Submited on: 10 Mar 2013 03:01:58 AM GMT
Published on: 11 Mar 2013 01:10:57 PM GMT
Barefoot?
Posted by Mr. Ken B Saxton on 29 Mar 2013 02:42:22 PM GMT

Whether or not barefoot running makes one faster, is greatly dependent on taking the time to learn, or (in the case of most westerners) re-learn how to run efficiently. 

 

The main advantage of barefoot running as a teaching tool, is the immediate and emphatic feedback (Think of it as bio-feedback - or "feetback") from our very sensitive soles that moderate how abusively we run. In doing so, over time, one learns to run much more efficiently, since less energy is being expended injurying the body than in propelling us forward.

 

Has it occured to anyone else reading this article that none of these subjects were actually "barefoot"?

  • competing interests: Co-author: Barefoot Running Step by Step (2011). Horrible blisters covering the tops of both feet in my first marathon (the only one I wore shoes in) making it impossible to run in shoes for two weeks. 79 marathons barefoot since, with no debilitating injuries.
  • Invited by the author to make a review on this article? :
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Running barefoot for more than half a century. Racing barefoot in my fastest races in my mid-40s and beyond. Actively training others to teach themselves to run more efficiently through barefoot running since 1997 through the Original Running Barefoot website (BarefootRunning.com).

  • Publications in the same or a related area of science: No
  • References: None
 
Report abuse
 
Dear Mr. Saxton, I completely agree with your comments. Oh...that hindsight would have placed you as the subject to run barefooted, with sandals, with shoes at each of the 3-speeds then taken heart rates immediately following 27-different times to determine the effect running shod or unshod on your heart rate... Should you elect to self-test the above, I am one of many who would be interested in seeing your results as an additional comment added to this column. Thank you, Bill Misner Ph.D. {Emeritus}
Responded by Dr. Bill Misner on 29 Mar 2013 04:19:58 PM
Affect/Effect
Posted by Mr. Brandon Cooper on 22 May 2013 08:02:28 PM GMT

According to the Chicago Manual of Style (5.220, “Glossary of Problematic Words and Phrases”), "Affect, almost always a verb, means to influence, have an effect on... Effect, usually a noun, means "outcome, result". This is also in The Elements of Style in the section on commonly misused words and phrases.


Unfortunately, your use of "effects", both in the title and in the text, is incorrect.

  • Invited by the author to make a review on this article? :
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science: None
  • Publications in the same or a related area of science: No
  • References: None
 
Report abuse
 
Dear Mr. Cooper, "Effect" is usually a noun, [but not always, according to the Chicago Manual of Style] and is defined as "outcome or result." Merriam-Webster states, Effect is "Something that inevitably follows an antecedent (as a cause or agent)." In that light "Percent of Maximum Heart Rate" was associated with 3-separate timed runs at 3-different rates of speed using 3-separate running shod or running sandals. The 3 X 3 X 3 "Causes" or "Agents" were associations properly described as "Effects." Perhaps your interpretation of the Chicago Manual of Style is written in stone...mine is not. Respectfully submitted, Bill Misner PhD {Emeritus}
Responded by Dr. Bill Misner on 23 May 2013 09:38:22 PM