draft proposed BRS standard for minimal running shoes PLEASE WEIGH IN

[stomper]

Hey guys,

In another thread (click here) TJ expressed her desire for creating a meaningful standard for minimal running shoes, and I said, why the heck wait?

Now on one hand I don't really care. I am getting a lot of of running barefoot (really) right now. No corporation can ever take that from me. But on the other hand it is driving me crazy that there are all these shoes out there that say they are "barefoot shoes." I want some clarity out there, and we the grassroots practitioners of this art, have the credibility and the direct knowledge to set a good standard before Ugg boots are being described as "barefoot trainers".

So here is my draft. I have relied heavily on Last Place Jason's "open letter to shoe manufacturers" and thrown in some of my own opinions. Please comment and change this accordingly. In fact I would love it if someone else wanted to take over this and become the editor of this thing.

---

PROPOSED BRS STANDARD FOR MINIMAL RUNNING SHOES VERSION 0.1

by Stomper, thieving a lot from Last Place Jason

1. PURPOSE.

1a. The purpose of a minimal running shoe is to protect the foot from cuts, punctures, and elements like heat or cold, and no more.

1b. The shoe should not impede the movement or flexibility of the foot in any way. The shoe should allow the foot to use all its musculature and strength, including the grasping and splaying actions of the toes.

1c. The shoe should not provide any structural support or restraint for the movement of the foot.

2. DESIGN DETAILS COMPATIBLE WITH THIS PURPOSE.

2a. The sole must be thin, completely flat, and flexible. The sole should not curve.

2b. The heel must not be raised.

2c. There should be no cushioning.

2d. The toe box must be wide enough to allow the toes room to wiggle and grasp.

2e. The upper must be very flexible.

3. CHARACTERIZATION AND MARKETING.

3a. Product names, description, and marketing should not state or imply that wearing these shoes is identical to going barefoot. For example using the word "barefoot" in the product name is unacceptable, while saying "barefoot-like" in a product description would be acceptable.

copyright BRS 2010! not for sale or appropriation by corporate interests!

---

So there you have it. Chew away!

 

[Blind Boy]

It's a great start but

It's a great start but knowing marketing people and designers I think it needs a lot more detail. I've got nothing to add though, at least not at this point.

 

[stomper]

I didn't want to make it so

I didn't want to make it so specific it dictated a type of shoe, but I did want to make a strong statement about purpose and marketing. Right now a lot of the minimalist shoes out there would probably fit this definition (vff's, huaraches, etc.). Some would fail because of design (some, at least, of the Nike free's). Some would fail because of their product names (VivoBarefoot). I personally think the Characterization and Marketing section is key, because it's marketing that's causing a lot of the confusion.

 

[Barefoot TJ]

I've sent you that email,

I've sent you that email, Stomper. Thanks for taking this on. I'd like to add the final version to the library, so you may want to create another book for it when the time comes.

I honestly must admit, I don't think I have read Jason's letter you referenced above. I remember when he put that together "over there." I will find the time though.

This is a great start! Since this may be an on-going prohject for a little while, I will sticky it.

 

[Barefoot TJ]

It will be hard to convince

It will be hard to convince Terra Plana to change the name of their "Barefoot" line of shoes, such as those in the recent review & buyer's guide.

 

[Abide]

I vote for 4mm or less in

I vote for 4mm or less in sole thickness...

 

[Barefoot TJ]

All qualifying minimalist

All qualifying minimalist shoes should be able to roll into a tight ball in the palm of your hand.

 

[Blind Boy]

stomper: My thoughts exactly.

stomper: My thoughts exactly. A thought that struck me is that maybe an approval program would be in order. It's a huge undertaking though and I don't know anything about US law so I don't know how you'd go about setting one up if you had the resources. The thing that worries me is that if it's one-sided, as in the shoe manufacturers say they follow the standard but we don't do anything to check them the definition of what actually follows the standard will most likely expand incrementally for each new shoe they release.

 

[Barefoot TJ]

Yes, we will have to have

Yes, we will have to have some checks and balances in place. This project requires a panel, and I've sent some names to Stomper of people whom I hope will help out.

 

[stomper]

Barefoot TJ wrote:It will be

It will be hard to convince Terra Plana to change the name of their "Barefoot" line of shoes, such as those in the recent review & buyer's guide.

Well, we have no control over what companies name their products. But we do know that there is a major confusion in the media about what barefoot means. A simple standard for minimal shoes, IMHO, must acknowledge in a very minor way, that wearing shoes and going barefoot are not the same. I know this steps on that brand's toes (and hey, personally I would love some of their shoes for wearing around town) but names like that just contribute to the confusion. IMHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHO! (groveling)

 

[stomper]

For the record, I am

For the record, I am NOT taking this on as an editor or coordinator. (My duties with the ever-growing Library preclude that ) I just wanted to stir the pot some.

I would love for somebody else to take it over. Or just let it stick here for a while and generate comments and see what happens.

I'm not sure an approval process is necessary, blind boy. It sounds cumbersome and expensive. It might be that a clever copyright statement or open source license would be enough. Perhaps there are some "open source" standards from the computing world that might be good examples.

 

[Abide]

Barefoot TJ wrote:All

All qualifying minimalist shoes should be able to roll into a tight ball in the palm of your hand.

Haha that's a good one.

Also they should be in plain colors as not to draw attention.

 

[Barefoot TJ]

Agreed.  Unless they are hot

Agreed. Unless they are hot pink. :tongue:

 

[Nyal]

Define flexible, raised heel,

Define flexible, raised heel, and thin. 4 mm is too thin. How much raising is OK? How flexible?

 

[Barefoot TJ]

Flexible, as in you can roll

Flexible, as in you can roll it onto a tight ball in your hand, not just the letter C.

A shoe without a raised heel will have no elevation from one end to the other.

We need to investigate the acceptable thickness of the sole. (Invisible Shoes has huaraches with 4, 6, and 10mm Vibram rubber soles.)

 

[Nyal]

I am not liking this list. I

I am not liking this list. I have begun to incorporate sandals as footwear. I can't roll either pair up, one gets as thick as 1 cm, and half a cm lift on the heel. They both fit the first definitions.

 

[Nyal]

How would this sandal

How would this sandal fare?

http://lunasandals.com/Latest_LunaSM.jpg

 

[Nyal]

Here are the sandals I

Here are the sandals I converted into running sandals: http://www.yc-ladies.com/beachers-strand-flip-flops-vodka-martini-P6253.html

How are those not minimal?

 

[Blind Boy]

I think sole thickness is a

I think sole thickness is a secondary concern, flexibility and width of the toe box are more important. I don't think any shoe with a sole thicker than a centimeter is going to qualify though. For instance, I don't think Ted's Leadville Lunas qualify and from what I gather they're not really designed a minimal shoe either. The goal was to make the Leadville course bearable so they're not exactly intended to give a lot of ground feedback, quite the opposite.

Anyway, minimal is minimal. In my mind the purpose of a minimal shoe is to provide exactly the right amount of protection for the conditions at hand while retaining as much ground feedback as possible. At some point it stops being minimal even if it's the most minimal design possible for the conditions at hand though. The Leadville Lunas seem to be an example of this, IMO. Ted's intentionally sacrificed ground feedback for a little added protection. The upper is still as minimal as it gets more or less but still, it's on the edge of what would be acceptable in my mind in terms of sole thickness. Just because we slap a label on a shoe saying it's minimal doesn't mean that it's any good, really, and just because a shoe doesn't qualify doesn't mean it's useless.

Nyal: I'd say the sandals you show are definitely minimal in the uppers, you can't get much more minimal than a flip-flop after all, but the soles are a lot thicker than they need to be for normal conditions. Like I said, just because it doesn't fit the standard doesn't mean it's useless.

 

[Barefoot TJ]

Perhaps we should define the

Perhaps we should define the standard in terms of a "shoe that does not alter the biomechanics of the runner," as in no motion control, no arch support, no padding, no heel, no gel pads and air holes, etc.

Nyal, that's what this thread is for. It's just a first attempt at ironing out what is to be considered minimal, so we're all on the same page, and hopefully as close to the same paragraph as we can be.

Let's work this out, everyone. All input is welcome. And if need be, later, when we have more feedback to go on, we can create polls to asks spefific questions about exact attributes of a minimalst shoe, and if you all think a particular attribute should be considered minimalist or not, and if so, define that attribute even further, thickness, weight, etc.