The media says Barefoot=VFF. Is this a major problem? Please discuss.

Barefoot TJ wrote:Mary has

Barefoot TJ said:
Mary has hit upon a very important point here... So let's call it a horse if it's a horse. If someone is running in VFFs and becomes injured, let's not report that there goes another barefoot running injury...In this light, yes, it's messed up that the media labels VFFs as barefoot running. How's that Stomper?

D*mn girl, I love it when you talk straight. Hey, is it getting hot in here? Somebody open a window or something. :)
 
TJ: Mod wars tend to start

TJ: Mod wars tend to start out ugly and go downhil from there so no, I won't ban you. I will, however, tell you to behave and get off that soap box. ;)
 
I think there is a huge

I think there is a huge difference between running MR vs BR. When I am running in my Lunas or VFFs, I can be sloppy, push off, and even drag my feet a bit with no repercussions. Try to do that while bare and my run will be cut short real quick like. During last night's run I was busting my butt trying to keep up with the lead guys/girls which meant I had to get sloppy and push off a bit. My feet were pretty sore after the run. Wouldn't have been an issue if I had been wearing something.
 
Blind Boy wrote:TJ: Mod wars

Blind Boy said:
TJ: Mod wars tend to start out ugly and go downhil from there so no, I won't ban you. I will, however, tell you to behave and get off that soap box. ;)



Lol. Lol!

I'm enjoying this thread!
lol.png
 
I think people like to refer

I think people like to refer to the fore/midfoot landing as "barefoot running" and I honestly have to hold myself back from using the two inter-changeably. All the greatest ultra-runners and marathoners run with a midfoot strike, but none of them run barefoot (at least not at competition.) The point of barefooting really is just to learn a midfoot strike, but this can be done in any type of shoes from huaraches to boat anchors (though it would take a lot of effort with a heel rise.) The form is very slightly different, which is why someone who's been running in vibrams has trouble when they go full barefoot, and why those of us who are full time barefooters have "retarded feet" when we put anything on them.

I'd say theres a pretty big difference between minimal and barefoot, because many people have completed ultra-marathons in minimal shoes, whereas no one that I know of has done a 100 mile pure barefoot. Are we going to change the media's mind about this? No. But we can at least not add to the confusion. The only barefooting footwear there is in the world is skin, and you can't buy skin. (Or at least I hope not, that would be creepy.)
 
Danjo wrote:The point of

Danjo said:
The point of barefooting really is just to learn a midfoot strike

That's not why I run barefoot....if I didn't run barefoot (NO SHOES OF ANY KIND) I wouldn't be running at all....it's about the sheer joy of experience for me....

And to date the record for BAREFOOT distance is 102 miles at once....by one of our own esteemed members....
 
I agree.  Running barefoot

I agree. Running barefoot means different things to different people for different reasons. A midfoot strike is just one reason, although it is a very important one. I prefer to run barefoot because I feel closer to the run, a part of my surroundings, and the experience is more genuine.
 
Well, I agree with you, and

Well, I agree with you, and there are many, many reasons to run barefoot, but from a practical runners standpoint having fun and being in touch with your surroundings would take second priority to learning the correct, more efficient, less injury prone form. I personally started barefooting to run further, and faster, with less pain, but I stayed for fun and joy. I suppose my comment was more in the sense of runners who would be running even if they weren't barefoot, which includes me. I fell in love with running while I was in shoes, and I love it more every day now that I'm barefoot.

I am aware of the 102 mile run, but that was on a track. It still counts for a distance record, and an incredible feat(feet), but I wouldn't count it as an ultra-marathon so much. A road ultra would count, and a trail ultra would be even better. (I'm probably just being biased because I plan on running all the major ultras barefoot later in my life, including Leadville and Badwater, and I would never, ever want to run on a track for 24 hours straight. You shouldn't run any farther than a mile on a track, and I personally think that anything short of a 5k is just speed work, not a race.)
 
Barefoot will be whatever the

Barefoot will be whatever the media wants it to be.

Here are two stories each less than 1 hour old gleaned from a Google "barefoot" news search.

Neither of the main characters in either story was barefoot, but they were deemed barefoot

by the authors.


http://www.necn.com/10/02/10/Webster-police-on-lookout-for-barefoot-b/landing_newengland.html?blockID=323432&feedID=4206 http://www.easyreadernews.com/2010/10/sports-category/barefoot-runner-wins-manhattan-beach-10k
 
It is sad indeed.

It is sad indeed.
 
Longboard wrote:Here are two

Longboard said:
Here are two stories each less than 1 hour old gleaned from a Google "barefoot" news search. Neither of the main characters in either story was barefoot, but they were deemed barefoot...

Nice catch, LB.

Well, this is one of the reasons that in my draft version 0.1 of the 'minimal shoe standard,' I included a section about characterization and marketing. Whatever the features of the shoes, they cannot explicitly be equated with "barefoot."

It's just my little axe to grind.
 
Well in defense of Patrick,

Well in defense of Patrick, he is a barefoot runner. He just races in sandals at the moment.
 
Oh, the mixup is not the

Oh, the mixup is not the fault of Patrick or any people actually doing minimalist and barefoot running. They better than anybody know the difference between barefoot and minimal. It's just the media and the marketers. But unfortunately they kind of tend to define reality for anyone who is not actually doing it.

I personally have that amazing shot of Patrick programmed into my desktop so that once in a while it pops up as a background. The dude is obviously quite the competitor.
 
The author of this article

The author of this article informs us that barefoot is not bare foot!

Never mind that the event is being billed as a Barefoot Run!



Barefoot does not mean “bare foot.” The run/walk aims to show people that their feet are stronger and more agile when they are free from traditional footwear. Most participants will don some type of minimal foot covering like Vibram Fivefingers, five-toed shoes which provide minimal support and protection from rough terrain, and allow a more natural range of motion for the foot.
Of course, traditional footwear and running shoes will be welcome too.



Entire story here:




http://www.prweb.com/releases/Barefoot-Run/Orlando/prweb4592864.htm
 
WTF?  Since when?

WTF? Since when?
 
Everyone is trying to figure

Everyone is trying to figure this barefoot thing out, how to attract runners to a charity run with out scaring shod runners away. The fact the there is a charity run billed as a barefoot event is setting a precedent and should be applauded.
 
pbarker wrote:Everyone is

pbarker said:
Everyone is trying to figure this barefoot thing out, how to attract runners to a charity run with out scaring shod runners away

pbarker, I wish it were as simple as that. But a look at this press release (not really the same as a news article, but unfortunately press releases sometimes are picked up verbatim by newspapers, etc.) and the links in it shows that this fun run is being sponsored by TravelCountry.com, a store with an express interest in selling shoes. Their splash page says "join the barefoot revolution. Shop VFF!"

I sincerely believe that VFFs are an excellent product and a positive development. My spouse just bought a pair and loves them. They are a revelation to her. But they are not barefoot, as most of us know... otherwise there would be no reason for them to exist. You can do things in them (like run 100-mile races) that seem to be near impossible barefoot.

To say that "barefoot=not barefoot" is one of the nicest examples of NewSpeak I've seen recently. Perhaps we should thank them for being so utterly clear about how bizarre this is.

If some nut at the BRS doesn't say only barefoot is barefoot, who will??

I feel like I need to invent a new acronym... ARTBFRNKIMSOTGWAEBC. Actually Really Truly Barefoot Running No Kidding I Mean Skin On The Ground With An Excellent Beer Chaser. Care to join me for some ARTBFRNKIMSOTGWAEBC this weekend? Oh wait I'm too tired from typing that acronym.

:)
 
It's not that I really care,

It's not that I really care, it just seems an appropriate topic for a barefoot running forum.

It is kind of funny though how words don't neccesarily have to mean what they really mean.
 

Support Your Club

Forum statistics

Threads
19,158
Messages
183,644
Members
8,705
Latest member
Raramuri7