RUNNER'S World makes me wanna jump off a bridge!

[AABarefoot]

anyone see the recent issue with the 24 shoe review in it? the one that "includes barefoot shoes"??



Their minimal selection? Nike Free 2.0, Reebok ReelFlex, and a pair of VFF Bikilas. What a crock of.... poo! gets me so mad. ok, venting over. there was a half decent article about running cadence, but of course they fail to mention that you cant do 180bpm if you heel strike... or maybe you can. cant say ive tried it.

 

[Longboard]

RW has it's place, like maybe

RW has it's place, like maybe the PWI Classic thread in their Barefoot & Minimalist on-line forum.

Other than that they are pro-shoe for very good rea$ons.

 

[stomper]

I'm going to go out on a limb

I'm going to go out on a limb here -- I suspect the editors at RW know a decent amount about BF running, even if they don't practice it themselves. After all they have a user forum dedicated to it (thanks TJ) and have done several articles about it. They may even know how nonsensical the term "barefoot shoes" is. But when 90% of their advertising pages come from shoe ads, they are just not going to write negatively about shoes... and showing a whole bunch of truly minimal shoes (say, some $20 huaraches) would be doing that by implication.

Runner's World has good feature articles sometimes, I will give them that. But in general I feel the magazine represents a very limited and kind of mechanical view of running: it's about gear and times and ultrathin cover models who just ran through an airbrush studio. I wish they would get some Hash House Harriers to guest edit an issue or two.

 

[Barefoot TJ]

We're making strides.  There

We're making strides. There was a time when we would have thought they wouldn't even entertain a barefoot running forum. Perhaps they will embrace the Reduced Running Shoe (RRS) category and add shoes like the Nike Free and Kinvara to it appropriately (although I don't think these shoes are that reduced), but I'm not holding my breath.