different purposes for their use. I would also be interested in seeing the research on the effect of footwear on running performance. The video also presents facts that make sense - that running barefoot is different than running with shoes. However, I think this research is indirectly stating that running shoes can create a negative impact on your legs and that barefoot running is better - without presenting all the facts. He is suggesting that fore-foot striking is much healthier than heel-foot striking.

This video demonstrates the polarity occurring in science/research. Shoes or no shoes are two very different (and drastic) extremes. This video lacks to show the “middle-ground”. Is this type of research for professional athletes, regular citizens, or both? Is this theory strictly for running or walking?

In regards to the possible biases of the study, I find this video is strictly looking at shoes vs. no shoes. However, why were shoes invented in the first place? I love being barefoot and I would walk everywhere barefoot if it was possible - but the reality is that I can’t. If everyone was to run the streets barefoot, there would be injuries to the soles of your foot. Shoes protect your feet from the environment.

In terms of footwear companies such as Nike and Reebok, I think they would not be in favor of this study as their main motive is making money through selling footwear - though there have been recent releases of “barefoot-like” running shoes. The researcher is suggesting that heel-foot striking is not healthy for our feet - which running shoes make us do (because of the heavier/supported heel). The companies themselves have a market and are interested in making a profit. I was living in Kenya this summer and the Maasai Warriors wore recycled tire sandals yet they could run faster than any animal in Africa. They were born running and the sandals they wear (or sometimes barefoot) is all they have ever known.

John Vitale

10/3/2017 07:33:08 pm

Wonderful comments, Kaitlin! Well done!

John

Jaime Muir

10/20/2017 07:33:24 pm

Hello Kaitlin,

That is really neat that you had the opportunity to live in Kenya for the summer. I really appreciate how you started the discussion in regards to research constantly changing. I also feel that we are quick to jump into what is new. I like how you mentioned the research study of giving children peanut butter. It shows that research is always changing and evolving. Therefore, the perception on which way to run properly could also change over time. I feel that when I run, I am not really thinking about my technique as I am doing what feels most natural and comfortable. This may differ depending on how serious of a runner you are. Thus, questioning for who this study is directly intended for is a valid question. An article called "Barefoot versus shoe running: From the past to the present" ultimately supports barefoot running. It suggest that there are less injuries involved with barefoot running and better accomplishments (Kaplan, 2014).

References

Kaplan, Y. (2014). Barefoot versus shoe running: From the past to the present. Physician & Sportsmedicine, 42(1), 30-35. doi:10.3810/psm.2014.02.2045

Kathryn Switenky

12/1/2017 07:58:08 pm

Hi Jaime,

Thanks for sharing this article. It is nice to see some supplementary research that supports this claim as this researcher is 'plagued' as supposedly being biased. Of course one of the major factors of running barefoot leading to less injuries is the variable of a controlled and safe environment. It is interesting to wonder what else helped to ensure that these runners were not injured - perhaps the surface they are running on or the physical attributes of their foot?

Simonas Trumpickas

10/4/2017 06:15:46 pm

I found this video interesting and the researcher is compelling with his personal anecdotes about running. However, after reading the article on the nature website about this study, the last few lines say a lot: "There's no evidence showing that running shoes prevent injuries. But nor is there much evidence that people who run barefoot get fewer injuries than those who run in shoes." (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100126/full/news.2010.36.html)

The study seemed be be more exploratory than conclusive. I wouldn't make any claims from it since there was no defined sample and we don't have any results about the long-term effects of either shoe-running or barefoot running.

I think that the researcher does show bias because he keeps talking about how he likes to run barefoot. Again, he doesn't really have any long-term evidence that barefoot running is better for you..he just shows the evidence that there is a lighter, displaced impact compared to heel- first running.

Finally, I think that big companies generally will continue with their mainstream approach to manufacturing running shoes. However, even Nike has created a barefoot-inspired shoe "a shoe that felt natural and weightless, similar to bare feet" (https://store.nike.com/us/en_us/pd/free-rn-motion-flyknit-2017-mens-running-shoe/pid-11400772/pgid-11558981)

I couldn't find any barefoot or minimalist shoe style from Reebok. Maybe they're afraid of change or working on it!

John Vitale

10/4/2017 07:43:54 pm

FYI . . . I think most research is exploratory and not really conclusive. Nice comments!

John

Kaitlin Brunetti

10/8/2017 01:56:33 pm

I agree - it's like exploratory surgery (looking for something that you don't really know is there). Often when researching, your initial question can lead to many other questions! There really is no final end goal.

Michaela Benwell

10/4/2017 07:44:37 pm

As a runner, I found this video very interesting. I have competed in multiple half-marathon races and am currently training to complete my first full marathon; however, I have never considered running barefoot, and after watching the video I am still certain that it is not something that I am interested in. That being said, I think that Lieberman’s research and conclusions are valid and provide a lot of important information for runners. Although I have never run barefoot and do not intend to, I can personally relate to the emphasis he places on the importance of creating minimal impact on the foot while running. Even with shoes, I have always made a conscious effort to focus on my strides and impact while running, and always land on the fore-front of my foot rather than heel first. I have had multiple running coaches in the past who have placed significant emphasis on running this way in order to prevent injury.

I do not think that running barefoot is completely absurd, the invention of the running shoe is so recent that it would be difficult to pose a suitable argument that completely dismissed the concept of running barefoot, but it is simply something that I am not interested in doing. One reason that I wouldn’t be interested in running barefoot is because most of my training occurs during the winter. There are very few races held throughout the summer because it is simply too hot for distance running, spring and fall are often the best times for long distance races to be held. Because of this, the majority of the training that I do occurs during the winter months, and I simply cannot fathom running in the winter with no shoes. I also prefer to race in the shoes that I have trained in, which may have nothing to do with the quality of the shoe, I just think it is lucky, (I am aware that that sounds absolutely ridiculous).

From my understanding, running shoe companies have already reacted to this research. As many of my colleagues have already stated, many shoe companies are now promoting products that appear to endorse this idea that running barefoot is better. Instead of trying to prove to you that running barefoot is ridiculous, they have instead created a market for people who think running barefoot is best, because at the end of the day they simply want your money.

Richard Hall

10/10/2017 09:14:39 am

Hi Michaela

I also have been a runner for quite some time and am also in the same opinion that running barefoot is quite a silly idea. I think that people can run with shoes on and still demonstrate a toe-strike running technique. Shoes were build to add support to the foot and I do believe that the invention of shoes has prevented many injuries and infections due to the protection shoes bring the foot.

I actually tried the toe striking method as a piece of research for my biomechanics class during my undergraduate studies. What I found from that was my body was very unused to the technique and that I was more prone to injury after changing up my technique. I have spoken to many people who actually use the barefoot shoes and many of them claim that there is really no added benefit to them. In fact, many more people were reporting a higher rate of injury because these shoes don't offer proper ankle support.

Great comments!

Seanna Forcey

10/24/2017 11:02:03 am

Hello Michaela!

I agree with your thoughts about running barefoot. Although some very interesting thoughts were raised, some of which I may never had considered before, I would be worried for hygienic reasons. Perhaps if you were running in your own back yard where you're familiar with the environment it would be safer than running down the busy streets of down town Toronto or Brantford. There's a lot of trash and garbage that is not disposed of properly and I would hate to touch my bare feet in that.

David Alvarez

10/6/2017 06:27:27 pm

The results of this research were very interesting, as someone who used to work in retail selling running shoes I have done research on this before. I think that there are many truths that appear when discussing barefoot running. For example, the fact that humans haven't used running shoes until very recently. However, barefoot running is a bit of a trend and people want to try and end up injuring themselves or not liking it. People focus on the benefits and don't take the precautionary steps that need to be taken.

The professor definitely seemed biased. He is someone who runs barefoot, so it is not surprising that he champions barefoot running. He also seems to share the benefits and omit what might be negative.He has probably had positive results and sees the results replicated, needless to say he has some personal investment in the topic.

As for what big brands like Nike or Reebok have done, they have adopted this trend. Both brands continue to sell traditional running shoes, but they also minimalist running shoes alongside them. Vibram has the Five Finger runners which are great for barefoot running. Nike has the Nike Free running shoes which are meant to simulate barefoot running. This trend has been huge for athletic footwear and has forced companies to provide alternatives for their customers or risk losing them completely. There are no definitive answers in the research but, there are enough people that believe in it to have to provide them with a product.

John Vitale

10/6/2017 06:53:54 pm

Wonderful comments, David! Thank you! Retail experience is always a good thing for educators. Learning to deal with customers is very effective training!

John

Simonas Trumpickas

10/7/2017 05:28:53 pm

Hi David,
I think you make a great point that an untrained, unprepared transition to barefoot running can lead to more injuries. These might be avoided if people stuck with what they know or trained properly when switching styles.
I'm not a runner. I hate running for its own sake, but I run a lot during other sports like basketball or soccer. I haven't seen this trend crossover into other sports. I wonder if the barefoot benefits apply only to distance running. Do you think we will see other studies about barefoot walking or barefoot basketball"ing"?

Michaela Benwell

10/16/2017 08:38:37 am

Hi Simonas,
You make an excellent point, that this trend seems to only apply to distance running, not other sports. I would assume that this is because of the close contact of other sports, I can imagine it would be easy to break a toe while playing soccer without shoes on. However, injuries are still possible when running and I have always been under the impression that shoes are supposed to help prevent this from happening. However, as many people have already suggested, regardless of the research provided, shoe companies will simply find a way to create a product to target those consumers in order to make money. For example, when I was buying a new pair of hiking shoes last year, the man convinced me to buy a much more expensive pair that he explained were better because they provided more ankle support. Because I knew the terrain I was hiking on was going to be very rocky, I decided to go with his suggestion and spent an extra $100. I am sure the boots I was looking at initially were fine, but somehow I was duped into spending more money!

Richard Hall

10/9/2017 02:34:09 pm

What do you think about the results of this study?

As a graduate from a Kinesiology program, this is a topic I have studied in Biomechanics class. I felt like the results of the study that Dr. Lieberman found are pretty common when looking at a runner’s gait (strike pattern when walking). They did a really good job of explaining during the video of a heel strike vs. a fore-foot strike. Naturally, having a large heel would force the runner to experience more comfort when landing on the heel of the foot. The larger heel would absorb the impact of the blow where a runner without shoes would experience more discomfort from the impact without a large pad against the heel. The data results came from a quantitative study which means the data is objective before any analysis of the findings.

(ii) Did the principal researcher (Daniel Lieberman) display any bias?
Daniel himself didn’t show any bias until the end of the video. He mentioned that he went to Africa to study some more of the bare foot runners and tried it out himself. He mentions that he enjoyed the method so much that he now practices it himself. Dr. Lieberman will need to be careful within his own ethics so that the conclusion to his study is not impacted by his own personal opinions on running styles.

(iii) How do you think companies like Nike and Reebok would react to this research?
Companies like Nike and Reebok might react negatively to the findings of this study. Most running shoe companies have positioned themselves to support the heal strike method. The research that has been conducted states that the heal strike method is actually not as safe for runners and has lead to many types of stress injuries and other repetitive injuries such as shin splints which is common in many runners. To put a positive spin on the research, these companies could market a product that would be targeted towards runners who run in the toe-strike method. I don’t think this research would effect their regular running market because many average runners would likely not keep up with the research findings. It would also take a lot of effort to change ones running style when people generally run unconsciously of the way their body is making an impact on the ground.

John Vitale

10/9/2017 06:44:38 pm

Wonderful comments, Richard! Well done!

Jaime Muir

10/20/2017 07:36:11 pm

Hello Richard,

Thank you for your insight. I agree that there may be some biases in regards to Professor Dr. Lieberman mentioning his own personal opinion on what running style he likes best (running barefoot). In regards to companies making profit, I agree that companies such as Nike and Reebok would not support his research as you mentioned, they sell shoes that promote the heal strike running method. Interestingly in a blog called "Heel Striking- is it really the enemy of good running form?"

The blogger Sam Murphy mentions Christopher McDougall author of the book called "Born to Run", noting Julian Goater a professional runner and coach who supports individuals running quicker, believe that heel striking is not as efficient and may cause knee injuries (Murphy, 2014). Interestingly, the blogger includes a 2012 study done at Harvard University found that heel strike runners found more injuries compared to forefoot strikers (Murphy, 2014). Nevertheless, the blog also plays the devils advocate indicating that barefoot running may be over- hyped. It is stated that it is not always true that people land on their forefoot when running barefoot as some individuals running barefoot land on their heel (Murphy, 2014). Murphy (2014) also leaves a link to a research article that was conducted to prove this. It is called "Variation in foot strike patters during running among habitually barefoot populations."

References

Hatala KG, Dingwall HL, Wunderlich RE, Richmond BG .(2013). Variation in Foot Strike Patterns during Running among Habitually Barefoot Populations. PLoS ONE8(1): e52548. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052548

Murphy, S. (2014). Heel Striking- is it really the enemy of good running form? Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/2014/oct/09/is-heel-striking-the-enemy-of-good-running-form

Jaime Muir

10/14/2017 11:30:39 am

I really enjoyed this video as I am a runner myself and run about 10 km a day several times per week. I wear Saucony running shoes because they are nice and light. I have gone in a race barefoot (it was only 1 km sprint) since I forgot my running shoes and so I took my sandals off and ran barefoot and ended up winning the race. It did feel much different on my feet as I was not used to it. Needless to say, as a child, I often ran everywhere barefoot.

What did I think of the results of this study?

It appears that he did background retrieving first on information in regards to humans and running. He notes that humans have been running barefoot for around two million years and he notes that running shoes were eventually created in the 1970's (Nature Video, 2010). Furthermore, the evolution of the foot is discussed and he indicates that humans started running so that they could meet. This was done by the humans running after the animal and making the animal gallop for 10 to 15 minutes since the animal eventually gets tired (Nature Video, 2010). His main research question is: "How do people run without shoes" (Nature Video, 2010)?

Barefoot runners were brought into the lab to see how well they could run. In the findings, it showed that barefoot runners ran on the tip of their foot and runners with shoes land on their heal (Nature Video, 2010). Their hypothesis was that people who do not land on their heal and avoid big impact by landing on the front of their foot will be less likely to get stress injuries (Nature Video, 2010). I found the results very interesting as I have always assumed that it depended on the individual running.

Did the principal researcher (Daniel Lieberman) display any bias?

First off, I enjoyed Daniel Lieberman comments in that he noted he runs barefoot himself. I would have liked to see if there was any previous data on the positives of running with running shoes to demonstrate any issues related to bias. Interestingly, the article "A softer ride for barefoot runners" article states "There's no evidence showing that running shoes prevent injuries, nor is there much evidence that people who run barefoot get fewer injuries than those who run in shoes" (Buchen, 2010, para. 10). Thus, I feel that there may need to be further data collected.

How do you think companies like Nike and Reebok would react to this research?

I feel that companies such as Nike and Reebok may react to research such as noted above in a negative way as they are trying to sell their products and the bottom line is all that matters. Nevertheless, they may alter their products to fit research that promotes barefoot running such as having shoes that feel like you are running barefoot. Overall, it appears that researchers can skew results depending on what results companies are looking for.

References

Buchen, L. (2010). A softer ride for barefoot runners. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100126/full/news.2010.36.html

Nature Video. (2010). The barefoot professor: by nature video. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jrnj-7YKZE

John Vitale

10/14/2017 06:17:41 pm

Wonderful comments! Thank you!

John

Kathryn Switenky

10/20/2017 07:55:04 pm

As a trained dancer, I can understand the importance of relying on the natural mechanisms in our body that help protect one’s body. In the world of dance, research has been conducted to prove that the body can achieve better balance without shoes. Allowing the toes to flare and spread out helps develop the miniscule muscles of the foot. This does something that shoes cannot – evenly distribute the muscle mass in the foot. Shoes however were created to protect the exterior of the foot such as providing protection to the skin. Therefore the creation of the shoe, whether for running or dance, is made to combat external factors that could harm the body – even though it may counteract the natural process the body follows to complete a motion.

I find this research to be logically influenced and therefore I am convinced by their findings. I believe that while ‘training’, Daniel Lieberman was inclined to question the process of his running. I believe that the research was sparked due to Daniel Lieberman’s familiarity and interest in the topic. This is true of almost all research – it is done because the researcher is usually naturally interested in a topic and how that affects their life. Therefore, I do not believe there is a bias in this research. There is no personal gain in his research and he has removed himself from the process as much as possible. Although he may have benefitted from engineering successful products following his findings, his research was not skewed to create a profit.

What I believe is missing in this research is the negative affects associated with barefoot running such as damage to the exteriors of the foot – dependent on one’s ankles rolling inwards or outwards. It would also be interesting to see how the height of one’s arch plays a factor into how damaging the impact of a heel land could be. It would be interesting for companies such as Nike or Reebok to refute these findings by showing the negative effects of running barefoot. I also believe this battle would be easy to win based on the norms of our society.

Blog #3: The Barefoot Professor

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories