so true… i have made huge changes in my gait by running barefoot or in vibrams… New Harvard Study Shows Advantages of Barefoot Runningby Steve Kirschner, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) According to the results of a new study from Harvard University, and published in the January 28th online edition of Nature, people who run barefoot hit the ground differently than those who wear shoes, and in doing so, lessen the impact on their bodies.
Daniel E. Lieberman, the co-author of the study and a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University said, “People who dont wear shoes when they run have an **astonishingly different strike**. By landing on the middle or front of the foot, barefoot runners have almost no impact collision, much less than most shod runners generate when they heel-strike.” By contrast, runners with shoes on tended to strike the ground with their heels, leading to an impact equivalent to two to three times their body weight, Lieberman said. This new study focused on the running gaits of shod and unshod people from the US, where most people have grown up wearing running shoes, and from Kenya, where running barefoot is still common. The research found that people who grew up running barefoot in Kenyas Rift Valley province, which is known for its endurance running champs, tended to land mostly on the front or middle of the foot when they touched ground.
Read Full Article>>
In my reading it shows no such thing. It shows that barefoot running is different from shod running and that some people run fast without shoes. That’s all. If you would have given me a research grant I could have told you that.
You are about 1 year late to the party …
And that is NOT what the “study” data revealed.
Also, even though it IS a study and it was CONDUCTED by researchers at Harvard, I don’t think Nature is a widely accepted research journal of sports scientists and experts. Get it published by either ACSM or NSCA’s research journals and then it MIGHT mean something.
Only primates should run barefoot.
I didn’t have to go to Harvard to figure out one advantage is you don’t have to buy shoes. 
Nature is the premier scientific journal in the world, save perhaps Science. To suggest that publication in ASCM would be more meaningful is silly.
I didn’t have to go to Harvard to figure out one advantage is you don’t have to buy shoes.
Fiduciary concerns of Non-shod Bipedal Locomotion is a class at Yale though 
I didn’t have to go to Harvard to figure out one advantage is you don’t have to buy shoes.
Fiduciary concerns of Non-shod Bipedal Locomotion is a class at Yale though
Now THAT was funny. Although, I know you haven’t been to New Haven now or you wouldn’t dare consider being “Non-shod” anywhere off campus grounds 
quote: people who grew up running barefoot
we don’t. they do. different adaptations, different strengths and growth, completely different data points.
Huge.
Nature is the premier scientific journal in the world, save perhaps Science. To suggest that publication in ASCM would be more meaningful is silly.
More internationally known, yes. More frequently published (weekly vs monthly), yes. More topics and categories, yes. A great potpourri of topics and great Journal, I agree.
FWIW, who is the audience and who are the peers reviewing the research? How do we know the reviewers weren’t a botanist, a climatologist, and nematologist, a biological evolutionist, and a cultural anthropologist? Their (Harvard’s) science may have been sound and convincing and that might have been why it was published.
Still, I would much rather have my CV list an article published in my above fore-mentioned journals or similar like Journal of Biomechanics that a good tri/running coach would read regularly. How many tri/running coaches read or care about Nature for their sport? Some might. Just my opinion. You publish and read yours, I’ll publish and read mine and we are all happy.
I see your point that there are many more sport science articles in sport science journals. But, it is way harder to get published in Nature and the journal is much more highly regarded. The science published in Nature has to be of very high quality. Not so much in the other journals you mention.
Scott, you’re right and I agree. Shoot, I’d give my left berry to be published in any mentioned.
You have the money and time? I have the way.
Also, even though it IS a study and it was CONDUCTED by researchers at Harvard, I don’t think Nature is a widely accepted research journal of sports scientists and experts. Get it published by either ACSM or NSCA’s research journals and then it MIGHT mean something.
in scientific publication what matters is the impact factor of the journal, which is usually to do with how widely it is read. An article in Nature is a huge achievement for any scientific team. Not some sports journal that five people read compare the impact factor!!
Nature is the premier scientific journal in the world, save perhaps Science. To suggest that publication in ASCM would be more meaningful is silly.
More internationally known, yes. More frequently published (weekly vs monthly), yes. More topics and categories, yes. A great potpourri of topics and great Journal, I agree.
FWIW, who is the audience and who are the peers reviewing the research? How do we know the reviewers weren’t a botanist, a climatologist, and nematologist, a biological evolutionist, and a cultural anthropologist? Their (Harvard’s) science may have been sound and convincing and that might have been why it was published.
Still, I would much rather have my CV list an article published in my above fore-mentioned journals or similar like Journal of Biomechanics that a good tri/running coach would read regularly. How many tri/running coaches read or care about Nature for their sport? Some might. Just my opinion. You publish and read yours, I’ll publish and read mine and we are all happy.
strange argument. In any scientific journal the reviewers that are chosen to review the articles are usually highly specialised in that particular field. The impact of a scientific articles comes from reaching a broad audience. An article to get publiched in Nature must show something that is significant to all people not some article showing marginal changes in FTP for ccyclist wearing a hat vs wearing a turban
I think this means I can run barefoot since I’m technically a primate.
You have the money and time? I have the way.
Sometimes it takes more than money and time. Even if you have a game changing idea which contradicts a scientific dogma; and data to back it up, it can get tossed because reviewers are not ready to accept it, or they may not be allowed to accept it. I would never have had this point of view until experiencing it first-hand. You are right though…time does have a way of vindicating…even if you are the only one that knows.
Stephen J
Good point. I have never tried to publish much but in my limited experience, I had that problem. And, certainly not with Nature.