Forums >General Running>Barefoot/Minimalist Shoe Running Clinic in Grand Rapids, Michigan
Good Bad & The Monkey
Maybe for some people. I never had any arches to collapse. I was born that way and they have always been flat. My Dad is 80 and spent most of his life in shoes that had no support and has also always had no arches.
Right. So for the tiny number of people who have feet as yours, all that technology may do some good. Most people however do not have that problem and there is no result that the technology does anything.
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
gotta say, using your eyes to avoid pebbles/sticks while running on trails is nearly impossible.\
Right. Which is why there are minimalist shoes. However, many people around the world and throughout history did just fine with barefeet on pebbles and sticks.
I think that certain kinds of feet need certain kinds of shoes. If that were not true, someone would have proven it by now.
How do you prove a negative.
I never said it was not possible. I am a researcher and we have to prove the negative all the time. However, it takes special procedures and huge sample to do right. Huge sample requires huge resources. Do you think a shoe company is gonna shell out huge bucks to try and prove their technologies don't help? The NIH has plenty of other places to spend its money. So, without resources, how ya gonna prove the negative?
MTA: cool website, infidels.org is!
jfa
Sorry! I meant; Joe the Flash! ;o)
Thanks Nobby!
I never said it was not possible. I am a researcher and we have to prove the negative all the time. However, it takes special procedures and huge sample to do right. Huge sample requires huge resources. Do you think a shoe company is gonna shell out huge bucks to try and prove their technologies don't help? The NIH has plenty of other places to spend its money. So, without resources, how ya gonna prove the negative? MTA: cool website, infidels.org is!
You only need enough data to show it is statistically significant. Obviously the more data the better (Law of Large Numbers). I am a mathematician, so I know to look at peer reviewed articles rather than what some stupid company gimmick is trying to tell me.
Right. You need a tight confidence interval around your point estimate. How tight is tight enough to ensure no difference? Plus you need to factor in all confounders, which adds to your sample size need.
(I knew you were a mathmetician )
Imminent Catastrophe
But you're not really proving a negative, you're just amassing overwhelming data to show that it is not statistically supportable, right? Not the same thing, mathematically.
"Able to function despite imminent catastrophe"
"To obtain the air that angels breathe you must come to Tahoe"--Mark Twain
"The most common question from potential entrants is 'I do not know if I can do this' to which I usually answer, 'that's the whole point'.--Paul Charteris, Tarawera Ultramarathon RD.
√ Javelina Jundred Jalloween 2015
Cruel Jewel 50 mile May 2016
Western States 100 June 2016
As far as capabilities of barefoot and minimalist shoe running, there are runners that have done some extraorinary feats in both conditions...There are runners that have put up sub 2:50 marathons and others that accumulate 120+ miles per week. Barefoot running, once conditioned properly, does not limit running ability.
You forgot the guy who ran 42km through pebble stone streets of Rome and won Olympic gold medal in then world record time of 2:15.
I am not sure I understand. Statistics really is never about proof, but when the statistics are consistent and overwhelmingly appear to reject chance, then we usually take it as proof (or at least as evidence).
Queen of 3rd Place
Yahbutt in statistics the available tests are designed to be conservative about rejecting something old. Nobody has tried to develop tests to minimize the chance of incorrectly rejecting something new, as far as I know. Perfesser has this changed or does anyone talk about this among you math guys? The bio nerds aren't, which bugs me..
And. We have yet to hear from someone who has tried to reduce their big shoe habit with a bad outcome.
Full personal/anecdotal disclosure: It was just this morning that I realized that I no longer hobble out of bed, not even for a step or two. The PF is gone, completely.
Ex runner
Proof! I take points away from student who use any version of the word prood in their term papers!!
But for you, well, you get extra credit for having big calves.
It almost sucks (key word: almost) that are feet have been made accustomed to wearing some kind of shoe that we think we can't run with shoes. the place i was talking about has an abundance of poison ivy, so i think i would stick to at least socks. sore feet while getting used to it, okay. poison ivy, not okay. I think it would be very hard to run while scratching.
Sulphur Springs 50km-- Ancaster, ON-- May 28, 2022
Tally in the Valley 12 hours-- Dundas, ON -- July 30, 2022 (Support SickKids Toronto)
Stokely Creek-- 56km-- Sault Ste. Marie, ON-- Sept. 24, 2022