Barefoot Running

[Grog]

Got a pair of VFF Sprints yesterday. Honestly I'm not sure if they're going to work with my toes or not, but they were close enough I'm going to give them a try for a bit. Or, I may have a pair of size 41s for sale in the near future...

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.

Let me know how it turns out!

[KnottedYet]

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.

[KnottedYet]

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.

[OakLeaf]

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. 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?

[GLC1968]

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!

[KnottedYet]

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

[OakLeaf]

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! )

[KnottedYet]

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! )

Well, that was a metaphor...
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.

[OakLeaf]

OK.

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...

[Becky]

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 "

[KnottedYet]

now that I'm satisfied that the whole mileage-limit-replacement thing is basically a scam.

Did you see this research paper? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18801775

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.

[colby]

Did you see this research paper? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18801775

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.

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.

[KnottedYet]

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)

[OakLeaf]

From a cushion standpoint, there is no need to replace shoes as the cushioning loses its sproinginess.... 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.)

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.

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.

[Becky]

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.

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.