I’m just being difficult now, but I don’t think this wikipedia article provides “overwhelming” evidence. I’ve read it and I’m still a barefoot skeptic, particularly since the fad has not been prevalent for long enough for us to really get good evidence that it doesn’t cause as many problems as it solves. In particular, the “citation needed”s on the rebuttals to the criticisms of barefoot makes me nervous about trusting the pro-barefoot evidence, especially when it’s equally likely that it’s just been selectively written (like the vast majority of paleo diet literature—the other odd thing people rave about in the fitness community).
Bravo on the other parts of the article though, I’ve found them enlightening.
I agree that “overwhelming” overstates the strength of the evidence. The main argument in favor of barefoot running is that it leads to fewer injuries than shod running, so for the evidence to be overwhelming it would need to include several studies (by different researchers with various study designs) directly showing this advantage in injury rates. But there seem to be very few studies which empirically compare injury rates for barefoot and shod runners. It’s not clear if any of the studies cited in the Wikipedia article actually do so, and the review article that they cite observes that “well-designed studies of the effects of barefoot and shod running on injury are lacking” (Warburton, 2001). I saw Daniel Lieberman give a talk about his biomechanical research on barefoot running, and I remember that he said much the same thing: there’s a shortage of studies looking at whether barefoot running reduces injury rates.
It would be more accurate to say that there’s a growing body of suggestive evidence pointing to the advantages of barefoot running (including research on the biomechanics of barefoot running and studies comparing injury rates for different types of shoes), or something similar but briefer.
I’m just being difficult now, but I don’t think this wikipedia article provides “overwhelming” evidence. I’ve read it and I’m still a barefoot skeptic, particularly since the fad has not been prevalent for long enough for us to really get good evidence that it doesn’t cause as many problems as it solves. In particular, the “citation needed”s on the rebuttals to the criticisms of barefoot makes me nervous about trusting the pro-barefoot evidence, especially when it’s equally likely that it’s just been selectively written (like the vast majority of paleo diet literature—the other odd thing people rave about in the fitness community).
Bravo on the other parts of the article though, I’ve found them enlightening.
I agree that “overwhelming” overstates the strength of the evidence. The main argument in favor of barefoot running is that it leads to fewer injuries than shod running, so for the evidence to be overwhelming it would need to include several studies (by different researchers with various study designs) directly showing this advantage in injury rates. But there seem to be very few studies which empirically compare injury rates for barefoot and shod runners. It’s not clear if any of the studies cited in the Wikipedia article actually do so, and the review article that they cite observes that “well-designed studies of the effects of barefoot and shod running on injury are lacking” (Warburton, 2001). I saw Daniel Lieberman give a talk about his biomechanical research on barefoot running, and I remember that he said much the same thing: there’s a shortage of studies looking at whether barefoot running reduces injury rates.
It would be more accurate to say that there’s a growing body of suggestive evidence pointing to the advantages of barefoot running (including research on the biomechanics of barefoot running and studies comparing injury rates for different types of shoes), or something similar but briefer.