Printable View
I might be interested in those. I tried size 40 in a shop in Kona but my toes were too long for the "fingers." I tried the men's 41 which fitted fine in the toe area, but were of course way too floppy otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by OakLeaf
Let me know how it turns out!
Knee osteoarthritis and shoe choice: http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiat...ad.php?t=46569
This is a very cool study. I like it particularly because it supports what we've been hearing anecdotally from some patients. Less beefy shoes = happier knees.
I'm also quite interested in the fact that changing from a supportive shoe (Dansko clog or Brooks Addiction) to a training flat/flip-flop/barefoot relieved pressure at the damaged knee joint as much as wedging or bracing!
Cheap and simple solutions are my favorite solutions. :D
Here's a nifty series of Q+A discussions about barefoot/shod running: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010...d-shoes-q.html This is a link to the first of 5 installments.
I must admit that the number of popular media articles I read that refer to running in VFF's as "barefoot" is driving me nuts. VFF's are training flats with toes! They are SHOES. If you run in VFF's you are running in training flats, not running barefoot. But I guess compared to the shoes the younger generation grew up with, the return to training flats feels like barefoot? I don't know where it came from, but the VFF=barefoot thing is getting right up my nose.
My new VFFs definitely aren't "barefoot," but they definitely also let my feet take their natural shape a whole lot more than any shoe I've ever worn, including the Jack Purcells we used to all wear in high school and the Keds we wore before that, and including sandals that have to put straps somewhere. Maybe flip-flops, but I can't wear those at ALL. Not having your forefoot and toes all crammed together, I think, is what makes VFFs seem closer to barefoot than to regular shoes, to most people.
We have different words for gloves and mittens, and maybe part of the problem is just linguistic. Gloves aren't the same things as bare hands, but they certainly aren't mittens, either, and I think people have that instinctive problem with the language of footwear. Even sandals aren't normally called "shoes." Calling VFFs by their trademark is fine for now, but as soon as another manufacturer starts selling shoes-with-toes, then what?
But I do get your annoyance with it, totally.
Anyway. This is a totally non-barefoot-running question, but I'm kinda facing a dilemma, and it is related to shoe structure and injury prevention....
Seven weeks out from my marathon, and I'm realizing more and more that the shoes I'm in are just too narrow for me - starting to work on a tailor's bunion as I mentioned before. I'm up to a whopping 1.75 miles barefoot, and that's just not going to happen by May 16. I tried on some shoes yesterday that are definitely closer to fitting - what the store had in stock was a 11 Regular, which were almost wide enough but a little long, and they're ordering me a pair in 10-1/2 Wide with no obligation to purchase.
They don't have a really built-up heel like the shoes I'm running in now, which is good. But the trouble is they're super-cushiony. Walking in them felt like trying to walk on one of those half-inch-thick exercise mats. Taking them for a short run outside the shop was much the same.
From a wear standpoint, the shoes I have now will get me through the marathon - now that I'm satisfied that the whole mileage-limit-replacement thing is basically a scam. :p So the only reason I'd replace them now is because of the width/bunion issue.
Do you have an opinion? Assuming the shoes they're ordering are a good fit?
If you read at the barefoot forum over on runners world, they'll be quick to agree that running barefoot and running in VFF's are two entirely different things! In fact, they use BF, MF and shod to describe the different shoes (MF = minimal footwear and BF = nothing on your feet at all).
The thing that sets VFF's (huaraches, treadless moccasins, & water shoes) apart is the fact that they provide NO cushion. Yes, they protect you, but they do not cushion you at all. Even today's racing flats and many of the minimal running shoes are still cushioned and still elevate the heel.
So really, you need 4 categories: shod, barefoot, minimal flat, minimal not-quite-flat! ;)
Yeah, I think you're right. It's a linguistic problem in that we lack a term (other than "barefoot") for running without the built-up shoes that have been nearly the entire market for the last 30 years. We need a term that encompasses barefoot, traning flats, running sandals, training-flats-with-toes, etc.
About the super-cushiony shoes...
(run away! here comes another lecture!!!)
If your first impression was that they are too cushiony, don't get them.
Every body has its own adjustable suspension, and has its own preferred setting. Kind of like cars: some have sporty BMW suspension, some have cushy Cadillac suspension. (if you want to google this, look up "biomechanical leg stiffness")
Say your body has its happy setting for its suspension. For sake of argument, lets say you are running barefoot on the beach. When you run into the soft dry sand, your body will make your leg firmer to adjust (keeping itself at its happy suspension). When you run on the hard packed wet sand, your body will make your leg softer to adjust the suspension.
If softening your leg makes you work harder than usual, you will find running on the hard packed sand very tiring and inefficient over all.
If firming up your leg makes you work harder than usual, you will find running on the soft dry sand very tiring and inefficient over all.
Shoes are kind of like portable pieces of beach that make running on pavement more blissful. Do you want "soft dry sand" or "packed wet sand" between you and the pavement? Depends on which lets your leg work at its optimal efficiency (and that's different for everyone).
If the cushy shoes immediately felt wrong (you called it a "problem") then I would bet dollars to donuts your body was telling you, "This piece of beach is too soft and makes me too inefficient! Do not want!"
ETA: a short little paper: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Chris.A.../legs/jh1b.pdf
Thanks Knott. That makes perfect sense. (And yeah... when I run barefoot on the beach, I much prefer the harder sand. I actually didn't realize that there were people who were more efficient in the soft stuff, I thought they just ran up there for a better workout! :p)
Well, that was a metaphor...Quote:
Originally Posted by OakLeaf
Really, soft dry fluffy sand is too soft for pretty much everybody. Maybe I stretched the metaphor too far, but at least it gave you the basic idea.
OK. :o
Except now I have a picture in my head of turkeys on a treadmill, and no idea why those other researchers chose turkeys to study...
I was just thinking about the whole "VFF vs. shoes vs. barefoot" thing tonight on my (VFF-shod) run.
I spent the winter working on incrementally going from light stability shoes to training flats and VFFs. Despite the fact that my VFFs are definitely not barefoot, they are certainly more minimal and less cushioned than my flats (ask my calves!). The more VFF running I do, the closer my training flat form gets to my barefoot form, and that makes me very happy.
DH calls my VFF running "gorilla-foot running " :D
Did you see this research paper? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18801775Quote:
Originally Posted by OakLeaf
From a cushion standpoint, there is no need to replace shoes as the cushioning loses its sproinginess. (this is related to those "turkeys running on treadmills" to study leg stiffness: the body adjusts to get its optimal suspension) However, from a distortion standpoint it is very important to replace shoes if they become distorted from wear to the point they are interfering with posture or efficiency. (the heel that is almost completely worn off on the outside, the ripped lateral fabric, the pulled lace-holes, the burst gel bladder, etc.)
Side note: my favorite running sandals are now more than 10 years old, and I just did a half marathon in them this weekend. They have not distorted, and they were never crazy cushiony to begin with so there hasn't been a real loss of sproinginess. (they never had it) No-one can convince me that I need to replace them, and I won't until I feel they have distorted and are messing with my efficiency. I did get them resoled because I wore the old sole off. My second-favorite running sandals are a different style and only 8 years old and unfortunately do have to be replaced (I just ordered new ones). They got a little funky in the process of being worked on and resoled, and I just can't run comfortably in them now.
Really interesting. I find that my shoes wear, seem to feel perfect, and then I start getting blisters, and THAT is when they need to be replaced. I am always sad, because they feel just right for a while before I replace them, then I have to start over. ;) Maybe I should start with less cushioned shoes. There are so few shoes that come in the width I need that I don't have a huge amount of choices, but it didn't occur to me that why they feel so great after I wear them for a long time is that I've mashed them down a bit. I definitely run way more than the "recommended" miles in them. I only replace shoes when the blisters start forming in places they don't normally form.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnottedYet
I am in Boston for a vacation/convention and someone stopped me in the gym and asked about my VFFs today - he said he'd been running around the area and had seen a few people wearing them today, asked if I ran in mine, was surprised when I said "up to about 15 miles". Yeah, you can run in them! And I sent him down the street to try them on. ;)
Speaking of... we coincidentally walked past City Sports earlier (they have ALL the styles of Five Fingers for men and women!) and my husband decided to try a pair of KSO Treks on and loved them - he said they felt like glove moccasins for his toes. He is a big heel striker, though, so it's a pretty big adjustment for him to walk in them. :) I had to teach him a series of stretches for his calves, hamstrings, ankles, and toes/top of foot. I don't know if he'll make it the weekend in them (not sure about his calf/ankle strength), but he seems pretty happy. He is experiencing the same thing I did with his pinky toe feeling almost sore as it's being pulled back to its proper barefoot location (rather than mashed under the next toe). Spreading the love! I am jealous of his KSO Treks, they don't make them small enough for me yet. They look just like shoes - for anyone concerned about being called out about wearing VFFs, the KSO Treks would be a great shoe for daily wear.
Being in VFFs is definitely different than being barefoot for walking or running, and I do love being purely barefoot with free free toes. It would take some significant re-adjustment to run barefoot after running in VFFs - you can still get away with stuff you can't barefoot (sharp rocks, loose gravel, glass, icky things, concrete) and going the next step would still change your posture. I think the jump from shoe to VFF is a bigger jump muscle-wise than VFF to barefoot, but it's definitely not the same.
Colby - if I could just stretch my metaphor to the breaking point, you might be one of those folks who is most efficient running on the "hard packed wet sand" of life. It sounds like your shoes break down until the cushion meets your needs and they feel fabulous, then they continue to break down to the point the function is getting interfered with (the shoe is distorted in some way) and you begin getting blisters.
Have you tried running in sandals? One of the reasons I love my sandals so much is that width is such a non-issue. I run in Chaco Z1 mostly. www.chacousa.com They come in widths, and I run best in women's wide or men's regular. They might be too cushy for you still, but perhaps worth trying on a pair next time you see them? (the side view of the sandal's medial and lateral counters makes it look like they have a built-up heel, but I measured with a caliper at the actual heel cup and at the ball of the foot and they are only about 1 mm different)
Yeah, that's where I'm at. Both pairs have around 400 miles on them, so they'll be hitting the 500-mile mark before race day, but the only visible wear on them is the squashed-down soles. I'm not noticing that they ride any different than they ever did.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnottedYet
Interesting that in the study you linked to, there was enough wear after 200 miles for a measurable change in gait. I always found it annoying that my soles squash visibly after only 100-150 miles. I'm not that heavy, nor that heavy-footed.
I wonder if I can get away with racing flats... I just saw a review of the new Mizuno Wave Universe 3, and they have a SUPER square toe-box. Wonder how the heel width is. I may have to try a pair of those on. Shoe salespeople run when they see me coming. :cool:
It's worth a try, right? What shoes are you running in now? As with going barefoot or VFF, do so gradually to avoid injury. For me, moving to training flats (Pearl Izumi Streaks and PI Peak XCs) has been a good move, but it took me all winter to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OakLeaf
The Mizunos and PIs are far more built up than what I remember calling "flats" from my track days.
Is it possible that over the last 30 years standard shoe soles have become so overthick and overcushioned that even the Mizuno and PI you two mentioned are now considered "flats"?
So, it seems running in standard shoes is now more like running in high heels than I realized.
Oh, why didn't I go into biomechanical engineering? (then *I* could have been the one making turkeys run on little treadmills... I could've given them little iPods, too!) :p (and I could have made a gazillion dollars designing reasonable shoes)
Yes, as far as I can tell from scanning the shelves at my LRS. I keep watching for something even flatter but, for now, these will have to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnottedYet
http://www.finishline.com/store/cata...LAID=341775370
This is more what I remember training flats (as opposed to "spikes") to be like. Asics Tigers.
When Nikes came on the scene, we went apesh*t over the first pair we saw. They were sooooo different with those wedged heels. My asst coach had the first pair I ever saw, and he called them "nyks". So we all called them that for quite a while. I'm pretty sure the wedge heel on my first pair of Nikes was lower than the Mizuno and PI heels. It was maybe double the thickness of the Tiger.
It certainly sounds like it from the information referenced in 'Born to Run'. Have you read that yet, Knott? Interesting stuff (and a great story).Quote:
Originally Posted by KnottedYet
Another thing to consider going from VFF's to barefoot is the foot sole toughness. Many people get blisters on the bottoms of their toes because they don't realize they are pushing off with them (and in a VFF, it doesn't matter). Try that barefoot and you'll trash your skin! My limitation with running barefoot now is the soles of my feet, not my calves or ankles or muscles at all. I don't run in my VFF's at all (though maybe I should).
I haven't read it. I'm pretty focussed in on the research papers, not so much on the semi-fictionalized stuff. Eventually I'd like to read it, if only because it's the first exposure so many people (who didn't run track in school, or who didn't run before the latest fad in shoes) have had to the concept of barefoot running.
When I get through the huge backlog of research stuff... :rolleyes:
(I'm getting quite a kick out of all the papers from 1905-1910 about running barefoot. Truly there is nothing new under the sun!)
Okay, okay, I've drifted this thread far enough. :rolleyes:
As far as shoes: if I plan to continue to run shod, which I will for the time being, the message is "patience, grasshopper." As much as this bunion freaks me out, it's mainly because I have a name for it now. It's been building for years, since I was wearing much smaller shoes than the ones I have now, and it is not going to turn in to the Bunion that Ate New York between now and May 16 if I put another 300-400 miles on the shoes I have now. :cool:
But back to barefoot.
I get this feeling like there's a pebble between my first and second toes. It gets to be pretty uncomfortable. Anyone else get that? Any idea whether that's form, structure or conditioning?
Is it in the ball of your foot?Quote:
Originally Posted by OakLeaf
Google "dropped metatarsal head". Didn't I write up an exercise program somewhere on TE for that? (in fact, wasn't it for *you*?)
Anyway, folks feel the "pebble" on hard surfaces and when the muscles that are supporting the met arch fatigue and the met head starts dropping.
Here's the linkey: http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showp...2&postcount=40Quote:
Originally Posted by KnottedYet
I saved it last time you posted it. This is *most definitely* my problem. Quick question: I assume the thumbs are towards the outside of the foot on the top during the stretch?
Yep, been doing the exercises. Thanks. Also strengthening in yoga and short barefoot runs and walks. If conditioning is what it is, then I'll continue building slowly. Just wasn't sure.
(I confess, as I did confess before, that I slacked off the exercises when it was just too cold to take my socks off even for a few minutes, except for in the shower, literally. Yep, even in Florida, my toes are on the edge of blue most of December, January and February. But I'd already gotten back to the exercises now that it's warmed up a little.)
I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as the ball of my foot; it's more toward the toes. But maybe it just feels that way because my second met head is so far forward from the first. That sounds right, anyway.
Yup. The thumbs end up kinda on to the outsides on top and the fingertips are kinda in the middle on the bottom. Almost like you are pushing upward on the dropped met head with your fingertips while pushing downward on the sides of the foot with your thumbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueberry
I always think of cleaning Dungeness crab when I do this... y'know after you've taken the top shell off and you are breaking the crab into left and right halves. Mmmmmm, crab..... :D
Oooh, this paper is a lot of fun! http://webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/kris...t_al_2009b.pdf
You can order it through a journal service ($$) if you have trouble getting the pdf above. Footwear Science vol 1 No 2 June 2009, 81-94
A fun stat mentioned in passing in that paper: 88% of healthy women in a USA study were wearing shoes smaller than their feet! (Frey, 1993)
Actually, I don't think there is anything fictional about it. The stories are true. Whether or not all the research is solid is not something I can speak to, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnottedYet
And his historial annecdotes about Nike are fun to read particularly living in Nike-central here. ;)
The whole book is fun once you get the hang of the authors style (which is a bit disjointed).
.pdf came through fine for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnottedYet
That statistic is kind of "no duh" to me. Women's non-athletic shoes are made to stay on your feet by compressing them all around. Shoes that aren't too small, fall right off. Even when I was wearing athletic shoes that were two sizes smaller than the ones I wear now (which are just barely on the edge of being wide enough), I had to buy my dress and casual shoes a size or two smaller than that. Now that I'm not working, and living in pretty casual areas, it just isn't worth it to me to buy new shoes for the two or three times a year I need them, so whenever I do need to wear them, I feel like Cinderella's step-sisters. "Do I cut off my heels, or my toes?"
I wonder what the percentage would be if they limited the query to athletic shoes.
I'd bet it would only be a bit lower for the general population wearing athletic shoes, maybe 50%, judging from what I see around me on the bus of women wearing fashionable athletic shoes. (big toes trying to leap out of the top of shoes, pinky toes lapping over the edge of running shoes)Quote:
Originally Posted by OakLeaf
Of course, there's a self-selection bias in an athlete and their athletic shoe-only sample, because people who run would most likely be fit better just because of the nature of the activity.
I would imagine some athletes (like cyclists) would have higher proportions of too-small shoes than others (like runners).
The Frey study was just around the time Birkenstocks were very fashionable among teens here in the PNW. I sometimes wonder how much that fashion blip influenced the shoe designs that are popular now. (young growing feet that got to spread out during the end of adolescence resisted being jammed into tight shoes in later decades?)
I'm already seeing a wave of injuries from MBT and MBT rip-off shoes, just like there was a wave from the Nike shock and Z-coil shoes. Folks who get injured by shoes leave the sample, but low-grade irritation gets accepted as part of the fashion price.
What sorts of injuries are you seeing? I'm fascinated by these shoes, in a "OMG-why-would-someone-buy-those?" sort of way... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by KnottedYet
Ankle sprains, ankle strains, broken ankles, ankle tendonopathies, and.... a broken arm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Becky
Yes! A broken arm! Z-coil heel caught on an object and patient fell.
Z-coil and MBT are very unstable shoes, among other shortcomings (don't get me started) so they can absolutely freak out the lower leg. What drives me nuts are the little old ladies on limited income who got sucked in by unscrupulous salesmen and blew $200-$300 on shoes that they end up hating and which hurt them. I've had more than one tell me the shoes are a disaster but they continue to wear them because they cost so much. They want to get their money's worth. Breaks my heart.
Well, I'm officially a convert to barefoot running.
Okay, not exactly barefoot, but close enough. I had ordered the VFF KSO's - when they came in, they were a perfect fit! Just about gave up trying to get them on the first time, but then I read the instructions :o and figured out how to put them on properly.
I've been gradually building up time & distance - my calves sure can feel the difference. Could hardly move the day afer the first couple of times out and that was after only 10 minutes or so of running in them. Please tell that will ease up as my muscles adapt......???
Rather intriguing how natural it feels to land on the ball of my foot. In fact, it doesn't really feel as if my heel touches the ground. Even find that I am landing more on the ball when wearing my running shoes. Not sure if I will ever get to true barefoot running; seems to be too many sharp rocks and broken glass where I run. But, we'll see.
Got quite a chuckle when I looked back at my footprints the last couple of runs. It was a bit mucky in the area even though it was barely above freezing. But there they were, clear barefoot prints!!!! Can only imagine what someone seeing those footprints thought. :D:D
So if someone were to want to start running, and someone had some very old (and worn down) running shoes in need of replacement, would it be advisable for that someone to start of from scratch barefoot, or try VFF, or get some new regular running shoes?
I would like to do some running--not marathons, but 5ks and perhaps a 10k now and then. 3 times a week, nothing too ambitious. I can run in the grass at several nearby parks. All this talk of being barefoot sounds kindof fun and the right thing to do. I only worry about stepping in yuck.
I don't have any issues with my feet or knees. I do have a history of SI issues but that's been under control for a while now with Pilates and yoga. I no longer do chiro ($$$) but I really don't feel I need it now.
Thoughts from the experts and the experienced?
I'd get a $15 pair of aquasox at Target, and give minimal footwear a try.
If you decide it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, you can go spend the $95 on VFF, or Newtons, or Asics Tigers. If you decide you'd like to segue into actual barefoot running, voila, you have emergency shoes for yucky situations. If you hate it and decide your particular body mechanics work best with running shoes, well you've only wasted $15 (and they are still fine for the beach).
What a great idea! Thanks so much, Knott. That's just what I will do.
Totally normal! I can remember my calves being very sore for about the first week. Your muscles are working differently than they are used to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serendipity
Yes, your muscles will adapt. Don't add time/distance too quickly, though. Listen to those muscles. :) After the calves for me came the glutes and adductors (not nearly as sad as the calves). Not bad muscles to be working on. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Serendipity
And, your footprints never get old. My husband bought a pair of the leather KSO Treks when we were in Boston and he could try them on, now he is amused by his AND my footprints. ;)
That would be funny to see two sets of footprints...Quote:
Originally Posted by colby
I also find that I am noticing other runners' footprints as well. For example, on a run a couple of days ago, there were a set of prints with a very obvious heel imprint - my first thought, a 'heel striker' - bet they don't know about VFFs! Beware the convert! :D
Thanks, for the reminder about adding time/distance. I've been careful so far and do find that my calves aren't screaming as loudly!
Looking for some ideas from everyone about transitioning and training for a half-marathon at the end of September. I would normally build up mileage over the summer to prepare for that event but not sure how to combine that with transitioning to longer distances with the VFFs. Trying also to figure out if I should train with the idea of running the half in the VFFs or in the Sauconys that I usually wear. Don't want to end up not being able to run the distance in either..:confused: :confused:
I ordered a pair of VFF's from REI a few weeks ago, and they finally arrived at my local store. I went to pick them up over the weekend, but I'm so bummed because I had to immediately return them. I ordered the women's Sprint model, in a size 42...which is the largest size they come in, for women. I tried them on right in the store, and sadly my big toe felt like it was "curling upwards"...I'm guessing this means they were too small. The guys working the shoe department there, weren't much help...they seemed pretty clueless. They felt okay everywhere else, except for that big toe. So I went right to the return desk to get my refund. :(
According to the VFF sizing chart, the women's KSO model seems to be a tad bit more generous in sizing, so I will try those next. If those don't fit, I guess my only option would be to go into a men's size. Do any ladies here wear a men's VFF? Does the fit differ much from the women's version?
Linda
I agree that the KSOs I tried on were bigger than the Sprints in the same size. Not sure specifically about the big toe, though, and can't help you with the men's.