So the APMA, the podiatrists' association, has put out a statement on barefoot running. I would characterize it as "grudging." As always barefooting is forced to bear the burden of proof -- it would make more sense it you swapped "running barefoot" and "running with shoes" in their first paragraph. Then it would read like this:
Running with shoes has become an increasing trend, and a possible alternative or training adjunct to running barefoot. While anecdotal evidence and testimonials proliferate on the Internet and in the media about the possible health benefits of running in shoes, research has not yet adequately shed light on the immediate and long term effects of this practice.
Running barefoot "has been touted" as having benefits, they acknowledge (grudgingly), before quickly moving on to the risks, such as "puncture wounds" (okay, I'll grant it's a risk but in my experience and others', small) as well as "increased stress on the lower extremities" (this is a bald assertion that I would be interested to know the basis for, since the studies I've seen have shown *less* shock moving up through the skeleton when barefooting).
Finally, the podiatrists encourage the public to consult a podiatrist -- now there's a surprise.
I think this is what you call "being dragged kicking and screaming" into a reassessment of professional folklore, which is how I would characterize the belief by most podiatrists, in the absence of any supporting evidence, that shoes and shoe inserts are presumed beneficial. Born to Run is to podiatry as last year's economic crash was to economists.It's amazing how entire professions can be totally full of it.
Comments