stomper
Guest
PROPOSED BRS STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS FOR RUNNING SHOES, VERSION 0.2
Ok, people, thank you for all the responses to version 0.1. Before I get to the text of version 0.2, I would like to suggest a few axioms and ground rules. Explaining these will take a lot more space than giving the actual 0.2 text, but I feel it is time to set some boundaries so we can develop a more focused and useful standard.
WHY ARE WE WRITING A RUNNING SHOE STANDARD?
The main reason we are writing a running shoe standard is not because there is anything right or wrong with particular shoes. Indeed, my personal belief is that many of the currently available minimal shoes are fine products.
Rather, we are attempting to clarify the CONFUSION in the media and marketing environment and among runners. Notably, there is a huge amount of interest in running differently and running barefoot right now, and media and marketing is creating much confusion by equating wearing particular shoes with going barefoot.
We, the people that actually run barefoot and/or in minimal shoes, know that there is a big difference between going barefoot and wearing any shoes at all. Yes, shoes can be useful and good at times, but there are no shoes that are the same as barefoot. If people win races or get injured in minimal shoes, “barefoot running” should not be to blame.
Beyond that, we feel like there are “minimal” shoes that provide much of the barefoot experience, and “reduced” shoes that provide some of the barefoot experience. We'd like to get a bit clearer about how such shoes can function.
WE'VE GOT TO KEEP IT SIMPLE
Since the main problem is confusion among runners, my strong impulse is that we need to keep it simple and clear. The consensus so far is that we need to define barefoot, minimalist, and reduced. Let's stick with that.
There is no need to define traditional running shoes, in my opinion. They are any running shoe that is not barefoot, minimalist, or reduced.
TAKE A CHILL PILL PEOPLE
Understand that whatever standard we come up with, your favorite pair of shoes may not qualify. If it doesn't that doesn't mean you're a bad person or not a real barefoot runner or whatever.
HOW CAN THIS STANDARD BE USED??
I think it's pretty important to have a clear idea of what we can do with this standard.
The standard will merely be a piece of text, but the BRS will hold the copyright to it.
In my opinion, the primary value of this text will be in education and publicity. That means it should be freely available to average readers and easy to find. Once we have the standard, we can publish it on the web site, send it out in press releases, etc., and use it to combat the confusion in the media environment... for example, when the NY Times contacts us, as TJ says it recently has. We can give anyone we want permission to reproduce the text in an editorial or noncommercial context.
Our copyright and license statement (for example, Creative Commons Noncommercial-No Derivatives-Attribution) should prohibit blatant commercial uses of it (e.g. by shoe companies in marketing) without separate permission.
Now I know that there has been some discussion of a licensing/certification program for shoes themselves, so that shoes could be labeled a “BRS minimal shoe” or whatever. That is about a billion times more complicated than writing a standard. Personally I don't think we should get into it; I think we'd be more credible without it. But nothing that I've suggested so far would prohibit the BRS from creating such a program.
For the time being, let's focus on creating a good standard, and leave any licensing/certification program on the back burner.
CRITERIA
There are various ways the standards or criteria could be written. They could be very broad and open to interpretation, speaking just of the purposes of the footwear. Or they could be extremely technical, defining measurements and materials.
I think we need to be careful with technical specifications. Minimal shoes are clearly an evolving field and we wouldn't want to discourage any kind of innovation, or attempt to “dictate” a type of shoe. Remember, the primary purpose of this standard, in my opinion, is education and clarification for average runners. We have no clue what actual shoe manufacturers are going to do. The best way to influence them, in my opinion, is to say what we really feel rather than try to adapt to their worldview.
One other type of criteria might be relevant. If the main problem in the field is confusion, then product characterization and marketing may need to be addressed. That means some of the big manufacturers in the field of minimal shoes might not qualify. It seems harsh, because truly they make some fine products, but really when shoe names include the word “barefoot” and when product brochures say things like “join the barefoot revolution” they are probably just sowing confusion. This is my opinion, of course, so please, do debate it. But at the current time I have included some criteria about marketing. Feel free to slash it out.
There is one type of criteria I believe we should avoid. I think we should avoid making any health claims, positive or negative, about any type of footwear or lack thereof. Of course you may have those opinions, and they may be absolutely correct, but they don't need to be in a description of running shoes.
TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS
To illustrate the difference between two different approaches to writing criteria, I have written both short and long versions of version 0.2.
Version 0.2a is short, and sticks to principles.
Version 0.2b is long, and includes technical details.
AND FINALLY
Personally I am a barefoot running enthusiast. I haven't loved any of the shoes I've tried. I have written these texts so far because I'm a professional writer and editor and am used to doing this kind of synthesis.
But I really don't want to be in charge of this. Will someone please step up and take over this project?
Thank you!
Stomper.
AND NOW, DRUM ROLL PLEASE...
BRS STANDARDS FOR RUNNING SHOES, VERSION 0.2A
THE SHORT VERSION
1. BAREFOOT means wearing nothing on your feet. This allows the maximum sensation and feedback from the environment. Shoes may be useful or necessary at times, but they are never equivalent to going barefoot.
2. MINIMAL RUNNING SHOES are shoes whose only purpose is only to protect the runner's feet from cuts, punctures, and elements like heat or cold. They allow a detailed feedback from the ground. Their product name, description, and marketing does not state or imply that wearing these shoes is identical to going barefoot. Stating a similarity (e.g. “barefoot-like”) is acceptable.
3. REDUCED RUNNING SHOES are shoes whose primary purpose is to protect the runner's feet from cuts, punctures, and elements like heat or cold, and whose secondary purpose is to provide a small amount of cushioning. They provide a generous amount of feedback from the ground. Their product name, description, and marketing does not state or imply that wearing these shoes is identical or similar to going barefoot.
copyright Barefoot Runners Society 2010, licensed under the Creative Commons NonCommercial-NoDerivations-Attribution License.
BRS STANDARDS FOR RUNNING SHOES, VERSION 0.2B
THE LONG VERSION
1. BAREFOOT means wearing nothing on your feet. This allows the maximum sensation and feedback from the environment. Shoes may be useful or necessary at times, but they are never equivalent to going barefoot.
2. MINIMAL RUNNING SHOES are shoes:
a) whose only purpose is only to protect the runner's feet from cuts, punctures, and elements like heat or cold.
b) which allow a detailed amount of feedback from the ground, for example, allowing the discernment of individual twigs and pebbles.
c) which do not support or impede the movement or flexibility of the foot in any way.
d) which allow the sole to transmit nearly all of its movement to the ground, including the grasping and splaying actions of the toes.
e) which have design details compatible with these purposes, for example:
1) a thin, flat, and flexible sole, easily rollable in an “O”
2) no difference in height between the heel and toe
3) X [fill it in] mm or less of sole and cushioning
4) a toe box wide enough for toes to wiggle and grasp.
f) whose product name, description, and marketing do not state or imply that wearing these shoes is identical to going barefoot. Stating a similarity (e.g. “barefoot-like”) is acceptable.
3. REDUCED RUNNING SHOES are shoes:
a) whose primary purpose is to protect the runner's feet from cuts, punctures, and elements like heat or cold, and whose secondary purpose is to provide a small amount of cushioning.
b) which provide a generous amount of feedback from the ground.
c) which do not support or impede the movement or flexibility of the foot in any significant way.
d) which allow the foot to use all its musculature and strength, including the grasping and splaying actions of the toes.
e) which have design details compatible with these purposes, for example:
1) a thin, flat, and flexible sole, easily rollable in an “C”
2) no difference in height between the heel and toe
3) X [fill it in] mm or less of sole and cushioning
4) a toe box wide enough for toes to wiggle and grasp.
f) whose product name, description, and marketing do not state or imply that wearing these shoes is identical or even similar to going barefoot.
copyright Barefoot Runners Society 2010, licensed under the Creative Commons NonCommercial-NoDerivations-Attribution License.
Ok, people, thank you for all the responses to version 0.1. Before I get to the text of version 0.2, I would like to suggest a few axioms and ground rules. Explaining these will take a lot more space than giving the actual 0.2 text, but I feel it is time to set some boundaries so we can develop a more focused and useful standard.
WHY ARE WE WRITING A RUNNING SHOE STANDARD?
The main reason we are writing a running shoe standard is not because there is anything right or wrong with particular shoes. Indeed, my personal belief is that many of the currently available minimal shoes are fine products.
Rather, we are attempting to clarify the CONFUSION in the media and marketing environment and among runners. Notably, there is a huge amount of interest in running differently and running barefoot right now, and media and marketing is creating much confusion by equating wearing particular shoes with going barefoot.
We, the people that actually run barefoot and/or in minimal shoes, know that there is a big difference between going barefoot and wearing any shoes at all. Yes, shoes can be useful and good at times, but there are no shoes that are the same as barefoot. If people win races or get injured in minimal shoes, “barefoot running” should not be to blame.
Beyond that, we feel like there are “minimal” shoes that provide much of the barefoot experience, and “reduced” shoes that provide some of the barefoot experience. We'd like to get a bit clearer about how such shoes can function.
WE'VE GOT TO KEEP IT SIMPLE
Since the main problem is confusion among runners, my strong impulse is that we need to keep it simple and clear. The consensus so far is that we need to define barefoot, minimalist, and reduced. Let's stick with that.
There is no need to define traditional running shoes, in my opinion. They are any running shoe that is not barefoot, minimalist, or reduced.
TAKE A CHILL PILL PEOPLE
Understand that whatever standard we come up with, your favorite pair of shoes may not qualify. If it doesn't that doesn't mean you're a bad person or not a real barefoot runner or whatever.
HOW CAN THIS STANDARD BE USED??
I think it's pretty important to have a clear idea of what we can do with this standard.
The standard will merely be a piece of text, but the BRS will hold the copyright to it.
In my opinion, the primary value of this text will be in education and publicity. That means it should be freely available to average readers and easy to find. Once we have the standard, we can publish it on the web site, send it out in press releases, etc., and use it to combat the confusion in the media environment... for example, when the NY Times contacts us, as TJ says it recently has. We can give anyone we want permission to reproduce the text in an editorial or noncommercial context.
Our copyright and license statement (for example, Creative Commons Noncommercial-No Derivatives-Attribution) should prohibit blatant commercial uses of it (e.g. by shoe companies in marketing) without separate permission.
Now I know that there has been some discussion of a licensing/certification program for shoes themselves, so that shoes could be labeled a “BRS minimal shoe” or whatever. That is about a billion times more complicated than writing a standard. Personally I don't think we should get into it; I think we'd be more credible without it. But nothing that I've suggested so far would prohibit the BRS from creating such a program.
For the time being, let's focus on creating a good standard, and leave any licensing/certification program on the back burner.
CRITERIA
There are various ways the standards or criteria could be written. They could be very broad and open to interpretation, speaking just of the purposes of the footwear. Or they could be extremely technical, defining measurements and materials.
I think we need to be careful with technical specifications. Minimal shoes are clearly an evolving field and we wouldn't want to discourage any kind of innovation, or attempt to “dictate” a type of shoe. Remember, the primary purpose of this standard, in my opinion, is education and clarification for average runners. We have no clue what actual shoe manufacturers are going to do. The best way to influence them, in my opinion, is to say what we really feel rather than try to adapt to their worldview.
One other type of criteria might be relevant. If the main problem in the field is confusion, then product characterization and marketing may need to be addressed. That means some of the big manufacturers in the field of minimal shoes might not qualify. It seems harsh, because truly they make some fine products, but really when shoe names include the word “barefoot” and when product brochures say things like “join the barefoot revolution” they are probably just sowing confusion. This is my opinion, of course, so please, do debate it. But at the current time I have included some criteria about marketing. Feel free to slash it out.
There is one type of criteria I believe we should avoid. I think we should avoid making any health claims, positive or negative, about any type of footwear or lack thereof. Of course you may have those opinions, and they may be absolutely correct, but they don't need to be in a description of running shoes.
TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS
To illustrate the difference between two different approaches to writing criteria, I have written both short and long versions of version 0.2.
Version 0.2a is short, and sticks to principles.
Version 0.2b is long, and includes technical details.
AND FINALLY
Personally I am a barefoot running enthusiast. I haven't loved any of the shoes I've tried. I have written these texts so far because I'm a professional writer and editor and am used to doing this kind of synthesis.
But I really don't want to be in charge of this. Will someone please step up and take over this project?
Thank you!
Stomper.
AND NOW, DRUM ROLL PLEASE...
BRS STANDARDS FOR RUNNING SHOES, VERSION 0.2A
THE SHORT VERSION
1. BAREFOOT means wearing nothing on your feet. This allows the maximum sensation and feedback from the environment. Shoes may be useful or necessary at times, but they are never equivalent to going barefoot.
2. MINIMAL RUNNING SHOES are shoes whose only purpose is only to protect the runner's feet from cuts, punctures, and elements like heat or cold. They allow a detailed feedback from the ground. Their product name, description, and marketing does not state or imply that wearing these shoes is identical to going barefoot. Stating a similarity (e.g. “barefoot-like”) is acceptable.
3. REDUCED RUNNING SHOES are shoes whose primary purpose is to protect the runner's feet from cuts, punctures, and elements like heat or cold, and whose secondary purpose is to provide a small amount of cushioning. They provide a generous amount of feedback from the ground. Their product name, description, and marketing does not state or imply that wearing these shoes is identical or similar to going barefoot.
copyright Barefoot Runners Society 2010, licensed under the Creative Commons NonCommercial-NoDerivations-Attribution License.
BRS STANDARDS FOR RUNNING SHOES, VERSION 0.2B
THE LONG VERSION
1. BAREFOOT means wearing nothing on your feet. This allows the maximum sensation and feedback from the environment. Shoes may be useful or necessary at times, but they are never equivalent to going barefoot.
2. MINIMAL RUNNING SHOES are shoes:
a) whose only purpose is only to protect the runner's feet from cuts, punctures, and elements like heat or cold.
b) which allow a detailed amount of feedback from the ground, for example, allowing the discernment of individual twigs and pebbles.
c) which do not support or impede the movement or flexibility of the foot in any way.
d) which allow the sole to transmit nearly all of its movement to the ground, including the grasping and splaying actions of the toes.
e) which have design details compatible with these purposes, for example:
1) a thin, flat, and flexible sole, easily rollable in an “O”
2) no difference in height between the heel and toe
3) X [fill it in] mm or less of sole and cushioning
4) a toe box wide enough for toes to wiggle and grasp.
f) whose product name, description, and marketing do not state or imply that wearing these shoes is identical to going barefoot. Stating a similarity (e.g. “barefoot-like”) is acceptable.
3. REDUCED RUNNING SHOES are shoes:
a) whose primary purpose is to protect the runner's feet from cuts, punctures, and elements like heat or cold, and whose secondary purpose is to provide a small amount of cushioning.
b) which provide a generous amount of feedback from the ground.
c) which do not support or impede the movement or flexibility of the foot in any significant way.
d) which allow the foot to use all its musculature and strength, including the grasping and splaying actions of the toes.
e) which have design details compatible with these purposes, for example:
1) a thin, flat, and flexible sole, easily rollable in an “C”
2) no difference in height between the heel and toe
3) X [fill it in] mm or less of sole and cushioning
4) a toe box wide enough for toes to wiggle and grasp.
f) whose product name, description, and marketing do not state or imply that wearing these shoes is identical or even similar to going barefoot.
copyright Barefoot Runners Society 2010, licensed under the Creative Commons NonCommercial-NoDerivations-Attribution License.
