My thoughts on the current “lawsuits” against barefoot running shoes made by Vibram and Adidas.
For those unaware, Adidas has now been named in a lawsuit regarding their version of the “toe shoes” called the adiPure Trainer shoes. Joseph Rocco said the $90 pair of adiPure shoes he purchased did not deliver the increased training efficiency and decreased risk of injury promised in advertisements. He claims the shoes actually increase the risk for bruising and foot damage, due to their decreased padding and other structural differences from more traditional running shoes. Rocco said he and other customers were never warned about the potential hazards and that, as a result, he suffered compound fractures after training in the shoes.
Isn’t this common sense? Or am I missing something here? For millions of years, people have functioned without shoes. Why are people now deciding to sue the manufactures if they do not see a “benefit” from the shoes. Are shoes really designed to enhance performance? If that were the case shouldn’t we have wheels with precision die cast bearings that would allow us to move extremely fast with less demand on the body? After all, following the trend it seems that the less we use our body, then the less likely we are to get injured, right?
Since March, this is now the second suit filed against a shoe company claiming that the shoes did not provide the desired health benefit and that the consumer became injured. Vibram was the first in the line of minimalist shoes to be named in a suit when Valerie Bezdek accused Vibram of inflating claims about the health benefits of barefoot running to market FiveFingers and charge a price premium over other brands.
Whatever happened to learning proper form, strengthening your foot musculature, and not blaming a shoe for failed performance. If shoes were meant to prevent injuries, why do we see plantar fasciitis, stress fractures, and numerous other foot pathologies exist in such large numbers in those wearing traditional running shoes? There are over 1 million physician visits per year with a diagnosis of plantar fasciitis. I challenge anyone to present a comparison of injuries in those wearing traditional running shoes to those wearing minimalist shoes.
If someone purchases a pair of gloves and strikes their finger while hammering a nail, are they entitled to sue the manufacturer of the glove, or should they learn how to use the hammer? Maybe Mr. Rocco and Ms. Bezdek should learn how to run first, before blaming the shoe companies. I would be more the happy to help educate them.
Dr. Nick's Running Blog 
This is like suing Fat Free food makers saying “I still got fat eating it”! Really people!?!?
Well said. Enough said.
The problem with common sense is that it is not so common.
Dr. Nick, Thank you for asking the questions that need asking! How can it be, that no one has so far sued any of the present day footwear manufacturers for their current claims? Vibram and Adidas produce footwear closer to resembling natural foot archictecture than has existed in my lifeteme, and they are being sued? Incredible! Abominable!
This is very different from the ridiculous claims of the rocker sole people.
I am standing with you on this Dr. Nick.
Ray McClanahan
@Ray, the rocker sole people have been sued also. One of the ‘leading’ companies MBT in Europe has gone into administration and is gone.
The irony about all of this is that the VFF sellers shouted down traditional running shoes as being the devil that caused injury by pointing at cushioned soles, gel pods, supportive uppers etc. yet they (the barefoot community) are now falling foul of the same exaggerated advertisement claims.
The focus should be on the lack of knowledge or rather the pereption of ‘know-it-all’ knowledge that was gained from reading a book that led to the explosion of barefoot running without any consideration for the adaptations that are needed in the body.
And like I keep telling people, barefoot running is not for everybody just the same as highly cushioned structured runnign shoes are not for everybody. Each individual must take responsibility for their own body and not believe advertising claims.
Extremely well said! I also wonder if someone can sue a shoe company if they didn’t purchase directly from the manufacturer. As we all know, you have to train correctly in Vibrams in order to avoid hurting yourself. If the shoe salesman who sold her those shoes didn’t tell her, how can she sue Vibram? You can go to their website and find educational information, for goodness sakes. She just didn’t do enough research, and doesn’t want to be blamed.
I agree largely with the sentiment that people should use their brains and act like grown-ups over this. The lawsuits do seem a bit pathetic. On the other hand – I also support the notion that if an advertiser makes a claim about their product and it fails that claim then they can and should be penalised. Regardless of the case here, shouldn’t all such claims about shoes etc. be robust enough to withstand such a challenge?
‘Am I missing something?”
You missed something!
Nice blog BTW.
The main problem with barefoot running and barefoot running footgear is that although we have been walking and running with similar foot arcihitecture for millions of years concrete has only been around for a hundred or so years.
So my first point is that our feet have become accustomed to hard flat surfaces, but my second point is more pertinent – running on concrete barefoot, or in barefoot shoes, is not natural.
Declaration – I’m a Podiatrist – but open-minded!