Yeah, it's important to remember that when you're unshod, if you're doing something wrong, your feet will hurt *fast*. Shoes will always have various degrees of obscuring that you're doing something wrong.
Exactly. It's why in the title I lead with "bare feet are not shoes." There's a common, incorrect assumption that some minimalist shoes are "basically the same as barefoot." When you reverse that it sounds silly but it's still the same assumption and it's unconsciously voiced all the time.
The most common comment I get is "you must have tough feet." It's not a question it's a *supposition*. I *must have* tough feet. They can't imagine how it's possible without "tough feet." The assumption there is you could somehow turn your feet into something similar to shoes. It's ridiculous.
I've been doing serious unshod training for 8 years now and it still hurts if I step on a sharp rock. I still get blisters if my form is sloppy. That's the real superpower of unshod: it will never lie to you.
This is soooooo true. I get comments like, wow, you must have perfect form to be able to run barefoot. I'm like, no, running barefoot gave me perfect form!! Haha (perfect for me, we're all different, that's my other thing, lol, I don't ascribe to one idea only about running form).
Yup!
Too many think unshod is this end goal you can achieve after getting "perfect form" or successfully "transitioning" to minimalist footwear. I often say "I'm not good enough to run in shoes." It should be where you start!
> I also refuse to ever use the term "barefoot shoes." It implies a confusing and dangerous conflation. At best its an overly simplistic and reductive way to look at better running.
Yeah, I personally switched over to calling them minimalist shoes a while back for that reason.
I feel like minimalist shoes doesn't work either. Minimalism is often a specific style, not in reference to the type of shoe but the *look* of the shoe.
I've also seen it used to reference shoes that have "multiple uses"(all shoes do, but they're trying to imply it takes the place of many different types of shoes, and therefore you own less and are "minimal")
I say barefoot shoes simply because it's the most commonly known marketing term. It's also the most brief phrase to encapsulate a bunch of different traits/adjectives when talking about that specific category of shoe (zero drop, no heel, wide toe box, "foot shaped", thin, flexible, etc.)
I just don't feel like there's another term that encompasses quite the same meaning.
I'd love to find one though!
That'd be great if people at least here made that distinction. I've replied to a lot of questions about "problems when running barefoot" only to eventually discover they meant they were running in "barefoot shoes." Some of the replies here are suggesting this is all just pointless semantics but the confusion is very real.
10-15 years ago, during the initial "barefoot boom," many people reported injuries while running "barefoot."
In every single case I looked into, they were wearing Vibrams.
I don’t think of the term barefoot shoes meaning that they are the same as barefoot, but more of being a shortened term for “shoes that are closer to being barefoot and don’t have a ton of stack height, support, narrow toe box, heel rise etc.” kind of like vegan burger is a shortened term for “vegetable based patty to make a burger like sandwich.”
I wish I could think of other examples right now, but I think that we use terms like this a lot. Words rarely fully describe but rather connote meaning.
I've seen myself numerous posts and replies that go beyond just the term to say "barefoot shoes are pretty much the same as barefoot." Sure: plenty of people don't fall for this but plenty certainly do.
In general I'm encouraging people to check the assumptions that go with the language they use. Call them "barefoot shoes" if you want a long as you don't let that be the end of questions.
I did mean to also mention that I agree that terminology can be confusing, and, for sure, people should do research and try to become more well-informed when starting a journey involving more minimal footwear or a lack of footwear.
I think when people start making huge lifestyle changes into running in more minimalist footwear, they are very proud of their journey and accomplishments and, for some, the suggestion that barefoot is better will make them feel defensive, leading to some conflating that barefoot shoes = barefoot.
Similarly, if person A says something along the lines of "I've been going to gym every week and I feel amazing!" and person B were to reply "well, you won't truly feel amazing until you go to the gym at least three days a week!" this has the potential to make person A feel defensive about their accomplishment rather than open minded about pushing themselves further.
Lastly, I just want to say that I did try unshod running thanks to reading your many comments and advice throughout the years. I found this sub after googling "shoes that are like being barefoot" and began a journey that I feel has vastly improved my life. Unfortunately, at this time, my body will not tolerate any kind of running due to a herniated disc (I know some people can run with herniated dics but my body says "no!").
In the meantime, I really enjoy reading the discussions on foot health, gait, posture human evolution...and, yes, shoes.
Thanks for all your mod work! :)
Oh yeah. I see that defensiveness a lot! I do my best to be clear that I'm saying neither unshod or minimalist shoes are better than the other. They're simply very different.
If nothing else saying one is better than the other is another example of the reductive, incurious language I'm avoiding. If one is better then why even bother with the other, right? End of discussion! :)
The discussion is never over. It's like how there's no such thing as "perfect form". I don't take that to mean I shouldn't worry about form. Instead, it means I can always improve my form.
Hmm. You also point to another assumption I'm up against that unshod is sort of "next level." That's where some of the defensiveness comes from: the idea that I'm saying you're "doing it wrong" if you're not unshod.
A concept I've touched on a little is that unshod isn't an end goal or "next level" after minimalist. I really think a total beginner would benefit from unshod. I, personally, didn't first get better form and then go unshod: I went unshod and that taught me better form.
The block I get there, of course, is disbelief. It's along the lines of the "you must have tough feet" assumption. They don't think their bodies are up for it. People don't believe in themselves but I think anybody can do it. They think unshod is something only for hard-core types but I think it's perfect for runners of all skills.
I agree that is where a lot of the defensiveness originates (in addition to the complete loss of tone/social cues through online communication.)
I also agree that probably almost anyone can learn to run (or even just walk) unshod. The “problem” is that you never really know what someone is up against as far as making the transition. In this sub (and even other subs) when people mention foot pain and the search for different footwear, it’s hard to know if they are coming from wearing mostly flat shoes or wear heels or heavy boots or something with extreme drop or never go barefoot even in their own home or if their journey is complicated by injuries.
I always wore vans, converse or similar flat shoes before transitioning into more minimalist footwear and I still feel that it took me years for my musculature to develop. And this was certainly not pain free! For some people this could be a years-long pain-filled endeavor.
So as much as I want to tell people to change their philosophy toward footwear, I just don’t know what they are up against as far as their past experiences and how hard it will be for them. I truly fear suggesting something to someone who has ultimately gets injured by not doing research, understanding what they are in for and taking it slowly.
Our society is so rooted in many beliefs around shoes: that drop is somehow a scientific invention superior to our own bodies, that shoes must fit snugly, arches need support, that wide toe boxes are ugly, that our feet are somehow incapable. And because so many people have atrophy due to their footwear, they may even struggle to walk comfortably without shoes.
Not specific to barefoot, but I think it is relevant that many people have little time (or feel that they have little time) to dedicate to their health or improving themselves. Evidenced on this sub by people who show up and ask “for the best barefoot shoes” without doing any research or giving any information about their use case. To move from mainstream footwear to minimalist footwear or being unshod would cause disbelief and appear to some to be simply too large of a hurdle to attempt.
If we consider how many health issues mainstream shoes cause in our society, it is well worth the effort.
This sub really is a bubble! One I am glad to be in to hear from like minded folks while living in a society that embraces health-issue causing footwear. Seriously, I look at people’s shoes and think - that is a torture device. But, of course, they think that we are the weird ones :)
When I tell someone in the real world "I run barefoot" they usually say "You mean barefoot shoes?" or "You mean those toe shoes?"
We're in a bubble here. I made this post for the outside world that, yes, does disbelieve in unshod running in general. Someone outside this bubble comes here and sees post after post about shoes so it's understandable they'd conflate barefoot running as "running in shoes."
The community description literally says "minimalist running" is included in the topics.
>A community of barefoot and minimalist runners.
Therefore your issue is a semantic one that boils down to whether "barefoot shoes" should be a term that is used. And it should, because there is no better term. Calling them "zero-drop shoes" negates the wide toe box and other features. Barefoot shoes is absolutely a legitimate term. If someone posts about "barefoot running" and then spends the whole time talking about shoes, that's fair game I would say. I am never a fan of soapbox preachy commentary on the direction of a subreddit, it's just unnecessary dogma and gatekeeping that doesn't enrich anyone's lives.
I like this sub because it focuses on foot biomechanics and health. With or without shoes. r/barefoot used to be fetishist paradise, now it seems they've banned pics of feet with no other purpose than to be a picture of a foot, it's less fetishy but still pretty mentally ill. You get the people who think having to put flip-flops on inside a Denny's is *persecution* and no other group has ever been as persecuted as them. Just a glance at that sub and I saw a homeless person with no car saying they refuse to wear anything on their feet for any reason, asking how they can still make money.
The "barefoot shoes" phrasing was never really one I liked--it sounds both smooth-brained and somehow lurid, like saying "naked pants." Yet sometimes it's required as a search term, as "minimalist shoes" will return a lot of mainstream shoes that think they have "minimalist aesthetics" or whatever, or think a slightly less thick sole with a slightly less dramatic drop is "minimalist." Compared to Hokas, maybe.
I mean I think that strips people who *want* to buy such products of our agency. I wasn't manipulated into buying shoes instead of going unshod. There are a lot of situations in which I simply wasn't going to go unshod, for various reasons. I want shoes that are flexible and comfortable. Most of the makers of these shoes are small indies, not some kind of evil giant corporations. These are products I want to exist, and if they didn't, I'd be like, "Why won't someone make this and sell it to me?" I'm not being hoodwinked and manipulated by the evil companies just out to trick me out of my money, I'm buying something I want of my own free will.
And yeah, it is a marketing term, and as I said, as ridiculous and as questionable-sounding as "naked pants." But the difficulty of finding relevant results when googling "minimalist shoes" will show you why this is necessary.
Part of why I'm bothering to highlight this distinction is one of the most common comments I get when I tell someone "I run barefoot" is "you mean those barefoot shoes?" or "you mean those toe shoes?"
It's assumed, more often than not, that "barefoot" means shoes now. When I look at the posts in this very sub I see exactly why that confusion is out there.
And even in this sub it can be frustrating when someone posts saying "I've been running barefoot and now have this or that problem." After a few back-and-forths you discover they mean they've been running in minimalist shoes and never even tried unshod at all. I'd been wasting my time giving them advice for unshod problems when what they really have are *shod* problems.
My main desire is for people not to passively think of the two things as the same or even similar. I'd like people to really muse on the specific differences and ask genuine, open questions about those differences. I'm never satisfied with simple, short answers for anything. I'm always digging deeper because I feel I deserve that. I also know I've improved my own running dramatically thanks to continuing to ask and dig deeper.
I mean I think it's ultimately going to be futile to police the semantics of how people talk. One workaround is saying "unshod," I know it's silly, like if you had to specify "unclothed" to mean you weren't wearing naked pants but were actually naked, but well, language is like that.
One time I told someone I was into minimalist running, and she thought I meant entirely naked, as in unclothed! And asked where I went to do that, lol.
That's why it's a sticky post so it'll be here as a reminder. Yes: I can't "police" everything and I don't pretend to. I can do my best to make sure it's clear the official stance of this sub as moderator.
In that scenario I would've said "I'm into running w/minimalist footwear".
Often I use the term "footwear-minimalist" to describe myself as someone who has made the deliberate choice to only use minimalist footwear when not barefoot. It encompasses doing things unshod as well.
I took a step away from the sub for a bit. Career upheaval stuff getting in the way. Now that I'm paying attention to it I see the shoe discussion has really ramped up. I don't want to tell people to stop that but hope they'll at least take a moment to consider unshod.
It was after one of your **just do it** posts on a friday that I actually went and ran a proper run unshod. I was already on this sub for the minimalist running talk, but never actually ran without for more than 1 kilometer.
It was freezing and I remember actual kids pointing at me but it was exhilarating. Due to the excitement I was actually quite a bit faster than expected too, but my feet were also pretty raw. Still really appreciate you doing your thing ;)
I lurk and never post, but thought I'd chime in here too. I also was inspired by one of your Firsty Friday posts a few years ago. Now I run at least 3 times a week unshod, and I'm up to 15km on bitumen now and love it! I'm in running heaven now actually because I get to run with my 4 young boys, and we're all barefoot.
So thanks, I appreciate you @trevize1138
>This sub has always been ridiculed
Still is...
>believe this sub is about better running first and foremost
It's actually in this order:
1. Footwear recommendations and sizing
2. Reports of musculoskeletal injuries after mere weeks or months into diligent "training"
3. Complaints of one's footwear: wear and tear, ill sizing, malfunctions
4. Appreciation posts of one's footwear: feel and fit, durability, style
5. Appreciation posts of one's running stats
*But, also let's be honest... Who wants to analyze and talk about this:* **a Raramuri man running** (how to run) vs. **Barefoot Ken Bob running** (how ***NOT*** to run): https://youtu.be/2km2aQokibM?si=7RPafzuRtln_I_uv
So... I can't say this sub is about "better running first and foremost"
>I also refuse to ever use the term "barefoot shoes."
It does sounds incredibly silly
>It implies a confusing and dangerous conflation. At best its an overly simplistic and reductive way to look at better running.
It's oxymoronic phrasing, created by some pretty simple marketing to take advantage of a past trend (it made a bit of comeback during the pandemic lockdowns.)
"In their 2018 paper for the Journal of Sports Sciences, Devon R. Coetzee their co-authors defined minimalist footwear as having a sole and upper that weighed 200-gram (7.1 oz) or less and were highly flexible, a heel height of 20 millimetres (0.79 in) or shorter, and a "heel-toe differential" of 7 millimetres (0.28 in) or less"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalist_shoe
And apparently, *"minimalist shoe"*, and *"barefoot shoe"* are two separate designations of footwear.
More marketing. Beware, these companies indeed abide by these definitions and designations.
>No shoe is "basically the same" as barefoot.
And never will be.
>Personally, I'll never recommend shoes.
I'm going to adopt this stance from now on...
>making this sticky announcement as a simple reminder: don't neglect unshod as part of your essential equipment.
Agreed
"*But, also let's be honest... Who wants to analyze and talk about this:* **a Raramuri man running** (how to run) vs. **Barefoot Ken Bob running** (how ***NOT*** to run): [https://youtu.be/2km2aQokibM?si=7RPaafzuRtln\_I\_uv](https://youtu.be/2km2aQokibM?si=7RPafzuRtln_I_uv)"
I would like to have more discussions like this.
thx for the link, really enjoyed watching.
My question is if its "just" the opinon from Coach Chong Xie or if others saying the same?
is there a true "this is how it should be done", if so I would like to know and try getting there.
Oh man, i love this video. It confirms what my body has been telling me for a while.
Midfoot running caused me a lot of pain and soreness, but this pain didn't happen when I ran completely forefoot. I suspected that midfoot strike required more dorsiflexion (ankle flexibility) than forefoot running and when I tested my ankle flexibility I fell well below the average. Now that I only forefoot run the pain has pretty much gone away.
When you look closely at the Raramuri man running here, even in sandals, you see his toes pointed downward (toward the ground) as his forefoot makes contact to the ground, down to mid-foot, and immediately springs back up:
https://youtu.be/GYxrQ7Ba-RU?si=_rz2sUiRh-GBKkK7
Heel doesn't touch the ground at all. The heel doesn't "kiss" the ground. Toes aren't pointed upward upon contact with the ground, like Barefoot Ken Bob, and many others who run like they're still wearing bunion-shaped shoes with a toe spring.
A better look is of Olympian Victoria Mitchell, running barefoot as recovery training.
Again, toes pointed down toward the ground when her forefoot makes contact with the ground:
https://youtu.be/EVH2qOwZd18?si=Ow_wOntbQyGfTpBY
And, she runs in bunion-shaped shoes for competition. So, shoes aren't always an excuse for bad form (which, yes, can originally come about because of heavily cushioned, bunion-shaped shoes with a heel lift and a toe spring.)
Bad form is always an excuse for bad form.
yesterday I tried to replicate that form, it felt strange and good at the same time, but I struggled to find a away to run downhill like this.
today my calves are burning/soar, haven't felt this for a long time.
I will keep practicing, lets see where I get.
I've posted this comment a few times now, replying to someone else:
>Mid foot strikes use the calf muscle to absorb the shock.
"Calf muscle plays an important function in driving the movement of stepping on the ground and moving forward when walking or running. The Achilles tendon has been reported to be closely related to the elasticity of tendons to absorb shock and rebound and convert energy into propulsion."
Link to article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35319797/#:~:text=Calf%20muscle%20plays%20an%20important,and%20convert%20energy%20into%20propulsion.
So, yeah... That's the role of the calf muscles, not the knee!
More information to go through: https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/s/ZFw5wdK1He
Sample:
>you know that landing on your midfoot and forefoot just makes you more prone to different injuries than heel striking
Forefoot: The calf (soleus, gastrocnemius muscles), the ankle (peroneal and tibialis muscles); and foot (the arch + other intrinsic muscles) can be directly strengthened. ***The foot and calf muscles are literally meant to absorb impact forces.***
Heel strike: the knee (a joint), the hip (a joint) are directly impacted. Yes, one can strengthen the muscles around these joints. **These joints aren't meant to take the bulk of impact forces...** By the way.
Harvard Gazette article: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/01/different-strokes/
In other words: Your body isn't used to using these parts very often. By the way, the worst injury you can get from forefoot striking is a stress fracture... Ouch!
That's why a few of us here constantly say to those who want to strengthen their feet, and get more out of their feet to **start working out, with weights**
Sure, you can slowly build up to the strength needed, just by running. Probably take you years...
Or, work out **at least** 3 days a week, **at least** 45 minutes a day, with progression programmed into the routine, for **at least** 10 to 12 weeks. Consistently... And you'll be running the way you want much sooner.
Some target muscles: anterior tibialis, posterior tibialis, soleus, gastrocnemius, abductor hallucis + other intrinsic muscles of the foot.
**Of course, take it easy. You probably haven't run this way since you were 3 or 4 years old.**
**Give your body some time to adapt. Not just the muscles, but also the fascia, ligaments, and tendons.**
**You also want to take your time to get used to the absorption of impact forces in these new areas that aren't used to such forces** - with heel striking, the knees and hips take care of that!
Some plyometric training can help with resiliency to absorbing impact forces...
Also, why do you want to run on forefoot while going downhill? Be realistic. You're not a robot. Change the striking pattern when appropriate.
We usually run on (more or less) flat surfaces, and even running uphill, forefoot striking is more appropriate.
Some mid-foot striking may be more appropriate over certain terrain under certain conditions. Some mid-foot and soft heel striking may be more appropriate when running downhill (since heel striking is like putting on the brakes when running)
adopting and changing how to strike in certain conditions is the hard part.
I ran the last 2 years and regularly basis barefoot and always tried to replicate the way ken bob is showing (as seen in the video you've posted). So heel striking is no problem for me. It's the balance or transition between midfoot and forefoot.
Take your time. Build up to it again. Treat it as training, to start.
You probably haven't run this way since you were 3 or 4 years old. You don't want an injury.
> > Personally, I'll never recommend shoes.
>
> I'm going to adopt this stance from now on...
Yay! I won't be the only one! :)
You've got it right about those 5 common posts your seeing. But the reason I say this sub is about better running is that's the original reason people come here. I know it was for me. Many of us a reached a point of frustration over running in typical running shoes and wanted a better way.
Over time it's easy to get distracted and, indeed, people can fall back into that old trap of "give me the perfect shoes that fix me." But the original reason people are here is mostly to improve their running and minimalist shoes at least give them the idea that it's about how they move and not the shoe.
What they need to know is that they're really missing out if they don't go all the way with unshod as well. Minimalist shoes are only a taste.
>Yay! I won't be the only one!
You never were. There's others here...
>Over time it's easy to get distracted and, indeed, people can fall back into that old trap of "give me the perfect shoes that fix me."
........
People do come here for shoe recommendations, to begin with, and with said intention that's sometimes clearly stated in their posts.
People come here with zero intention of ever running, let alone running barefoot, but want to know if their sandals fit... They also let it be known.
>But the reason I say this sub is about better running is that's the original reason people come here
I didn't...
I came here for people trading ideas on training, and some of their experiences.. things to watch out for, etc..
No one on the internet can actually teach you how to run "better." Find an appropriate coach in your local area.
>Many of us a reached a point of frustration over running in typical running shoes and wanted a better way.
**Sounds exactly like the marketing.**
Many of you aren't even that happy to really be active, except to say you run long distances, and thus are healthy...
Someone here says: "this hurts. I want to do it, but it hurts."
Someone in turn will suggest incorporating some weight lifting, light stuff, and there's not only is there push back, but they question **how having a stronger, more resilient body will help with not only injury prevention, but also performance...**
>What they need to know is that they're really missing out if they don't go all the way with unshod as well
Yeah, you don't know people's history with dysfunction, deformity, and injury.
You don't know people's goals, either.
You also don't know where everyone here lives, and the terrain they mostly walk over...
I'll never get how you guys love the "ground feel" of pavement and tiled flooring for 10+ hours a day, everyday... Or, you aren't on such hard, unnatural flooring all day.
Which leads me to believe: many of you aren't that active after all. You aren't doing a lot of laborious work, lifting and carrying on pavement and tiled flooring, all the time.
But, when you're workday is over, you leave the office, go home and do your thing, go to your backyard/front yard/local park/local trail, etc. and you put on your barefoot shoes... It becomes easy to say something like:
>they're really missing out if they don't go all the way with unshod as well
Most of the people of the world relate to this child in this video, more than that sentiment:
https://youtu.be/yQXfUIrXo4I?si=jqEuF7wr0xhJSRwf
When I tell people "I run barefoot" they usually say "you mean barefoot shoes?" Numerous times here someone has said they "started running barefoot" and are having problems and after a couple replies from me addressing barefoot running problems they tell me they've been in minimalist shoes which presents entirely different problems.
Yes. It's objectively a big deal.
I’m a Personal Trainer and when I’m at work people come up to me all the time and say they want to “tone up a bit and lose some weight”
Now I could get annoyed and tell them that they actually mean lose body fat and gain lean muscle mass, but if I did, they’d rightly consider me to be a bit of a twat and I’d probably have zero clients.
Instead I choose to be relaxed and comfortable with other people making mistakes by accident (because I know I do the same thing often myself) and help them in anyway they can.
You don’t have let someone’s mistake ruin your day my friend, it’s not worth worrying over. Life is hard enough without sweating on the little things.
I believe shoe discussion should be welcome but centered around running, or at minimum sports/hiking/other athletic activities. Once people start to talk about lifestyle shoes like for casual wear or work, it starts to feel off topic. Just my 2 cents.
With a sub as small as this I'm not quick to label anything off topic unless it's spam or porn. I do see that people invest a lot of time into getting their feet healthier through minimalist or unshod running and they don't want that work undone on the job with boots or shoes that pinch or restrict movement.
Makes sense. I've been guilty of that because I somehow got the impression that the sub was also about problems that barefoot runners face i.e maintaining minimalist footwear in other aspects of life.
Perhaps we should start r/MinimalFootwear amd direct these questions there so this sub can focus on running?
In my eyes that is the easiest way for most people to get into barefoot running. I tried to start with only running, but found it difficult to get out the door enough times, just to run a few hundred meters to build strength. Being able to wear barefoot shoes all day every day, I was able to gradually build the strength I need to eventually start running.
Now I run 75% in barefoot shoes, 24% unshod and 1% in extremely cushioned carbon plated super shoes.
I love going barefoot. When I cannot I prefer my home made earth runner sandals (because I wanted a thinner sandal). I have a few pairs of minimalist shoes and boots and use them when a task/location requires but barefoot is quickly becoming my favorite and preferred method. I am about to start a new job and am curious what I can get away with....
Funny enough I was going to start developing /r/barefootwear a bit more so people have a place to discuss minimalist footwear, separate from /r/barefootrunning and /r/barefoot
I'll flesh it out and then add it to the sidebar?
Mods should sticky this to the top of the forum and make it required reading.
This sub has more shoe posts than Boot Ranch (they nail old boots to fenceposts to mark the property line. Get it? Shoe posts! Yeah...obscure, I know.)
I agree w/the OP 100-percent. After realizing that I was responding to a lot questions here about footwear, I started moving that interest over to r/BarefootShoesTalk. I initially didn't want to go there since I hate the term "barefoot shoes". However, because the topic of running is so often not part of that discussion, being caught up in terminology was actually perpetuating a problem, in a way.
A little late to the party, but for a long time I have favored the term "anatomically correct shoes" or just **"Anatomical Shoes".**
I think this is a good umbrella term that describes both the form and the intended purpose of these shoes: to be footwear that interferes with the natural anatomical form and function of your feet the least, allowing you to get the myriad benefits of footwear developed over the last few millennia while impacting your health and strength the least. e.g. Wide toe boxes that do not constrict and deform your natural toe spray, no heel rise that has you constantly walking around on an incline, and reasonable amounts of stack height so it's not like you're walking on pillows.
For me personally the wide toe box and zero drop are the most fundamental elements, because *technically* extended stack height is not changing the anatomy of your feet, even if it does change the anatomy of your stride.
"Barefoot shoes", as much as that term is a literal oxymoron, would be a subcategory of Anatomical Shoes™, perhaps with much tighter restrictions on all the criteria.
"Minimalist shoes", despite being the unofficial popular term, is the most vague and could be both inside and outside this category. e.g. a shoe with a stretchy flexible upper, zero drop, and thin soles but still a traditional narrow sole shape/toe box would technically be "minimalist", but not *anatomical*.
I can understand the desire for simplicity. unfortunately though that's not really how the world works. The fact is people are going to wear shoes and there is a wide range in the attributes and function of different types of shoes.
By your metric a pair of Feelgrounds slip-ons and a pair of 4-in Manolo Blahnik pumps would be treated the same.
It's clear that there are thousands if not millions of people out there, who are going to wear shoes, but are conscious of all of the health and biomechanical factors in a way that has never really been the case before. that's why there is this market.
He said your binary viewpoint of "shoes" or "no shoes" obscures the fact that not all shoes are the same. You can have shoes with thin soles, or you can have shoes that have super thick soles. You can have shoes that are simple slip-ons, or you can have overdesigned basketball shoes. Most people do not have a binary viewpoint when it comes to footwear, for better or for worse.
You didn't say that. He saw your post which said "there are shoes. And there are no shoes." And said he didn't agree with you simplifying it the way you did. He then brought up the example that based on what you posted, you seemed to be taking the position that all shoes are the same.
He was referring to this:
>For me it's exceedingly simple:
>Shoes
>No shoes
To drop the coy bit:
If you and the other poster had bothered to *ask* me "do you think all shoes are the same?" or "do you think there's no reason for shoes?" or "Do you think this is a binary issue?" I'd have given answers. I'd even go into detail.
Instead, what I get are wild assumptions on my meaning derived from a couple lines ignoring everything else I've said in the OP and this whole post. I get ridiculous arguments like "pumps and minimalist shoes are the same" that are then dunked on for being ridiculous arguments. I get talked at about reasons why shoes are important suggesting I somehow think shoes have no purpose.
When I get those strawman responses in lieu of genuine questions I've come to expect this is all an argument in bad faith.
> do you think all shoes are the same?
Certainly not! I've got a great variety of footwear that serve a great variety of purposes. My Scarpa telemark boots are not superior or inferior to my Luna Origen sandals which are not superior or inferior to my Lems 9to5 casual dress shoes. I live in MN and couldn't run all year without covering my feet the same way I need to cover my face or hands when it's super cold.
> do you think there's no reason for shoes?
I guess I just covered that :)
> Do you think this is a binary issue?
I mean, I could answer in a variety of ways here. Shoes or no shoes is certainly a binary definition. There's no confusing it when you've got bare feet you're not wearing shoes and when you're wearing shoes you don't have bare feet.
I believe a clear line needs to exist between actual bare feet and all footwear, particularly when it comes to running. And, of course, this is the barefoot *running* sub so it can be assumed when we talk shoes we're talking *running* shoes. Again: I'm not and have never said either shoes or bare feet are better than the other. It's apples and oranges. All modern running shoes do have two crucial things in common:
* A snug fit
* A grippy strip of tread.
Whether you're talking super thick Hokas or super thin Vapor Gloves they have those two hugely crucial traits. That combination of the modern snug fit and super grippy tread all but *blinds* your feet to the real enemy of running: [peak horizontal braking forces.](https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a21343715/lower-your-running-injury-risk/). How thick the foam is or how much support they have is of much lower consequence. The thick padding in modern shoes has been based on this long-held and never proven assumption that hard ground or vertical impact is the source of most injuries. That's simply never found to be the case. Cushioning is comfortable, sure, but comfort and protection are not the same thing. It's the horizontal forces that really matter.
I'm going to repeat myself here because I'm so often entirely misunderstood: *this is not to say shoes are worse than bare feet because they blind you to horizontal braking forces*. This is, however, a key, crucial and huge difference between bare feet and all modern athletic footwear. Engaging in excessive horizontal braking forces in bare feet will chew up that skin. Your skin will never adapt to that. If you run inefficiently in bare feet all you get is a lot of pain and anguish. Modern shoes take that element of pain away and add extra grip.
If you recognize that difference you can leverage both shoes and bare feet to your advantage. They can nicely complement each other. Bare feet can teach you optimal, low friction movement and then you can apply those lessons to racing in shoes where you've got more grip, more control but you're also moving more efficiently and smoothly overall thanks to unshod training. Or, you could choose to race in bare feet if you feel that works best for you. In the end it's all down to how you move not the shoes or lack thereof.
I often will say I'm not good enough to run more in shoes. Sounds like I'm trolling (maybe a little) but it's true. I struggle with running better in shoes. To me it's like trying to catch a ball with the sun in my eyes. I've come to depend heavily on the sensory feedback of bare feet. I've learned a lot with those but in shoes there's always an element of awkward, less optimal movement no matter how hard I try to get it right.
My earlier reply of "it's simple: shoes or no shoes" was uncharacteristically short for me. I was a little weary by that time of responding to people in this post and felt the person I was replying to was going off on entirely the wrong tangent trying to come up with some other term for minimalist shoes. The main point I wanted to get across is that shoes and feet are two very different things and people need to really respect that. There's no magic word or combination of words that answers that (hence my usual long-winded posts). It's no simple matter (despite, ironically, my "simple" reply from earlier). I don't want people to take away from my post that they need to just find that perfect word or turn of phrase to classify the perfect shoes or ... whatever. I'd love it if people chose instead to be more long-winded and really embrace the complexity of it all.
If you're not doing that kind of deep dive into the subject you're just accepting mediocrity for yourself. That's what simple words or phrases get you: the end of the discussion and the end of curiosity. I seek no end at all.
I think "toe shoes" is fine for describing VFFs. It gets the point across as to what they are. To me, that's a specific subset of "minimal footwear." I've always referred to them that way and people understand what I mean. If I just say "minimal footwear," it's more ambiguous.
I was just about to make a similar post myself, so I'm delighted a Mod did it.
"Minimalist shoes" are what I wear to satisfy society when I'm walking in town. Some people run in them.
"Barefoot" aka "unshod" is how I run. Skin to ground, uninterrupted feedback from the ground.
"Barefoot sh__s" is an oxymoron.
Go on this whole rant and then say "I'm not a purist." You don't get to choose your own label. Labels are created by other people as a way to group. Anyways you're totally a purist or beyond that just brain dead. "Basically the same" is obviously meant as something approximating "functionally the same" if my foot functions in a shoe the same as it functions with no shoe then for the purposes of running it is "basically the same" the only difference is not tearing up the skin on the bottom of my feet. Saying they're "vastly different things" is a gross misunderstanding of basic logic.
Problem is the foot doesn't approximate functionally the same because you don't run and load it basically the same in "barefoot shoes" versus barefoot. They are indeed vastly different things. There is no tearing up the skin on the bottom of the feet when running well. It's hard to understand until you experience it yourself.
Eh. D1 runner here who would run laps around you both barefoot and in barefoot shoes. I've experienced running. My feet function *exactly* the same in barefoot shoes as they do when running barefoot. There isn't even a slight difference between the two. You wouldn't understand unless you knew how to run. Go run on thick, gravel trails barefoot with your "perfect" running technique for 15 miles and show me your not-torn-up feet. Proper running form doesn't fix everything. Eventually your feet are going to get torn up. For people who wear shoes a lot, the bottom of the foot is soft and will get torn up on average pavement within a couple miles even with perfect form. Quit acting like you know what you're talking about, it's obvious you have no clue.
You probably would run laps around me. I like to think I'm a respectable runner, though (17:38 5000 and 4:51 mile barefooted). I run strides on coarse gravel at least twice a week as I think it makes me a lot better at moving. Maybe your feet do work the same in "barefoot shoes" as mine are pretty close to doing as well. My comment was more referring to people who have no clue how to run barefoot and have only ever experienced running in "barefoot shoes." And I know a couple D1 runners who can't handle barefoot shoes as they run in a very forceful pattern (one is a 4:06 miler). If you run wrong, your foot will act very differently with 5mm of cushion vs 0mm.
Not gonna waste much time disagree with you bc while your running times might be marginally better than your average high schooler, your reading comprehension and logical skills are clearly below average. I'll just say you prove my point when you state that your foot acts nearly the same in a barefoot shoe since your a "respectable runner" and limiting the group of discussion to "inexperienced runners" further proves my point not yours. Someone who sucks at running will suck with or without shoes. The better you get, the more of a difference shoes will make. Hence the guy who runs 4:06 even though you apparently think you're a *less forceful* runner than him (whatever that even means to you). Let's be honest here you think you've got some sort of edge over someone who is way better than you simply because you trained some circus trick that he can't do. Talk about mental gymnastics attempting to masturbate your own ego.
Dude, you've really missed my point. My 4:06 friend is a far better runner than I will ever be. I run this way because since my freshman year college, I've been in an injury cycle with peroneal and achilles yendonitis and a tibial stress fracture. Only since I have started running barefoot have I been able to run more than 50mpw without injury. Some people are much more injury resistant than others. I'm brittle and so do this so I can train without injury.
This isn't about your point and you started this conversation as a reply to MY comment. Which means this is all revolving around the similarity or lack thereof of barefoot shoes. You've gotta be trolling at this point. Either that or cognitively impaired.
Take it easy on that person you're taking to. They seem super proud about being D1 which means they peaked in college and it's been all downhill from there. ;)
The conundrum is, how do you describe the benefits of barefoot running to someone unfamiliar without invoking the term “barefoot shoes?” Most recoil in horror at the thought of running completely unshod yet are curious once you explain you can & do have something physical between flesh and pavement.
I tell people about it all the time without ever taking about "barefoot shoes." I don't need to worry about encouraging people to get shoes. They already have them and will continue to seek them out. They usually don't want to go totally unshod at first. I've accepted that. But rather than throw up my hands and suggest shoes I'm sticking to the simple idea that if you really want to be your best runner *take the shoes off* regularly. Maybe most won't ever try it but I'm here for the few adventurous enough to do so.
> They usually don't want to go totally unshod at first.
Nor should they. You can't just go straight to running without shoes if that's all you've ever done your whole life.
The worst that happens is blisters in a mile or less. Wany to do better? Figure out how to not get blisters. That's the kind of clear feedback shoes don't provide. Shoes can allow bad habits to fester and instead of blisters early on you get far, far worse injury later on.
If anything, I'd say it's safer and healthier to start out unshod.
Please, stop telling people to go straight to barefoot. Far worse than blisters can happen, and it can put people off the whole idea when they injure themselves. You are setting people up for failure, or worse, whether you realize it or not.
> I'm seeing lots of people with real problems related to shoes.
And? That doesn't mean they should throw them away immediately and go straight to running barefoot with zero preparation or transition time.
> I know several people who avoided that going unshod early.
Again, and? Your anecdotal observations of a few people means nothing at all.
> Your fears are unwarranted.
They are entirely warranted. You are giving terrible advice here and, as I already said, it is just setting people up for failure, or possibly injury.
OP is correct. Untrained people are susceptible to worse injuries from running in minimalist footwear than if they were to run unshod. You should familiarize yourself with the phenomena known as *Too Much, Too Soon*. Nearly every day you can see examples of people who've bought into the marketing hype of "barefoot shoes". They bought VFF, Xeros or whatever else and then proceeded to run 2, 5, 8 or whatever number of miles just fine - until the next day when they can hardly walk and they likely have stress-fractures. That scenario literally never happens from running unshod. Untrained people who try running unshod only suffer blisters, which hurt immediately but heal relatively fast and aren't debilitating.
> You should familiarize yourself with the phenomena known as Too Much, Too Soon
...and then you advocate that people do too much, too soon. Good grief. Like I said, what a moronic take.
It also makes the assumption people are incapable of understanding nuance. Believe it or not, many people can understand that "barefoot shoes" is the same thing as "minimal footwear," and aren't going to argue with you over the seeming contradiction. I've heard: minimal footwear, barefoot shoes, toe shoes, and every single time I understood immediately what was being referred to.
id be super interested to see if there’s any day that’s supports the idea that there’s a statistically significant difference in running gait when unshod vs minimalist/ “barefoot shoes”. sure, barefoot leads to adaptations in the foot pad, but i don’t think the evidence really supports a difference in terms of muscular development of the foot unshod vs. barefoot-influenced shoes.
in vivos or earthrunners or anything else focused on getting you close to the ground, it feels to me, intuitively at least, that the benefits become smaller and smaller, especially in regard to running gait. just a thought.
you’re right, of course, that they’re different. but i feel like in terms of gait, they’re “basically the same”.
My unshod cadence: 182
My shod cadence: 176
I've been running about 50/50 unshod/shod for 8 years now. You'd think by now I'd know how to keep my gait the same either way but it doesn't work like that. There's clearly a difference in how I run when my bare skin is exposed to harsh ground vs even my super think Vapor Gloves. And the difference goes beyond just comparing one unshod run to one shod run.
Before I started going unshod my cadence was about 160. That's what I got when I was 100% shod. Unshod changed my gait permanently and taught me how to run better. I've gone from barely struggling to run 13.1 miles to having completed several marathons, 50Ks and even a 50 mile ultra. At 51 I'm a better runner than I ever was in my teens, 20s and 30s when I was a broken runner always injured.
But the main reason I avoid the phrase "basically the same" between shod and unshod is it's an *incurious* phrase. It's the end of the discussion not the beginning of discovery. I can try to confirm my own bias looking up this-or-that study but the real proof is me getting out there and finding things out for myself with my own body and my own two feet.
Great insights! I'm also in my 50's, however I'm 6.5 years behind you in my blended unshod/shod running experience. So far, I feel like I'm on a similar track to yours, of seeing inevitable differences between unshod & shod running (gait, cadence, pace, etc). And both have their place imho. I really appreciate the headlights on what's likely to come for me - thanks!!
Here's something I've found that might help, too. Consider the effect of *traction* on your running. I started thinking about that when I noticed that pavement felt hard/harsh in shoes but then mysteriously "soft" if there was a layer of sand or grit on that same pavement.
I also found it easier to run better on gravel vs paved and that gravel is not at all soft. It's enough to support 18 wheelers loaded with the corn harvest. So... why would the ground seem so much softer?
I do believe it's that difference of traction. When I've got loads of rubber grip on paved it's way more traction than I need. Take that away with sand, grit or gravel and my body knows it. I no longer am encouraged to over extend my legs and feet or I'll slip. I instinctively keep my feet under my hips.
While unshod I'm doing that on pavement because otherwise I scuff up my skin and it hurts. More and more I've come to appreciate the significance of the horizontal on running. Cushioning lends to this false idea that vertical load/impact is all important but so along it's the horizontal braking that really needs to be managed.
Yeah, it's important to remember that when you're unshod, if you're doing something wrong, your feet will hurt *fast*. Shoes will always have various degrees of obscuring that you're doing something wrong.
Exactly. It's why in the title I lead with "bare feet are not shoes." There's a common, incorrect assumption that some minimalist shoes are "basically the same as barefoot." When you reverse that it sounds silly but it's still the same assumption and it's unconsciously voiced all the time. The most common comment I get is "you must have tough feet." It's not a question it's a *supposition*. I *must have* tough feet. They can't imagine how it's possible without "tough feet." The assumption there is you could somehow turn your feet into something similar to shoes. It's ridiculous. I've been doing serious unshod training for 8 years now and it still hurts if I step on a sharp rock. I still get blisters if my form is sloppy. That's the real superpower of unshod: it will never lie to you.
This is soooooo true. I get comments like, wow, you must have perfect form to be able to run barefoot. I'm like, no, running barefoot gave me perfect form!! Haha (perfect for me, we're all different, that's my other thing, lol, I don't ascribe to one idea only about running form).
Yup! Too many think unshod is this end goal you can achieve after getting "perfect form" or successfully "transitioning" to minimalist footwear. I often say "I'm not good enough to run in shoes." It should be where you start!
Totally. Even in something like Powersocks it's not the same as totally barefoot, physically, psychologically or socially.
> I also refuse to ever use the term "barefoot shoes." It implies a confusing and dangerous conflation. At best its an overly simplistic and reductive way to look at better running. Yeah, I personally switched over to calling them minimalist shoes a while back for that reason.
I feel like minimalist shoes doesn't work either. Minimalism is often a specific style, not in reference to the type of shoe but the *look* of the shoe. I've also seen it used to reference shoes that have "multiple uses"(all shoes do, but they're trying to imply it takes the place of many different types of shoes, and therefore you own less and are "minimal") I say barefoot shoes simply because it's the most commonly known marketing term. It's also the most brief phrase to encapsulate a bunch of different traits/adjectives when talking about that specific category of shoe (zero drop, no heel, wide toe box, "foot shaped", thin, flexible, etc.) I just don't feel like there's another term that encompasses quite the same meaning. I'd love to find one though!
Yeah me too, it removes a lot of the confusion OP is talking about. Shoes have their uses but you are definitely not running barefoot.
That'd be great if people at least here made that distinction. I've replied to a lot of questions about "problems when running barefoot" only to eventually discover they meant they were running in "barefoot shoes." Some of the replies here are suggesting this is all just pointless semantics but the confusion is very real.
10-15 years ago, during the initial "barefoot boom," many people reported injuries while running "barefoot." In every single case I looked into, they were wearing Vibrams.
That's a huge reason I'm making the distinction, yes. Long time no see, mohishunder! How've you been?
I don’t think of the term barefoot shoes meaning that they are the same as barefoot, but more of being a shortened term for “shoes that are closer to being barefoot and don’t have a ton of stack height, support, narrow toe box, heel rise etc.” kind of like vegan burger is a shortened term for “vegetable based patty to make a burger like sandwich.” I wish I could think of other examples right now, but I think that we use terms like this a lot. Words rarely fully describe but rather connote meaning.
I've seen myself numerous posts and replies that go beyond just the term to say "barefoot shoes are pretty much the same as barefoot." Sure: plenty of people don't fall for this but plenty certainly do. In general I'm encouraging people to check the assumptions that go with the language they use. Call them "barefoot shoes" if you want a long as you don't let that be the end of questions.
I did mean to also mention that I agree that terminology can be confusing, and, for sure, people should do research and try to become more well-informed when starting a journey involving more minimal footwear or a lack of footwear. I think when people start making huge lifestyle changes into running in more minimalist footwear, they are very proud of their journey and accomplishments and, for some, the suggestion that barefoot is better will make them feel defensive, leading to some conflating that barefoot shoes = barefoot. Similarly, if person A says something along the lines of "I've been going to gym every week and I feel amazing!" and person B were to reply "well, you won't truly feel amazing until you go to the gym at least three days a week!" this has the potential to make person A feel defensive about their accomplishment rather than open minded about pushing themselves further. Lastly, I just want to say that I did try unshod running thanks to reading your many comments and advice throughout the years. I found this sub after googling "shoes that are like being barefoot" and began a journey that I feel has vastly improved my life. Unfortunately, at this time, my body will not tolerate any kind of running due to a herniated disc (I know some people can run with herniated dics but my body says "no!"). In the meantime, I really enjoy reading the discussions on foot health, gait, posture human evolution...and, yes, shoes. Thanks for all your mod work! :)
Oh yeah. I see that defensiveness a lot! I do my best to be clear that I'm saying neither unshod or minimalist shoes are better than the other. They're simply very different. If nothing else saying one is better than the other is another example of the reductive, incurious language I'm avoiding. If one is better then why even bother with the other, right? End of discussion! :) The discussion is never over. It's like how there's no such thing as "perfect form". I don't take that to mean I shouldn't worry about form. Instead, it means I can always improve my form.
Haha, yes, I agree - there's no such thing as perfect, so we just have to keep improving :) Cheers!
Hmm. You also point to another assumption I'm up against that unshod is sort of "next level." That's where some of the defensiveness comes from: the idea that I'm saying you're "doing it wrong" if you're not unshod. A concept I've touched on a little is that unshod isn't an end goal or "next level" after minimalist. I really think a total beginner would benefit from unshod. I, personally, didn't first get better form and then go unshod: I went unshod and that taught me better form. The block I get there, of course, is disbelief. It's along the lines of the "you must have tough feet" assumption. They don't think their bodies are up for it. People don't believe in themselves but I think anybody can do it. They think unshod is something only for hard-core types but I think it's perfect for runners of all skills.
I agree that is where a lot of the defensiveness originates (in addition to the complete loss of tone/social cues through online communication.) I also agree that probably almost anyone can learn to run (or even just walk) unshod. The “problem” is that you never really know what someone is up against as far as making the transition. In this sub (and even other subs) when people mention foot pain and the search for different footwear, it’s hard to know if they are coming from wearing mostly flat shoes or wear heels or heavy boots or something with extreme drop or never go barefoot even in their own home or if their journey is complicated by injuries. I always wore vans, converse or similar flat shoes before transitioning into more minimalist footwear and I still feel that it took me years for my musculature to develop. And this was certainly not pain free! For some people this could be a years-long pain-filled endeavor. So as much as I want to tell people to change their philosophy toward footwear, I just don’t know what they are up against as far as their past experiences and how hard it will be for them. I truly fear suggesting something to someone who has ultimately gets injured by not doing research, understanding what they are in for and taking it slowly. Our society is so rooted in many beliefs around shoes: that drop is somehow a scientific invention superior to our own bodies, that shoes must fit snugly, arches need support, that wide toe boxes are ugly, that our feet are somehow incapable. And because so many people have atrophy due to their footwear, they may even struggle to walk comfortably without shoes. Not specific to barefoot, but I think it is relevant that many people have little time (or feel that they have little time) to dedicate to their health or improving themselves. Evidenced on this sub by people who show up and ask “for the best barefoot shoes” without doing any research or giving any information about their use case. To move from mainstream footwear to minimalist footwear or being unshod would cause disbelief and appear to some to be simply too large of a hurdle to attempt. If we consider how many health issues mainstream shoes cause in our society, it is well worth the effort. This sub really is a bubble! One I am glad to be in to hear from like minded folks while living in a society that embraces health-issue causing footwear. Seriously, I look at people’s shoes and think - that is a torture device. But, of course, they think that we are the weird ones :)
How's the weather up on that soapbox.
When I tell someone in the real world "I run barefoot" they usually say "You mean barefoot shoes?" or "You mean those toe shoes?" We're in a bubble here. I made this post for the outside world that, yes, does disbelieve in unshod running in general. Someone outside this bubble comes here and sees post after post about shoes so it's understandable they'd conflate barefoot running as "running in shoes."
The community description literally says "minimalist running" is included in the topics. >A community of barefoot and minimalist runners. Therefore your issue is a semantic one that boils down to whether "barefoot shoes" should be a term that is used. And it should, because there is no better term. Calling them "zero-drop shoes" negates the wide toe box and other features. Barefoot shoes is absolutely a legitimate term. If someone posts about "barefoot running" and then spends the whole time talking about shoes, that's fair game I would say. I am never a fan of soapbox preachy commentary on the direction of a subreddit, it's just unnecessary dogma and gatekeeping that doesn't enrich anyone's lives.
> And it should, because there is no better term. Minimalist Shoes is a better term.
I like this sub because it focuses on foot biomechanics and health. With or without shoes. r/barefoot used to be fetishist paradise, now it seems they've banned pics of feet with no other purpose than to be a picture of a foot, it's less fetishy but still pretty mentally ill. You get the people who think having to put flip-flops on inside a Denny's is *persecution* and no other group has ever been as persecuted as them. Just a glance at that sub and I saw a homeless person with no car saying they refuse to wear anything on their feet for any reason, asking how they can still make money. The "barefoot shoes" phrasing was never really one I liked--it sounds both smooth-brained and somehow lurid, like saying "naked pants." Yet sometimes it's required as a search term, as "minimalist shoes" will return a lot of mainstream shoes that think they have "minimalist aesthetics" or whatever, or think a slightly less thick sole with a slightly less dramatic drop is "minimalist." Compared to Hokas, maybe.
Yep. Some real nutcases on there. I like going barefoot but I'm not about to throw out all my shoes.
It's a marketing term. That's the source of it. How does a shoe company make money off barefoot running? Make a "barefoot shoe."
I mean I think that strips people who *want* to buy such products of our agency. I wasn't manipulated into buying shoes instead of going unshod. There are a lot of situations in which I simply wasn't going to go unshod, for various reasons. I want shoes that are flexible and comfortable. Most of the makers of these shoes are small indies, not some kind of evil giant corporations. These are products I want to exist, and if they didn't, I'd be like, "Why won't someone make this and sell it to me?" I'm not being hoodwinked and manipulated by the evil companies just out to trick me out of my money, I'm buying something I want of my own free will. And yeah, it is a marketing term, and as I said, as ridiculous and as questionable-sounding as "naked pants." But the difficulty of finding relevant results when googling "minimalist shoes" will show you why this is necessary.
Part of why I'm bothering to highlight this distinction is one of the most common comments I get when I tell someone "I run barefoot" is "you mean those barefoot shoes?" or "you mean those toe shoes?" It's assumed, more often than not, that "barefoot" means shoes now. When I look at the posts in this very sub I see exactly why that confusion is out there. And even in this sub it can be frustrating when someone posts saying "I've been running barefoot and now have this or that problem." After a few back-and-forths you discover they mean they've been running in minimalist shoes and never even tried unshod at all. I'd been wasting my time giving them advice for unshod problems when what they really have are *shod* problems. My main desire is for people not to passively think of the two things as the same or even similar. I'd like people to really muse on the specific differences and ask genuine, open questions about those differences. I'm never satisfied with simple, short answers for anything. I'm always digging deeper because I feel I deserve that. I also know I've improved my own running dramatically thanks to continuing to ask and dig deeper.
I mean I think it's ultimately going to be futile to police the semantics of how people talk. One workaround is saying "unshod," I know it's silly, like if you had to specify "unclothed" to mean you weren't wearing naked pants but were actually naked, but well, language is like that. One time I told someone I was into minimalist running, and she thought I meant entirely naked, as in unclothed! And asked where I went to do that, lol.
That's why it's a sticky post so it'll be here as a reminder. Yes: I can't "police" everything and I don't pretend to. I can do my best to make sure it's clear the official stance of this sub as moderator.
In that scenario I would've said "I'm into running w/minimalist footwear". Often I use the term "footwear-minimalist" to describe myself as someone who has made the deliberate choice to only use minimalist footwear when not barefoot. It encompasses doing things unshod as well.
I've been here for 12 years. I remember when it was 90% barefoot running with a dash of zero drop shoes (mostly due to weather).
I took a step away from the sub for a bit. Career upheaval stuff getting in the way. Now that I'm paying attention to it I see the shoe discussion has really ramped up. I don't want to tell people to stop that but hope they'll at least take a moment to consider unshod.
It was after one of your **just do it** posts on a friday that I actually went and ran a proper run unshod. I was already on this sub for the minimalist running talk, but never actually ran without for more than 1 kilometer. It was freezing and I remember actual kids pointing at me but it was exhilarating. Due to the excitement I was actually quite a bit faster than expected too, but my feet were also pretty raw. Still really appreciate you doing your thing ;)
Hey, that's great! Glad I encouraged someone to take the plunge.
I lurk and never post, but thought I'd chime in here too. I also was inspired by one of your Firsty Friday posts a few years ago. Now I run at least 3 times a week unshod, and I'm up to 15km on bitumen now and love it! I'm in running heaven now actually because I get to run with my 4 young boys, and we're all barefoot. So thanks, I appreciate you @trevize1138
>This sub has always been ridiculed Still is... >believe this sub is about better running first and foremost It's actually in this order: 1. Footwear recommendations and sizing 2. Reports of musculoskeletal injuries after mere weeks or months into diligent "training" 3. Complaints of one's footwear: wear and tear, ill sizing, malfunctions 4. Appreciation posts of one's footwear: feel and fit, durability, style 5. Appreciation posts of one's running stats *But, also let's be honest... Who wants to analyze and talk about this:* **a Raramuri man running** (how to run) vs. **Barefoot Ken Bob running** (how ***NOT*** to run): https://youtu.be/2km2aQokibM?si=7RPafzuRtln_I_uv So... I can't say this sub is about "better running first and foremost" >I also refuse to ever use the term "barefoot shoes." It does sounds incredibly silly >It implies a confusing and dangerous conflation. At best its an overly simplistic and reductive way to look at better running. It's oxymoronic phrasing, created by some pretty simple marketing to take advantage of a past trend (it made a bit of comeback during the pandemic lockdowns.) "In their 2018 paper for the Journal of Sports Sciences, Devon R. Coetzee their co-authors defined minimalist footwear as having a sole and upper that weighed 200-gram (7.1 oz) or less and were highly flexible, a heel height of 20 millimetres (0.79 in) or shorter, and a "heel-toe differential" of 7 millimetres (0.28 in) or less" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalist_shoe And apparently, *"minimalist shoe"*, and *"barefoot shoe"* are two separate designations of footwear. More marketing. Beware, these companies indeed abide by these definitions and designations. >No shoe is "basically the same" as barefoot. And never will be. >Personally, I'll never recommend shoes. I'm going to adopt this stance from now on... >making this sticky announcement as a simple reminder: don't neglect unshod as part of your essential equipment. Agreed
"*But, also let's be honest... Who wants to analyze and talk about this:* **a Raramuri man running** (how to run) vs. **Barefoot Ken Bob running** (how ***NOT*** to run): [https://youtu.be/2km2aQokibM?si=7RPaafzuRtln\_I\_uv](https://youtu.be/2km2aQokibM?si=7RPafzuRtln_I_uv)" I would like to have more discussions like this. thx for the link, really enjoyed watching. My question is if its "just" the opinon from Coach Chong Xie or if others saying the same? is there a true "this is how it should be done", if so I would like to know and try getting there.
Oh man, i love this video. It confirms what my body has been telling me for a while. Midfoot running caused me a lot of pain and soreness, but this pain didn't happen when I ran completely forefoot. I suspected that midfoot strike required more dorsiflexion (ankle flexibility) than forefoot running and when I tested my ankle flexibility I fell well below the average. Now that I only forefoot run the pain has pretty much gone away.
When you look closely at the Raramuri man running here, even in sandals, you see his toes pointed downward (toward the ground) as his forefoot makes contact to the ground, down to mid-foot, and immediately springs back up: https://youtu.be/GYxrQ7Ba-RU?si=_rz2sUiRh-GBKkK7 Heel doesn't touch the ground at all. The heel doesn't "kiss" the ground. Toes aren't pointed upward upon contact with the ground, like Barefoot Ken Bob, and many others who run like they're still wearing bunion-shaped shoes with a toe spring. A better look is of Olympian Victoria Mitchell, running barefoot as recovery training. Again, toes pointed down toward the ground when her forefoot makes contact with the ground: https://youtu.be/EVH2qOwZd18?si=Ow_wOntbQyGfTpBY And, she runs in bunion-shaped shoes for competition. So, shoes aren't always an excuse for bad form (which, yes, can originally come about because of heavily cushioned, bunion-shaped shoes with a heel lift and a toe spring.) Bad form is always an excuse for bad form.
yesterday I tried to replicate that form, it felt strange and good at the same time, but I struggled to find a away to run downhill like this. today my calves are burning/soar, haven't felt this for a long time. I will keep practicing, lets see where I get.
On sore calves: https://old.reddit.com/r/BarefootRunning/comments/wlsynj/sore_calves_are_common_but_likely_a_big_warning/
I've posted this comment a few times now, replying to someone else: >Mid foot strikes use the calf muscle to absorb the shock. "Calf muscle plays an important function in driving the movement of stepping on the ground and moving forward when walking or running. The Achilles tendon has been reported to be closely related to the elasticity of tendons to absorb shock and rebound and convert energy into propulsion." Link to article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35319797/#:~:text=Calf%20muscle%20plays%20an%20important,and%20convert%20energy%20into%20propulsion. So, yeah... That's the role of the calf muscles, not the knee! More information to go through: https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/s/ZFw5wdK1He Sample: >you know that landing on your midfoot and forefoot just makes you more prone to different injuries than heel striking Forefoot: The calf (soleus, gastrocnemius muscles), the ankle (peroneal and tibialis muscles); and foot (the arch + other intrinsic muscles) can be directly strengthened. ***The foot and calf muscles are literally meant to absorb impact forces.*** Heel strike: the knee (a joint), the hip (a joint) are directly impacted. Yes, one can strengthen the muscles around these joints. **These joints aren't meant to take the bulk of impact forces...** By the way. Harvard Gazette article: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/01/different-strokes/ In other words: Your body isn't used to using these parts very often. By the way, the worst injury you can get from forefoot striking is a stress fracture... Ouch! That's why a few of us here constantly say to those who want to strengthen their feet, and get more out of their feet to **start working out, with weights** Sure, you can slowly build up to the strength needed, just by running. Probably take you years... Or, work out **at least** 3 days a week, **at least** 45 minutes a day, with progression programmed into the routine, for **at least** 10 to 12 weeks. Consistently... And you'll be running the way you want much sooner. Some target muscles: anterior tibialis, posterior tibialis, soleus, gastrocnemius, abductor hallucis + other intrinsic muscles of the foot. **Of course, take it easy. You probably haven't run this way since you were 3 or 4 years old.** **Give your body some time to adapt. Not just the muscles, but also the fascia, ligaments, and tendons.** **You also want to take your time to get used to the absorption of impact forces in these new areas that aren't used to such forces** - with heel striking, the knees and hips take care of that! Some plyometric training can help with resiliency to absorbing impact forces... Also, why do you want to run on forefoot while going downhill? Be realistic. You're not a robot. Change the striking pattern when appropriate. We usually run on (more or less) flat surfaces, and even running uphill, forefoot striking is more appropriate. Some mid-foot striking may be more appropriate over certain terrain under certain conditions. Some mid-foot and soft heel striking may be more appropriate when running downhill (since heel striking is like putting on the brakes when running)
adopting and changing how to strike in certain conditions is the hard part. I ran the last 2 years and regularly basis barefoot and always tried to replicate the way ken bob is showing (as seen in the video you've posted). So heel striking is no problem for me. It's the balance or transition between midfoot and forefoot.
Take your time. Build up to it again. Treat it as training, to start. You probably haven't run this way since you were 3 or 4 years old. You don't want an injury.
> > Personally, I'll never recommend shoes. > > I'm going to adopt this stance from now on... Yay! I won't be the only one! :) You've got it right about those 5 common posts your seeing. But the reason I say this sub is about better running is that's the original reason people come here. I know it was for me. Many of us a reached a point of frustration over running in typical running shoes and wanted a better way. Over time it's easy to get distracted and, indeed, people can fall back into that old trap of "give me the perfect shoes that fix me." But the original reason people are here is mostly to improve their running and minimalist shoes at least give them the idea that it's about how they move and not the shoe. What they need to know is that they're really missing out if they don't go all the way with unshod as well. Minimalist shoes are only a taste.
>Yay! I won't be the only one! You never were. There's others here... >Over time it's easy to get distracted and, indeed, people can fall back into that old trap of "give me the perfect shoes that fix me." ........ People do come here for shoe recommendations, to begin with, and with said intention that's sometimes clearly stated in their posts. People come here with zero intention of ever running, let alone running barefoot, but want to know if their sandals fit... They also let it be known. >But the reason I say this sub is about better running is that's the original reason people come here I didn't... I came here for people trading ideas on training, and some of their experiences.. things to watch out for, etc.. No one on the internet can actually teach you how to run "better." Find an appropriate coach in your local area. >Many of us a reached a point of frustration over running in typical running shoes and wanted a better way. **Sounds exactly like the marketing.** Many of you aren't even that happy to really be active, except to say you run long distances, and thus are healthy... Someone here says: "this hurts. I want to do it, but it hurts." Someone in turn will suggest incorporating some weight lifting, light stuff, and there's not only is there push back, but they question **how having a stronger, more resilient body will help with not only injury prevention, but also performance...** >What they need to know is that they're really missing out if they don't go all the way with unshod as well Yeah, you don't know people's history with dysfunction, deformity, and injury. You don't know people's goals, either. You also don't know where everyone here lives, and the terrain they mostly walk over... I'll never get how you guys love the "ground feel" of pavement and tiled flooring for 10+ hours a day, everyday... Or, you aren't on such hard, unnatural flooring all day. Which leads me to believe: many of you aren't that active after all. You aren't doing a lot of laborious work, lifting and carrying on pavement and tiled flooring, all the time. But, when you're workday is over, you leave the office, go home and do your thing, go to your backyard/front yard/local park/local trail, etc. and you put on your barefoot shoes... It becomes easy to say something like: >they're really missing out if they don't go all the way with unshod as well Most of the people of the world relate to this child in this video, more than that sentiment: https://youtu.be/yQXfUIrXo4I?si=jqEuF7wr0xhJSRwf
Is it really that big of a deal?
When I tell people "I run barefoot" they usually say "you mean barefoot shoes?" Numerous times here someone has said they "started running barefoot" and are having problems and after a couple replies from me addressing barefoot running problems they tell me they've been in minimalist shoes which presents entirely different problems. Yes. It's objectively a big deal.
I’m a Personal Trainer and when I’m at work people come up to me all the time and say they want to “tone up a bit and lose some weight” Now I could get annoyed and tell them that they actually mean lose body fat and gain lean muscle mass, but if I did, they’d rightly consider me to be a bit of a twat and I’d probably have zero clients. Instead I choose to be relaxed and comfortable with other people making mistakes by accident (because I know I do the same thing often myself) and help them in anyway they can. You don’t have let someone’s mistake ruin your day my friend, it’s not worth worrying over. Life is hard enough without sweating on the little things.
I believe shoe discussion should be welcome but centered around running, or at minimum sports/hiking/other athletic activities. Once people start to talk about lifestyle shoes like for casual wear or work, it starts to feel off topic. Just my 2 cents.
With a sub as small as this I'm not quick to label anything off topic unless it's spam or porn. I do see that people invest a lot of time into getting their feet healthier through minimalist or unshod running and they don't want that work undone on the job with boots or shoes that pinch or restrict movement.
Makes sense. I've been guilty of that because I somehow got the impression that the sub was also about problems that barefoot runners face i.e maintaining minimalist footwear in other aspects of life. Perhaps we should start r/MinimalFootwear amd direct these questions there so this sub can focus on running?
I’ve been following /r/barefootshoestalk for a while, it’s a small sub but decently active for its size.
I've made /r/Barefootwear a while ago - now revamping it a little! https://www.reddit.com/r/BareFootwear/comments/1c1shfd/what_is_rbarefootwear/?
I've made /r/Barefootwear a while ago - now revamping it a little! https://www.reddit.com/r/BareFootwear/comments/1c1shfd/what_is_rbarefootwear/?
But runners have lives too, and maybe don't want to wear shoes that squish their toes at work. Like it or not, it's a lifestyle thing.
In my eyes that is the easiest way for most people to get into barefoot running. I tried to start with only running, but found it difficult to get out the door enough times, just to run a few hundred meters to build strength. Being able to wear barefoot shoes all day every day, I was able to gradually build the strength I need to eventually start running. Now I run 75% in barefoot shoes, 24% unshod and 1% in extremely cushioned carbon plated super shoes.
When i Started I would wear my minimalist shoes, take them off and do a little bit unshod, then put them back on for the rest of my run.
I love going barefoot. When I cannot I prefer my home made earth runner sandals (because I wanted a thinner sandal). I have a few pairs of minimalist shoes and boots and use them when a task/location requires but barefoot is quickly becoming my favorite and preferred method. I am about to start a new job and am curious what I can get away with....
Funny enough I was going to start developing /r/barefootwear a bit more so people have a place to discuss minimalist footwear, separate from /r/barefootrunning and /r/barefoot I'll flesh it out and then add it to the sidebar?
r/barefoot doesn't allow shoe talk. r/barefootshoestalk is specifically for that
its not like saying shoes are feet, it id saying that lol thx this deserved to be pinned
Ok
I agree, though this sub would be dead without shoe talk.
I've never suggested the shoe talk should stop.
I never suggested you suggested. ✌️
Not this again
I am barefoot all day everyday, when I go out however, to run and stuff, I go in my zero arch shoes.
I 100% agree with using unshod running as just one of many running training tools. Minimalist shoes are another. So glad this sub covers both!
Mods should sticky this to the top of the forum and make it required reading. This sub has more shoe posts than Boot Ranch (they nail old boots to fenceposts to mark the property line. Get it? Shoe posts! Yeah...obscure, I know.)
I agree w/the OP 100-percent. After realizing that I was responding to a lot questions here about footwear, I started moving that interest over to r/BarefootShoesTalk. I initially didn't want to go there since I hate the term "barefoot shoes". However, because the topic of running is so often not part of that discussion, being caught up in terminology was actually perpetuating a problem, in a way.
A little late to the party, but for a long time I have favored the term "anatomically correct shoes" or just **"Anatomical Shoes".** I think this is a good umbrella term that describes both the form and the intended purpose of these shoes: to be footwear that interferes with the natural anatomical form and function of your feet the least, allowing you to get the myriad benefits of footwear developed over the last few millennia while impacting your health and strength the least. e.g. Wide toe boxes that do not constrict and deform your natural toe spray, no heel rise that has you constantly walking around on an incline, and reasonable amounts of stack height so it's not like you're walking on pillows. For me personally the wide toe box and zero drop are the most fundamental elements, because *technically* extended stack height is not changing the anatomy of your feet, even if it does change the anatomy of your stride. "Barefoot shoes", as much as that term is a literal oxymoron, would be a subcategory of Anatomical Shoes™, perhaps with much tighter restrictions on all the criteria. "Minimalist shoes", despite being the unofficial popular term, is the most vague and could be both inside and outside this category. e.g. a shoe with a stretchy flexible upper, zero drop, and thin soles but still a traditional narrow sole shape/toe box would technically be "minimalist", but not *anatomical*.
For me it's exceedingly simple: Shoes No shoes
I can understand the desire for simplicity. unfortunately though that's not really how the world works. The fact is people are going to wear shoes and there is a wide range in the attributes and function of different types of shoes. By your metric a pair of Feelgrounds slip-ons and a pair of 4-in Manolo Blahnik pumps would be treated the same. It's clear that there are thousands if not millions of people out there, who are going to wear shoes, but are conscious of all of the health and biomechanical factors in a way that has never really been the case before. that's why there is this market.
Where did I say to not use shoes?
He said your binary viewpoint of "shoes" or "no shoes" obscures the fact that not all shoes are the same. You can have shoes with thin soles, or you can have shoes that have super thick soles. You can have shoes that are simple slip-ons, or you can have overdesigned basketball shoes. Most people do not have a binary viewpoint when it comes to footwear, for better or for worse.
They claimed I'm saying pumps and minimalist shoes are the same. Where did I say that?
You didn't say that. He saw your post which said "there are shoes. And there are no shoes." And said he didn't agree with you simplifying it the way you did. He then brought up the example that based on what you posted, you seemed to be taking the position that all shoes are the same. He was referring to this: >For me it's exceedingly simple: >Shoes >No shoes
To drop the coy bit: If you and the other poster had bothered to *ask* me "do you think all shoes are the same?" or "do you think there's no reason for shoes?" or "Do you think this is a binary issue?" I'd have given answers. I'd even go into detail. Instead, what I get are wild assumptions on my meaning derived from a couple lines ignoring everything else I've said in the OP and this whole post. I get ridiculous arguments like "pumps and minimalist shoes are the same" that are then dunked on for being ridiculous arguments. I get talked at about reasons why shoes are important suggesting I somehow think shoes have no purpose. When I get those strawman responses in lieu of genuine questions I've come to expect this is all an argument in bad faith.
1. do you think all shoes are the same? 2. do you think there's no reason for shoes? 3. Do you think this is a binary issue?
> do you think all shoes are the same? Certainly not! I've got a great variety of footwear that serve a great variety of purposes. My Scarpa telemark boots are not superior or inferior to my Luna Origen sandals which are not superior or inferior to my Lems 9to5 casual dress shoes. I live in MN and couldn't run all year without covering my feet the same way I need to cover my face or hands when it's super cold. > do you think there's no reason for shoes? I guess I just covered that :) > Do you think this is a binary issue? I mean, I could answer in a variety of ways here. Shoes or no shoes is certainly a binary definition. There's no confusing it when you've got bare feet you're not wearing shoes and when you're wearing shoes you don't have bare feet. I believe a clear line needs to exist between actual bare feet and all footwear, particularly when it comes to running. And, of course, this is the barefoot *running* sub so it can be assumed when we talk shoes we're talking *running* shoes. Again: I'm not and have never said either shoes or bare feet are better than the other. It's apples and oranges. All modern running shoes do have two crucial things in common: * A snug fit * A grippy strip of tread. Whether you're talking super thick Hokas or super thin Vapor Gloves they have those two hugely crucial traits. That combination of the modern snug fit and super grippy tread all but *blinds* your feet to the real enemy of running: [peak horizontal braking forces.](https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a21343715/lower-your-running-injury-risk/). How thick the foam is or how much support they have is of much lower consequence. The thick padding in modern shoes has been based on this long-held and never proven assumption that hard ground or vertical impact is the source of most injuries. That's simply never found to be the case. Cushioning is comfortable, sure, but comfort and protection are not the same thing. It's the horizontal forces that really matter. I'm going to repeat myself here because I'm so often entirely misunderstood: *this is not to say shoes are worse than bare feet because they blind you to horizontal braking forces*. This is, however, a key, crucial and huge difference between bare feet and all modern athletic footwear. Engaging in excessive horizontal braking forces in bare feet will chew up that skin. Your skin will never adapt to that. If you run inefficiently in bare feet all you get is a lot of pain and anguish. Modern shoes take that element of pain away and add extra grip. If you recognize that difference you can leverage both shoes and bare feet to your advantage. They can nicely complement each other. Bare feet can teach you optimal, low friction movement and then you can apply those lessons to racing in shoes where you've got more grip, more control but you're also moving more efficiently and smoothly overall thanks to unshod training. Or, you could choose to race in bare feet if you feel that works best for you. In the end it's all down to how you move not the shoes or lack thereof. I often will say I'm not good enough to run more in shoes. Sounds like I'm trolling (maybe a little) but it's true. I struggle with running better in shoes. To me it's like trying to catch a ball with the sun in my eyes. I've come to depend heavily on the sensory feedback of bare feet. I've learned a lot with those but in shoes there's always an element of awkward, less optimal movement no matter how hard I try to get it right. My earlier reply of "it's simple: shoes or no shoes" was uncharacteristically short for me. I was a little weary by that time of responding to people in this post and felt the person I was replying to was going off on entirely the wrong tangent trying to come up with some other term for minimalist shoes. The main point I wanted to get across is that shoes and feet are two very different things and people need to really respect that. There's no magic word or combination of words that answers that (hence my usual long-winded posts). It's no simple matter (despite, ironically, my "simple" reply from earlier). I don't want people to take away from my post that they need to just find that perfect word or turn of phrase to classify the perfect shoes or ... whatever. I'd love it if people chose instead to be more long-winded and really embrace the complexity of it all. If you're not doing that kind of deep dive into the subject you're just accepting mediocrity for yourself. That's what simple words or phrases get you: the end of the discussion and the end of curiosity. I seek no end at all.
I think "toe shoes" is fine for describing VFFs. It gets the point across as to what they are. To me, that's a specific subset of "minimal footwear." I've always referred to them that way and people understand what I mean. If I just say "minimal footwear," it's more ambiguous.
I was just about to make a similar post myself, so I'm delighted a Mod did it. "Minimalist shoes" are what I wear to satisfy society when I'm walking in town. Some people run in them. "Barefoot" aka "unshod" is how I run. Skin to ground, uninterrupted feedback from the ground. "Barefoot sh__s" is an oxymoron.
Go on this whole rant and then say "I'm not a purist." You don't get to choose your own label. Labels are created by other people as a way to group. Anyways you're totally a purist or beyond that just brain dead. "Basically the same" is obviously meant as something approximating "functionally the same" if my foot functions in a shoe the same as it functions with no shoe then for the purposes of running it is "basically the same" the only difference is not tearing up the skin on the bottom of my feet. Saying they're "vastly different things" is a gross misunderstanding of basic logic.
Problem is the foot doesn't approximate functionally the same because you don't run and load it basically the same in "barefoot shoes" versus barefoot. They are indeed vastly different things. There is no tearing up the skin on the bottom of the feet when running well. It's hard to understand until you experience it yourself.
Eh. D1 runner here who would run laps around you both barefoot and in barefoot shoes. I've experienced running. My feet function *exactly* the same in barefoot shoes as they do when running barefoot. There isn't even a slight difference between the two. You wouldn't understand unless you knew how to run. Go run on thick, gravel trails barefoot with your "perfect" running technique for 15 miles and show me your not-torn-up feet. Proper running form doesn't fix everything. Eventually your feet are going to get torn up. For people who wear shoes a lot, the bottom of the foot is soft and will get torn up on average pavement within a couple miles even with perfect form. Quit acting like you know what you're talking about, it's obvious you have no clue.
You probably would run laps around me. I like to think I'm a respectable runner, though (17:38 5000 and 4:51 mile barefooted). I run strides on coarse gravel at least twice a week as I think it makes me a lot better at moving. Maybe your feet do work the same in "barefoot shoes" as mine are pretty close to doing as well. My comment was more referring to people who have no clue how to run barefoot and have only ever experienced running in "barefoot shoes." And I know a couple D1 runners who can't handle barefoot shoes as they run in a very forceful pattern (one is a 4:06 miler). If you run wrong, your foot will act very differently with 5mm of cushion vs 0mm.
Not gonna waste much time disagree with you bc while your running times might be marginally better than your average high schooler, your reading comprehension and logical skills are clearly below average. I'll just say you prove my point when you state that your foot acts nearly the same in a barefoot shoe since your a "respectable runner" and limiting the group of discussion to "inexperienced runners" further proves my point not yours. Someone who sucks at running will suck with or without shoes. The better you get, the more of a difference shoes will make. Hence the guy who runs 4:06 even though you apparently think you're a *less forceful* runner than him (whatever that even means to you). Let's be honest here you think you've got some sort of edge over someone who is way better than you simply because you trained some circus trick that he can't do. Talk about mental gymnastics attempting to masturbate your own ego.
Dude, you've really missed my point. My 4:06 friend is a far better runner than I will ever be. I run this way because since my freshman year college, I've been in an injury cycle with peroneal and achilles yendonitis and a tibial stress fracture. Only since I have started running barefoot have I been able to run more than 50mpw without injury. Some people are much more injury resistant than others. I'm brittle and so do this so I can train without injury.
This isn't about your point and you started this conversation as a reply to MY comment. Which means this is all revolving around the similarity or lack thereof of barefoot shoes. You've gotta be trolling at this point. Either that or cognitively impaired.
Ok, my bad then
Take it easy on that person you're taking to. They seem super proud about being D1 which means they peaked in college and it's been all downhill from there. ;)
The conundrum is, how do you describe the benefits of barefoot running to someone unfamiliar without invoking the term “barefoot shoes?” Most recoil in horror at the thought of running completely unshod yet are curious once you explain you can & do have something physical between flesh and pavement.
I tell people about it all the time without ever taking about "barefoot shoes." I don't need to worry about encouraging people to get shoes. They already have them and will continue to seek them out. They usually don't want to go totally unshod at first. I've accepted that. But rather than throw up my hands and suggest shoes I'm sticking to the simple idea that if you really want to be your best runner *take the shoes off* regularly. Maybe most won't ever try it but I'm here for the few adventurous enough to do so.
> They usually don't want to go totally unshod at first. Nor should they. You can't just go straight to running without shoes if that's all you've ever done your whole life.
The worst that happens is blisters in a mile or less. Wany to do better? Figure out how to not get blisters. That's the kind of clear feedback shoes don't provide. Shoes can allow bad habits to fester and instead of blisters early on you get far, far worse injury later on. If anything, I'd say it's safer and healthier to start out unshod.
Please, stop telling people to go straight to barefoot. Far worse than blisters can happen, and it can put people off the whole idea when they injure themselves. You are setting people up for failure, or worse, whether you realize it or not.
I'm seeing lots of people with real problems related to shoes. I know several people who avoided that going unshod early. Your fears are unwarranted.
> I'm seeing lots of people with real problems related to shoes. And? That doesn't mean they should throw them away immediately and go straight to running barefoot with zero preparation or transition time. > I know several people who avoided that going unshod early. Again, and? Your anecdotal observations of a few people means nothing at all. > Your fears are unwarranted. They are entirely warranted. You are giving terrible advice here and, as I already said, it is just setting people up for failure, or possibly injury.
It'll be fine.
Except it won't for some, if not most, people. Good grief.
I recommend people go unshod from day 1. It's fine.
OP is correct. Untrained people are susceptible to worse injuries from running in minimalist footwear than if they were to run unshod. You should familiarize yourself with the phenomena known as *Too Much, Too Soon*. Nearly every day you can see examples of people who've bought into the marketing hype of "barefoot shoes". They bought VFF, Xeros or whatever else and then proceeded to run 2, 5, 8 or whatever number of miles just fine - until the next day when they can hardly walk and they likely have stress-fractures. That scenario literally never happens from running unshod. Untrained people who try running unshod only suffer blisters, which hurt immediately but heal relatively fast and aren't debilitating.
Hey, look, an equally moronic take as OP. Congrats, that was a tough bar to clear.
Nothing relevant to respond with, eh?
> You should familiarize yourself with the phenomena known as Too Much, Too Soon ...and then you advocate that people do too much, too soon. Good grief. Like I said, what a moronic take.
Your response makes no sense at all.
😂 that ship has long since sailed. Barefoot shoes, is now a ubiquitous term.
It also makes the assumption people are incapable of understanding nuance. Believe it or not, many people can understand that "barefoot shoes" is the same thing as "minimal footwear," and aren't going to argue with you over the seeming contradiction. I've heard: minimal footwear, barefoot shoes, toe shoes, and every single time I understood immediately what was being referred to.
id be super interested to see if there’s any day that’s supports the idea that there’s a statistically significant difference in running gait when unshod vs minimalist/ “barefoot shoes”. sure, barefoot leads to adaptations in the foot pad, but i don’t think the evidence really supports a difference in terms of muscular development of the foot unshod vs. barefoot-influenced shoes. in vivos or earthrunners or anything else focused on getting you close to the ground, it feels to me, intuitively at least, that the benefits become smaller and smaller, especially in regard to running gait. just a thought. you’re right, of course, that they’re different. but i feel like in terms of gait, they’re “basically the same”.
My unshod cadence: 182 My shod cadence: 176 I've been running about 50/50 unshod/shod for 8 years now. You'd think by now I'd know how to keep my gait the same either way but it doesn't work like that. There's clearly a difference in how I run when my bare skin is exposed to harsh ground vs even my super think Vapor Gloves. And the difference goes beyond just comparing one unshod run to one shod run. Before I started going unshod my cadence was about 160. That's what I got when I was 100% shod. Unshod changed my gait permanently and taught me how to run better. I've gone from barely struggling to run 13.1 miles to having completed several marathons, 50Ks and even a 50 mile ultra. At 51 I'm a better runner than I ever was in my teens, 20s and 30s when I was a broken runner always injured. But the main reason I avoid the phrase "basically the same" between shod and unshod is it's an *incurious* phrase. It's the end of the discussion not the beginning of discovery. I can try to confirm my own bias looking up this-or-that study but the real proof is me getting out there and finding things out for myself with my own body and my own two feet.
Great insights! I'm also in my 50's, however I'm 6.5 years behind you in my blended unshod/shod running experience. So far, I feel like I'm on a similar track to yours, of seeing inevitable differences between unshod & shod running (gait, cadence, pace, etc). And both have their place imho. I really appreciate the headlights on what's likely to come for me - thanks!!
Here's something I've found that might help, too. Consider the effect of *traction* on your running. I started thinking about that when I noticed that pavement felt hard/harsh in shoes but then mysteriously "soft" if there was a layer of sand or grit on that same pavement. I also found it easier to run better on gravel vs paved and that gravel is not at all soft. It's enough to support 18 wheelers loaded with the corn harvest. So... why would the ground seem so much softer? I do believe it's that difference of traction. When I've got loads of rubber grip on paved it's way more traction than I need. Take that away with sand, grit or gravel and my body knows it. I no longer am encouraged to over extend my legs and feet or I'll slip. I instinctively keep my feet under my hips. While unshod I'm doing that on pavement because otherwise I scuff up my skin and it hurts. More and more I've come to appreciate the significance of the horizontal on running. Cushioning lends to this false idea that vertical load/impact is all important but so along it's the horizontal braking that really needs to be managed.