05/15/2014    Don Peacock, DPM

New Zealand Podiatrist Not Surprised by Vibram Settlement

I think it’s off-putting that a company that
Vibram is under attack and is obligated to pay
out a large settlement in a class-action suit. I
use my Vibram Five Finger running shoes in my
daily walk of 30 to 60 minutes. I also sprint 8 to
10 times for 30 seconds once a week wearing these
minimalistic shoes.

I experienced some soreness when I first began to
wearing these but I have no pain at all with
exercising in these shoes after the break in
period. At first, the foot is strengthening and
adapting to the increased work just like
progressive weight training elicits. I also use
these shoes when I workout with weights and find
it safer to use than most shoes when performing
squats.

Even if the company did make false claims, it
would be no different than many other shoe
manufacturers who make their own outrageous
claims. Personal judgments need to be made when
buying shoes. We know many shoes made by the large
companies are not well designed for foot function
and yet they’re not under the gun for lawsuits.

This is a demonstration of the litigiousness
aspects of political causes and not really
designed to help the public. I am a proponent of
minimalistic shoe wear in the appropriate person.
The key is using common sense which everyone
should have enough of not to injure their foot
with any shoe. Furthermore, there are scientific
papers which have conclusions that a minimalistic
or barefoot lifestyle can be advantageous. Here
are some of these articles.

Samuel B. Shulman. "Survey in China and India of
Feet That Have Never Worn Shoes," The Journal of
the National Association of Chiropodists, 49,
1949, pp. 26-30.

Steel F. Stewart. "Footgear -- Its History, Uses
and Abuses," Clinical Orthopaedics and Related
Research, 88, 1972, pp. 119-130.

Steven E. Robbins and Adel M. Hanna. "Running-
related injury prevention through barefoot
adaptations," Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 19(2), 1987, pp. 148-156.

Don Peacock, DPM, Whiteville, NC,
peacockdpm@gmail.com

Other messages in this thread:

---

05/17/2014    Don Peacock, DPM

New Zealand Podiatrist Not Surprised by Vibram Settlement (Craig Payne)

I agree with Craig Payne and his take on the
lawsuit. His statements are completely accurate.
However, the initial story included comments by
podiatrist Simon Speight who stated "They are
consistent with harm-causing features of
footwear," he said. "Running shoes, by their very
nature of design, are there to prevent injuries
from happening and to improve performance. All of
our theories, for the most part, restrict movement
in the foot; that's what tends to help."

Dr. Speight's comments are not completely
inaccurate, however, they are not completely true
as well. It all depends on what foot type you’re
talking about. Some feet require restrictive
movement others do not. For example, a patient
with a rigid rear foot and a flexible forefoot may
do well with a stability shoe. However, a patient
with a stable rear foot and a stable forefoot may
do poorly with a stability shoe. So it really
depends on what foot type and the patient’s
current foot health is.

Remember this lawsuit did not allege any harm to
the plaintiff. The lawyers knew that trying to
blame Vibram for alleged harm would be an
unwinnable case. As Craig Payne described, the
case was settled only on the merit that Vibram
misled potential customers financially by making
unproven claims. This is something we see in many
advertisers such as workout supplements which
claim outrageous benefits.

It is my take that common sense should prevail and
the need for government involvement is absolutely
unnecessary in a case where no harm was rendered.
I’m sure that most of us have purchased shoe gear
that may have been ill fitting and after the
purchase we simply do not wear them because that
is what someone with good judgment will do.

I totally disagree with Dr. Steinberg on his
statement “I would love to see the government
investigate what shoe companies mean by a
"neutral" running shoe.”

If you look at the real science there lots of
claims even by prescription drugs covered and
approved by the government which are in fact
dangerous and their harmful effects usually
outweigh the benefits. The best judge in this
world is yourself.

Don Peacock, DPM, Whiteville, NC,
peacockdpm@gmail.com