Fleet Feet Sports... not you, too?!?

[Note- this is written in response to a specific Fleet Feet Running Store owner's comments regarding barefoot running.  This is not necessarily my opinion regarding all Fleet Feet stores.  Most, but not all, have been exceptionally supportive of the barefoot and minimalist shoe running movement.]

Fleet Feet Sports' owner, David Spetnagel, commented on barefoot running in a recent flyer distributed by Fleet Feet.  The article is somewhat similar to the comments made by Road Runner Sports' CEO a few months ago, except Spetnagel used science instead of a sophomoric fear tactic. 

First, Spetnagel discounts Born to Run, which is fair.  It is not a peer-reviewed journal; it is the opinion of McDougall.  He also mentions the misrepresentation of Lieberman's “Foot Strike Patterns and Collision Forces in Habitually Barefoot Runners versus Shod Runners”.  That's fair... the popular media does misrepresent Lieberman's conclusion. At this point, I am still on-board.

In the second paragraph, Spetnagel dissects three pro-barefoot running arguments:

• A heel strike is inferior to a forefoot strike (note: I know of no barefoot running instructors that advocate a forefoot strike... we tend to favor a midfoot strike),
• Barefoot running strengthens the foot anatomy,
• Barefoot running is "speedier" than heel striking.

In the third paragraph, Spetnagel cites Hamill's oft-cited conference lecture regarding barefoot running.  Essentially, Hamill makes the claim that heel striking is popular today, thus must be the result of evolution.  His evidence- the heel bone is strong and sits upon a fat pad.  What about the rest of the foot?  What is the purpose of the arch?  Ornamentation?  Curiously, Spetnagel does not mention this.  Spetnagel also fails to mention that Hamill's talk was not peer-reviewed, merely his own opinion. 

In the next paragraph, Spetnagel continues to cite Hamill.  He notes that foot strengthening is unlikely to occur due to the muscles being internal.  So "...Dr. Joseph Hamill, a Kinesiology Professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst with more than 20 years of experience as a biomechanist..." is claiming that muscles cannot be strengthened because they are internal to the foot?  I do not possess a PhD, nor do I have 20 years of experience as a biomechanist, but that conclusion is just plain stupid.  If those muscles cannot be strengthened, why the Hell do we have them?!?  Remember this foot-strengthening point... we'll see it again in Spetnagel's sales pitch at the end of the article.

Spetnagel continues by citing Matt Fitzgerald's barefoot running article, which drew conclusions based on the very unscientific measurement of asking a few doctors about injury frequency in their practice.  Hmmmm... Lieberman's peer-reviewed study should be disregarded, but the anecdotal opinions of a few doctors asked to recall their patients' injury history is as good as gold? 

Spetnagel then quotes Fitzgerald “If you don’t get injured often in shoes, there’s no need to switch to barefoot running, but you could probably get away with it. And if you do get injured in shoes, switching to barefoot running might be tempting, but it will probably only make matters worse.”

The first sentence is accurate... no disagreement here.  The second sentence... not so much.  Ask any experienced barefoot running about their injury frequency before and after barefoot running.

In the next paragraph, Spetnagel offers a good segue into his sales pitch.  He quoted Dr. Owen Anderson, “There’s just no proof that barefoot running will reduce your risk of injury of make you faster…One thing is for certain: If you throw your running shoes in the trash bin and embark on your usual training program in the barefoot condition, you will probably soon be calling your sports-medicine physician...So, please proceed cautiously if you decide to let the skin hit the road.”

No shit.   Every single barefoot running instructor goes to great lengths to teach patience.  If you run 100 miles a week shod, then immediately switch to 100 miles of barefoot running, you will get injured.  As far as "proof" barefoot running makes you faster or reduces injury, yes, Anderson is correct.  Likewise, there is no "proof" shoes will make you faster or reduce injury.  I've scoured the literature... there is no research supporting the use of the modern running shoe.  I have challenged the anti-barefoot running cword to produce a single citation of a study that even hints at the benefits of modern running shoes over barefoot running.  To date, nobody has been able to produce said research.

The next two paragraphs literally made me laugh out loud.  Spetnagel carefully makes a case against barefoot running, then makes a sales pitch for the Nike Free and his barefoot running clinics USING THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS HE JUST ATTACKED!  Here's the quotes:

While the current data show that regular training in a minimalist shoe is not a good idea for most runners because the additional injury risk outweighs any gains in injury reduction or efficiency, there is consensus that a well-designed foot/ankle-strengthening regimen can be an effective part of your training program – and that doing such workouts in minimalist shoes can make them more efficient. [editorial comment- note that Spetnagel just cited Hamill's comment that the intrinsic foot muscles cannot be strengthened.]

We believe that Nike’s “Free” line of shoes are the best of the minimalist shoes because they strengthen what can be strengthened (aka, muscles) [see editorial comment above] and protect what cannot be strengthened in the traditional sense (aka, ligaments, tendons and bones) [another editorial comment: bones, tendons, and ligament can be strengthened... this is why astronauts develop osteoporosis in space]. In other words, the Frees’ ultra-flexibility works the muscles of the foot (including the very important “toe grabbing” that occurs when running barefoot) but their underfoot “arch” support and moderate cushioning protect the rest of the foot and leg to at least some degree.

This is laughable. I do not understand why shoe salespeople cannot simply accept that there are significant merits to barefoot running.  They really should take an open-minded approach as other shoe salespeople have: barefoot running has significant advantages, but not everyone should or has a desire to run barefoot.  For those individuals, there are some excellent minimalist shoes (NOT the Free... it is a "reduced" running shoe.)

Here's my advice: If you don't have problems in overly-cushioned, raised-heel, supportive shoes, keep using them.  If you do get injured, accept that it is probably a function of bad form.  There are a number of ways to learn good form, one of which is barefoot running.  Should you decide to try it, educate yourself.  There are a ton of great free resources out there, including Ken Bob's site, Ted's site, runBARE, and my own site.

To shoe store owners- please stop this bush league attempt at discrediting barefoot running while pitching your own products or services that take advantage of the rise in barefoot running awareness.  If you disagree with barefoot running, man up and take a hard stance against it.  If you support it by offering workshops and pseudo-minimalist shoes, then stop producing drivel like this article from Fleet Feet.