Live data from Hacker News

Barefoot running: the best trainers money can’t buy

timesonline.co.uk

11–20 of 43 posts

Re: Barefoot running: the best trainers money can’t buy

#11

The benefits of barefoot running can be obtained without going totally shoeless. I haven't started running barefoot yet, but my beefy New Balance running shoes have been relegated to mucking about in the yard. I now run in a well-worn pair of Chuck Taylor hightops. Just going to a much more minimal shoe forced me to concentrate more on forefoot/mid-foot striking, a light, quick stride, and proper posture. What many p…

[deleted]

Re: Barefoot running: the best trainers money can’t buy

#13
post #6

Can't buy? Perhaps not actually barefoot, but my wife got a pair of these [1] and I'm planning on getting some soon myself. (For those not interested in clicking, think toe-socks with +5 armor rating) [1] http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/ edit: as to starkfist's comment, these and other "barefoot" shoes have been around for quite a while. Maybe if there were more correlation, but as-is I don't see any marketing stunt…

I'd seen them before, and they do look like a good idea.

Edit: here, I found where I'd seen them, at Wired:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/barefoot/

Re: Barefoot running: the best trainers money can’t buy

#14
post #7

Is anyone else suspicious that all these articles about barefoot running started appearing at the same time a bunch of companies came out with specialized "barefoot" shoes?

Nike has Free for 4-5 years. It had even added some cushioning to original Free over the years.

added some cushioning to original Free

Is that a joke? Or was there some need to add cushioning?

Re: Barefoot running: the best trainers money can’t buy

#17

That article has some good points, but I'm really frustrated by this sort of thing: Hartmann has worked with more than 100 world-class African athletes. “Most never wore shoes until their late teens,” he says. “They have few foot defects.” World class athletes have few foot defects? Can you say selection effect? My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually treat it as a way of life. They al…

> My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually treat it as a way of life.

This behavior is a common pattern with groups on the margins. Although it can be annoying, it doesn't have any bearing on the merits of barefoot running. The Ruby community is a good example, as are vegetarians.

I'm failing to see how callouses would be such a show stopper with barefoot running. Any of the minimal shoes available on the market are enough to prevent callouses if you're concerned about them. I've never owned a pair of traditional running shoes that didn't give me agonizing arch pain within 5 minutes of running, but I've been running for 6 months in a pair of Vibram Five Fingers with no pain at all--I've also got no ugly callouses.

> Feet, legs, and backs aren't evolved to properly support overweight joggers.

You're probably right on this point. But, to me, it's a lot like saying that our cardiovascular system is not properly evolved to transport blood with high levels of cholesterol.

Edit: The callouses bit.

Re: Barefoot running: the best trainers money can’t buy

#18
If nothing else I think we can be certain of one fact regarding barefoot running: it is a very appealing story. How many publications that don't typically cover running have written the same story now, and how many times has it made the front page of hacker news?

Re: Barefoot running: the best trainers money can’t buy

#20

That article has some good points, but I'm really frustrated by this sort of thing: Hartmann has worked with more than 100 world-class African athletes. “Most never wore shoes until their late teens,” he says. “They have few foot defects.” World class athletes have few foot defects? Can you say selection effect? My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually treat it as a way of life. They al…

> My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually treat it as a way of life. They always run barefoot, when that's not really necessary.

Disagreement about the validity of the "lifestyle" argument aside: when is it necessary to wear shoes? What are the disadvantages, apart from "massive callouses"?

> I forgot to explain the non-obvious disadvantages of barefoot running. While humans ran barefoot before shoes were invented, the typical prehistoric human wasn't as heavyset as the typical westerner. Feet, legs, and backs aren't evolved to properly support overweight joggers. Proper shoes can help correct problems in running form/gait that an individual's muscles or connective tissues can't compensate for.

It is undoubtedly unwise for someone that drastically overweight to start jogging cold turkey and that there is a literal breaking point in fitness to start barefoot running, but do you have some sources for the argument that those issues can be corrected with shoes (rather than, say, starting with a bike or elliptical machine)? Especially since joint issues in ankles and knees in particular - areas that barefoot running helps in - are prevalent among the obese.

Post reply on HN