So I am bummed! I have a very small foot--size 4 in womens, where size 6 - 6.5 in running shoes. So VFF's appear to come in a size small enough to work (maybe)...BUT no one carries the smallest size.
Guess I'll have to look into other options!
Printable View
So I am bummed! I have a very small foot--size 4 in womens, where size 6 - 6.5 in running shoes. So VFF's appear to come in a size small enough to work (maybe)...BUT no one carries the smallest size.
Guess I'll have to look into other options!
Try KayakShed.com - looks like they carry down to a 34 in some styles (but are currently out of stock). I've never ordered from them, but have heard good things about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by katluvr
My size 40 mens Treks fit me much much better than my size 42 women's KSO. The KSO feel wider (that's right, wider) in the toe box area, and my pinky toe falls out while my big toe is jammed in. The men's treks, on the other hand, the toes fit better and the pinky toe doesn't fall out.Quote:
Originally Posted by nscrbug
Lots of men wear women's KSOs - they are thought of as being 1/2 size off from each other, so many men that are between sizes just go over to women's.
Try a 41 Trek.
And/or wait a few weeks/months - women's Treks are coming out at the end of this month. A coconut cloth trek is expected the end of the summer. And men/women's running specific version is coming out in a few weeks, too.
Ordered my sprints from KayakShed - no problems - they were the only place that had ANYTHING in my size.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueberry
Really looking forward to the expanded sizes on the Treks!
I admit that I initially was a skeptic about VFFs, but I went ahead and got a pair. Both of my feet are "pre-bunion," unfortunately. Also, my baby toes face out more than up.
Since I've been wearing my VFFs, I've had absolutely no pain in my right bunion area (ball of foot), which is something I experienced when wearing sneakers. In addition, the corn on my right foot is going away. Who knew? No issues with the baby toes, either.
I have a heavy tread and have been a heel striker, so I've had to adjust. Not a big deal and probably a positive for my foot health. I'm a convert and have to admit that I now own more than one pair of VFFs!!! They are comfortable. I just wish I could wear them to work...
OMG:eek: You guys are right...Kayakshed DOES have the smallest size (which by measurement may still be a smidge longer than my actual foot--but I wanna at least try).
So which is better? Sprint or KSO?
I probabaly will be doing sidewalk, road or grass next to sidewalk. Not many trails, but then again my do the beach??
May I should go for one that fits a bit snugger since my foot is so small.
K
KSO - I don't have Sprints, but my Treks let a certain amount of sand in. When I run on the trail with sand, I always wear the KSO - sand in VFFs is extra annoying.Quote:
Originally Posted by katluvr
But, then you'll need the sprints for the grass/sidewalk, so you'll eventually need both :p
BTW - the KSO are hard to put on - I've been wearing treks for months and got so used to them that I could just slide them on. Got my KSO and was amazed at how much more difficult they were to put on. If I'd gotten them first, I may have become frustrated and given up!
If you think the size might still be a smidge long, I'd get the Sprint. They generally run a bit smaller - I do think it might fit you better. If you're getting the KSO, get black - rumor has it they run a big snugger (and I can't get my size on my feet in them, so I think it's true). Or, you could order both and see which one fits better. I think I've heard they will let you return, so long as they aren't worn (but double check...).Quote:
Originally Posted by katluvr
By experience with the KSO is that it doesn't really keep sand out. But that's just my experience.
The black KSOs do seem a bit snugger! I recently got a pair and they are definitely a little tighter than the others--I was putting it down to them not being broken in yet but maybe there really is a slight difference. Hoping they'll stretch just a bit if I wear them with the Injinjis for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueberry
Huh...maybe that explains why my black KSOs were such a pain to put on at first! They've loosened up nicely, and are really comfortable now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
I had no idea...
A recent article - definitely supportive of the barefoot running concept.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...ste-money.html
The comments are as interesting as the article itself.
I'm still building up time with my VFFs but all of the articles I'm reading certainly make me question everything I've accepted so far about athletic shoes: need the motion control, need the support, need to replace after so many miles, blah, blah, blah.
On another note - has anyone tried the VFF Performa?
http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/pro...performa_f.cfm
They look rather funky and may be something that is a little more "dress-up barefoot footwear" - isn't that a mixup of concepts!! Can just imagine the reaction if I showed up at work wearing those one day....:D:D
They look really sleek, but are intended to be indoor-only, so I just can't bring myself to spend money on them (though, reading the description, they do say "primarily indoor" so if you don't really go outside much they might be work-appropriate). The KSO Treks in brown are work-attire acceptable in a similar way - most people don't even notice they have toes until someone points it out, or someone stares at your feet for a while. ;) In comparison it only takes a couple minutes for someone to notice the other models.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serendipity
I do like the purple color of the performas though. They look comfy. I'd probably feel even more like I was cheating by wearing them. ;)
I wear mine to work. My boss recently told me that I can't wear them to meetings anymore. Since she speaks to me about 1/year, I guess I have to pay attention to her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serendipity
I get lots of comments about them, but living in the West, the dress code is rather casual (unlike when I worked in NC). But, if I still worked out East, I'd still be wearing them.
The Bikila is also out - that's there running-specific version.
http://birthdayshoes.com/more-on-the...catalog-photos
Agree - that is part of what's holding me back. Our office isn't casual enough for me to wear those regularly; casual Fridays would work though.Quote:
Originally Posted by colby
Might be good for at-home/running errands and so on.
Hmmmm, maybe.
Something we can all aspire to. Maybe. Or not. :rolleyes:
Lots of reports coming out now of barefoot runners (and Vibram runners) getting stress fractures in their metatarsals.
Even the dude who wrote "Born to Run" got one, as did the Vibram research guy Dr. Lieberman.
It's very important to think about the surface you are running on if you are running barefoot!
Knot, I just read through the last few pages of this thread, happy to see all the knowledge and wisdom you added to the pages. I'm no runner, but the high incidence of Plantar's Fascitis and the building up of heels and soles of shoes in the last couple decades does not seem to be coincidental. So I'm turning into a shoe maven (who knew) in my search for shoes that protect my feet but allow them to spread and flex naturally..
I've been all interested in Irish feet lately. (the 2nd metatarsal is longer than the 1st, generally long toes, often the 2nd toe is longer than the 1st toe)Quote:
Originally Posted by Biciclista
I've kept an informal survey of my foot patients, and far more than half of them have Irish feet (aka Greek feet or Morton's feet or Morton's toe). Irish feet are only 10-20% of the population, so why so many more foot problems? Over the last couple decades shoes have been more and more engineered for the "average" foot, and so have become less and less appropriate for the Irish foot. Over and over again I see very specific injuries with Irish feet, to the point that I've been guessing (based on injury description) what kind of foot the patient has before they even take off their shoes. It's quite the ego trip when I'm right.
I brought the Irish foot/"average" shoe conundrum up to a biomechanical engineer who was doing a seminar on runners and running injuries a couple weeks ago. I told him about my idea to become a millionaire by designing and selling running shoes made for Irish feet. He thought it was a great idea, and said he didn't know of any shoes already out there. (He also agreed that the mis-match between Irish feet and running shoes is pretty bad.)
Anyone got a few zillion dollars laying around the house that they'd like to invest in a new shoe company? ;)
Irish foot? Is it more prevalent in Irish people?
Knott, if you manage to design such a shoe I would love to try it!
Maybe if you look around you can find a venture capitalist with an Irish foot who would love to finance your idea.
The history and distribution of that foot type is sooooo cool! I think some of it came up on this thread: http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showt...ght=morton%27s
Greeks and Celts had it the most. It was also called the Royal Foot because the ruling Ptolemy gang had it, and passed it along. It's a dominant gene, so the Royal Foot was used as a test to see if someone was really related to the royal families of Europe (descended via the Ptolemies and all those other upper crust folks who interbred so darn much). Claiming to be the long-lost b@st*rd son of the King? Take of your shoe and prove it!
The long 2nd ray foot structure is used in archeology to determine if a Roman-era British burial is of a Roman or of a Celt. Artifacts aren't very reliable because there was so much material exchange, but the foot is!
The statue of Liberty has a Greek/Irish/Celtic/Morton's foot.
Classical Greek statues had long 2nd met feet, Egyptian and Roman statues had long 1st met feet. You can tell if someone was ripping off the statue or style of another artist if the feet were wrong. (like a Roman statue with Greek feet!)
Isn't this stuff just COOL!?!?!
I have Polish/Russian feet. :confused:
Fascinating! My feet are Taiwanese.
I've got Norwegian feet.
But they are archetypal Egyptian feet.
Go figure... :rolleyes:
(and Trek dear, you have Egyptian feet, too. Or at least, not-Greek and not-Celtic) (the long 2nd ray occurs all over the earth, but seems especially prevalent in Greeks and Celts)
Knott, I want some of your shoes! This is neat stuff. My brother and I were comparing our feet tonight and they are identical pairs in different sizes. Our spouses were teasing us about the shape and size of our second toes. My family always said that when your second toe is longer than your first, you were the boss of the family. Now I know where that originated from.
Regarding the VFFs, I want to order a pair for kayaking to start with but where do you get them? I've looked on the internet and they are out of stock on almost every site. There are also warnings about ordering counterfeit shoes. I'm a little apprehensive.
FWIW (not that any of this really belongs in the barefoot thread :p) - with my very short first MTs (both 2nd and 3rd are longer than 1st) and very wide forefeet, I did go with the Nike Zoom Triax Structure 13, for a couple of reasons, #1 being that they just fit so much better than anything else. Surprised the heck out of me, since Nikes used to be so super narrow. I was starting to get a tailors' bunion on one foot from, like, EVERY other pair of shoes I own including my wide Mizunos, and most everything I tried on was even narrower in the forefoot - not good. The Nikes have a VERY square toe box and the heels are plenty narrow for me, even in the Wide width.
After I compared apples to apples - taking out the rock-hard orthotics that I wasn't going to use any more in any case, and using the stock insoles; and comparing that pair against new shoes in other models - I decided that they weren't actually intolerably cushiony, especially not so much as to to offset the fit. Took the better part of 100 miles to get used to them, but they served me just fine for 26.2. :)
But I'd still buy three pairs of your shoes, Knott, if they fit my duck feet.
I've been suggesting running sandals (like the Chaco Z1) to my agonized Irish-footed patients, based on the recommendations I've heard for running shoes for Irish feet. Neutral heel; dense, firm midsole material; minimal-to-none contouring; no imprinted toe-break; no dual density shennanigans.
I also suggest them to my extreme Egyptian footed patients with really long 1st rays and tiny stubby toes, who also have a hellish time with "average" engineered running shoes. (like me)
The fancier the shoe engineering, the less well the shoes will work for the two ends of the goofy bell curve of foot structure.
And if running barefoot makes the world a better place for someone, I'm happy as along as they think about what they are running on and train carefully. (and go to a PT if they start having trouble)
Oak, I may give those a try. I'm needing a new pair of shoes and have been using the Asics Gel Kayanos. They work fine but I've had so many problems with my heels, feet and ankles that I'm beginning to wonder if it's the shoes.Quote:
Originally Posted by OakLeaf
There is a really cool study being published (I left the info at work) which looked at shoe type and foot type and what injury rates were.
Here's the basic idea, and I'm just going by memory: they took a bunch of experienced runners, and carefully divided them into 3 groups based on their foot posture type: pronators, neutrals, and supinators. Then they randomly assigned 1/3 of EACH GROUP to wear motion control shoes, neutral shoes, or cushy shoes. They ran for something like 3 months in only their assigned shoes.
So you had essentially 9 studies going on, cuz there was a combination of each foot posture type and each shoe type (regardless of if the foot "matched" the shoe).
The results were very cool: didn't matter what the foot posture type, the folks wearing motion control shoes had the most injuries. Folks in the neutral shoes gave them the highest comfort ratings, regardless of the person's foot posture type. There were some other bits, but I don't remember.
And the grand conclusion: doesn't matter what in tarnation you wear on your feet, as long as it feels good to you. Your body is smart enough to tell what will work for it.
Run! Be happy!
Thanks for keeping us up to date on all the news, Knot. It's fascinating. :)
My massage (not a traditional massage, more of the active release type) and chiro (sports rehab kind of guy) have both been pleased with the progress of my Vibram running. Heel pain is gone. Hips, SI, pelvis, low back, all staying much more stable. Ankles and calves have adapted. Pain in my shins (shin splints, I guess) is far more tolerable than it has been in the past at this volume of running - as in, you can actually touch my shins :p - and I can massage/stretch it out.
Having been through the adaptation to the minimalist running, though, I don't think it's for everyone. Just like saddles on a bike (and bike fits themselves, for that matter), there's no perfect shoe for everyone. :) There are definitely foot shapes that the Vibrams wouldn't work very well for (long toes, toes that vary in length from "average toes" too much, very narrow feet might have trouble, not sure about the flat-footed either). Not to mention, concrete... ouch. I am not sure I will be able to run the Seattle Marathon in them, it's so much concrete. On the other hand, I can't imagine running without them anymore.
I got a pair of Bikilas in the mail this week - had to get womens sized ones, they don't make them in mens under a 40 (I need a 39 :rolleyes:). They seem narrower in the forefoot and the heel, but not too narrow. The sole is stiffer than the KSOs and the inside is much softer. The toes have reflective material on them. I haven't ran in them yet, I'm traveling and didn't bring them with me, sticking with what I know for now. I don't know if I have the time to break them in over the next 3 weeks to run a marathon in them, but we'll see. I really hope I can run in them barefoot without getting the painful marks on my arches. They are also white, which should be better in the sun.
Check REI and Kayak Shed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bike Chick
With REI, they go in and out of stock a lot - so it pays to watch the stock. I've also found a couple of local stores (Great Outdoor Provision Company is one) that get them in fairly regularly - so there might be somewhere near you.
Thanks Blueberry! REI was out of stock on everything. I'll keep checking.
Good luck! It really does vary - sometimes hour to hour. Which one are you looking for, and I'll keep an extra eye out:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bike Chick
Women's Sprint, size 40, in blue if possible. Thanks!
We are heading to St Louis for the weekend and going to REI so I may get lucky there.
We are running in the Susan B. Komen Race For The Cure on Saturday. It's the first time I've done this and I'm really excited about it.
This is too cute: http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/pro...rma_jane_f.cfm I think they must have just come out...
One other thing I'll add - if you're looking at REI and they show them as backorder-able, I'd go ahead and order them. They're usually pretty quick to ship (and if you're a member, shipping over $75 is now free to your house).
Try this site -Quote:
Originally Posted by Bike Chick
http://birthdayshoes.com/
They have an email alert that you can sign up for, and they will send you alerts on when online stores have the VFF's in stock. Very cool feature. FWIW, try checking citysports.com as that is usually the place that has 'em.
I waaaaaant! Too bad my feet don't fit in VFFs!Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueberry
vbsports.com is where I got a couple of pairs (and kayak shed, already mentioned)Quote:
Originally Posted by nscrbug
Thanks everyone. I found a pair at Massey Outfitters from the birthday shoes site-----thank you nscrbug. They are ordered. I can't wait to get them and try them out.
http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/pro...s_bikila_f.cfm
Wow, 7 mm of sole. That's a thicker sole than the Asics Tigers we wore (back in the day) in track. Much, much thicker than training or racing flats. That's nearly as thick (11 mm) as the industry standard for modern running shoes at the forefoot. That is almost certainly thicker than the soles of the shoes Abebe Bikila wore when he broke his barefoot record for the marathon.
At that point, what is the point? I guess the toe spread is nice. But this is a loooooong way from running barefoot!
They have an appeal, but honestly, there are much cheaper ways to get the same sole.
Yeah, some people run in them and don't like them - you lose some of the "feel" of running minimalist/"barefoot".Quote:
Originally Posted by KnottedYet
However, for me, they are still very different from shoes - running in the FiveFingers isn't just about running barefoot to me - I don't think I can run truly barefoot where I am and how I run/train, but I have not been able to find shoe-shoes that work. They are formed to my feet, my toes are not squashed, they are... simple. The shoes don't get in the way of how I run. BUT... I think other people accomplish that in actual shoes (and safer). I guess some people take the barefoot thing literally/to the extreme, but I'm just enjoying the product that has come out of it.
The Bikilas don't feel as thick as shoes, even racing flats. Maybe it's just more subtle. They are definitely significantly stiffer than the KSOs. They don't spec the KSOs in the same way as the Bikila, but it looks like it's about twice as much thickness of the sole in some places. That said, 4mm is still a pretty significant difference. I guess we'll see. :)