Jeremy inspired me to share the charts on heel strike force patterns vs fore foot landing force patterns from Harvard. Many general patterns exist on foot landings such as for totals, but heel landings have a tiny double hump, like a oven mitt. Different running methods such as extensive tempo, running drills, plyometrics, and sprinting have different foot strike patterns. Acceleration and max vel
Mixing Foot Strike- Is a Balanced Approach Safer?
-
-
-
Original Link: https://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFootStrike.html
Rearfoot striking –> greater heel strike transient –> potentially a cause of problems.
Forefoot striking –> greater ankle dorsiflexion moments; greater forefoot dorsiflexion moments; greater inversion moments –> potentially a cause of problems.Barefoot runners often adopt forefoot or midfoot strike gaits and have a softer, more gentle landing, which may reduce their risk of injury. While there are anectodal reports of barefoot runners being injured less, there is very little scientific evidence to support this hypothesis at this time. Well-controlled studies are needed to determine whether barefoot running results in fewer injuries.
Here is an interesting exchange from Dr. Steven Robbins to Dan Lieberman.
[b]Originally Posted by Steven Robbins, MD
AUGUST 16th 2010,[/b]“For most of human evolutionary history, runners were either barefoot or wore minimal footwear such as sandals or moccasins with smaller heels and little cushioning relative to modern running shoes.”
I provided arguments replete with references indicating that the only supported evolutionary argument that relates humans to footwear is that footwear were an evolutionary imperative to man for perhaps the most recent 25,000 in preventing foot damage as humans migrated to more northern latitudes. Recent discoveries of the mukluk date from perhaps 10,000 years, making it the oldest leather footwear available. This was not a minimal shoe because insulation was provided by a considerable amount of yielding material (straw, feathers,fur, etc) that trapped air so as to provide insulation. These footwear functioned poorly when running, therefore it can be assumed that surviving cold was an evolutionary imperative in the North, and the ability to run was not.
As an evolutionary anthropologist you know, or should know that shoes that allow reasonably efficient running are modern inventions, dating back no further than Victorian England. Humans evolved barefoot or with footwear that were inefficient for use in running and were not minimal. Humans did not evolve running with sandals and moccasins as you claim, since early examples of them show no effective means of firmly attaching foot to shoe. You try to find support through the Tarahumara Indians found in mountains of Chihuahua, Mexico, following the “red herring” deceptive argument technique. They run with a sandal made with automobile tire soles lashed to their feet. This adds nothing to your evolutionary arguments in relation to footwear. You provided no references or data to counter my arguments presumably because none are available.
Your insistence in retaining this obviously erroneous statement, together with using defensive techniques to avoid discussion of issues, suggests that your intention in writing the Nature publication was not to advance scientific discourse. You properly disclosed a conflict of interest with a manufacturer of minimal shoes named Vibram, as they supported your research at least in part. Part of reason for disclosure rules is that they warn readers about potential bias. Because of this, the prudent investigator in a disclosed conflict of interest might go to great lengths to appear objective. This was not the path you took.
It becomes clear that the reason why you are unwilling to correct the erroneous statement regarding humans wearing minimal shoes while evolving is that it constitutes the only justification for mention of “minimal shoes” at all in your report. These pseudoscientific evolutionary arguments of yours not coincidentally are consistent with the program employed by manufacturers to sell minimal shoes, which suggests gratuitously that running with them resembles barefoot locomotion. It is clear that satisfying the manufacturer of minimal shoes that supported your research seems important to you.
The most obvious example of this was your testing of a single “minimal shoe” in published supplementary information. I can see no reason why inclusion of this material was relevant to your research at all. The product you tested, not surprisingly was made by Vibram. This did not objectively provide information about minimal shoes because you did not provide precise parameters of this class of products, nor evidence the Vibram product was representative of the group. This simply has the stench of a footwear marketing commercial – not science. The gravitas of Nature and Harvard appears to have assisted you in convincing many from the non-scientific majority that minimal shoes in general, and Vibram products specifically may be a safer alternative to more traditional products, without a datum to support this notion. Did you cynically believe that advertisement parading as science would go totally un-noticed?
How do you plan to correct your errors? I have generously given you an opportunity to start rehabilitating your personal and scientific integrity. You should take advantage of it.
regards,
Steven
-
Viewing 1 reply thread
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.