Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Barefoot running: the best trainers money can’t buy

timesonline.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

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

#31

Post by chipsy »

jackfoxy wrote: post #24
warfangle wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a huge fan of VFF. Extremely comfortable (I dislike the pressure most shoes/socks put on forcing my toes together laterally), and great for running. I've been running with these on asphalt for the past six months, and feel the best I have in years. And I get comments/questions about them all the time on the train, welcome attention :)

After reading a HN linked article on barefoot running I did some research and bought my first pair of VFF about 2 months ago. Bought my second pair, Treks, two weeks ago for every day and use the first pair for running only. For me it has been a lifestyle changer. My feet and legs want to walk or run all the time. I'm frustrated by rainy days that leave me cooped up in the office. My wife says I get grumpy if I don't…

I just yesterday upgraded to the KSO Treks after about five months in regular KSOs because.....

- I hadn't done the tape mod, so the straps frayed and eventually broke.

- The Treks have more waterproof materials.

- I managed to slice up the soles. The Treks have thicker soles.

I'm looking forward to a run in the rain today :)

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

#32

Post by mattmcknight »

tgerhard wrote: post #10

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…

The Newton Running [1] shoe is also designed with additional padding on the forefoot to support forefoot based running styles, like barefoot running. I like them quite a bit. Barefoot really seems appealing to Luddites. The benefit of cushioning simply can't be denied. Even the supporters negatively compare the feeling of running on concrete barefoot to running on soft dirt. There is simply less impact on the body.

[1] http://www.newtonrunning.com/

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

#33

Post by eru »

AngryParsley wrote: post #23
rue wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 barefo…

What are the disadvantages, apart from "massive callouses"? I can't edit my comment anymore, but my dad loves to run barefoot. I mentioned callouses as an excuse to link to a blog post where he shows off his Fred Flintstone feet. As to the disadvantages... what if you're fighting Hans Gruber and he shoots a bunch of glass windows? I think being barefoot all the time is very different from just running barefoot. A bar…

> As to the disadvantages... what if you're fighting Hans Gruber and he shoots a bunch of glass windows?

Isn't this an argument in favour of barefoot-ness?

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

#34

Post by chapmanb »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #12

WRT healthier walking and posture: what shoes can be purchased that don't look completely ridiculous?

Sanuk sells thin flexible shoes. They are a bit casual, but a few styles are work friendly:

http://www.sanuk.com/products/341027

VivoBarefoot is another alternative, although a bit more expensive:

http://www.terraplana.com/vivobarefoot.php

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

#35

Post by Groxx »

lliiffee wrote: post #26
Groxx wrote: 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…

Another anecdote for these. I started running regularly a year or so ago. I'm no natural athlete, and even with relatively short runs of just a few miles, I would struggle with knee pain. (I'm quite tall.) After reading some of these articles, I decided to give the five fingers a try. At first, my hamstrings and feet were so tired I could hardly walk after running. (You don't realize how many muscles you have in your…

Same. If placebo cures X, doesn't that mean that, for them, the placebo is a cure for X?

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

#37

Post by jplewicke »

Retric wrote: post #14
leej wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There wasn't any need, but they did it anyway. I'm subscribed to the Ebay feed for the Free 3.0 in the hope that more of the old style will turn up, but the supply's been running low lately. Hopefully they'll see the error of their ways and start making the older style again.

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

#38

Post by rue »

AngryParsley wrote: post #23
rue wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 barefo…

What are the disadvantages, apart from "massive callouses"? I can't edit my comment anymore, but my dad loves to run barefoot. I mentioned callouses as an excuse to link to a blog post where he shows off his Fred Flintstone feet. As to the disadvantages... what if you're fighting Hans Gruber and he shoots a bunch of glass windows? I think being barefoot all the time is very different from just running barefoot. A bar…

Perhaps the following formulation would be appropriate: if you are not in shape to run, you are not in shape to run barefoot. But I do not think anyone has argued otherwise.

I had an inkling hygienic concerns might be partly underlying your opposition. Even without addressing whether the issue is really of much concern, Feelmax, Vibram and others make shoes that provide protection while allowing for "barefooting." Against the elements? This winter (down to -22ºC) I have been wearing a traditional moccasin with a 4mm flat rubber sole without any problems.

> I'm too lazy to go searching for sources that justify my claim, but you don't have to look far to find some weaker evidence. Look at people who have the muscular strength but not the structural support necessary to walk: they use braces to help restrict motion...

Support braces are an entirely different matter. I would contend that people who are reliant on mechanical contraptions for moving are as a group not the prime audience when talking about running of any kind.

> I guess a more concrete example would be this: If you had to wear a weighted vest while running, would you rather be barefoot or wearing supportive shoes?

I would prefer toe-stepping.

> If the vest is heavy enough, your calves won't support you and you'll be forced to heel-strike. At that point, a supportive and cushioning shoe would be less stressful than barefoot running.

I am not sure this is true at all. Yes, it is really hard to toe-step if you lack the muscle to support yourself, even though exercise will eventually strengthen you enough, but to go from that to asserting that heel-stepping is therefore better is a stretch. I would imagine that weight sufficient to force me on my heels would be highly destructive on joints (hence all such problems obese people face.) If you consider such weight pushed down on an unstable surface - which is what a cushioned shoe is - without the necessary ligament- or muscular control to maintain posture, the leg is virtually guaranteed to be constantly misaligned.

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

#40

Post by xiaoma »

gwern wrote: post #30
xiaoma wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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? A lot of world class athletes in the west do have foot defects.

{{fact}}. And which are not caused by their occupation?

The point is that world-class runners from countries in which most people train barefoot have far fewer foot defects than people from rich countries who are engaged in the exact same occupation.

What does {{fact}} mean?

Post reply on HN