Tags
Complexity and Uncertainty, Intelligent Trial and Error, minimalist shoes, Research, scientific controversy
In almost every technoscientific controversy participants could take better account of the inescapable complexities of reality and the uncertainties of their knowledge. Unfortunately, many people suffer from significant cognitive barriers that prevent them from doing so. That is, they tend to carry the belief that their own side is in unique possession of Truth and that only their opponents are in any way biased, politically motivated or otherwise lacking in sufficient data to support their claims. This is just as clear in the case of Vibram Five Finger shoes (i.e., “toe shoes”) as it is for GMO’s and climate change. Much of humanity would be better off, however, if technological civilization responded to these contentious issues in ways more sensitive to uncertainty and complexity.
Five Fingers are the quintessential minimalist shoe, receiving much derision concerning its appearance and skepticism about its purported health benefits. Advocates of the shoes claim that its minimalist design helps runners and walkers maintain a gait similar to being barefoot while enjoying protection from abrasion. Padded shoes, in contrast, seem to encourage heel striking and thereby stronger impact forces in runners’ knees and hips. The perceived desirability of a barefoot stride is in part based on the argument that it better mimics the biomechanical motion that evolved in humans over millennia and the observation of certain cultures that pursue marathon long-distance barefoot running without obvious harm. Correlational data also suggests that people in nations that more often eschew shoes suffer less from chronic knee problems, and some recent studies find that minimalist shoes do lead to improved foot musculature and decreased heel striking.
Opponents, of course, are not merely aesthetically opposed to Five Fingers but mobilize their own sets of scientific facts and experts. Skeptics cite studies finding higher rates of injury among those transitioning to minimalist shoes than those wearing traditional footwear. Others point to “barefoot cultures” that still run with a heel striking gait. The recent settlement by Vibram with plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit, moreover, seems to have been taken as a victory of rational minds over pseudoscience by critics who compare the company to 19th century snake oil salesmen. Yet, this settlement was not an admission that the shoes did nothing but merely that recognition that there does not yet exist unequivocal scientific evidence to back up the company’s claims about the purported health benefits of the shoes.
Neither of the positions, pro or con, is immediately more “scientific” than the other. Both sides use value-laden heuristics to take a position on minimalist shoes in the absence of controlled, longitudinal studies that might better settle the facts of the matter. The unspoken presumption among critics of minimalist shoes is that highly padded, non-minimalist shoes are unproblematic when really they are an unexamined sociotechnical inheritance. No scientific study has justified adding raised heels, pronation control and gel pads to sneakers. Advocates of minimalist shoes and barefoot running, on the other hand, trust the heuristic of “evolved biomechanics” and “natural gait” given the lack of substantial data on footwear. They put their trust in the argument that humans ran fine for millenia without heavily padded shoes.
There is nothing inherently wrong, of course, about these value commitments. In everyday life as much as in politics, decisions must be made with incomplete information. Nevertheless, participants in debates over these decisions too frequently present themselves as in possession of a level of certainty they cannot possibly have, given that the science on what kinds of shoes humans ought to wear remains mostly undone.
At the same time, it seems unfair to leave footwear consumers in the position of having to fumble with the decision between purchasing a minimalist or non-minimalist shoe. A technological civilization sensitized to uncertainty and complexity would take a different approach to minimalist shoes than the status quo process of market-led diffusion with very little oversight or monitoring.
To begin, the burden of proof would be more appropriately distributed. Advocates of minimalist shoes are typically put in the position of having to prove the safety and desirability of them, despite the dearth of conclusive evidence demonstrating that contemporary running shoes are themselves safe. There are risks on both sides. Minimalist shoes may end up injuring those who embrace them or transition too quickly. However, if they do in fact encourage healthier biomechanics, it may be that multitudes of people have been and continue to be unnecessarily destined for knee and hip replacements by their clunky New Balances. Both minimalist and non-minimalist shoes need to be scrutinized.
Second, use of minimalist shoes should be gradually scaled-up and matched with well-funded, multipartisan monitoring. Simply deploying an innovation with potential health benefits and detriments then waiting for a consumer response and, potentially, litigation means an unnecessarily long, inefficient and costly learning process. Longitudinal studies on Five Fingers and other minimalist shoes could have begun as soon as they were developed or, even better, on running shoes in general when companies like Nike and Reebok started adding raised heels and gel pads.
Monitoring of minimalist shoes, moreover, would need to be broad enough to take account of confounding variables introduced by cultural differences. Indeed, it is hard to compare American joggers to barefoot running Tarahumara Indians when the former have typically been wearing non-minimalist shoes for their whole lives and tend to be heavier and more sedentary. Squat toilets make for a useful analogy. Given the association of western toilets with hiatal hernias and other ills, abandoning them would seem like a good idea. However, having not grown up with them and likely being overweight or obese, many Westerners are unable to squat properly, if at all, and would risk injury when using a squat toilet.
Most importantly, multi-partisan monitoring would help protect against clear conflicts of interest. The controversy over minimalist and non-minimalist shoes impacts the interests of experts and businesses. There is a burgeoning orthotics and custom running shoes industry that not only earns quite a lot of revenue in selling specialized footwear and inserts but also certifies only certain people as having the “correct” expertise concerning walking and running issues. They are likely to adhere to their skepticism about minimalist shoes as strongly as oil executives do on climate change, for better or worse. Although large firms are quickly introducing their own minimalist shoes designs, a large-scale shift toward them would threaten their business models: Since minimalist shoes do not have cushioning that breaks down over time, there is no need to replace them every three to six months. Likewise, Vibram itself is unlikely to fully explore the potential limitations of their own products.
Finally, funds should have been set aside for potential victims. Given a long history of unintended consequences resulting from technological change, it should not have come as a surprise that a dramatic shift in footwear would produce injuries in some customers. Vibram Five Finger shoes, in this way, are little different from other innovations, such as the Toyota Prius’ electronically controlled accelerator pedal or novel medications like Vioxx. Had Vibram been forced to proactively set aside funds for potential victims, they would have been provided an incentive to more carefully study their shoes’ effects. Moreover, those ostensibly injured by the company’s product would not have to go through such a protracted and expensive legal battle to receive compensation.
Although the process I have proposed might appear strange at first, the status quo itself hardly seems reasonable. Why should companies be permitted to introduce new products with little accountability for the risks posed to consumers and no requirements to discern what risks might exist? There is no obvious reason why footwear and sporting equipment should not be treated similarly to other areas of innovation where the issues of uncertainty and complexity loom large, like nanotechnology or new pharmaceuticals. The potential risks for acute and chronic harms are just as real, and the interests of manufacturers and citizens are just as much in conflict. Are Vibram Five Finger shoes made for running? Perhaps. But without changes to the way technological civilization governs new innovations, participants in the controversy are provided with neither the means nor sufficient incentive to find the answer.
I am Spencer DePue, and I approve this fantabulous message. Consumerism vs. In your face Truth. I dig.
Having had multiple (9) surgies on my left foot and knowing how each shoe I have chosen in the past works for which specific activities i’m doing, I have found vibrams to be a G*d send for walking long distance over natural surfaces. I can not, without painful consequences, use them for work (teacher with concrete flooring). I can not use them for treadmill work or long distance in an urban area. I use both cushioned traditional running shoes as well as minimalist vibrams. I use riding boots when I’m riding in a dressage arena, I use ropers when working cattle. Heeled for special occasions and flats when at work or giving presentations. I would prefer to leave capitalism in tact; people need to know what works for them. Why not treat shoes like any other tool we use; specifically for that which it works.
You point out well the many additional complexities of the issue (flooring, activities, etc.). However, I’m not sure what you mean by “leave capitalism intact.” I haven’t advocated socialism just smarter regulations and better preparation for learning in order to ensure that people have better guidance on footwear and shoe companies do not so easily run roughshod over the average persons’ interests and well-being in the pursuit of profits. I’m suggesting a more intelligent and precautionary form of capitalism, not its abandonment.
From a purely unscientific point of view… I have RA and super wide feet. I love my vibrams however they are difficult to get on, but once they are on they are super comfy. Lousy in colder climates and you feel the rocks through them. Me, if I could run, these would be the last shoes I would use on pavement, beach or grass ok, pavement … oh hell no 😉
Pingback: Shared from WordPress | lutambi
Nicely argued. May even try them.
While walking, I will ponder: “How different our world behaves to the way anyone would design”
Any study that report on whether these shoes are good or bad for our back?
Reblogged this on travle1trade2 and commented:
good read!
Interesting
I heard they were good for better posture
your narrative lead is overly technical and complicated compared to the rest of the article. Interesting read overall. Thanks for posting!
I lean more towards letting the buyer make up their own minds about which shoes they want to wear and also be responsible for the consequences of their choices. If you like the shoes and they work for you then wear them. If you don’t, then don’t. I’m a grown woman and I don’t need anyone to tell me which shoes to wear.
That’s certainly a common and reasonable sentiment. I’m not advocating that anyone force anyone else to wear certain shoes. That would be disturbingly authoritarian. Rather, I’m arguing that many citizens currently receive confusing, potentially deceptive and, at most times, wholly inadequate information about footwear. It seems to me that trying a pair of shoes and waiting for injury or eventual knee replacement should be the option of last resort for consumers trying to decide which footwear produces the healthiest biomechanics for them (assuming individual consumers are even able to wade through all of the confounding variables themselves). Moreover, if there are development limitations (as in, wearing non-minimalist shoes while growing up is damaging and thwarts many users’ efforts to switch to minimalist shoes) then it is not so simple an issue as to be solved by adult consumers making consumer choices because the decision is in part made for them already by the imposition of a certain footwear culture at an early age. Certainly, research would need to be done to show whether or not that is the case, but it does remain a real possibility. Of course there are exceptions, you may have done sufficient experimentation to find out what works for you, but others may not be so lucky or only find out what works for them after suffering numerous unnecessary injuries
I think that everyone’s feet are different, their gait is different, bone structures vary, weight plays a part also surface used plays into it. In the end the perfect shoe for one will not be perfect for another. I run a health club for a living and I see stuff like this on a daily basis with many clothing items. Even sports bras can work to varying degrees and cause harm to varying degrees depending on the woman. If people want to purchase a shoe based on it’s medical efficacy they should visit a podiatrist and get a prescription. I don’t like the idea of regulating footwear because it will be impossible to implement. I think it’s an waste of resources. I think adults should be responsible for their own clothing choices. We are supposedly the most educated and savvy generation ever and we can’t be expected to use common sense when it comes to hyped up ads? No one makes choices for us except us and if we want medical advice so we can make better footwear choices, we should be wise enough to get it from our doctor and not from an advertisement. Anyway, LOL just my two cents, that and about $5 will get you a decent cuppa.
Diversity in body types is, as you are right to point out, is a complexifying feature. I did not mean to give the impression that the answer to a more intelligent diffusion of minimalist shoes would be a simple “yes” or “no” and apply to everyone equally. However, that does not render my suggestion “impossible,” just more complex. As I keep trying to point out, this cannot be a simple matter for individual choice because individuals and even their doctors simply do not currently have the right information. How is someone to know that the might have pain with Vibrams is because of their individual biological differences or because their feet and gait have developed a certain way from years of wearing clunky, padded tennis shoes. If it is the latter situation, to what extent are they really “choosing” the outcome? Moreover, one the studies that I referenced specifically pointed to the lack of adequate scientific backing for the efficacy of orthotics. Their prescription is recognized, even within the industry, as more trial and error than science. Consumers, even with the support of doctors, are more fumbling in the dark than enabled to make intelligent choices. It is not a mere mater of “Goggling it” because the science doesn’t exist (itself a result of poor planning and regulation). At the same time, I don’t understand your dismissal of any regulation of footwear is “impossible” and a “waste of resources.” You don’t provide a rationale (logical or empirical) for either claim. I would counter that any knee replacements or running injuries that happen because of a footwear industry that proceeds by blind fumbling instead of intelligent steering wastes resources, even more so in the production of products that needless fall apart much too early. Whether it is possible or not is a matter of whether it is possible to implement the right incentives and public policies. Consumer protection laws and regulations from other industries are great examples of already existing models. The challenge is, thus, not in developing feasible regulations but the opposition of those who benefit from the current unintelligent regulation scheme and average people who have never thought to ask more of their technologies and the firms that produce them.
I really like these shoes, BUT, BUT they really stink when not washed or taken care off. I used to work in a Office with a software developer who wore these every day for the entire summer. The smell was horrible because he NEVER washed his shoes. So smelling that the office had to gang up on him to forcing to wash his shoes or wear something else.
Great piece! I have calcified scar tissue in my ankle and use the lace up style vibrams for general walking around and at work and use brooks trainers to run in. I have found this has helped me develop the muscles of my feet and ankle which have in turn helped my running. I think they are worth a try!
I want a pair of those!! (-:
Reblogged this on The Life & Times of Ice.
Reblogged this on Showcasing my Portfolio.
Reblogged this on letitiaevents.
I just simply have always wanted to try them because they look fun.
Can I just say that I get these shoes… I really do… although to be honest I don’t know if you would call them shoes, anyways… I still can’t stand them. It has taken me awhile to figure out why I have such an aversion to these shoes and I think the main part of it is that I have a “thing” about others toes and feet… it is irrational and thankfully I don’t really have many phobias so I figure everyone can have one crazy thing right? Don’t even get me started on people with manky toe nails *shudders*.
This footwear was recommended to me after I smashed up my ankle last year… but I just couldn’t do it 🙂
Excellent article. I too wonder why there isn’t more research on athletics, footwear and fitness. Consumers needs some real facts instead of spending thousand’s of dollars on various sneakers, some of which the companies sell, knowing that they contribute to injury.
I’ve read research showing that babies who never wear shoes start walking sooner than those who are forced to wear shoes. Also, there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence about highly padded shoes causing more injuries, such as the UCLA track team. They switched to only wearing cheap unpadded sneakers because their injury rate went up when Nike donated highly padded sneakers to the team.
More research seems reasonable given that consumers currently have to spend their money and hope the shoes don’t send them to the doctor.
I have to say that these shoes look awesome and I’d wear them always and I’d wash them after hearing what lfmelendez said 😀
Reblogged this on Blog with Shumi.
I wear them because other running shoes hurt my hips and knees. They definitely cause a stir when I wear them, but it is worth it.
Interesting piece. Shared at https://www.facebook.com/nilooka.dissanayake.3
Reblogged this on deareststarlime.
Great article- this came up in the huff post a little while ago.. interesting stuff!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/22/barefoot-shoes_n_5353439.html
I thoroughly enjoyed your post. I honestly don’t find them attractive and I doubt they can actually be useful to anyone. Thanks for sharing anyway!
Much better idea than the Nike pigs trotter shoes. Enjoyed reading your defense of these groovy looking shoes. Well done looking forward to getting a pair and finding some place suitable to run around in them without doing to much.
Reblogged this on ilcelopez and commented:
Yeah! ♡
thank you so much for this post – i have clients asking me all the time about these shoes for running and I have been looking for a good article to corroborate my response.
Have you owned a pair? Tried them on a short trail run?
I’ve had a pair for years, using them both for short runs on multiple kinds of terrain and weightlifting without injury. The only discomfort I’ve experience is tight calves when getting used to running in them. That said, being already fairly fit (and light) and already conscious against heel striking has probably been an advantage. I have no idea if they will save my knees, but I do appreciate the fact that I’ll be able to use them for years before eventually wearing through the sole.
Reblogged this on hansstellingsma and commented:
cool 🙂
Zeer interessante post
I don’t much care about the science either way with these things. I just know my own reality – running used to be painful for me, even though I am very active and fit in other sports. Four miles was a (painful) maximum. Then in 2010 I decided to try the 5 fingers. Now I stop running because I’m bored, not because of pain. And when lifting weights in the gym, I feel more balanced than in regular shoes.
Good enough for me.
I appreciate your even handed and thorough approach to the subject. If only every individual would do so prior to engaging in everything they do, there wouldn’t be a need for funds to be set aside for potential injuries.
I’m a minimalist runner myself and have been wearing Inov8’s for a couple of years. Another commenter mentioned different shoes for different activities. Again if only everyone had so much intelligence.
Any argument of “transitional injuries” has nothing to do with the shoes and everything to do with the transition. I tried to replicate the pose style in my adidas traditional and ended up with a stress fracture in my right arch. Had nothing to do with my shoes rather my stupid attempt to mimic a proper pose style in shoes that prevented that. After I healed, I went to a clean park and ran around in circles for 20 minutes on cool, wet (and clean) grass. My foot automatically wanted to run in the pose style. So, don’t make my mistake. If you want to transition, go run barefoot in a park and let your foot forget what Nike et al taught you.
Great post!
Reblogged this on Apps Lotus's Blog.
Any thoughts on Sockwa?
I can’t imagine them being much different than other minimalist shoes. They’re pretty much like moccasins.
I saw a man on American Ninja Warrior the TV show (well it’s more like a competition) and he was wearing some. my mom and dad have some too.
I get what you’re trying to say… and I heard recently that apparently people are mad at the five fingers because they promised more than they’re giving… but the fact is I’ve had chronic knee pain for years… I was in and out of physical therapy constantly for them because of being in the military I had to run for my PT tests and the problems were just getting worse… and so I heard about five finger and I was like what the heck might as well try them… and all my pain went away… I will say it takes a bit to get used to them… but they are about the only shoe I can wear that keeps my knees from hurting from just walking around doing normal every day activities… so I think they’re pretty great…