I did some research (searching and reading old threads) on the Vibram FiveFingers, and the pediatrist who frequents this site advises to stay away from these type of footwear (when running). I'll try to find the link.

 

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=962792&postcount=17

 

Thanks.

 

I've been meaning to read the book "Born to Run," by Christopher McDougall (https://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greatest/dp/0307266303). Basically, the Tarahumara Indians in Mexico run and they run a lot. And they don't sport a pair of Nikes. Maybe it might be insightful to you.

 

I've been meaning to read the book "Born to Run," by Christopher McDougall (https://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greatest/dp/0307266303). Basically, the Tarahumara Indians in Mexico run and they run a lot. And they don't sport a pair of Nikes. Maybe it might be insightful to you.

I've heard of this book also. The author claims that the more expensive the shoes the higher the incidence of injury.

I'm fairly certain the tribe in question does not run on concrete. I wonder how this alters the equation.

 

I think most people should be able to run barefoot. However, all footwear gives some support and most give it in an unbalanced way. The right running shoes will support you evenly which is why they don't injure you.

So if these shoes are just a thin protective sheath for your foot I could imagine them working ok. Bear in mind though that even flip-flops can do a lot of damage -- they do to me and all they are is a sheet of rubber/plastic.

As for whether running on concrete makes a difference -- yes it does, because it's hard and smacking your feet on it over and over is going to hurt your feet and jar your joints. So, running on concrete you need some cusioning which means you need shoes, which means you need the right kind of shoes to support your particular type of foot. Fell-running shoes have virtually no cushioning because they're for running off-road.

N.B. This is educated conjecture -- I am no foot expert. If one of those comes along and disputes everything I said then listen to him/her.

 

Oh, and I wouldn't describe Vibram as an 'upstart' company as the article does. It was founded in 1937 and is a giant in the world of rock climbing, mountaineering and walking boot soles. Half of my footwear is soled with Vibram rubber.

 

I wouldn't wear them Jack...

 

I've heard that barefoot hiking is an enlightening experience. I would try it, but most of the trails around here (NY State) are more rock than dirt.

One of my fondest memories is of going to a xeriscape (low-water garden), removing my Sperrys, and walking barefoot on the grass. It was one of the most comfortable walks I ever took.

 

I've been running in these for the past 4 months and currently run between 20-30 miles a week in these and plan to do a half marathon in Nov.

Running shoes gave me nothing but shin splints and I could never run pain free.

Ever since I switched to the VFF shoes, I've been able to run faster and longer without any pain whatsoever. The lack of any cushioning and support has helped me improve my form to the point that I run very smoothly and impact free.

As always, YMMV.

-V

 

I read and highly recommend Born to Run as it is highly entertaining and has some insights into the running shoe industry. I have historically bought new shoes after six months regardless of usage having swallowed whole the industry's propaganda that shoes "deteriorate" after that period. After reading Born to Run I am planning to test the idea of using the pair I currently most prefer and wearing them completely out. I am now many miles past the point where I would have traditionally replaced my shoes and have noticed no difference in knee, foot, ankle or hip pain. It may be psychological, but I think I prefer the "deteriorated" version. I may next move to a much lower profile shoe that mimics the bare foot. I am not, however, for sartorial reasons a candidate for the toed look.

 

As I've stated in the past, the "Five Fingers" and the Nike Free and other similar "barefoot" style shoes are a relatively new trend that can be tolerated by some and will cause significant injuries or problems with other runners.

It all depends on your foot type, running style, training methods, and biomechanical issues. There is a lot of controversy whether some of the "motion control" shoes are CAUSING injuries and preventing the body from doing what comes natural. Additionally, runners are placing orthotics in motion control shoes adding too much control once again.

Although some patients do require orthotics, the orthotics often compete with the motion control shoes causing more problems. That's why it's imperative to have someone very knowledgeable about the running shoes you are purchasing.

Ecco just came out with a "minimalist" running shoe which I believe is called the "Bio" or something similar. It's only available at very limited stores. If you go Ecco's website, it will actually ask you several questions to see if you would benefit from these shoes.

Once again, the new barefoot technology shoes are a blessing for some, because they allow the body to function more naturally and allow the muscles to strengthen and build. In other patients, these shoes can stress the muscles/tendons and cause significant injury. You should speak with a professional that understands foot biomechanics and running prior to making a purchase.

Additionally, there is an alternative running style called the POSE method, and many of these runners also subscribe to the idea of a minimalist type of shoe.

 

A little off-topic I know, but has anyone ever tried 5 fingers sock doing any kind of sports? I discovered them thru my sister which I have a pair couple of years ago, and they are amazing to keep the space between fingers dry and healthy as it prevents the friction.

I do ski and biking with those, and they're great. Usually, after doing 8 hours non-stop of either sport with normal socks, I had to thoroughly wash and dry my fingers to keep fungus away, now that's not an issue anymore.

As for the 5fingers shoes.... I pass. I already have too many issues with my feet to add another one. For people who walk barefoot all day like in tropical places or similar, I think those could be very useful, but for people who was born on a couple of shoes, it could be a real torture... not to mention the effects of overweight.

 

I just checked out the Ecco site, and it is called the Biom: https://www.eccousa.com/shoes/biom/. It looks interesting, and more stable.

 

I love these. Lots of people use them for all sorts of physical activities and love them as well. I've known people who had issues running on hard surfaces with them, but barring that they are far better for your feet than squishy sneakers. Were I a podiatrist I'd recommend against wearing them too!

 

Were I a podiatrist I'd recommend against wearing them too!

At first glance, podiatrist was not the word I thought I had seen, although I did catch the -ist part. :icon_smile_big:

 

I run a lot of trails and I don't see these providing much protection for the odd toe/root strike. I wear two layer socks to prevent blisters and I'd wonder about friction protection as well.

 

When our ancestors ran long distances, it was on relatively unpacked loam. You can run barefoot on some of the newfangled foam track at prep schools and universities, but otherwise running shoes provide cushioning that has been lost in virtually all situations where a person could run today.

 

What happens to the soles of your feet? Do they get thick and leathery?

 

I love these. Lots of people use them for all sorts of physical activities and love them as well. I've known people who had issues running on hard surfaces with them, but barring that they are far better for your feet than squishy sneakers. Were I a podiatrist I'd recommend against wearing them too!

If you read my post carefully, you'll notice I never recommended against wearing these "shoes". I simply stated that as any type of foot wear, these are simply not appropriate for every type of runner and have the potential to cause injury. In the right case, these can help build muscle and help the body adjust "naturally", in the wrong case they can be a nightmare.

 

I am now many miles past the point where I would have traditionally replaced my shoes and have noticed no difference in knee, foot, ankle or hip pain. It may be psychological, but I think I prefer the "deteriorated" version.

That sounds quite interesting, as does the Born to Run book.

I'm just back from replacing my running shoes (shin splints were returning) and in the shop they let me run in my old shoes and in the new ones I was getting on their treadmill so we could look at my gait on the video camera.

When I bought my old shoes there my footstrike looked perfect, and now I roll notably inwards. The new pair of shoes correct it. There's no way I could just keep going with a pair of shoes like that, but I'm quite flat-footed.

A 500-mile lifetime is pretty insignicant. Some weeks I run over 40 miles; if I did that every week then that's a lifetime of just over 3 months. I know some people who regularly run 100-mile weeks --a 5 week lifetime for a pair of shoes! At £90 a time, that's a lot of money.

 

FWIW my HS cross country race was mostly through fields, apart from a long stretch with the actual name "Watery Lane", which had that name for a reason! There was some hard surface - the drive up to the first field and the last few hundred yards at the finish.

Given the propensity of running shoes to stick to mud, I thought I'd put on two pairs of soccer socks with a rubber inner from sports shoes between the socks to give some cushioning.

The results were spectacular - no particular problem on the hard surface, but much faster on the natural ground and incredibly so through ploughed fields and Watery Lane.

 

As for whether running on concrete makes a difference -- yes it does, because it's hard and smacking your feet on it over and over is going to hurt your feet and jar your joints. So, running on concrete you need some cusioning which means you need shoes, which means you need the right kind of shoes to support your particular type of foot. Fell-running shoes have virtually no cushioning because they're for running off-road.

N.B. This is educated conjecture -- I am no foot expert. If one of those comes along and disputes everything I said then listen to him/her.

I've actually done a bit of running in these, and actually you get LESS impact in your knees and hips because you wind up running much more forward on your foot than with running shoes.

With running shoes you wind up taking longer strides and heel striking. With the Vibram's you wind up on the front of your foot and the muscles and tendons absorb the shock rather than the bones/joints. This is (at least for me) much more comfortable.

However it does take time for your tendons and ligaments to adapt to new loads. Don't pick up a pair and head out on a marathon.

 

I just checked out the Ecco site, and it is called the Biom: https://www.eccousa.com/shoes/biom/. It looks interesting, and more stable.

It's a lot of marketing BS around Just Another Running Shoe.

 

I love these. Lots of people use them for all sorts of physical activities and love them as well. I've known people who had issues running on hard surfaces with them, but barring that they are far better for your feet than squishy sneakers. Were I a podiatrist I'd recommend against wearing them too!

So you're saying that all podiatrists are liars and and are seeking to have people injure themselves?

Actually, no, you're not.

You're just saying that you are dishonest, and if you WERE a doctor you'd give people advice that would injure them.

Glad we have that straight.

Thanks.