There have been other reactions to the Foot Bone Marrow Edema after 10-week Transition to Minimalist Running Shoes study that I wrote about in Vibram Transitioning → Bone Injury.
Let’s see what they had to say.
Two of the reactions are from Dr. Nick’s Running Blog. The first, from Dr. Nick himself, is New Barefoot Running Study Did Not Follow Proposed Transition Recommendations.
He says that the runners did not follow a slow-enough transition to adapt safely. He reminds us of the 10% rule for increasing one’s amount of exercise: “If you normally run 3-6 miles then its .3-.6 miles for you first 1-2 weeks of running. Not 1-2 miles.”
He also complains that they did not use the recommendations he gave to Vibram 2 years ago.
The thing is, the study made clear that they used the transition guidelines that were on the Vibram page in 2011, so while that wasn’t what “experts” might have recommended, it was was Vibram was saying.
Dr. Nick also notes that he has a new, as-yet-unpublished study that transition 12 runners over 6 months, without injury. (Recall that the study above did it in 10 weeks.) He has a chart of that training schedule in his write-up.
One thing I disagree with in this posting is his thought that the edema seen was adaptive. The edemas were graded according to a standard grading system that is supported by the evidence (as far as I can tell). 0 is no edema, 1 is adaptive edema, and 2 and above are edemas that are occurring faster than the body can adapt. The study only counted the higher levels as injury.
The other write-up, Dr. Mark Cucuzzella’s Thoughts on the Recent Barefoot Running Study, was by (obviously) Dr. Mark Cucuzzella of the Natural Running Center.
He has quite a few points, so I won’t try to summarize them, but suggest you click over there to read it.
But once again, the gist is that they overdid it. Badly. And he also stresses the 10% rule.
The real bottom line is that a poor transition to minimal shoes can lead to injury. I think the study demonstrated that, and these two doctors make a good case for that.
However, I would also like to point out that most runners picking up a pair of toe-shoes are not going to do so under the instruction of good coaches. So it should not be surprising that we hear all these anecdotes of people getting injured. So, for instance, we had Keith Olbermann on David Letterman with a major stress fracture from a pair of Vibrams. This is an educational problem, and I strongly suspect that even the current state of the Vibram website is not enough (assuming that purchasers even look at it).
Let me point you to one more article, this one on the N. Y. Times Well Blog, Barefoot Running Can Cause Injuries, Too, accompanied by this picture:
Well Photograph “Demonstrating” Barefoot Running
OK, time for my familiar rant: these people are not barefoot. They are wearing toe-shoes, and failing to make the distinction (this goes for the doctors above, too) between minimalist and real barefoot running.
Again, when you do real barefoot running, the direct feedback from your soles can tell you when you are doing too much. Without that feedback, as with toe-shoes, it is way too easy to overdo it, particularly if you don’t have a well-documented, coached procedure that you are following.
Truly barefoot is more protective, and lets all parts of the feet condition together.
One thing we do learn in this article is that Dr. Ridge (the lead investigator on the study) has additional data that should be published soon.
From the Well article:
The results don’t mean that everyone who chooses to switch to minimal or no footwear will court foot injury, Dr. Ridge said. “But I would tell anyone who wants to try” kicking off their normal shoes, “to be extremely cautious during the transition period.” In her study, substituting a mere mile per week of normal running at the start with one in minimal shoes “was probably too much,” she says. So go slow.
This is exactly what the doctors, above, are saying, though they say it with much more specificity.
Let me wrap up by getting back to the lawsuits against Vibram. My last two posts on them are Lawsuit Against Vibram Survives Motion to Dismiss and DeFalco v. Vibram. There is some news on that front.
But first let me say that this new study may make Vibram settle. After all, they were using the Vibram webpage for their transition protocol.
The news: in Bezdek v. Vibram, the main case, the lawyers have put forth their proposed schedule for the case. They’ve allowed 300 days for discovery. (“Discovery” is where each side has to share requested information. It is where they acquire much of their evidence for what to use in trial, or a motion for summary judgment.)
But there is a twist.
The case has been stayed (legalese for “put on hold”). Here’s the reason:
On February 19, 2013, Hon. Virginia Kendall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois convened a hearing on February 19, 2013, in Defalco v. Vibram USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 12-CV-07238. At that hearing, Judge Kendall indicated that she intended to issue a written order dismissing the matter in part and thereafter transferring the case to this Court.
So, DeFalco v. Vibram will be transferred to the Bezdek court and the cases merged. The stay is in place to allow that transfer to take place. Once it happens, that 300-day clock starts.
This is a case well-worth continued watching, particularly as more studies come out.
Ahcuah 
Leave a Reply