Hacker News Reader

Comment by tobiasu | Hacker News Reader

... And then there are the increasing numbers of barefoot runners. It could be argued that the greatest running shoe never sold is already in your possession.

View on HN

I'm not a huge booster of the whole barefoot trend, but I do think that's what, ultimately, has scuttled Hann's shoe from getting to market. The momentum toward thinner soles and less material is anathema to the theory, look and feel of this shoe.

You've got a book--Born To Run--that won't leave the NYTimes Bestseller list. And you've got every serious/casual runner out there espousing the virtues of minimalist footwear for running. I feel like I run into conversations on the topic at half of the social events I go to; Vibram has made millions of those five-toed shoes; everybody feels smarter for having read that book and worked less foam into their running routine -- and now this guy shows up with a shoe that runs straight against that vibe? That's tough swimming, even if he's right.

Obviously, he should have assented to a far lower royalty rate.

Plenty of people have weird biomechanics that benefit from a corrective shoe. I have a super-high arch on my right foot that causes severe overpronation when I run with minimalist shoes. If I run in minimalist shoes, my right shin is out of commission for about a week. I can't be the only one.

I am in the exact opposite position, I have an almost non-existent arch and if I forget to wear arched soles my feet and knees will be aching by late afternoon. I would buy this shoe in an instant.

I have high arches and really enjoy minimalist shoes.

When I run on a minimalist shoe for the first time (or wear hockey skates, or snowboard, etc) I get arch and shin pain.

Your feet will adjust very quickly, especially with some stretching. I also found a small weight loss (10 pounds) helped tremendously.

You cannot expect your body to adjust instantly to a barefoot gait after spending your entire life wearing heavy shoes that drastically alter your natural gait.

When I first tried running in VFF shoes I limited myself to 15 minute sessions, and even then my calves were so destroyed walking was stiff for 2-3 days. I slowly eased that limit up a few minutes at a time over the past year, and while I have a ways to go, I can run about 30-40 minutes now and my legs and feet look completely different.

I did that too, but it's not for everybody. I got a serious injury (compartment syndrome) and wasn't running for 4 months . My minimal shoes turned out to be the culprit, and after switching back to shoes with good support I can now run 5 times a week with no problems.

Did you push yourself too hard when you first started barefoot running? I always heard that its better across the board, but you've got to start slow to prevent injury.

No, I really took it slowly. The injury also showed up only after a few months...

I fell into this trap too. I got a stress fracture on my shin from a tendon pulling on that area much more than the bone was used to. It took months to heal.

The feet are a complex tangle of muscle, bones, tendons, and nerves. They doesn't respond to increases in stress as well a muscle would. Bones and tendons can need months or even years to build up the strength to handle the stress of serious running barefoot. People who try this should ease into it slowly. Like over weeks or preferably, months.

Conveniently, I started wearing the Vibrams just for walking around in (because they're really comfortable), and did that for 6-ish months before I started running. This has resulted in a distinct lack of any health problems.

I can see how it would be really easy for someone who was actively running when they got the shoes to just go do their normal routine the first day they wore them and utterly destroy something.

I wear minimal shoes exclusively for walking also and it took two years for running to be really comfortable. I am also not a serious runner at all. I think if you go into this with good fitness and expect to see your old performance soon it is very dangerous

If you are already a runner I could see this being the case, e.g. you put on a pair of "barefoot" shoes and then do your normal 10 miles run or whatever.

I tried to take up running last year. I bought a pair of Vivo Barefoot shoes, and thought they were great. Since I was just starting out I couldn't go more than a few hundred yards without taking breaks to walk. I eventually worked my way up to about 5 miles with a few moderate hills in the route, and never had any trouble with pain or injury.

I never grew to enjoy running however, it was always a chore and while I was doing it my mind was always racing with thoughts of other things I could be getting done if I wasn't running. I didn't feel any better, I didn't have more energy during the day, and I didn't sleep any better, so eventually I stopped.

I still like and wear the shoes, though.

The people I know who've worn them are injured also.

And I know a lot more people who wear normal shoes and have been injured...

What's more likely is that your running form was the culprit. Shoes simply hide problems with your technique. Barefoot running is less forgiving, but ultimately safer.

No, I overpronate. I already landed on my forefoot. My technique shouldn't be the problem.

There are so many ways you can have bad technique while landing on the balls of your feet.

You bet. This week I switched from Mizuno Wave Fortis to Wave Rider (simply because I couldn't find Fortis in shops for months), and my right foot began to hurt after only 20 km, though they're supposedly nearly identical shoes from the same make. I'll have to very gradually switch, alternating shoes between short runs, or maybe even give up the Rider entirely...

Funny, that's actually what I thought this article was about. Who gets excited about another "normal" running shoe anymore? I bought my Vibram FiveFingers after reading "Born to Run" and never looked back.

How long before you think webbed-footed shoes are going to be acceptable in society?

That's pretty much the only thing holding me back from buying them or any of the funky new (curved bottom) shoe ideas, I know I would never wear them.

I wear the Merrell Trailgloves, and they give much the same barefoot feel as the five finger but look like normal shoes. They are so light I often forget they are on. The zero rise from front to back also makes them great squatting and dead lifting shoes.

http://www.merrell.com/US/en-US/Product.mvc.aspx/22875M/5039...

Second this. You can also get the brown leather edition: http://www.merrell.com/US/en-US/Product.mvc.aspx/22874M?gree...

I'll never buy a "normal" running shoe again.

I run with their Sonic Glove. I enjoy it. However, going downhill does way too much damage to my feet. Minimal/barefoot requires short strides with a high cadence and that's hard to do [for me] going downhill.

http://www.merrell.com/US/en-US/Product.mvc.aspx/24667M/5598...

My favorite thing about the Vibrams is the ability to change directions and literally feel the ground with my toes. Your toes were made for a reason.

I love the trailgloves too.

For regular walking/business shoes give Geox a try. The solid leather insole and lightweight build is amazing. The air transfer through the sole actually works too.

Hah! I have Geox's also for business/dressier needs. Great shoes with a nice look.

matwood, do they really compare to the feel of the vibram's? i think my favorite thing about the vibram's is how they let your toes spread out to help with balance and changing direction. do you get that same feel with the merrell's? i've been looking for something similar to vibra's that would also protect my feet on trails.

Well, obviously if you need/want the individual toe feel then they won't replace that. If you're looking for a barefoot shoe that is as minimal as the vibrams then they fit the bill. On my feet the Trailglove toebox is quite wide so my toes spread out inside the shoe. This spread doesn't transfer to the ground of course, but it does lead to the feeling of not wearing a shoe at all.

Depends what you mean by acceptable. I work in your standard jeans-and-a-polo software shop, and there are a few people who wear them. That may just be part of the company culture though (in Calgary, so lots of hiking/biking/skiing types).

If you mean acceptable in semi-formal or even business casual settings, I would say that will just never happen.

I wear mine at the gym and sometimes to/from the gym as well. Why wait for them to become common? In what way are they not acceptable? I challenge anybody not to serve me at a restaurant, or allow me into their store, or kick me out of my place of work because of the shoes I've chosen. How absurd.

Obviously you don't frequent many high end restaurants/clubs.

I have been turned away from places for wearing jeans before. I doubt they would allow me in looking like frog man.

It's more "those places" I was talking about. Sure, nobody is going to scoff at what I wear around my condo.

I do frequent high end restaurants and clubs. But not being "acceptable in society" leading to "never wearing them" is quite different from not being acceptable in a high end restaurant or club.

I don't worry about social acceptability. I have a pair of VFFs for the gym and one for daily wear. They are a great conversation starter, and strangers ask me about them a lot. The one thing they are not good for is standing around. After realizing this and some experimentation I switched to work boots with Dr. Scholl's arch support when I spend a lot of time just standing.

I find the VFFs feel awful when you are not moving. I have a co-worker who wears them all the time, but I can't stand sitting around with them on.

(This could be my foot's fault though, my smallest toe gets scrunched up in the shoe "fingers")

Agreed. I tried wearing them for a while, and while they were fine for running, I couldn't just wear them around casually and they always felt sooo good to take off. They're sized by length, so I had the right size but they were just too narrow for my foot.

I wear mine around all the time. (Well, not at the moment, because I want something warmer for winter.) I get comments about them, mostly from people who're wondering what they are, but I've never seen anything negative.

I've worn my Vibrams exclusively (even to 2 weddings) for the past 4 years, and it's been great for my social life. It's probably the best ice breaker ever invented. Strangers regularly approach and start conversations.

That is a great reason to wear them. My wife and I both wear Vibram's (we even did a Tough Mudder event in them), and they're great for starting conversations on the trail. Of course, if you don't like small-talk with strangers, they will be a nightmare :)

There's a couple other options out there; you can get a pair of web-footed shoes for special use, and a pair of minimalist closed-toed shoes for regular use. The web-footing will always feel cooler, but you can walk/run in minimalist shoes the same way.

The Merrrell trail shoe someone linked is a good example. I have a pair of pumas that are very similar, though a little more boring.

It smells too much like a fad.

Edit: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fad

>>A fad is any form of behavior that develops among a large population and is collectively followed with enthusiasm for some period, generally as a result of the behavior's being perceived as novel in some way.[1] A fad is said to "catch on" when the number of people adopting it begins to increase rapidly. The behavior will normally fade quickly once the perception of novelty is gone.[1]<<

I'm not sure that we are yet in the "large population" phase even though this is like the third time I've heard about this new footwear.

You weren't born with shoes on your feet. Running barefoot is the natural way to run. If there's a fad in running, it is that you need to air cushions at your heels when you already have a superior mechanism to cushion your strides.

Regardless of who is right, this is a weak argument. Barefoot may be the natural way to run, but that doesn't mean it's the best. The natural way to handle an infection is your immune system, but you'll be thankful for antibiotics when you need them. In short, it's possible for us to improve on "natural".

Person dependent (like above comments on barefoot killing peoples shins, etc.) and cultural, like the Mexican-Indian (native) folks who drink, and run for 100's of miles (Born to Run book inspiration).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarahumara_people The word for themselves, Rarámuri, means "runners on foot" or "those who run fast" in their native tongue according to some early ethnographers like Norwegian Carl Lumholtz, though this interpretation has not been fully agreed upon. With widely dispersed settlements, these people developed a tradition of long-distance running up to 120 miles (190 km) in one session, over a period of two days through their homeland of rough canyon country, for intervillage communication and transportation as well as to hunt.

They also have the tendency to eat when hungry, sleep when sleepy (as in, anytime / anywhere) which has threads to other "genius" discussions (lets call being able to run 100's of miles a type of "physical genius" for a thought experiment). I know when I do barefoot walking on a frequent basis my chronic lower back pain starts to dissipate.

Side note: We also aren't naturally meant to sit all day in an office chair, yet...

But an infection your immune system can't handle is the exceptional case. Your body deals with most infections just fine on its own.

See:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Barefoot_running

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biological_determinism (logical fallacy)

I'll just say your second link is a completely illogical response to my comment.

Note, I'm not necessarily advocating barefoot running. I do run on my forefeet, so I run in Newtons, for now.

Two things though: (1) Heel running is less efficient, results in higher impact forces and leads to more injuries than forefoot running. (2) The only reason most of us heel run is because we started running in sneakers from a young age.

Again, your second link, did you even read it?

I agree that it could be a fad, but couldn't it also be the start of a widespread and permanent change? Seems both situations would start the same way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com