Vibram Sued Over FiveFingers Claims

[Michael Orendurff]

Hello All,

I thought that perhaps our members would have an interesting discussion about this development.

Here is a link to the claim.

http://www.universalhub.com/files/vibram-complaint.pdf

Regards,

Michael Orendurff

[Edmund Cramp]

Re: Vibram Sued Over FiveFingers Claims

This is why Drew Curtis' FARK has a "Florida" tag.

I'm not a lawyer, but after reading through the complaint I'm tempted to go out and buy a pair for myself just to try them out.

You have to read all the way through the complaint to find the actual claims for the lawsuit which are basically; Untrue and Misleading Advertising, Violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and Unjust Enrichment - the first two claims pretty much come down to the complaint that there's more published work on running in shoes than on barefoot running.

The last claim - "Unjust Enrichment" - seems to mean the the plaintiff thinks the shoes are expensive ... which, given what even weekend runners are willing to pay for shoes, is going to be hard to prove.

[Robert D. Catena]

Re: Vibram Sued Over FiveFingers Claims

Interestingly, I had a student come to me wanting to study this exact topic at the beginning of the semester. When she tried to contact the company regarding any available data to support their claims they never got back to her. I told her that no response is the response I expected and this was a suit waiting to happen.

I think the document hit a lot of the major concerns: no cushioning from GRF at heel, changes in postures required for forefoot contact running style and how both increase joint stresses. A point I harp on in my gait analysis class is that a normal gait/running style adopted by a person is often one that is most efficient for that person. If they have developed one that uses shoes then a change will just introduce new stresses. If they have developed one that doesn't use shoes...the same thing. The body has an amazing ability to determine the biomechanics needed to be most efficient and avoid injury. Anything that alters the bodies plan after it has developed should be met with skepticism.

[iblack22]

Re: Vibram Sued Over FiveFingers Claims

To my knowledge a bare uncushioned leather sole sometimes with simple straps around the foot and ankle to hold it in place constituted the footwear for most of human-kind's history on the planet. The Vibram Fivefingers concept is more aligned with the footwear of antiquity and represents a shift towards a more organic fit. Humans survived and thrived (otherwise we wouldn't all be here to discuss this) through the ages without the aid of the modern running shoe. Nature has as much a high-tech prerequisite for the human foot as it does for the naked human hand.

[Eric Fahlgren]

Re: Vibram Sued Over FiveFingers Claims

Humans survived and thrived (otherwise we wouldn't all be here to discuss this) through the ages without the aid of the modern running shoe.

Are you employed by Vibram? We also survived and thrived without modern antibiotics, but that doesn't mean I want to return to the "good old days."

[Mike Duffey]

Re: Vibram Sued Over FiveFingers Claims

I think there is merit at times for the idea of looking at the simpler systems and solutions of our history, but I do agree that the blanket statement, "We didn't have it back then" or "survived without it", etc should be avoided. More specifically to this discussion, we were not running on paved surfaces until quite recently, so we need to keep our current reality in mind.

Additionally, as a non-lawyer, I think one of the points of the lawsuit is that the only thing mentioned was how the shoes would be better for us. There was never any mention about how injury risk could increase depending on the user and how they were integrated to training programs.

[Ross Miller]

Re: Vibram Sued Over FiveFingers Claims

Quotes from a quick look over Vibram's website on barefoot running (http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/edu..._running.htm):

- (Soft surfaces) force us to use more of the muscles in our feet and ankles to compensate for the lack of regularity
- The softer the surface, the less likely you are to land lightly and with the most compliance.
- (Concerning the vertical GRF impact peak in heel-toe running) This transient force is an unnecessary force that we inflict on the body by utilizing a heel striking form.
- Over time this impact transient force becomes magnified and it has been believed to contribute to injury.
- With proper Barefoot form the force curve has a smooth line indicating a natural transfer of energy to and from the body.
- Over striding while forefoot or midfoot striking requires you to point your toe more than necessary, adding stress to the calf muscles, Achilles tendon, and the arch of the foot.
- Running in Vibram FiveFingers requires a significant increase in lower leg and foot strength.
- There is ample evidence that training without shoes allows you to run faster and farther with fewer injuries.


I would be interested in hearing other's opinions on them, or seeing evidence for/against. I agree with a few but have a hard time with others. Regardless of their accuracy, there are some interesting biomechanical questions in there. In particular:

(1) Is the impact force magnified over time? How would you assess this? There have been several papers recently on impact peaks in joint moment calculations and whether they are real or artifacts of data processing.

(2) Do impact peaks (or a lack of impact peaks) alter energy transfers within the body?

Ross

[Michael Orendurff]

Re: Vibram Sued Over FiveFingers Claims

First, it is disappointing that a suit like this was filed. The law firm is looking for class action status, and perhaps this will not be granted. Being sued is one sign you are successful.

The basis of the suit is about the claims that Vibram has made in marketing the shoes and the lack of scientific evidence to support these claims. Consumers bought the shoes based on the allegedly false claims. There is no mention in the suit that the Vibram shoes cause injury.

It is important to note that the evidence that cushioned, elevated heel, arch-support, motion control or stability running shoes are effective in reducing injury is also poorly supported by scientific literature(Richards et al. 2009; Ryan et al. 2011). However, the companies making these traditional running shoes have not made the pain relief, injury prevention or strengthening claims that Vibram has made in their marketing efforts. Vibram might be correct in these assertions, but they might lack the rigorous (peer-reviewed) scientific evidence to defend themselves against the lawsuit.

A similar action against Reebok (Shape-Ups) resulted in a $25 million settlement paid to the US Federal Trade Commission over false claims. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ettle-ftc.html

Maybe barefoot running made early humans die young? Early hominids rarely lived past 35 years of age during most of our evolution. Only in the last ~40,000 years has the ratio of old (30+ years of age) to young adults (~15 years of age) increased substantially to about 2:1(Caspari and Lee 2004). However, the data points from the fossil record are extremely sparse, leaving much to interpretation and speculation(Minichillo 2005).

This period, about 40,000-50,000 years ago, coincides with an increase in the rate of development for humans (the great leap forward(Diamond 1999)), perhaps due to the “grandmother theory”(Hawkes 2003). The theory is that older people living longer helped the transfer of accumulated knowledge to the next generation, accelerating our developmental trajectory. Or, just helped take care of the kids. Grandparents at 30 might have been the norm.

Perhaps all that barefoot running caused injuries that made some individuals more attractive prey? I can just hear the predators talking, “Hey, dude, go after the one who is limping!”

References
Caspari, R. and S. H. Lee (2004). Older age becomes common late in human evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101(30): 10895-10900.
Diamond, J. (1999). Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Humans Societies. New York City, W. W. Norton.
Hawkes, K. (2003). Grandmothers and the evolution of human longevity. Am J Hum Biol 15(3): 380-400.
Minichillo, T. (2005). Paleodemography, grandmothering, and modern human evolution: a comment on Caspari and Lee (2004). J Hum Evol 49(5): 643-645; discussion 646-649.
Richards, C. E., P. J. Magin and R. Callister (2009). Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence-based? Br J Sports Med 43(3): 159-162.
Ryan, M. B., G. A. Valiant, K. McDonald and J. E. Taunton (2011). The effect of three different levels of footwear stability on pain outcomes in women runners: a randomised control trial. Br J Sports Med 45(9): 715-721.

[Marco Mendoza]

Re: Vibram Sued Over FiveFingers Claims

From what I've read so far, I haven't seen one statement from Vibram that was misleading to the customer filling the lawsuit. It's all semantics, especially in the judicial world.
Can Vibram's product give all the benefits like barefoot running? No question about it, if there is an adequate body type and preparation before, during and after running with these shoes.
As a consumer, it was her job to do the proper research on the product - why not spend a little more and go for a bigger brand? oh wait, impossible to win a case against Nike or Adidas!
If you are a traditional heel-strike runner, or barefoot runner, or current forefoot runner it will take time to adjust - just like wearing any new pair of shoes. It's a matter of either changing your running mechanics or simply breaking in the new pair of running shoes. Can anyone wear this product and become an efficient runner? Probably not. It requires a very specific set of "conditions" that will allow it.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of products that are not FDA approved, yet they are available for anyone to buy. How is this an exception?

Marco Mendoza

[iblack22]

Re: Vibram Sued Over FiveFingers Claims

Are you employed by Vibram? We also survived and thrived without modern antibiotics, but that doesn't mean I want to return to the "good old days."

You're right, we have no choice but to live in the here-and-now. However, that doesn't mean aspects of what you refer to as "the good old days" are without merit (i.e. just because antibiotics are good doesn't mean Vibram shoes are bad.) In fact, there are plenty of instances where so-called "modern technology" have been shown to be a detriment to natural human ability. Now be honest: do you know the phone numbers of your friends and family members by heart or do you rely on your cell phone to look those numbers up and make the call? (When I was a kid, if you didn't know the number by heart or have it written down somewhere, you weren't calling anyone,) Would you be able to spell words like "receive," "accommodation," "rendezvous" one your own without Microsoft word or some other auto-spellchecker from prompting you with the correct spelling? Maybe so - my point is that there are instances when technology, when brought to bear on natural systems, actually weakens those systems. The cell phone, the spell-checker, I would argue serve as "tech-crutches" - they enhance our efficiency while making us dumber. I would argue, on the basis of the overwhelming evidence that human beings lived effectively on the planet without the aid of the modern running shoe, that the modern running shoe therefore represents yet another example of a "tech-crutch." The Vibram five-finger, in my simple view, represents a step away from the crutch concept and closer to Nature's concept.

BTW - if I was promoted to full-time at "Vibram & Co.", I might be able to get you a pair at a discount price. Unfortunately, I'm only part time, actually really part time (at 0% actually....)

[Cory Hofmann]

Re: Vibram Sued Over FiveFingers Claims

I think the 'lawsuit-happy' state that America is in is highly disappointing, but that is another topic of discussion.

Marco - In my opinion, there is a vast difference between 'breaking in' a new pair of shoes and entirely changing one's running mechanics. You also mention that there is no question Vibram's product can provide all the benefits of barefoot running, but therein lies the problem. No one is disputing that FiveFingers are a realistic representation of barefoot running. The issue is, whether barefoot running actually provides the 'benefits' of which you speak (and they claim).

A point that I think deserves to be made about this entire barefoot running debate relates to the endurance running hypothesis. To chase prey into heat exhaustion, it would require a very long and slow persistant chase. It is likely that the speeds at which these hunters ran were much slower than the paces at which modern day recreational or competitive athletes are running. I don't think it is a controversial statement to say that the kinematics/kinetics/muscle activity of running can vary significantly over a range of speeds. I believe that most injuries occur when individuals try to run faster or further than their musculoskeletal system is capable, a deviation from the slow, plodding style that we likely evolved to do. Maybe it is this deviation, moreso than foot strike pattern, that is also playing a significant role in the high injury rates amongst runners? Afterall, there are elite athletes who do not get injured with a variety of foot strike and kinematic running patterns. Maybe these athletes have simply won the genetic lottery, or perhaps they have determined the optimal conditions for their bodies to minimize injury and maximize performance?

This is an interesting debate, and one very relevant to me as a biomechanist and a runner. I look forward to hearing more thoughts from the community.

-Cory Hofmann

[Michael Orendurff]

Re: Vibram Sued Over FiveFingers Claims

From what I've read so far, I haven't seen one statement from Vibram that was misleading to the customer filling the lawsuit. It's all semantics, especially in the judicial world.
Can Vibram's product give all the benefits like barefoot running? No question about it, if there is an adequate body type and preparation before, during and after running with these shoes.
As a consumer, it was her job to do the proper research on the product - why not spend a little more and go for a bigger brand? oh wait, impossible to win a case against Nike or Adidas!
If you are a traditional heel-strike runner, or barefoot runner, or current forefoot runner it will take time to adjust - just like wearing any new pair of shoes. It's a matter of either changing your running mechanics or simply breaking in the new pair of running shoes. Can anyone wear this product and become an efficient runner? Probably not. It requires a very specific set of "conditions" that will allow it.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of products that are not FDA approved, yet they are available for anyone to buy. How is this an exception?

Marco Mendoza

Here is a section from the suit that details the claims allegedly made by Vibram that mislead the consumer:

=========================================
“42. Regardless of the medium used, Defendants’ advertisements and marketing for FiveFingers convey to consumers that by running in FiveFingers, consumers will reap significant “health benefits,” more so than through running in conventional running shoes. These purported “health benefits” include but are not limited to:
(a) Improved foot health;
(b) Reduced risk of injury;
(c) Strengthened muscles in feet and lower legs;
(d) Stimulated neural function improving balance, agility and range of motion;
(e) Improved spine alignment;
(f) Improved posture;
(g) Reduced lower back pain; and
(h) Improved proprioception and body awareness.

43. As set forth herein, however, Defendants know or should know that there is no scientific evidence proving that running in FiveFingers will provide these benefits in any greater degree than running in conventional running shoes.”
================================================== ====

Does any BIOMCH-L member know of published scientific papers that support any of these claims?

Perhaps these shoes do all these things, but there is not yet any published peer-reviewed research. It takes time to produce a publication, and maybe these papers are just in the pipeline.

Michael Orendurff

[Ton van den Bogert]

Re: Vibram Sued Over FiveFingers Claims

Does any BIOMCH-L member know of published scientific papers that support any of these claims?

There were a few papers by Robbins, about 20 years ago, Pubmed will find them with this link and this link. Michael Orendurff discussed some of this on Biomch-L in March of 2010, and there were some responses posted as well. Biomch-L was still on LISTSERV at that time, so the responses are somewhat hard to find. Easiest is to type "barefoot running" in the Biomch-L search box.

The work by Robbins led to considerable debate at the time. The research was criticized very strongly in a Letter to the Editor in MSSE by Ned Frederick and Peter Cavanagh (link). Robbins, in turn, suggested that this criticism was motivated by conflict of interest of scientists who are funded by shoe companies (link).

I just wanted to make sure that we are not redoing the same debates without knowing the (long) history of this topic.

Ton van den Bogert

[Joseph Munaretto]

Re: Vibram Sued Over FiveFingers Claims

You make great points. In addition, hunters were not jogging on repetitive concrete or asphalt. The were likely jogging over highly variable surfaces, most of which have more forgiving compliant properties (which also would likely change kinematics).

Forefoot striking on grass is not the same as forefoot striking on concrete. The current quasi-barefoot running fad (of which I am sometimes a part of) of pounding pavement is a new phenomenon with new biomechanical questions.

[Marco Mendoza]

Re: Vibram Sued Over FiveFingers Claims

I understand what's being said, and perhaps I wasn't too clear about it.
You can probably "prove" Vibram's claims with the right study under the right set of conditions (i.e. elite athletes, experienced forefoot runners) - an endorsement often sought by these companies regardless that such "benefits" can only be obtained by few, but their product will be bought by many more as consequence of a "scientific" seal of approval.
This doesn't mean that any Jane/John Doe can simply lace the shoes up and become a proficient runner with these shoes and style of running, and get the "benefits" claimed. The burden lays on both.