Thought you guys might like to listen:
Saw this study also, and laughed. It was funded by a company that makes "minimalist footwear".
If Nike funded a study that showed the benefits of shoes people's heads would explode on this forum.
"just more CW" "evil corporations" etc. LOL
These guys must in the pockets of Big Vibram, too, huh?
I don't know. Who funded that study Erik?
D.C.K. JKM Technologies LLC, 525 Rookwood
Place, Charlottesville, VA 22903. Address
correspondence to: D.C.K.; e-mail:
Disclosure: 1B, developed patented footwear
design used by JKM Technologies, LLC and
the OESH brand; 7B, Brooks Sports Inc.
This is the only disclosure. D.C.K is the lead author.
1.Direct Remuneration: Equity Ownership/Stock Options
B.Greater than $10,000
7. Indirect Remuneration: Grant Support for Research from Industry for Past Three Years
B.Greater than $10,000
Take that to mean what you will.
I will let you know that looking at funding and judging the value of the study is a tricky situation. For example, I worked in lung disease research and most of our work was funded by Big Pharma in some way. They did not have a say in what we studied or what we published but their funding essentially meant that they got to have any data they wanted whether it made it to being published or not.
That means that Big Pharma can fund lots of little studies collect all the little details that are unpublished and make hypotheses in order to develop drugs.
So the same possible runs true here. Does this funding mean they had a hand in shaping the data? Or that these companies can more directly reap the benefits of this new information?
Big Vibram! I knew it!
Seriously though, my initial comment stands
"If Nike funded a study that showed the benefits of shoes people's heads would explode on this forum."
Still, there's a difference. Barefoot is objectively healthier, funding aside. 2.5 million years of barefooted bipedalism (walking upright was perhaps the first marker of divergence from our apish ancestors) can't be wrong.
Nike hasn't funded a study comparing shoes to bare feet because they wouldn't like the results, and they're probably unwilling or unable to shape the data to their liking, unless you're proposing the pro-barefoot studies were flawed or fabricated. I also find it interesting that Nike itself makes a barefoot analogue - the Nike Free - that directly contradicts their conventional running shoe.
Feel free to clad your feet in impregnable coffins, though.
I get your point. People (me included) would be dubious of a Nike-funded study, simply because barefoot has been proven to be superior - whether by personal n=1 experiments, evolutionary logic, or Big Vibram-funded studies like the ones above.