Last Place Jason wrote:2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: a noob here but from what I've been able to find so far:
On Jason's point above, I found that all current minimal shoes that I have tried have what I consider to be a significant flaw. These include the traditional plimsoll (from before the cushiony clunker era), the TP Evo II and the new Merrell Trail Glove etc.. The problem for me is extremely easy to demonstrate. I may only have ~3 month BF running of late but I have 46 years very occasional BF walking in simple situations (like most of us really - padding about the house etc.). If it affects something walking then it will running too.
Different people land their feet in various ways when walking but for me:
I always land without even thinking about it on my pads when walking BF on a hard flat surface. Simple socks do not affect this. If I put any kind of shoe that I've tried so far then it does something affecting form that (usually does something like) make my heel clip the ground and we get the familiar slap. Repeat this slap over hours of walking and that's bad enough but just think of the energy you're wasting overcoming that flaw to run properly. For non running shoes I can add, for example, the TP Aqua's to this category (although, strangely, they are less slappy if you use really thick socks but then of course you start to take away ground feel & they may make your feet too hot).
If you are going to have a "barefoot" shoe then I would like to see a category that passes this simple test. The "barefoot" shoe should not alter the landing mechanics at all, the foot aspect, tendon and bone geometry should stay the same as you walk. If it does not affect these things then there's a chance it will allow you to get as close to "barefoot" when running as barefoot.
If a shoe affects my walking then I find the effect is amplified if I compare BF running to using that particular shoe. It just feels wrong, I have to try & compensate for what the shoe is doing to overcome its flaws. I don't want that.
I'm guessing that LP Jason is referring to shoes like the new Merrell Trail Glove above. As a noob to BF running I still have to take great care with my form and so I mostly don't bother with shoes on my runs. I wanted a shoe for a back up. Obviously you want to test out your back up. It took me 3 attempts to get the Trail Glove shoes to feel like they are heading in the right direction (form wise). I feel that I have to force my form on it because it is affecting my form otherwise. I consider this to be an issue. The Trail Gloves are perhaps great for LP Jason as a fantastically experienced runner but I felt these things would just lead me into trouble particularly if I use them as a back up when tired & at risk of duff form anyway.
BTW; LP Jason & everyone, thanks for all the fab' information you have put out there. Wonderful stuff. :grade:
Hope I'm not getting too big for my (BF) boots diving in here. :smile:
I am curious to see how huaraches affect me in "the test". I will try them at some point, soon I hope.
I think I know the what the "significant flaw" is caused by with the shoes I've tried but I need to do a bit of physics to test my theory out before I make a complete fool of myself telling you! I expect some shoe companies already know the problem too. Failing finding a problem myself, there will still be a problem of course. "Barefoot" shoes can be designed to do the job we all want to see done, I'm guessing that there must be some resulting aesthetic issue that the marketing people will try to veto.
Last Place Jason said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: a noob here but from what I've been able to find so far:
On Jason's point above, I found that all current minimal shoes that I have tried have what I consider to be a significant flaw. These include the traditional plimsoll (from before the cushiony clunker era), the TP Evo II and the new Merrell Trail Glove etc.. The problem for me is extremely easy to demonstrate. I may only have ~3 month BF running of late but I have 46 years very occasional BF walking in simple situations (like most of us really - padding about the house etc.). If it affects something walking then it will running too.
Different people land their feet in various ways when walking but for me:
I always land without even thinking about it on my pads when walking BF on a hard flat surface. Simple socks do not affect this. If I put any kind of shoe that I've tried so far then it does something affecting form that (usually does something like) make my heel clip the ground and we get the familiar slap. Repeat this slap over hours of walking and that's bad enough but just think of the energy you're wasting overcoming that flaw to run properly. For non running shoes I can add, for example, the TP Aqua's to this category (although, strangely, they are less slappy if you use really thick socks but then of course you start to take away ground feel & they may make your feet too hot).
If you are going to have a "barefoot" shoe then I would like to see a category that passes this simple test. The "barefoot" shoe should not alter the landing mechanics at all, the foot aspect, tendon and bone geometry should stay the same as you walk. If it does not affect these things then there's a chance it will allow you to get as close to "barefoot" when running as barefoot.
If a shoe affects my walking then I find the effect is amplified if I compare BF running to using that particular shoe. It just feels wrong, I have to try & compensate for what the shoe is doing to overcome its flaws. I don't want that.
I'm guessing that LP Jason is referring to shoes like the new Merrell Trail Glove above. As a noob to BF running I still have to take great care with my form and so I mostly don't bother with shoes on my runs. I wanted a shoe for a back up. Obviously you want to test out your back up. It took me 3 attempts to get the Trail Glove shoes to feel like they are heading in the right direction (form wise). I feel that I have to force my form on it because it is affecting my form otherwise. I consider this to be an issue. The Trail Gloves are perhaps great for LP Jason as a fantastically experienced runner but I felt these things would just lead me into trouble particularly if I use them as a back up when tired & at risk of duff form anyway.
BTW; LP Jason & everyone, thanks for all the fab' information you have put out there. Wonderful stuff. :grade:
Hope I'm not getting too big for my (BF) boots diving in here. :smile:
I am curious to see how huaraches affect me in "the test". I will try them at some point, soon I hope.
I think I know the what the "significant flaw" is caused by with the shoes I've tried but I need to do a bit of physics to test my theory out before I make a complete fool of myself telling you! I expect some shoe companies already know the problem too. Failing finding a problem myself, there will still be a problem of course. "Barefoot" shoes can be designed to do the job we all want to see done, I'm guessing that there must be some resulting aesthetic issue that the marketing people will try to veto.
stomper
Guest
thanks for the input,
thanks for the input, piggy.
i know i promised to write another draft of this, but my mind has been going through some gyrations on the subject so i've been holding off.
Though I'm pretty diehard about running BF, even I occasionally wear shoes to run, like maybe 3% of the time. And some of these new minimal ones look nice. Great.
But personally, my main issue with the whole thing remains the way that in marketing and media, "barefoot running" has been made equivalent to "minimal shoe running". It is definitely not, and a lot of our chatter here on the site concerns what the differences are and if they relate to injuries. For example, several recent threads mention heel striking by VFF wearers.
I definitely think this is an issue the BRS should be raising with the running public -- but I am not sure if a shoe standard is the best place to do it.
Thoughts?
thanks for the input, piggy.
i know i promised to write another draft of this, but my mind has been going through some gyrations on the subject so i've been holding off.
Though I'm pretty diehard about running BF, even I occasionally wear shoes to run, like maybe 3% of the time. And some of these new minimal ones look nice. Great.
But personally, my main issue with the whole thing remains the way that in marketing and media, "barefoot running" has been made equivalent to "minimal shoe running". It is definitely not, and a lot of our chatter here on the site concerns what the differences are and if they relate to injuries. For example, several recent threads mention heel striking by VFF wearers.
I definitely think this is an issue the BRS should be raising with the running public -- but I am not sure if a shoe standard is the best place to do it.
Thoughts?
When I get some free time,
When I get some free time, hopefully in the next few weeks, I plan to visit this all over again.
When I get some free time, hopefully in the next few weeks, I plan to visit this all over again.
I don't think that my input
I don't think that my input would change the required text much. I think that if a manufacturer wants to refer to their shoe as "barefoot" or "barefoot like" etc. then it should pass the simple walking test I mention (but perhaps define this a little better). This could be made even less open to question (i.e. something like) - any shoe that fits into the "barefoot" category should not affect the aspect, position, tension or force required in any part of the foot, including during any use (such as at rest) to enter its natural state unaided or to perform its natural function.
(e.g.) This would rule out things like a toe spring. There is a reason for adding a toe spring. It's (typically) to correct the other things that your shoe does that results in toes not being where they should be (especially when the foot is off the ground).
I think that this simple requirement in my last sentence above (top para') rules out every shoe that I've tried except perhaps huaraches (which I tried this morning). I don't see the manufacturers going for it but that is no reason for the BRS not to stick by its principals. Shoes that don't pass this criteria can still be "minimalist" but they are not "barefoot like" IMHO, in particular for beginners.
As soon as a company picks up on how they can make a shoe to get the BRS "barefoot like" stamp of approval it will put pressure on the other companies to do the same. Job done.
I don't think the huaraches need be the only shoe that can "pass". I'm sure that there are some I've not tried that would pass already, I just can't afford to try 'em all. Ultimately there is a design flaw in most minimalist shoes that are jumping on the barefoot bandwagon. The manufacturers need to solve the problem, not just make claims and drown people with marketing "spin".
I plan to write up what I've found in a paper or something but that may take a long time, I need to get some runs in :wink:
I don't think that my input would change the required text much. I think that if a manufacturer wants to refer to their shoe as "barefoot" or "barefoot like" etc. then it should pass the simple walking test I mention (but perhaps define this a little better). This could be made even less open to question (i.e. something like) - any shoe that fits into the "barefoot" category should not affect the aspect, position, tension or force required in any part of the foot, including during any use (such as at rest) to enter its natural state unaided or to perform its natural function.
(e.g.) This would rule out things like a toe spring. There is a reason for adding a toe spring. It's (typically) to correct the other things that your shoe does that results in toes not being where they should be (especially when the foot is off the ground).
I think that this simple requirement in my last sentence above (top para') rules out every shoe that I've tried except perhaps huaraches (which I tried this morning). I don't see the manufacturers going for it but that is no reason for the BRS not to stick by its principals. Shoes that don't pass this criteria can still be "minimalist" but they are not "barefoot like" IMHO, in particular for beginners.
As soon as a company picks up on how they can make a shoe to get the BRS "barefoot like" stamp of approval it will put pressure on the other companies to do the same. Job done.
I don't think the huaraches need be the only shoe that can "pass". I'm sure that there are some I've not tried that would pass already, I just can't afford to try 'em all. Ultimately there is a design flaw in most minimalist shoes that are jumping on the barefoot bandwagon. The manufacturers need to solve the problem, not just make claims and drown people with marketing "spin".
I plan to write up what I've found in a paper or something but that may take a long time, I need to get some runs in :wink:
Trying to label a shoe
Trying to label a shoe "minimalist" could enable a broad spectrum of criteria. Runningwarehouse lists a bunch of shoes that they consider to be minimal but in my 5+ years of being minimal/BF I would contend that their choices of shoes are just a bunch of warmed over pillows because of the noticeable heel lift. ANY shoe, whether a huarache, Vibram, TP, whatever you call it, would just delay/diminish the feedback you would get from the ground. There will probably never be a shoe that can give you the sensation and freedom of true barefoot.
Vibrams have become more streamlined with their marketing (hype???) and I have noticed a slight thickening of the sole/midsole/insole areas. I have an older pair of Classics that are so thin that I can feel grains of sand and molecules...the Bikila line is like a full on training shoe when you compare them back to back. That said, the Vibrams are probably the most minimal of the minimalist shoe trend. Even something as good as the Merrells (which I hope to get), the Saucony Hattori (which I have) and the NB Minimus (I have the Trail) have more than 2-4 times the stack height of any of the Vibram line. That stack height, while much less than say a Mizuno Wave Musha, is still quite substantial.
Nevertheless, I agree with the criterion for version 0.2. Flexibility, no arch bridges/supports/dodads, no drop from heel to forefoot and low stack height make for a great shoe for when you can't run fully BF...but I hope that those days are few and far between.
Johnny
Trying to label a shoe "minimalist" could enable a broad spectrum of criteria. Runningwarehouse lists a bunch of shoes that they consider to be minimal but in my 5+ years of being minimal/BF I would contend that their choices of shoes are just a bunch of warmed over pillows because of the noticeable heel lift. ANY shoe, whether a huarache, Vibram, TP, whatever you call it, would just delay/diminish the feedback you would get from the ground. There will probably never be a shoe that can give you the sensation and freedom of true barefoot.
Vibrams have become more streamlined with their marketing (hype???) and I have noticed a slight thickening of the sole/midsole/insole areas. I have an older pair of Classics that are so thin that I can feel grains of sand and molecules...the Bikila line is like a full on training shoe when you compare them back to back. That said, the Vibrams are probably the most minimal of the minimalist shoe trend. Even something as good as the Merrells (which I hope to get), the Saucony Hattori (which I have) and the NB Minimus (I have the Trail) have more than 2-4 times the stack height of any of the Vibram line. That stack height, while much less than say a Mizuno Wave Musha, is still quite substantial.
Nevertheless, I agree with the criterion for version 0.2. Flexibility, no arch bridges/supports/dodads, no drop from heel to forefoot and low stack height make for a great shoe for when you can't run fully BF...but I hope that those days are few and far between.
Johnny
According to Wikipedia, the
According to Wikipedia, the first marathon was run in 1896 in Greece (one month before the Olympic games). In contrast, I am not able to determine when the first half-marathon was run. The half marathon is an unfortunate name for a distance race. Compare that name with other race names – 5K, 10K, Mile, 1600 meter, Marathon… then there’s the HALF marathon. Apparently one half as good as a marathon... By comparison we don’t have the HALF 10K, we have the 5K. But the half marathon can’t stand on its own. It will forever be subservient to the marathon – its name-sake.
Where did the term “minimal shoe” originate? Was it from the shoe manufacturers? I don’t know the answer, but if we dissect the phrase, we may come to the conclusion that a minimal shoe is something less than a shoe, with the term “less” meaning “not as good” – like a “half-marathon” not as good as a Marathon.
The Barefoot Running Society believes that a “minimal shoe” is better than a shoe, and that barefoot is the best of all. Based on that logic, I like the term “barefoot shoe”. Barefoot is the "best", the starting point, the origin. "Barefoot shoe" is a tool that depends on the existence of barefoot. I suggest that the BRS define a standard for different levels of “barefoot shoe”. For example, a sock coated with plasti-dip (my personal favorite) might be classified as a barefoot shoe level 1. VFF might be barefoot shoe level 2. Merrell trail gloves might be level 3 and so on. Perhaps a range is established that goes from barefoot shoe level 0 (barefeet) up through barefoot shoe level 10 (army boots). This new standard could be called BSL system (Barefoot Shoe Level). This system allows for expansion – suppose a shoe is created that is more shoe-like than VFF (BSL 2) and less shoe-like than Merrells (BSL 3) – a decimal system would allow the new shoe to be rated at BSL 2.5 . The definition of BSL 1 might be: flexible sole, toes able to move independantly and splay. BSL 2 might have a small heel lift - less than 2 mm. Continue to define BSL 3, etc
The term Barefoot Shoe also tends to verbally unite the wearer of such a device to the Barefoot person by using the word “barefoot”, as opposed to barefoot vs. minimal shoe, which creates more of a dichotomy.
According to Wikipedia, the first marathon was run in 1896 in Greece (one month before the Olympic games). In contrast, I am not able to determine when the first half-marathon was run. The half marathon is an unfortunate name for a distance race. Compare that name with other race names – 5K, 10K, Mile, 1600 meter, Marathon… then there’s the HALF marathon. Apparently one half as good as a marathon... By comparison we don’t have the HALF 10K, we have the 5K. But the half marathon can’t stand on its own. It will forever be subservient to the marathon – its name-sake.
Where did the term “minimal shoe” originate? Was it from the shoe manufacturers? I don’t know the answer, but if we dissect the phrase, we may come to the conclusion that a minimal shoe is something less than a shoe, with the term “less” meaning “not as good” – like a “half-marathon” not as good as a Marathon.
The Barefoot Running Society believes that a “minimal shoe” is better than a shoe, and that barefoot is the best of all. Based on that logic, I like the term “barefoot shoe”. Barefoot is the "best", the starting point, the origin. "Barefoot shoe" is a tool that depends on the existence of barefoot. I suggest that the BRS define a standard for different levels of “barefoot shoe”. For example, a sock coated with plasti-dip (my personal favorite) might be classified as a barefoot shoe level 1. VFF might be barefoot shoe level 2. Merrell trail gloves might be level 3 and so on. Perhaps a range is established that goes from barefoot shoe level 0 (barefeet) up through barefoot shoe level 10 (army boots). This new standard could be called BSL system (Barefoot Shoe Level). This system allows for expansion – suppose a shoe is created that is more shoe-like than VFF (BSL 2) and less shoe-like than Merrells (BSL 3) – a decimal system would allow the new shoe to be rated at BSL 2.5 . The definition of BSL 1 might be: flexible sole, toes able to move independantly and splay. BSL 2 might have a small heel lift - less than 2 mm. Continue to define BSL 3, etc
The term Barefoot Shoe also tends to verbally unite the wearer of such a device to the Barefoot person by using the word “barefoot”, as opposed to barefoot vs. minimal shoe, which creates more of a dichotomy.
Well, I enjoyed reading that,
Well, I enjoyed reading that, Toe. Well thought out. Now we just need someone to spearhead this thing, take the reigns to make sure a standard gets developed, one that the majority of us present agree to. Any volunteers?
Years ago, over at "that other forum" of which I started as well :innocent:, we knew we needed to all be on the same page when speaking about the footwear that was being marketing toward runners who no longer cared for the traditional running shoes to avoid confusion, and so we* adopted the following terminology:
Traditional Running Shoes (TRS): Defines your typical boat anchors, foot coffins, etc., such as ASICS Kayanos, Brooks Beast, Saucony Grid Ignitions, etc.
Reduced Running Shoes (RRS): Defines those shoes that "think" they are much less than TRS, but are still more like TRS than they want to believe, such as Nike Frees.
Minimal Running Shoes (MRS): Defines those shoes that are truly minimal in nature, such as the VFFs, water shoes/aqua socks, huaraches, cotton socks, etc.
*The "we" in this case being me, Jason, Victor, and Greg.
It's nice to see everyone using the same minimalist footwear term, or the new flavor, "minfootwear" as someone over here suggested recently. (Sorry, I can't remember who.)
Well, I enjoyed reading that, Toe. Well thought out. Now we just need someone to spearhead this thing, take the reigns to make sure a standard gets developed, one that the majority of us present agree to. Any volunteers?
Years ago, over at "that other forum" of which I started as well :innocent:, we knew we needed to all be on the same page when speaking about the footwear that was being marketing toward runners who no longer cared for the traditional running shoes to avoid confusion, and so we* adopted the following terminology:
Traditional Running Shoes (TRS): Defines your typical boat anchors, foot coffins, etc., such as ASICS Kayanos, Brooks Beast, Saucony Grid Ignitions, etc.
Reduced Running Shoes (RRS): Defines those shoes that "think" they are much less than TRS, but are still more like TRS than they want to believe, such as Nike Frees.
Minimal Running Shoes (MRS): Defines those shoes that are truly minimal in nature, such as the VFFs, water shoes/aqua socks, huaraches, cotton socks, etc.
*The "we" in this case being me, Jason, Victor, and Greg.
It's nice to see everyone using the same minimalist footwear term, or the new flavor, "minfootwear" as someone over here suggested recently. (Sorry, I can't remember who.)
