Running barefoot > running shoes

have fun this winter.

0/10.

What works for you doesnt work for the everyday hobby jogger. Well cushioned shoes are what people have been asking from shoe companies since the 1970s.

Plus

http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/03/29/vibram-sued-over-fivefingers-claims/

there are other people who arent sharing your success.

Running As a Hobby wrote:

What works for you doesnt work for the everyday hobby jogger. Well cushioned shoes are what people have been asking from shoe companies since the 1970s.

Eh? People have been brainwashed by advertising to "ask for" $100+ pieces of rubber to attach to their feet at all hours ... and that proves what? People ask for Coke and Pepsi too - that doesn't make those drinks in any way superior to H2O. Unless you're a dentist with boat payments.

Running As a Hobby wrote:

Plus

http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/03/29/vibram-sued-over-fivefingers-claims/

there are other people who arent sharing your success.

Where does this link contradict the benefits of BAREFOOT running?

Most people probably should not transition to 55 mpw barefoot in just a few months (feet need longer to rehab from shoes), but your stated objections are beside the point.

I don't know. I don't see too many people around here running barefoot. And with winter on the way (and routine -40s) I don't think barefoot is the way to go.

Yes, there are benefits of running barefoot. I wont deny that. But it is a little to extreme for some people. The other day I had a customer complaining about how there was one of those 'barefoot runners' who wore his finger shoes to work and would not shut up about how amazing it was.

Plus you see more elite runners in a basic training shoe, because there is actual science put into the shoe. It's not some rubber glove for your foot to run in like your barefoot shoe.

Seriously you barefoot people are just annoying. You read a book about barefoot running and now youre brainwashed about it.

Running As a Hobby wrote:

Seriously you barefoot people are just annoying. You read a book about barefoot running and now youre brainwashed about it.

I run barefoot because 20 years of shin splints and ITBS disappeared just as soon as I got rid of the shoes and inserts. (And, yeah, I'm not in Minnesota. I'd probably wear SoftStars in the Minnesota winter)

I'm not trying to change your mind. I am trying to offer an option to injured runners, and to correct any misinformation, such as equating running in VFFs with running barefoot.

You should absolutely do what works for you. But I'm amazed at how many of my real-life running friends endure chronic injury, and how many others post right here on letsrun that they are "desperate" ... but won't consider trying barefooting.

Now THAT'S brainwashed.

Elite runners wear shoes because they're paid to.

In my opinion, barefoot is awesome training and therapy (also post-workout). I've gone from heel striker to middfoot striker via a self administered dose of barefoot. I have very little grass without dog poo around, so I ran short bits on pavement, and a concrete 300m track. Worked up to about 1-2km per workout max. The rest on water shoes (flimsy rubber sole). those workouts remained short, but fixed my technique nicely. Speed work barefoot is most interesting. Did a few 600's on concrete. You feel very much in touch with life that way.

SPEED, I am not sure barefoot is perfect for that. However, the addition of barefoot training may take minute of a runner's 5k who always wore racing flats (still heel striking) in races and trained in stupid thick heeled trainers.

I wear light-ish racing flats for warm-up and distance now. Barefoot is more for a midfield cooling own. I've learned how to run, don't feel much necessity to keep learning that way. I once had the plan to work up to 10k barefoot races, but have since lost the point of such an exersize. I want to be fast, and now that I know how to run, all that stands in my way is mileage.

Keeping some barefoot in your routine seems smart though. Even on the track. In my country there's a sub-2'00 800m student. He doesn't wear shoes running any distance. And seems to do fine. IMO light shoes (that don't suck) are faster, but by no means necessary to be quick. Being quick barefoot though takes a lot of work.

This is a little off topic, does anybody know if Vibram will be venturing into the bed market? I want all the benefits that my ancestors had when they slept on more natural surfaces. My brain is free from washing.

It just occurred to me that there probably is a group of people that forgo modern beds. A intellectual group that lectures the minions all day long about the health benefits of sleeping on dirt.

What is your 5K PR? You can run faster with light flats than barefoot, especially in a race setting.

Barefoot and minimal is awesome to run naturally. But really only if you are running on natural surfaces.

Asphalt ain't what our ancestors persistence hunted on. And unfortunately, 90% of runners do not have access to trails/grass for every run.

I am sticking to my Nike Pegs when it is 30F, dark, and 5am this winter and trying to put in 90-100mpw.

Running As a Hobby wrote:

Yes, there are benefits of running barefoot. I wont deny that. But it is a little to extreme for some people. The other day I had a customer complaining about how there was one of those 'barefoot runners' who wore his finger shoes to work and would not shut up about how amazing it was.

Plus you see more elite runners in a basic training shoe, because there is actual science put into the shoe. It's not some rubber glove for your foot to run in like your barefoot shoe.

Seriously you barefoot people are just annoying. You read a book about barefoot running and now youre brainwashed about it.

Rofl SCIENCE? Behind a conventional running shoe? Prove it. There is NO science behind heel cushioning and motion control. There IS science behind barefoot running and its benefits over conventional trainers.

Barefoot people are annoying. Sure. But you have to understand where they get this perspective. Why do you think you feel so fast and light when you put spikes on? Because more than likely they're ZERO drop with little to no heel just like barefoot running.

Now imagine you can get a shoe like this but without the annoying spikes. Perhaps a Vibram, Vivobarefoot, or plain naked feet. You FEEL fast. The only people that dont get this concept are the ones like yourself who have no idea how to run without motion control and heel cushioning.

Your ankles are so weak, muscles so atrophied that you cant even run in your native skin. How pathetic is that?

Thats a pretty good idea. You should write a book about it.

I almost missed the part where you said "you see more elites in trainers"

You dumb puck.

You see them in trainers because they're SPONSORED. I'm quite positive you don't see them when they're off camera. How devastating would it be to the shoe company like Adidas if they see their athlete wearing no shoes to train in? That's why you'll NEVER see an elite/professional running barefoot regularly.

BTW, don't even try that argument that this proves barefoot running is for slow people. The reason people who run barefoot rarely run fast enough to get national attention is twofold.

Those fast enough don't want to defy conventional norms and decide to run in light trainers.

Those who DO run purely barefoot do so because they have been crippled with injuries all their life from conventional shoes. Not exactly the natural talent necessary to be a world class runner.

No no no. This does work for the everyday hobby jogger, it works for everyone. You have to gradually increase the amount of barefoot running like I said.

My 5k pr is 16:06. I believe that now that I have done my first few intervals barefoot, that I can take at least another 15-20seconds off my time. It's all about shock absorption and allowing your feet and legs to get stronger by taking all the impact. Thus naturally correcting your running form like I said. It takes time, probably a few weeks to go fully into barefoot running. Then you can do over 100mpw barefoot. Don't be fooled by running shoes and runners who use them.

I've run in the ultra-cushioned Asics Nimbus for years now. I missed three DAYS of running in college due to injury (only one that can be attributed to my shoes). My form is pretty efficient. I've missed one day of post-collegiate running (two years now) because of injury...due to a rolled ankle while trail running.

I'm not saying running barefoot doesn't work, but it's not practical for people living somewhere where this isn't a big flowery meadow or golf course where no one minds if people run on it. And yes, enjoy running barefoot in the snow this winter.

I'm sticking to what works for me.

You should write a book about how we were born to run this way. You are really onto something.

There is no science in shoes. Pronation doesn't cause injury; motion control doesn't control motion:

http://www.time-to-run.com/footwear/mechanisms.htm

Shoes are a heavily advertised fashion item. I'm all for breaking the myth that running shoe designs are based on evidence, but...

There is also little or no evidence that running barefoot reduces injury rate:

http://www.japmaonline.org/content/101/3/231.short

Running "naturally" is bunk. "Running backward" is a thing, can't get much more unnatural. Are those folk a walking injury? How about dancing? Is the body evolved for that? If not, should I avoid dancing? Basketball? Wheelchair cycling?

Wear what you like, whether it's thick shoes, thin shoes, or nothing. Just don't do too much, too soon.

body master wrote:

You see them in trainers because they're SPONSORED. I'm quite positive you don't see them when they're off camera. How devastating would it be to the shoe company like Adidas if they see their athlete wearing no shoes to train in? That's why you'll NEVER see an elite/professional running barefoot regularly.

You think that, if less shoe was better, a shoe company wouldn't put their logo all over a pair of socks, or the rest of an athlete's attire, and have them train for and run a world record? Nike would find a way to market that.

No, it makes way more sense to have a conspiracy theory that involves ALL athletes (even those from third world countries, who don't start with shoes, and have the talent to be world-beaters, and have minimal sponsorship) wearing shoes because the shoe companies "force" them to, even though running without them would allow them to run faster...

In addition, all of the shoe companies must be in collusion together, to determine the "least" shoe that they will sell. Otherwise, why wouldn't one company just create a more minimalist shoe, and then win all the events at the Olympics/World Champs, since less shoe = faster running?

Furthermore, you think that all of the athletes in the world are more concerned with their shoe contract than they are with participating in and/or winning on the world stage? That athletes CHOOSE to be SLOWER so that they can receive their (in most cases piddly) shoe contract?

You think that a guy like Geb, or Hall, who is worth plenty of money without a shoe company sponsorship, and especially someone like Geb who spent YEARS pursuing world records, would wear shoes even if it made them slower?

Comical.

Big shoes are probably dumb. No shoes is probably dumb. Enough shoe to protect you from the world and the rigors of training while keeping you healthy and letting your feet work probably makes sense.

Why bother running in any modern equipment? Clearly, we were born to run naked or in a loincloth, right?