Daddy got new shoes
 

I'm not yet willing to have my toes separated. I got these:

http://barefootrunningshoes.org/wp-c...ial%20Blue.jpg

I think Jon Miller either has the Vibrams or he's been interested in them.

You don't happen to be a POSE and/or Crossfit guy, do you?

Perfect for sand.

http://www.shoetail.co.uk/ekmps/shop...0%5Bekm%5D.jpg

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

What the f**k are those things in the first post by thingy...they look terrible!

I need a bit of cushioning myself otherwise I'd knacker my feet and joints.

That's called progress http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

No.

http://www.popsci.com/entertainment-amp-gaming/article/2009-05/running-barefoot

You cite a study in your book that shows that more shoe cushioning actually results in higher impact forces - apparently due to the subconscious response of planting the foot harder in order to maintain balance on big squishy soles. What about orthotics for those of us with over-pronation problems? My feet seem to get tired when I don't wear the orthotics.

I think you're doing the opposite of what you should. Think about arches in buildings. They're weakened if you support them from underneath. Shouldn't that be the same with your feet? So where is the medicinal value of arch support? The problem is, things take time to develop and strengthen. Orthotics shortcut the process. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1170253/The-painful-truth-trainers-Are-expensive-running-shoes-waste-money.html

In a paper for the British Journal Of Sports Medicine last year, Dr Craig Richards, a researcher at the University of Newcastle in Australia, revealed there are no evidence-based studies that demonstrate running shoes make you less prone to injury. Not one.

It was an astonishing revelation that had been hidden for over 35 years. Dr Richards was so stunned that a $20 billion industry seemed to be based on nothing but empty promises and wishful thinking that he issued the following challenge: 'Is any running-shoe company prepared to claim that wearing their distance running shoes will decrease your risk of suffering musculoskeletal running injuries? Is any shoe manufacturer prepared to claim that wearing their running shoes will improve your distance running performance? If you are prepared to make these claims, where is your peer-reviewed data to back it up?'
Dr Richards waited and even tried contacting the major shoe companies for their data. In response, he got silence.

So, if running shoes don't make you go faster and don't stop you from getting hurt, then what, exactly, are you paying for? What are the benefits of all those microchips, thrust enhancers, air cushions, torsion devices and roll bars?

The answer is still a mystery. And for Bowerman's old mentor, Arthur Lydiard, it all makes sense.

'We used to run in canvas shoes,' he said.

'We didn't get plantar fasciitis (pain under the heel); we didn't pronate or supinate (land on the edge of the foot); we might have lost a bit of skin from the rough canvas when we were running marathons, but generally we didn't have foot problems.

'Paying several hundred dollars for the latest in hi-tech running shoes is no guarantee you'll avoid any of these injuries and can even guarantee that you will suffer from them in one form or another. Shoes that let your foot function like you're barefoot - they're the shoes for me.'
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08723.html

Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years1, but the modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s. For most of human evolutionary history, runners were either barefoot or wore minimal footwear such as sandals or moccasins with smaller heels and little cushioning relative to modern running shoes. We wondered how runners coped with the impact caused by the foot colliding with the ground before the invention of the modern shoe. Here we show that habitually barefoot endurance runners often land on the fore-foot (fore-foot strike) before bringing down the heel, but they sometimes land with a flat foot (mid-foot strike) or, less often, on the heel (rear-foot strike). In contrast, habitually shod runners mostly rear-foot strike, facilitated by the elevated and cushioned heel of the modern running shoe. Kinematic and kinetic analyses show that even on hard surfaces, barefoot runners who fore-foot strike generate smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers. This difference results primarily from a more plantarflexed foot at landing and more ankle compliance during impact, decreasing the effective mass of the body that collides with the ground. Fore-foot- and mid-foot-strike gaits were probably more common when humans ran barefoot or in minimal shoes, and may protect the feet and lower limbs from some of the impact-related injuries now experienced by a high percentage of runners.

I'd rather run barefoot on concrete than in the jungle. (I've done both.)

If you don't like to read, just watch this video:

They're probably ridiculously expensive http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

WRONG, bucko.

Five Fingers

$75

Cheap by the standards of running shoes.

Zappos Running Shoes

And if you won't take my word or the prices of running shoes at a bargain online retailer, ask your idol KrazyHorse who is a runner how much running shoes typically cost him.


The actual up-scale model shown in the OP costs $100. Still on the low-end for running shoes.

That is a concern, yes. Ants, mosquitos, and parasites you can't see. Though the wrong type of footwear can be even worse than barefoot in some cases. Straps/seams/whatever that ants can get caught up in. You're protected somewhat from them getting to your skin, but if/when they do it's harder to get them out.

But more-so there are infection and disease problems from being barefoot in this type of environment. And most-so, there are lots of sharp and pokey things in the ground, often covered in a thin layer of mud.

No worse than the urban jungle with its broken glass, needles, condoms, etc.

That's why even though the Barefoot Professor up there runs in a city barefoot, he's running in the good parts and everyone else ought to wear something like those Vibram's which are rubber so you don't have to worry about being stabbed.

Easier to avoid dangers to your feet on concrete (a relatively homogeneous and stable surface) than in the jungle. If you can see it, you can avoid it.

That's why even though the Barefoot Professor up there runs in a city barefoot, he's running in the good parts and everyone else ought to wear something like those Vibram's which are rubber so you don't have to worry about being stabbed. Agreed.

And think of the hundreds of thousands who are plagued by shin splints with normal running shoes. Can it be any worse? The science says no.

Thingy! http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

We have a winner! http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

I spent a lot more than that, closer to 200$.

JM