latest News
A video response about whether barefoot is BS
In another post, I gave my LONG response to Marc Lindsey's "article" (it may be a "native advertisement, sponsored by Brooks shoes) about whether barefoot running is BS or not.Here's a quick video response to go with that post. Enjoy, and share your thoughts, below.
Is barefoot running really BS?
Marc Lindsay recently posted what I'm sure he thinks is a scathing critique of barefoot running at Active.com called "Why Barefoot Running is BS." Sadly, it's not the well-researched, well-considered investigation I think he believes it to be. In fact, given that the top of the article clearly says "Sponsored by Brooks," one has to wonder if this anti-barefoot running article isn't just a piece of shoe industry propaganda. In fact, check out this amazing expose on "native ads" by John Oliver Now it may be that Marc is completely unaffected by his sponsor, but even if that were the case, his article is such an incredible demonstration of faulty reasoning and bad logic, that I found myself compelled to write a rebuttal that's longer than his original article! You can read the article and come back here to read my response, or you can just start here and I'm sure you'll get the picture ;-) Marc,Before I address specific points in your article, I have to ask: is this actual reporting, or a “native ad” for which you were paid to write an anti-barefoot article by the shoe company Brooks? I ask because in the upper right corner, opposite the breadcrumbs, I see “Sponsored by Brooks.” Let me start, now, with a few broad strokes. You begin your article with a false equivalence. Ignore for a moment that if research showed that naked running did improve running performance, contrary to your assertion, you would have a rash of Naked 5k races and whole new nude Olympics. Comparing your example of “you heard naked is better,” to “you heard barefoot is better” is an inaccurate comparison, since the claims about barefoot aren't as unsubstantiated as you would like to believe. You don't recognize this, though, due to a number of other errors in your reasoning. For example, you repeatedly conflate barefoot and minimalism. This is common in both anti-barefoot running articles, advertisements for minimalist footwear, and running research. However, no accomplished barefoot runners or coaches that I know have ever stated that running in minimalist shoes is the same as running barefoot. You've even conflated Tarahumara runners with both minimalism and barefoot. Even though the Tarahumara often do run barefoot, and are tightly linked to the barefoot idea, the reality is that they spend more time in huaraches than they do barefoot. And the huaraches they wear are thicker, heavier, and stiffer than any running shoe you've ever seen. They're practically rubber bricks. Why the Tarahumara are interesting is not their footwear, or lack thereof, but their running form, which we'll address in a moment. As a minimalist footwear seller, I'm the first to admit that even running in Xero Shoes (@xeroshoes), which are just a few millimeters of rubber between you and the ground, is not identical to being barefoot — while a pilot study showed that runners in Xeros have identical biomechanics compared to when they're barefoot, feeling the same surface — the rubber — with each step is not the same as the feedback you get from stepping on a continually varying surface. Next, you make the common mistake of claiming that a lack of scientific evidence for barefoot running's value is proof that there is no value. This is another common error in logic. Up until very recently, there was no proof that the Higgs Boson existed, but that didn't mean it didn't exist. There were valid reasons to think it did, and once adequate research was performed, it was discovered. Similarly, the arguments made in favor of running barefoot — valid hypotheses about physics and physiology made by well-respected researchers as well as by long-time practitioners — simply haven't been well-tested. A careful look at most barefoot research, both pro- and con-, shows common problems with study design — small samples sizes, poor control groups, poor sample selection, and potential bias since most studies are funded by companies with a vested interest in the outcome. I've seen studies where the “barefoot runners” being studied are people that I know — people who have never run more than a few hundred yards on a paved road without shoes. Backing up to conflating barefoot and minimalist and thinking them equal, let's go back in time a few years. If you look at the barefoot movement from 2009 until now, you see that the shoe companies began by dismissing any possible value of barefoot running at a time when they had no product to sell into the barefoot market. Nike, of course, is an exception since they had the Free available. Shockingly (and I say that with 100% pure sarcasm), once the shoe companies had products they felt were “closer to barefoot,” the conversation changed. The major shoe companies adopted the language of barefoot running, and the claims that barefoot runners and researchers have made, applying them to products that no barefooters endorse. In fact, most minimalist shoes are so far from being genuinely minimalist, they've rendered the term meaningless. If you look at the ACSM's suggestions — zero drop, minimal stack height, no arch support, wide toe box — and go look at shoes sold as “minimalist,” you'll be hard pressed to find any that fit the bill. Instead you'll find products that have up to 1” of padding, narrow toe boxes, narrow midfoot areas with significant arch support… or some combination thereof. So, your repeated criticism of minimalist as if it were the same as barefoot, and vice versa, is moot. By the way, an example of this conflation is when you refer to the Vibram lawsuit and then say, “And the plaintiff wasn't alone in his claims,” and then quote the American Podiatric Medicine Association's position about barefoot running. The APMA's comments are totally unrelated to the Vibram case, and are about running barefoot, not in minimalist shoes. More, referring to the APMA is merely an appeal to authority. That is, just because they're an official organization it does not, because of their position of authority, mean their opinions are factually accurate. Even the seemingly obvious statement that running barefoot increases your chances of a puncture wound is baseless and incomplete. For that statement to have merit, there would have to be data about puncture-related injuries in shod vs. barefoot runners presented in a meaningful fashion (e.g. it's meaningless if the actual data shows a 100% increase because there was 1 reported puncture would in a shod runner, and 2 from barefoot runners). Next, looking at the claims of barefoot running, you've fallen into another familiar trap, a straw-man argument about the benefits of barefoot. I've yet to find a barefoot runner or researcher who claimed that barefoot was more efficient than shod running. Yet, somehow this “claim” has made the news, often when research done by shoe company-sponsored labs seemingly shoot it, and the straw-man, down by apparently showing that barefoot runners have a higher VO2 than shod runners. Ignoring for a moment that less efficiency does not equate to decreased performance and that most casual runners would never notice the statistically tiny difference in VO2, when you look at the “barefooters are less efficient” studies, you find that it's people who are new to barefoot that are less efficient. Competent barefoot runners are equally efficient. In other words, and not surprisingly, someone who is learning a new way to move uses more energy than when they use their habitual movement patterns. Tangentially this is another hole you've fallen into, where most media also stumbles: not evaluating the source data. Pete Larson, of runblogger.com, has been the most thorough at highlighting the disparity between actual research results and the way those results are misrepresented by the media. Sadly, once one media outlet says, “Barefoot is bad for you” by misunderstanding a study, that meme spreads like, well, Internet memes spread — unchecked and unquestioned. Next, you make a familiar mistake by looking at injury rates out of context. Barefooters do make the claim that running barefoot is safer, that you're less likely to get injured without your shoes. Before you scream from the rooftop that “barefoot running will hurt you,” by quoting statistics, you need to consider three things: the current rate of shod running injuries; the causes of what are called “barefoot related injuries;” and the simple claim by those injured that barefoot running was the cause. First, you can't hold barefoot to a different standard than shod running. Fifty percent of shod runners and 80% of shod marathoners get injured every year. And this number hasn't changed since the introduction of modern running shoes in the early 70's. In over 40 years, there has never been one study showing that modern running shoes are in any way better for you. Not one study showing that a particular style or model of padded, motion-controlled shoes reduces injuries or even improves performance compared to another. Considering that the running shoe business is a multi-BILLION dollar industry, you would think it in the best interest of any shoe company to prove that their latest “improvement” in padding, “energy-return” (i.e. “sucking less energy out of you”), or pronation control was reliably proven to be better than any other product. If well-designed research showed actual benefits of one shoe over another, that would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. So the fact that there's no research showing any such thing seems to suggest a lack of “there” there. So the fact that barefoot runners get injured is meaningless unless you compare the injury rate to shod runners. Unfortunately that doesn't mean you simply count the number of barefoot runners who've gotten injured, because this leads to another confusion demonstrated by your article. No knowledgeable barefoot runner or coach thinks that the value of running without shoes comes from simply removing your shoes. None in that group suggest that merely removing your footwear is a panacea or solution to all running problems. What we say is that running barefoot is a way, perhaps the best way, to make changes in your running form that lead to fewer injuries and a reduction of impact forces. The specifics of this form tend to include: landing with the foot closer to or under the center of mass, with a forefoot or mid-foot landing, with a typically increased cadence (190+/-10) that helps reduce ground forces, and by lifting the foot off the ground through hip flexion rather than pushing off the ground with by plantar flexion. All of these reduce the “impact transient” force that Daniel Lieberman famously documented, which reduces loading forces through the joints. Can you learn this in minimalist footwear? It's possible. But, anecdotally and logically, it seems more difficult due the reduction in feedback/sensations one gets wearing that footwear. In an informal study I did at Colorado Mesa University, I watched even accomplished barefoot runners unknowingly revert to heel-striking and over striding when they put on minimalist footwear (though, I'm proud to say, not when wearing Xero Shoes). Again, those of us who endorse barefoot running claim that most, if not all, injuries are a result of improper barefoot form, often received during the learning phase of this new running form. And anyone who teaches any movement pattern will tell you that this is the most likely time for injuries to occur. I've often seen new barefoot runners who hear “land on your forefoot” make the mistake of reaching out with their foot, pointing their toes, and landing on the balls of their foot. This is completely at odds with the first instruction — land with your foot under your center of mass — and gives the runner an increased likelihood of stress fractures (an injury common to those in running shoes, let's not forget). Next, just because someone claims they “got hurt barefoot running,” doesn't mean that, well, they got hurt running barefoot. Given the confusion in the marketplace, where millions have been spent to conflate minimalist footwear with being barefoot, and in articles like yours that do the same, many runners who've never had their bare skin touch the ground will mistakenly self-identify as “barefoot runners.” This may be especially true among those who wear FiveFingers shoes since the design of the product suggests being barefoot more than any minimalist shoe. But just because your footwear looks like a foot, that doesn't make it “barefoot.” And since we believe that the form changes that reduce injury are best accomplished by running without footwear, the fact that minimalist runners who call themselves “barefoot” renders the data suspect, at best. Later, you confuse Dr. Gruber's research with the question of whether one should wear minimalist shoes. Her research suggests that running efficiency is unrelated to foot strike patterns. But when you then use that data to say recreational runners have little to gain by wearing minimalist shoes, you're implying that merely wearing minimalist shoes changes your gait. Aside from the fact that there's no evidence of minimalist shoes — again we're not talking about barefoot — lead inevitably to gait changes, if there's no difference between the two gait patterns, it wouldn't matter if someone switched! You also make another common mistake when you suggest that running in Mexico and Kenya is nothing like running on asphalt roads. First, many Western runners run trails. Secondly, many of those remote trails are barely, if any, more forgiving than a paved road. This is a version of the naturalist fallacy, where the idea that the “natural” world is radically different from the modern world and, even more, better because of it. Then you misunderstand the entire premise of barefoot vs. shod running when you say that removing “the only thing that absorbs some of this impact” is “comical.” If you look at the research, including but not limited to Lieberman's, what you find is the exact opposite of your “joke,” namely that by removing padding your gait changes and you use your muscles, tendons, and ligaments as the natural springs and shock absorbers that they are… and, in doing so, reduce the impact forces. And again you then conflate barefoot and minimalist when you say “You know that running 3 miles with a pair of minimalist shoes on pavement feels like a 20-mile run in a pair of cushioned shoes.” Let's ignore for a moment that perhaps millions of people who've adapted to the gait pattern described above would disagree with you and find that running barefoot or even in minimalist shoes is less stressful than being in padded shoes. To reiterate an earlier point, the problem with minimalist shoes is that for most, they don't engender the gait change that makes running long distances on hard roads a pleasure. Finally, I'd like to editorialize a bit. I'm mystified by the tone that I can only categorize as glee in most anti-barefoot articles, including this one. I would hope that all of us involved in the running world share a simple goal helping more people enjoy injury-free running. To that end, the value is in carefully examining research and, in lieu of research, anecdotal information (remember the phrase “carefully examining” when looking at anecdote) and the basics of physics and physiology. I agree with your final point that improvement will only come through effort. Sadly, though, you are once again tilting at windmills and attacking straw men. Those of us who endorse barefoot running say the same thing. We don't say that merely removing your shoes is the answer. And we certainly don't say that swapping one shoe for another is the answer (which, again, you repeatedly imply). And we don't even say that everyone needs to be barefoot, especially under all conditions. I'm a competitive sprinter — I wear spikes to race. What we do say is that if you choose to put in the time and effort to see why we say that barefoot running offers an unmatched level of fun and freedom, we expect you'll be glad you did. And we hope (and, frankly, expect) that the future brings a well-designed, unbiased study that backs us up. What do you think? Share your comments here, then go to Marc's article and tell him what your experience has been. BTW, I tried posting my response to Marc's anti-barefoot running article on Active.com, but the site wouldn't let me :-( The content of this post does not constitute and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of a physician or other qualified health provider with any questions or concerns you may have about your health or a medical condition.
Dogs say "Go Barefoot" or grrrrrrr...
Whether you love cats or dogs, this video will prove that dogs deserve the title "Man's Best Friend" when you see what they do to the "foot coffins" most people call "shoes."They know that barefoot is best (and Xero's are the closest thing to barefoot) ;-)
Barefoot Running Q&A - Transitioning, pain, and cold weather
Here's another Barefoot Running Q&A video, where I take an email I've received and give an answer on video.In this video we look at the relationship between barefoot and minimalist shoes, foot and calf pain during the transition to barefoot, how minimalist shoes fit in with the transition to bare feet, and how to handle the cold.Some of the links you'll want to take a look at:Transitioning to Barefoot RunningIs Calf Pain NecessaryDealing with "top of foot pain."Barefoot running and cold weather
Know the dangers of distance running!
Parents, do you know the warning signs of "distance running?"Are your children under the influence of the evil pushers of 5k racing?We hope this video will help you save your children from the unnecessary suffering that this horrible addiction can cause. ;-)Big thanks to everyone at BYU TV for this hilarious bit (and the shout-out to bare foot running)!
Warning: Chia Seed Recall
There's been a national recall on some brands of Chia Seeds.This won't affect you if you think Chia Seeds are something you use to make "pets," but it might if you eat them.The affected brands include Organic Traditions, Williams-Sonoma, and Navitas Naturals brand chia and chia-flaxseed blend powders.Many of our readers heard about Chia from the book, Born To Run, which described it as one of the superfoods that the Tarahumara use to fuel themselves for epic runs. And you'll often find barefoot runners with a handful of seeds, or a gloopy-looking beverage full of chia.The Consumerist blog reported that many people are unaware of the recall of chia seeds, caused by the fact that certain chia brands are contaminated with salmonella and have sickened at least 65 people so far.So, barefoot runners, and everyone else who eats chia, please check your supplies, and not just the seeds that are still stuck in your teeth from last week's smoothie ;-)
Barefoot Sandals are for more than running
The two most popular comments I hear from people seeing Xero Shoes barefoot sandals for the first time are:"You can't really run in those, can you?"and"I'm not a runner so I can't use those."Make up your mind people! ;-)So, some people equate barefoot-inspired sandals with running, and others can't fathom doing an ultramarathon without giant maximalist shoes with tons of padding and "motion control."It's true that Xero Shoes were inspired by the huaraches sandals worn by the Tarahumara of Mexico, who make their sandals from scraps of tire and leather laces (they're stiff and heavy, btw). And the Tarahumara are known for running long distances in their sandals. And it's true that the early adopters of Xero Shoes were barefoot runners. And it's true that we've had hundreds, if not thousands, of emails from customers all around the world who've run everything from 5k - 100 mile races in Xeros.But that doesn't mean you have to run in them. Lena, my wife, co-founder of Xero Shoes, and our COO... she's a hiker, not a runner. But she mostly wears her Xero Shoes as her daily footwear.I'm a competitive sprinter, and wear my sandals for daily wear -- I haven't had a "normal" pair of shoes on my feet for 5 years -- and for all my drills and warm-ups on the track (for sprinting, I'm in a pair of spikes, which you need for traction and maximum speed).I like to ask people, "Do you enjoy being barefoot?" And if they say Yes, I say, "Well these sandals give you the closest thing to that fun, free barefoot feeling, but with a layer of protection."And with that combo, our customers have done practically everything you can think of in Xero Shoes -- walking, hiking, sky diving, paddle boarding, biking, kayaking, hanging out on the beach, a night on the town, even 100k ultramarathons through the jungles of Costa Rica.Here's a pic of Michelle, an awesome YogaSlacker (that's people who can do yoga poses on a slack line), showing what she can do in Xeros!Put on your Xero Shoes and go everywhere, do everything... naturally!
Barefoot Running Game Time!
Time for some fun... how many barefoot running words can you find in the puzzle, below?
Is running in our DNA?
One reason scientists study mice is, much as we may not want to admit it, we have a lot in common with our rodent relatives.We share enough DNA and physiology that studying mice often reveals quite a bit about us humans.So, does this recent study from Leiden University explain why many of us like to run?In short, neurophysiologist Johanna Meijer set up a running wheel -- yes, the kind you would put in a mouse, or rat, or hamster cage -- in her backyard and, after enticing animals to come near with the help of some food, watched that they ran on the wheel. Not to get the food. Just to run.Wild mice would often come back and run as much as caged mice -- mice who usually have nothing else to do -- would.As Emily Underwood says of the study,Rats, shrews, and even frogs found their way to the wheel—more than 200,000 animals over 3 years. The creatures seemed to relish the feeling of running without going anywhere.Maybe this tells us why we like to run.Or maybe it just explains treadmill sales ;-)
Running Shoes Insider Magazine - Secret edition!
After some sneaky social engineering, I got my hands on a copy of Running Shoe Insider, the magazine for running shoe makers and sellers.Up until now I had only suspected what they were really talking about behind closed doors. But now we know!Here's a photo of the cover.I'm sure you're as outraged and amazed as I am.Who knew that they actually KNOW they're making and selling foot coffins!?Pass this on to your friends, your family, the media!(And, I really hope you get that this is a joke ;-) )
Daniel Lieberman studies the Tarahumara running
Dr. Daniel Lieberman is one of the fathers of the barefoot running movement. His study showing how barefoot runners strike the ground with less force than shod runners, combined with Christopher McDougall's book, Born to Run, catalyzed the growth of barefoot and minimalist running. Well, it's as if Dr. Lieberman had a child with BTR, since his new study looks at how the Tarahumara run. And, more, it compares Tarahumara runners in huaraches to younger Tarahumara who run in padded running shoes. You can read the study for free here. Before I talk about what the study reveals (and what it doesn't), let me address a myth about barefoot running...Barefoot Running Myth #1One of the myths of barefoot running is that there is ONE WAY to do it: Your foot hits the ground in a certain way, you move your legs at a specific speed, you hold your arms in one configuration, and you run long, long distances. Hogwash, I say (as if I lived in the 30's). There's actually quite a bit of individual difference among competent barefoot runners, even though a few concepts are consistent. The problem with this myth is that it interferes with one of our brain's favorite hobbies, namely:The Brain's Favorite HobbyBrains like to know how things work. They like patterns. They like consistency. Oh, they're fascinated by the novel and new, but when it comes to survival, they like to know the rules. See the problem? When we want to learn something new, like how to run barefoot, we want to know "What's the one way I should do this? Show me a video I can imitate. Give me the rules." But, as I just said, there's not ONE way, there are variations of a theme.We now return to our regularly scheduled programAnd this brings us back to Lieberman's study. He finds some real variation in foot strike patterns among the huarache-wearing Tarahumara.40% primarily using midfoot strikes, 30% primarily using forefoot strikes, and 30% primarily using rearfoot strikes.70% land in a way that's consistent with the bigger picture of barefoot running, namely, don't land on your heels. But 30% DO heel strike! "How could they possibly rearfoot (or heel) strike?" you may ask. There are a couple of answers/comments: Footstrike isn't everything. Just because their heel touches the ground first, that doesn't mean they're putting extra force into their bodies by doing so. Which part of your foot touches the ground first doesn't always tell you everything you need to know. It's possible to have your heel contact the ground first but, because of your speed and where you place your foot in relationship to your center of mass, not apply force into the ground until your midfoot hits. So you could look like a heel striker, but apply force like a midfoot striker. Traditional huaraches are thick and stiff. If you haven't held a pair of huaraches made from tires and leather, you'll be in for a shock when you do. They're heavy and stiff. They reduce the amount of feedback you get from the ground... on purpose. Some of those Copper Canyon trails are seriously pointy, pokey, sticky. So it may be that some Tarahumara heel strike because they don't get the same feedback -- pain -- that one would get running barefoot. Traditional Tarahumara Huarache -- thick and stiff So don't get hung up on the fact that 30% of the Tarahumara that Lieberman studied heel strike. But also don't think, "Well, if they can do it, so can I!" More about that later. Next, Lieberman pointed out:In contrast, 75% of the conventionally shod Tarahumara primarily used rearfoot strikes, and 25% primarily used midfoot strikes.That's an interesting one: change the shoes, change the gait. I saw that when I was in Dr. Bill Sands' lab. Dr. Sands is the former head of biomechanics and engineering for the US Olympic Committee. He had hundreds of videos showing how the same runner will change their footstrike and, ofter, their entire gait, depending on the shoe they wear. That shod runners more often land on their heels isn't surprising to people familiar with barefoot running since we make the opposite argument: take OFF your shoes and your gait will change (over time and with some attention).What Lieberman's Study Does NOT SayLieberman looked at a number of other aspects of the gait of huarache-wearing and shoe-wearing Tarahumara: overstriding (the huarache wearers were less likely to do so), flexion of the joints (huarache wearers bend their joints -- use their springs -- more), and arch stiffness (huarache-wearers have stronger arches). Read the study to find out more. But what he does not say is just as important as what he does. He doesn't say "switch to sandals," or "midfoot or forefoot strike is better" or anything prescriptive. Lieberman is being especially circumspect about the meaning of the data he collected. This is, perhaps, a good thing, given how evangelical barefoot runners often take any seemingly pro-barefoot news as an excuse to have a shoe-burning party, which then backfires when any seemingly anti-barefoot news causes shod runners to chime in with "Nah-nee nah-nee, boo-boo" (or something equally insightful).Show me the moneyNote that I say "seemingly" for both pro- and con- news. That's because there still aren't any good studies that clearly demonstrate "Barefoot is better" or "barefoot is worse." And there are no studies showing "shoes are better" either, even though there has been 45+ years to whip one of those up, and many research labs are sponsored by big shoe companies. Those of us who've been living a barefoot or truly minimalist lifestyle now have lots of personal experience about the changes that can happen. And studies like Lieberman's hopefully provide more incentive for researchers find the cash to find out if we're unusual or if anyone who ditches their shoes can have the same kinds of expeiences (okay we know the answer to THAT, but you know what I mean ;-) ).The content of this post does not constitute and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of a physician or other qualified health provider with any questions or concerns you may have about your health or a medical condition.
Will Vibram Fivefingers make your feet stronger?
Big news today in the barefoot world: Vibram settled a class action lawsuit that claimed the company deceived customers when it claimed that VFFs would decrease foot injuries and strengthen foot muscles.As reported in the Washington Post:The company agreed to put aside $3.75 million to pay refunds of as much as $94 to anyone who had bought a pair since March 21, 2009, according to Runner’s World.(Okay that was according to Runner's World as reported by the Washington Post. The Post article was the one that showed up in my newsfeed.)Further:Vibram has agreed to discontinue to make any claims that FiveFingers footwear is effective in strengthening muscles or reducing injury in its marketing and advertising campaigns, unless the company discovers new scientific evidence that proves it.This suit, and Vibram's response bring up some interesting questions.Is settling in any way an expression of guilt? Not according to Vibram:Vibram expressly denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing alleged in the Actions, and neither admits nor concedes any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing or liability,” read the court brief.While it's true that settling a lawsuit does not equate to guilt, it's kinda hard to argue that Vibram made the claims and, in fact, didn't have scientific evidence to back them up.This is similar to when Reebok and Skechers paid up after claiming their "toning shoes" would help you lose weight and firm up your butt. Those companies had to pay 25-40 million to settle their suits.Is the settlement appropriate?Let's be honest, $3.75 million is barely a slap on the wrist for a company that sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of shoes. In fact, this is barely a tap on the arm hair on the back of the wrist.Agreeing to pay less than $4 million is clearly a payment just to make the case go away. Had they moved forward, the case could have cost tens of millions of dollars; so settling is usually a matter of cost-benefit analysis.What about the claims? Are they true?Well, here's where it gets interesting. Many people online, including on our Facebook page are, I think, confusing the issue.The question isn't whether being barefoot or, in this case, somewhat minimalist, can be helpful. Or whether you can strengthen your feet and reduce injuries by ditching your shoes.That's been my experience, and we've received hundreds of emails from Xero Shoes customers who report the same.But that's not the point.The point is: there's currently no scientific evidence to back up the claim. And if you can't prove it, you can't claim it in your advertising. That's the law. Making unsubstantiated claims can lead to "unfair enrichment."Is it fair?Ah, another interesting point. Shoe manufacturers have been making similar unsubstantiated claims for decades (more than Reebok and Skechers, mentioned above). But they haven't been taken to task for it.In my opinion, the only reason they haven't had to pay the piper is that there were never enough people who got all in a tizzy about their claims. People, by and large, just write off shoe company claims that their shoes will make you bigger, stronger, faster, as hyperbole.There was never enough mass, concentrated, public outrage to inspire someone to take action, like filing a class action lawsuit.I think the sudden and meteoric rise in interest in barefoot running, combined with claims like Vibram made, created a "perfect storm" for this kind of situation.Frankly, I'm surprised nobody has followed this with suits against other companies who've acted the same way.FWIW, Lena and I have been as diligent as possible about not making health claims, despite our experience and that of our customers, just because we knew the law. In fact, the FTC has gotten more stringent in the last few years, where companies have to be careful about even letting customers report their own experiences, since those can, arguably, be interpreted as a way of making unsubstantiated medical claims.Is this just another "McDonald's coffee" case?I've read this a lot.People comparing this suit to the one where Stella Liebeck sued McDonalds after getting burned by spilling hot coffee on herself.They say things like, "Hey, just because you went out too fast, too soon, don't go suing Vibram for your stupidity."First of all this isn't the same because the suit is a class action suit. Rarely do those result in windfall payments to the plantiffs.Secondly, it shows a misunderstanding, a common one, about Stella's suit. While people think Stella was just suing to make up for her stupidity, that's far from the case. The real issue behind that suit was that McDonalds had admitted to numerous instances of heating their coffee too much, resulting in injuries to other people, and despite that, hadn't taken any action to address the situation. More, people think Stella sued for and received WAY more money than she did. She just wanted her medical bills covered.The point being, even if Valerie Bezdeck, who brought the suit against Vibram, sustained injuries after wearing her VFFs, that's not the issue. The issue is: Can a company make unsubstantiated claims about a product? And while the answer is, "No," Vibram didn't have a day in court to argue this point.If they had, though, it might have been tricky since perhaps the most well-known study seemed to show that VFF wearers are more likely to get injured than regularly shod runners.I've previously commented on that study, BTW, and said that the real issue was the transition plan recommended by Vibram and followed by the runners in the study, compounded by the fact that the VFFs have enough padding that they decrease the sensations necessary to naturally change your gait (because you can't feel what hurts until it's too late).Is this the end of barefoot?This is the part that still irks me.Any time there's ANY news that suggests being barefoot and barefoot running will not improve your life, end world hunger, and land a man on Mars, it's written as if it's an episode of To Catch a Predator.Granted, the Washington Post article doesn't do this and, in fact, presents the reality of barefoot running perfectly:Does Vibram being caught flat-footed mean there’s no merit to barefoot running? Absolutely not. There is conflicting research on the subject, but I’ve met dozens of people who gave up the sport because of leg injuries suffered in traditional running shoes, only to have their exercise regimens revived by the minimalist variety. In fact, I’m married to one. There’s a niche for flatter-soled running gear, just as there’s a market for people who prefer to drive Maseratis instead of Mazdas.I would, of course, say barefoot is the Maserati in this analogy and that even though minimalism is currently a niche, it should be much more.But I also agree that the research needed for us to be able to make the kinds of claims that many of us have experienced isn't there yet. And, so, caution is necessary for those of us in the commercial space. And I am not claiming that your flat feet will develop arches the way mine did once I started going barefoot and in Xero Shoes.;-)What do you think?The content of this post does not constitute and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of a physician or other qualified health provider with any questions or concerns you may have about your health or a medical condition.
