Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Energy Used

Expand Messages
  • Curt Busse
    This study has already been put through the wringer here a couple of times. Here are good reviews by Robert Neinast
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 13 12:23 PM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      This study has already been put through the wringer here a couple of times.   Here are good reviews by Robert Neinast  and by Steven Sashen.

       

      --- In RunningBarefoot@yahoogroups.com, Rungal262@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > I'd like to see this entire study to see how they determined this...but honestly I have found the opposite to be true. Interesting thoughts though.
      > stacie
      >
      >
      > Barefoot vs. Shoes - the Metabolic Debate
      > We heard the benefits of running barefoot; that it is more natural, it is easier, and it may reduce injuries. But this study out of the University of Colorado wanted to look at the metabolic effect of running. In other words, does wearing shoes require more energy than running barefoot?
      > The general thinking would be yes, because shoes add mass, and pushing more mass through space would require more energy. However, this study found something different - that barefoot running is actually less efficient. Because the shoes provide cushioning, when running barefoot, something else has to provide this cushioning effect. That something is the legs. Since the shoes are not there to absorb some of the forces generated when running, the leg muscles must now contract and work more. This requires more energy.
      > Your average runner may not be concerned with this, but your competitive runner might. Serious runners may want to consider the trade-off between having less mass on their feet by running barefoot vs. a greater risk of strain on their leg muscles by running barefoot. And if you're not interested in going barefoot, consider a light-weight training shoe.
      > Kram, Rodger, Ph.D. "Making the Case for Running Shoes." The New York Times, March 2012.
      >

    • Curt Busse
      Barefoot Josh also has a great angle on this study: All barefoot running studies are bunk. http://www.barefootjosh.com/?p=2901
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 13 5:23 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Barefoot Josh also has a great angle on this study: All barefoot running studies are bunk. http://www.barefootjosh.com/?p=2901

        > This study has already been put through the wringer here a couple of
        > times. Here are good reviews by Robert Neinast
        > <http://ahcuah.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/running-shod-more-efficient/>
        > and by Steven Sashen
      • Gordon
        I know one of the guys who participated. The study was screwed up far more than you would realize by reading the paper. And that s pretty bad. It was so bad
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 14 6:14 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I know one of the guys who participated. The study was screwed up far more than you would realize by reading the paper. And that's pretty bad. It was so bad that he refused to participate in the follow up because he realized that the data they were collecting was completely useless.

          Gordon

          --- In RunningBarefoot@yahoogroups.com, Rungal262@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > I'd like to see this entire study to see how they determined this...but honestly I have found the opposite to be true. Interesting thoughts though.
          > stacie
          >
          >
          > Barefoot vs. Shoes - the Metabolic Debate
          > We heard the benefits of running barefoot; that it is more natural, it is easier, and it may reduce injuries. But this study out of the University of Colorado wanted to look at the metabolic effect of running. In other words, does wearing shoes require more energy than running barefoot?
          > The general thinking would be yes, because shoes add mass, and pushing more mass through space would require more energy. However, this study found something different - that barefoot running is actually less efficient. Because the shoes provide cushioning, when running barefoot, something else has to provide this cushioning effect. That something is the legs. Since the shoes are not there to absorb some of the forces generated when running, the leg muscles must now contract and work more. This requires more energy.
          > Your average runner may not be concerned with this, but your competitive runner might. Serious runners may want to consider the trade-off between having less mass on their feet by running barefoot vs. a greater risk of strain on their leg muscles by running barefoot. And if you're not interested in going barefoot, consider a light-weight training shoe.
          > Kram, Rodger, Ph.D. "Making the Case for Running Shoes." The New York Times, March 2012.
          >
        • Adolfo Neto
          I don t agree that all barefoot running studies are bunk. See http://www.stevenrobbinsmd.com/ for instance. The problem is: Science has its limitations. We
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 14 10:44 AM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I don't agree that all barefoot running studies are bunk.

            See http://www.stevenrobbinsmd.com/ for instance.

            The problem is: Science has its limitations.

            We (scientist) usually don't have as many subjects as we want.
            We don't have enough time.
            Some scientists "lie" a bit otherwise their papers will not be published.

            --- In RunningBarefoot@yahoogroups.com, "Curt Busse" <curt@...> wrote:
            >
            > Barefoot Josh also has a great angle on this study: All barefoot running studies are bunk. http://www.barefootjosh.com/?p=2901
            >
            > > This study has already been put through the wringer here a couple of
            > > times. Here are good reviews by Robert Neinast
            > > <http://ahcuah.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/running-shod-more-efficient/>
            > > and by Steven Sashen
            >
          • Curt Busse
            Steven Robbins support of the barefoot condition is uncompromising - I m attracted to many of his ideas, yet I find that he can be just as dogmatic as the
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 14 4:21 PM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Steven Robbins' support of the barefoot condition is uncompromising - I'm attracted to many of his ideas, yet I find that he can be just as dogmatic as the people who he criticizes.

              For example, in describing the huarache sandals of the Tarahumara, he says:

              "One major problem with their sandal that I see is the thong between the toes. The skin between the great and second toe frequently breaks down with this type of fixation system even when used in walking, and serious infection ensues.

              Running with it would be immeasurably more damaging than in walking because of the amplified horizontal forces. Accordingly, its use requires considerable adaptation, and even then poses a health risk. For this reason I do not consider them acceptable for occasional use in normally shod individuals."

              This is total BS.



              --- In RunningBarefoot@yahoogroups.com, "Adolfo Neto" <adolfont@...> wrote:
              >
              > I don't agree that all barefoot running studies are bunk.
              >
              > See http://www.stevenrobbinsmd.com/ for instance.
              >
              > The problem is: Science has its limitations.
              >
              > We (scientist) usually don't have as many subjects as we want.
              > We don't have enough time.
              > Some scientists "lie" a bit otherwise their papers will not be published.
              >
              > --- In RunningBarefoot@yahoogroups.com, "Curt Busse" <curt@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Barefoot Josh also has a great angle on this study: All barefoot running studies are bunk. http://www.barefootjosh.com/?p=2901
              > >
              > > > This study has already been put through the wringer here a couple of
              > > > times. Here are good reviews by Robert Neinast
              > > > <http://ahcuah.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/running-shod-more-efficient/>
              > > > and by Steven Sashen
              > >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.