The whole mythos of running barefoot got me and my wife into running! We did actual barefoot just a little bit before switching to toe shoes. We ran in those until 2021. We only switched to Xeros because of the "grass stuck between the toes" effect when hiking and the ability to get slightly thicker soles with lugs.
From when we started in 2009 to today, we both had to increase two shoe sizes.
She just finished her first 50 mile ultramarathon using Xero thin soled shoes. It was half on the AT, and she had no issues with that.
I'm a less serious runner, just enough to be able to knock out a few miles on demand and the annual Broad Street 10 mile run.
We both hiked 1000 miles of the AT on a thru in 2022. We've also clocked around 3O00 miles of other small day hikes and overnight trips. All with Zeros or Altras, and with a 30lb pack.
Over the years, she's had some minor issues with plantar fascitis that went away when she added in regular stretching. She's had a few bouts of hip bursitis when ramping up mileage for the ultra.
I've had some issues with knee pain that started on the thru hike related to scoliosis. My one hip drops lower than the other, twisting the knee and causing issues on both. Regular single leg exercises and heavy lifting keeps that in check (hard to do on the trail unfortunately).
Neither of us have had any issues with ankles, calves, or typical runner knee issues. I'm not sure I can credit the shoes for all of it, but I'm very glad we started with them and neither of us have any reason to change. Regular thick foam trainers now feel very uncomfortable, it's hard to describe. They squish my toes (which are very wide). They change my gait which feels awkward.
It's funny, now I feel like I see lots of runners in my area using these thin soled shoes, like the Merrel Vaporglove, Xeros, or alternative. Maybe it's cohort bias? Either way I am glad I found them when I did!
I resolved my plantar fasciitis by switching from hiking boots to thin soled trail runners. My theory is that it makes me take more care in putting my feet down, and makes me stretch them considerably more as they conform to rocks and holes. I was just stomping over everything in the boots.
I read someone who said that walking barefoot was a religious experience for them, in which every step was a prayer. Someone responded that they weren't as religious, and for them every step was fondling the earth. Both work for me, and both work better with thinner soles.
I've spent quite a bit of time in outdoor sports and don't think I've met a single person who did a lot of rough hiking and preferred heavy duty hiking boots over lighter trail running or approach shoes. I see quite a few of the old school heavy boots for sale in some stores so there must be a market but I have no idea what it is.
Barefoot hiking is also very niche from what I've seen, but I do think there is something undeniably nice about walking around camp or a yard in bare feet.
Did your feet grow larger ?
My guess is that they experienced something like this and needed larger sized normal shoes to accommodate the more natural foot shape.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BarefootRunning/comments/1ec5i5n/di...
Exactly what I figured, wider, not longer. Some shoes (usually higher-end ones) have a width measurement (in letters) as well as a length (the usual number measurement) for this reason—you shouldn't need a longer shoe (larger number size) unless buying shoes that don't offer a variety of widths. In fact, getting a longer shoe for the extra width will result in a poor overall fit.
It's kinda like how some nicer brands offer a variety of size modifiers in addition to "small, medium, large" on their ready-to-wear shirts, like "slim", or Brooks Brothers' named fit-variants ("Regent", "Madison", et c)
Is having a wider foot a good thing for certain sports? It seems like it might be more natural and advantageous but I don’t know if I like the idea of having to buy wider shoes for regular purposes.
I have naturally wide feet, and it's no advantage for any sport requiring footwear. Soccer shoes, climbing shoes, ice skates, snowboard boots, the list goes on, mostly manufactured for average to skinny sized feet.
I see. The main reason I was wondering about this is that occasionally there’s people online who recommend going barefoot or using a special shoe for doing weightlifting. Maybe strengthening the foot arch is the point behind this trend rather than width.
Ice skates in particular are sold in different widths. But yes it’s the norm that the “regular” or narrow fit is the default.
Who makes wide skates? I have a wide foot and have yet to find a hard body skate that is wide enough. I always end up having to sit laps out at the track every 15-20 minutes at the track because my feet get so squeezed into my skates and after a while the pain is no good. And skates that are wide enough are sized up and just feel like boats on my feet or they don’t have low ankles so you don’t really get to lean forward as much as you like to overstep. Anyways I love skating so much I just wish i could find a skate that fits before next season as I want to skate the Elfstedentocht. Well at least the alternative.
I'd alway been prone to avoiding shoes. I started running when I was 16 (1986). During high school I'd run 10-14 miles a night about five days a week, mostly barefoot.
I didn't start regularly wearing shoes until after college. Since I started wearing shoes there has been a significant change in my foot structure. My big toes have moved outward by at least 10 degrees. Before then they were directly in-line with the bones and ligaments running down the foot.
When you walk and run barefoot your foot soles get much thicker. You learn how to respond to your feet. I tend to not get splinters or glass slivers because I can feel them before I put my full weight down. Even when something does pierce the skin, it doesn't penetrate the sole, and I can just pick up my foot and grab it out with my fingers.
One of the most interesting benefits seems to be resistance to fungal infections. If I ever start to feel itching in my feet, then I go for a long walk barefoot on concrete. It just ends.
For a couple of years, there was this barefoot guy who commuted on the same train as me to work. No matter the season, always barefoot. I must say, purely from a hygiene perspective, it felt uncomfortable looking at his feet. They were dirty and dusty in the same way shoes would pick up dirt.
What do your feet look like today ? Honest question.
I agree it shocks at first, but shoes are even dirtier as people don't wash them daily as they would with their feet.
That's one of the reasons why you generally don't go to bed with shoes on (and why most people take off their shoes when coming home). If you don't use shoes however, I guess you probably have to wash your feet when you come home?
That's exactly why folks remove shoes at the door when going in. I find it strange when people do not do this because they are tracking in whatever they may have stepped in throughout the day. Just pop your shoes off at the entrance and throw on some house slippers or shoes.
yes, but you probably also won't wash your feet several times a day going in / out?
I lived in Java, Indonesia for a year and ran barefoot, and only wore sandals to the mosque. You wash your feet 5x per day for the 5 daily obligatory prayers, so it works out well. An earlier post here about a person barefoot in all seasons and on the subway train, well, that's another story. I grew up in Brooklyn in the 60s through the 80s, and I can't see that at all. But then again, NYC is a lot cleaner now than it was then. My foot spread out and feels so much more usable to grab at the trail and less stiff without pain. I started running barefoot in 2007, but not as frequent or as long as a competitive runner would; it was more of a 30-minute run 3 to 4x per week at a mild pace . I'm 60 now and have no back, knee, foot or other joint pain or soft tissue issues. I did run on the front of my feet, and with a bicycle pedalling type of motion of my feet. Now, I wear Xeros and a cheap rip-off of the Vibram minimal sole shoes for my daily town/city walking and running.
I once saw someone walking around barefoot in Hell's Kitchen.
"That's a dumb idea," I said to myself.
Minutes later, I saw them walking out of a bodega, using a handful of napkins to staunch the blood coming out of their foot.
Yuck. We used to put the sprinkler cap on the johnny pump (Brooklyn for fire hydrant back then) and run on the curb and into the street with bare feet. In the early 70s there was a lot of dog crap and broken glass, since beverages were in glass or heavy cans vs. plastic. I sliced my feet on glass a half dozen times over the years. Lucky I didn't get hepatitis or other nasty stuff. I do have a very robust immunity system though ;)
That seems like a more reasonable thing to do, though I think as a parent, I'd have probably swept the area up a bit...
In the summer in the inner city of Brooklyn, you would be sweeping all day, everyday. NYC was a cesspool in the 70s. Newpapers blowing around, overfilled trash receptacles, insufficient street cleaning, and the public's general lack of respect for their fellow denizens. Homicides were at 1890 in 1989 in NYC compared to <400 nowadays and the population was a lot smaller then.
You do. Most barefoot folk I know thoroughly scrub their feet first thing when they get home in the evening.
To save people having to scrub their feet, I'm going to patent something they can wrap around their feet while outside and remove when they get home.
Maybe also invent a sort of layer of soft cloth they can put between the hard outer layer and their skin.
There was a dude in my old Queens NYC neighborhood who was a local fixture. His job was distributing flyers, you'd see him walking along the business districts in and out of stores placing his flyers. Didn't matter what time of year it was, he wore the same outfit almost every day: wind breaker, tee shirt or tank top, short shorts, and bare foot. Dude even took the A train bare foot - something I would never do.
I’m more worried about stepping on something sharp.
I try to go barefoot as often as I can, and my bigger concern in crowds is getting my feet stepped on.
Paradoxically, I am very paranoid about injuring my toes - so walking around doesn't concern me (at worst, I'll step on something pointy and will need a bandaid), but losing another toenail because someone kicks me with a hard shoe is something I dread.
Also: I would absolutely never, ever go barefoot in a big city, which is defined by being big enough to have a train. Stepping on a sharp rock or thorn is one thing; stepping on someone's broken beer bottle and then hiking through all the wonderful fluids that cities accumulate sounds like a nightmare and a free trip to the hospital to get pumped full of every antibiotic known to humanity.
"I tend to not get splinters or glass slivers because I can feel them before I put my full weight down."
This makes sense at a slow gait, but how do you manage this when running?
As you’re running, your foot lands, you put your weight down on it, then you push off. If you step on something sharp when running barefoot, you can’t avoid the first part, but you can avoid putting all your weight on it or pushing off hard. Basically just a little skip. You’re not going to be able to do much at a full sprint, but it’s fine for anything less.
Thank you. Still, if I did this, I think I would bring along a first aid kit and backup footwear.
The nice thing about living on the beach is that it's socially acceptable to be barefoot at all times since you're walking on dirt roads or sand.
The only time I put them on is when I go into the supermart or airport.
Your soles thicken up so much that you forget how puny they are normally. So I'll accidentally lead friends through some stretch of area and they can't follow because of the hot sand or sharp sea shells, and the discomfort is very mild for me.
It's kinda sad going from that back to the city where your feet never touch the ground.
Barefoot running might have died as a fad, but, fortunately, the biomechanical benefits from the minimalist footwear inspired by the movement haven't gone away.
I only own minimalist footwear (zero heel to toe drop, wide toe box, no toe spring). Dress shoes, sneakers, sandals; all of it.
They helped me get off of orthotics, which I've worn for over 20 years, while reducing stress on my knees (I have osteoarthritis in my right knee) and making what little arches I have in my feet stronger.
It's a shame that pop culture seems to have _ran_ in the other direction (maximalist ultra-cushioned clown shoes). I honestly have no idea how people walk in those things. I purchased a pair of BOHEMPIA minimalist hemp chucks the other day. It came with a ~2-4mm insert for comfort. It felt like the cushion from the inserts made my legs work so much harder. All felt right once I took them off.
That said, I never ran barefoot except for a very short segment one time. Actual barefoot running is a whole other experience. Huaraches, which I've also run with, don't compare. I'm scared to do it more often due to glass shards and other fun things on the road, but if I ran more often and on smooth, unobstructed pavement, I'd absolutely do it barefoot.
What footwear brands do you recommend?
Before you try expensive brands, definitely try the budget brand Whitin.
I have bunions which make wide toe box especially necessary for me with toe spacers, and I found these $40 running shoes to be more comfortable than my $120 Altras: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DD36GZG5 (zero drop + wide toe box)
It's pretty sweet when a cheap option is also your favorite option whether that's shoes or pants or bikes—you get to buy extras and it's no big deal if it gets scuffed/damaged. Meanwhile you'll probably baby your $120 shoes.
x/post
I do not recommend WHITIN or, by association, any "Amazon-only" brand. They copy styles from more expensive sneakers at much lower quality to hit cost.
I purchased a pair three years ago as a replacement for Merrell Vapor Gloves that were difficult to find. (Merrell stopped making their Vapor/Trail Gloves for a while, though they appear to be back.) They were heavier than the Merrell's while using cheaper fabric and less comfortable soles.
While affordability of minimalist sneakers is a real issue, I'd recommend spending a little more and getting XERO's.
Meh, the only litmus test is whether something is high enough quality for you at the price you paid. Nothing about Whitins seems particularly low quality to me running 10km/day.
Especially in the shoe market, just because you pay more doesn't mean you're getting higher quality. Brands are just showrooms for shoe factories in Bangladesh.
I'm so tired of being price discriminated for wanting wider shoes, so I'm not about to feel bad for paying $40 for shoes that cater to me. Whitin is the equivalent of going to the Adidas outlet shop and paying $40 for decent shoes.
I was pleasantly surprised by a brand I'd never heard of called Whitin. The ones I got[0] have a wide toe box and claim to be zero drop (I'm far from an expert on judging this). My criteria was a new minimal-ish running shoe, that would also look okay for casual wear with shorts, and cost less than $100 because I'm cheap :D
I do not recommend WHITIN or, by association, any "Amazon-only" brand. They copy styles from more expensive sneakers at much lower quality to hit cost.
I purchased a pair three years ago as a replacement for Merrell Vapor Gloves that were difficult to find. (Merrell stopped making their Vapor/Trail Gloves for a while, though they appear to be back.) They were heavier than the Merrell's while using cheaper fabric and less comfortable soles.
While affordability of minimalist sneakers is a real issue, I'd recommend spending a little more and getting XERO's.
They look like a cheap knock-off of Skinners.
Might be! I'm definitely not an expert in the space but like I said I was pleasantly surprised, especially for the price. They've already held up to a few months of use (5-10km per week, plus lots of casual walking) and they still look and feel great.
Not OP, but look into Jim Green's barefoot line, Vivobarefoot, Vibrams, Xero shoes, etc. There are more and more brands adopting barefoot styles, includig Merril! I live in my Jim Green Barefoot Africna Rangers. I use them for every occasion besides working out. I use Vivobarefoot and Vibrams 5 Finger shoes for running.
This will be a long post, as this is one thing that I actually happen to know a lot about!
Vivobarefoot is the best if you want stylish minimalist footwear. They are also my preferred brand, as of my sneakers and boots are supplied by them. I'm a huge fan of their casual and winter boots. You can wear their winter boots barefoot in the winter and still keep your feet warm as long as it isn't extremely cold. US$100-$300.
Xero makes good, affordable minimalist footwear. I'm not a fan of their designs, but they are increasing in popularity enough for it to possibly become an acquired taste for me. I wonder how their collab with the NBA helped sales. They also make great huaraches and minimalist sandals (which is how they got their start, actually), including a DIY kit which you can use to make sandals that match the shape of your foot. US$20-$150.
BOHEMPIA makes hemp minimalist sneakers in the Chuck Taylor All-Star design. Because they are hemp, you can wear them without socks and not worry about your shoes smelling. They look almost EXACTLY like Chucks. Highly recommend. (US$150)
There are lots of options for minimalist sandals:
- Xero, as stated above. (US$20-100)
- Luna makes really good ones, especially for trail running (so I've heard). They also have a traditional, upstyled huarache (Vibram rubber sole instead of car tire), though I found the leather laces to be extremely uncomfortable on my cramped toes. (US$50-150)
- Shamma Sandals is good also. I really like their leather Numa Warriors; these are part of my daily rotation. I hacked them so that I could use Earth Runners straps instead of the adjustable lacing system they come with. Super solid, though I have to adjust my heel strap every few hours because of how my feet pronate while I walk (having flat feet's the best! /s). (~US$100)
- Earth Runners are similar to Shammas, though I haven't bought from them because I've been happy with my Shammas. Lots of people seem to really like them, though.
- More that I haven't mentioned.
For dress shoes, many (Vivobarefoot, Lems, etc) make "dress" shoes that are really sneakers with an Oxford design. They'd look terrible with a suit.
For _real_ dress shoes, there are only two real players in town (that I know of): Carets and The Last Shoemaker.
Carets look fine, and I tried to order from them two years ago, but they were having major logistical issues that caused them to push my order indefinitely _without telling me_. They seem to have sorted this out, as they now have plenty of options in stock now. (US$250-$500)
I ended up going with The Last Shoemaker. It's run by two Brits working out of Vietnam. They are handmade with high-quality leather. I LOVE their shoes. Reminds me of the Allen Edmonds I used to have. Aside from the widened toe box, you can't tell their minimalist at all. I've also gotten custom dress boots and loafers from them that look spot on. They take a while to get, but I can't recommend them enough. (US$350-$500+)
Vivobarefoot had massive quality issues many years ago. I owned many pairs of their shoes, and most of them eventually had the sole flake off in 1-2 years. I don't know if it's because I live in the tropics with extremely high humidity, but I think their shoes are poor value for money.
Lems is my go-to now. I have a few pairs since 2022, and none of them have spoilt on me yet.
For those in the states, Vivos occasionally show up on sierra.com and can be bought at a pretty good discount. Around 60% of retail is about the price point where I can tolerate the long term delamination issues.
Seems we've attracted all the barefoot runners in this thread and none of the common-footed people...
Anyways, I'll add my experience with barefoot running:
- Forefoot/midfoot strike is the most important takeaway. Heel strikes are for walking (slow, low-impact), not running (faster, higher-impact).
- I used to get shin splints from sports like soccer and basketball. But as long as I do some barefoot jogging (1-2x/week) I'm pain free. I think it strengthens the supportive muscles around the knee and ankle. All the leg muscles, really.
- Speaking of soccer, anyone have recommendations for wide cleats?
- I only got one tiny thorn/splinter in the past few years of going barefoot.
- I'd rather jog on concrete than grass because grass can hide things like sharp objects or doggy dookie. In general, I run barefoot in places I trust, and I always scan the ground ahead of me as I run.
Note that I'm an amateur runner, not doing more than 5Ks. But cardio conditioning is my limiting factor, not feet or legs.
I'm in a very similar boat. I never went in for the full-on barefoot running, but did jump in on the Vibram 5 fingers bandwagon (still love them), and even today prefer minimalist shoes.
The switch to forefoot striking helped me a lot with pain in my knees, with my tendons getting inflamed. The trade-off was inflamed Achilles tendons, and occasionally the plantar fascia. It was a great trade-off.
Running in VFF's is awesome - so light, free, etc. Better on grass than pavement for sure. Because of my stride, I'm prone to blisters on my pads behind my pinky toes, so I would really burn through the VFF's in ways I don't with minimalist shoes, hence the switch. VFF's are also stinky, even when you've got lots of toe socks to help with moisture. (Those socks would develop holes even faster than the shoes)
All in all, I thought the toe shoes were awesome. If I was still super into running, I'd probably only wear them on race days.
Soccer, wide cleats - New Balance. NB runs a little wider anyway, then they do (or did when I purchased them) wide versions of the 442 cleat.
These are what I have, love these and have been going strong for a few years:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07DVQVQHF?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_...
And then these for indoor:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B096NBWPWF?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_...
For wide cleats, check out Mizuno. I get mine on eBay from sellers in Japan. I tried literally every other wide cleat I could find in the US and nothing fit as well as Mizunos.
The Monarcida line is less expensive and has 4E sizing (the SW or Super-Wide models) but I’ve never really liked them because of the synthetic material they’re made from and the studs on the shoes.
The other option, which I’ve gone with, is the Monarca line. They’re usually made from Kangaroo leather (which can be stretched) and have a relatively wide sole plate. There are different Monarcas, looks for the “classic” ones not the alphas which have a synthetic upper and are said to run more narrow. Of the Monarca line, the MIJ (Made In Japan) shoes are supposed to be the widest and highest quality.
After so many years of wearing minimalist shoes I’ve found that cleats aren’t too comfortable to run in so I’ve gone to just wearing turf shoes. Mizuno’s previous models had a very bendy sole that lets my foot move pretty freely.
Hmm, interesting. I've recently gotten back into running, however shin splints are preventing me from running as much or as far as I would like. My cardio is good, but my legs/shins are what starts screaming first forcing me to stop. I also currently run almost exclusively on a treadmill (due to winter weather), which may be a self-inflicted issue.
Do you have any insight on treadmill or track, vs. running outside?
How far do you barefoot jog each week that seems to be enough for you?
I haven't tried a treadmill. I recommend running 50-100m barefoot on solid ground like others have said and seeing how it compares / how your form changes.
I usually run 1-2 miles when I go out, not too much. Just enough to feel all the secondary leg muscles get fired up. Of course if you're new to barefoot running, people recommend starting with short distances.
On shin splints: one trigger was my poor running form. I would lunge my feet forward focusing on getting the longest stride, landing on the heel because my foot was in front of me. It didn't hurt my heel because traditional shoes are so padded there, but the physics/angles/forces of that form are bad. Instead, barefoot runners talk about "falling forward", which is exaggerated imo but gives you the cue that your feet should land under or behind your torso, not in front. This reduces the impact on the feet and legs. Barefoot running teaches this foot placement very quickly. Not sure if that's something you already do or not, but hope it helps.
EDIT - just saw your other comment. Go for a little barefoot run, maybe a few different times, and I think you'll quickly find out where your feet want to go. The "torso first, not feet first" mindset really helped me. (I'm flat footed too, and insoles didn't help me personally; not to yuck your yum, though. Maybe they'll be more comfortable for you)
Not OP, but a while back I ran weekly for months outside with no issues. It got hot, I ran two miles inside on a treadmill and got the first shin splints in my life. I hear from other runners that treadmills can hurt your form because you run differently on them than on solid ground. Try running off a treadmill and see if it helps.
I'd be curious to know whether you're heel striking when running. I'm a natural heel-striker, but I forced a change to mid-foot and my shin-splints disappeared altogether. It took a little time to build up to my heel-strike pace, but I did and was able to continue to avoid shin splints even at the same pace. All of this was done with regular running shoes (not barefoot-style).
I believe I am, but don't have great evidence to say one way or the other. I have very flat feet, and just got new orthotics/shoes actually. Any tips or helpful guides/drills on how to transition to mid-foot you would recommend?
I'd definitely be straying too far outside my wheelhouse to be comfortable with recommending how to transition, especially considering you have flat feet (I have regular arches). I can tell you that I watched this short vid and attempted to take its recommendations into account:
I started running around this same time period because a coworker gifted me some Vibram five fingers. I would run 5ks regularly and never get hurt. Today, I own a pair of very cushy Brooks and I've been running 5ks with those.
I am typing this while icing my knees because I've developed a bad case of Runner's Knee. Causation? Possibly, but I'm more apt to blame being fifteen years older than I was.
It's a pretty good article.
In that era I saw two major misconceptions around minimalism in running footwear. The first is the idea that heel-to-toe "drop" is the the main important metric -- of course, a shoe company thing. Actually what matters a lot more is proprioception -- the feeling of knowing where your foot is in space relative to the ground, and also the feedback your foot is getting from the ground.
The second misconception is that it's important to switch over 100%. Related to this is a misconception that somewhat more minimalist is better. As a competitive runner, I saw benefits from mixing in barefoot strides and a couple miles per week barefoot on soccer fields while keeping my training shoes the same. I'd recommend others do the same, and very gradually increase mileage.
The challenge for research in my understanding is that it's very hard to track long-term injury prevention and performance improvement in a statistically significant way. You can measure what happens when habitually shod people do a barefoot run, and you can go to Kenya and study how habitually barefoot people land when they put on shoes, but that's different from the long term impact on your gait of changing your footwear for a long period of time. (I'm not a researcher myself but I've talked to them.)
I think your proprioception point is huge. I sometimes randomly get a floppy foot. In anything but structurally sound shoes, I'm wrecked. Would barefoot running have avoided the problem or exacerbated the problem?
No idea, honestly. Normally I'd think a few minutes at a time of barefoot jogging on a soft surface isn't likely to hurt and might help.
You are highly highly aware of your feet when running in shoes with 3mm of total rubber/padding.
Same experience here (though I probably skewed more to barefoot than you did). There's a certain amount of immediate painful feedback for a heel striker once you start running barefoot. There's a certain amount of reconditioning and retraining of under utilised muscles that needs to happen so I think your advice to gradually introduce is make a lot of sense. What I've always found interesting is that even for runners like me that had poor form, as soon as the shoes come off we naturally shift towards a more efficient and lower impact technique.
After a few years of regular barefoot running my running gait had changed enough that I didn't feel the need to keep doing it and have been doing runs in race shoes almost exclusively for the past decade.
It's funny that people will hear about something new, misinterpret it, and then get angry about it.
what brands get proprioception well?
I think anything whose soles are really thin and not too hard. I'm partial to Xero, but there's a lot of possibilities.
I do think all shoes, except those original Vibram Five Fingers, are not a great substitute for barefoot running itself. Running barefoot on a nice grass field feels so much nicer and more fun, too! But the minimal shoes do help force you to feel the ground and not just slam into it, so I think they can help.
Whatever you do, I'd only make changes slowly: try 10 minutes of barefoot running or with different shoes, a couple times a week at the end of a normal run, and go from there.
I'm still running in my vibrams mostly because I've not had a reason to change and researching alternative shoes is annoying and expensive, limiting my experimentation with different brands and models. I also put in a good amount of mileage and worry how long the shoe will last. I'm mostly considering changing because vibrams aren't on sale as often, carried by fewer retailers, and sizing online is a pain (especially when they don't list the european size).
I didn't start out of any book hype but bought a pair out of curiosity and then lost my regular running shoes before a race. It was a monthly 5k and my time dramatically improved that month (I had also switched to a standing desk, making root cause fuzzier, which I also still use). Most of my running is on rough, rocky trails except when they are wet or for the 5k.
The article is not telling what happened after the hysteria. This movement settled and manifested to a "natural running" idea. We now have Altra, Topo Athletic, Hoka, Invo8 and others, offering shoes with more or less flat soles. Encouraging you to run with a natural running pose. This does not mean cushioning wouldn't be allowed.
To me, the last section of the article states exactly what happened after the hysteria.
I ran a lot in two pairs of Altra Instinct 1.0s. Altra shoes used to be very minimalist that also happened to be zero drop with big toe boxes. The most notable thing was how little cushion it had, it was like running on a piece of leather, close to barefoot running. You wouldn't even think the Altra shoes made today are from the same company, they have so much cushion. I don't think its a bad thing, what I eventually took away from my Altras was that I need a huge toebox for my feet to be happy and if my shoes have too much drop I tend to heel strike. I'm glad my shoes have more cushion today, I just wish the cushion didn't break down so fast.
a really high percentage of the runners i see out i the street are forefoot striking in zero drops - clearly that's not barefoot but i'd also question whether you can call it 'short lived'
My impression is that most women strike well forward on the foot, no matter what shoes they wear.
This. Shoes are meaningless, pose, stride, biomechanical process.
They can make a difference for athletes:
"The data showed significant differences in the oxygen uptake (a way to measure the energy cost of running) in the Vaporfly shoe resulting in a 2.8 percent improved running economy, or the amount of energy it takes a runner to go a certain distance, over the Adidas shoe on average"
https://lifesciences.byu.edu/can-your-shoes-really-make-you-...
But not every runner sees improvement in time. so-called non-responders exist at the elite level but I don't recall seeing any analysis as to why some runners run faster and others don't with these carbon-plate shoes.
[edit] a quick search found this article about supershoes and the range of response - see https://run.outsideonline.com/gear/super-shoe-hyper-responde...
Also the significant benefits that comes from improved post-run recovery with modern super shoes, allowing athletes to run significantly more weekly mileage.
If this were the case why don't we see more Olympians running in vibrams?
Not vibrams, but please have a closeer look at those olypians shoes. These are very lightweight and most important _flat_ shoes, encouraging a natural running pose.
The best I could find was the 2023 berlin marathon, but looking at the shoes the heel and midfoot are flat while the forefoot is definitely raised.
https://www.runningshoesguru.com/2023/09/the-shoes-of-the-wi...
If you were a red-blooded progressive maker-type of person in 2010, and you read Born to Run and didn't immediately go out and buy a pair of Vibram 5 Fingers, I really have to wonder if we're going to get along.
Never use the shoes anymore but that book has made me a healthier human for sure.
Same here. Back in 2009-ish or so when I was on a three week vacation to took my shoes off and re-learned how to walk. From then on, I haven't had any cortisone shots in my knees nor the somewhat annual reoccurring throwing my back out. From then on I have been exclusively barefooted, wearing Bedrock sandals or some other minimal shoe.
I get all kinds of comments and snide remarks, but to walk and stand pain free I really don't care.
What a wild take.
Seriously. Hasn't the main thesis of that book (a distinct advantage of human upright evolution is our ability to run long distances) and several key supporting points been mostly disproven scientifically (early humans often hunted by running to exhaustion, for example)?
Seems to me another enticing narrative with little to no sound evidence a la Guns, Germs, and Steel, Sapiens, and the like. The stuff this site loves to gobble up with comment after comment of supporting anecdata.
The insistence HNers have for utterly re-inventing their lives off of a single completely unsubstantiated book astounds me.
You know literally anyone can write literally anything in a book right? There's no vetting, no magical reality check. You can write a book that's nothing but good sounding falsehoods and nobody can stop you. You can even fill it with 10 pages of garbage, low quality citations!
The modern equivalent of a book is a 3 hour Youtube video essay, and most of them have more research behind them!
But nobody would obsess over them like people here obsess over lifestyle books.
Yeah, it's an obsessive personality trait that I've observed in most high achievers. Often not healthy. At least scrutinize your obsessions, people.
A neighbor, who I don't think runs much if at all, was greatly taken with the book, and asked me about the minimal shoes. I told her that in my prime running days I usually weighed half again what she has ever weighed when not pregnant--I hit down a bit harder.
On the other hand, I have never cared for the big puffy shoes. My preferred shoe was the ASICS Excalibur GT. They haven't made them in about 40 years, and who knows whether I'd still like them with my older feet.
I was amused by the book's argument that elaborate shoes brought on a rash of injuries. No, the running craze that set in during the late 1970s brought on that rash. It's hard to get running-related injuries when you aren't running, and before about 1975 few adults ran much.
I have run barefoot and used minimal soles for more than 20 years, also using "normal" shoes from time to time, most of the time I use minimal, no heel soles. That is something I did when I started working from home long hours as heels were very harmful for me.
If you are thinking about doing it when you never did before, DON'T. You should be doing a progressive transition. It changes your knees, ankles and calves. It should take at least 6 months to a year.
If you don't do that, you will injury yourself. People running Marathons barefoot suddenly are risking a lot.
About 20 years ago I changed from running in basketball shoes to minimal shoes. At the time I was only running about 5K. It took me about 10 months to work up to 5k in the minimal shoes.
My general approach is to run less far but more often since you usually don't notice tendon injuries while you're exercising, but a day or two later.
I have a bad heel on my right foot, and I have had to "walk on my toes" basically, without putting much pressure on the heel. It was excruciating in the beginning, I hated it. Now I do it without thinking much about it.
My problem? I walk on my left heel normally... Duh. Resulting in very assymetric walk. I am trying to "fix" this. It will probably take another 6 months or year..
By the way, running on toes feels wonderful compared to walking on your toes, in my opinion.
i started and ran a barefoot running club back then. it doesn't make your foot stronger. but you do learn to put up with pain.
i did real no shoe barefoot running and pushed most people to try that. it did have an effect; no more twisted ankles. i got them quite often and never after 3 months of no shoes. there was a kid who eventually played d1 ball who joined because he had 'bad ankles' and still credits me for solving that.
you can get all the benefits of barefoot running by running or jogging once a week on a beach or soft grass soccer field. i think it's building up muscles in the leg to better balance you. no changes occur in the actual foot.
Agreed - I've always naturally landed flat when running even in very padded shoes. I run in concrete with very cushioned runners and still do this. Also run on the soft beach sand a few times a week which builds stabilizer muscles and when hiking or on softer ground I use shoes with almost no cushion but thicker rubber outsoles.
For casual shoes I mostly wear leather boots which also have no cushion and stiff thick rubber soles. I kinda like the variety for different surfaces
During hiking, I realized that I’m more likely to tip over in my hiking boots compared to my sneakers. The center of pressure is much higher in hiking shoes than in sneakers. And the shape of my sneakers is roughly like a triangle, with the larger side on the bottom. It's a different stroy when its muddy though...
I was in a trail running club in that era and the organizer and a few others ran in flat Luna sandals. I will say that their form was beautiful - there’s no question in my mind that barefoot-inspired running produces a more natural locomotion.
But I tried it and it was a bust. A one mile run would lock my calf up, and that would set me back for weeks. I still have the Lunas and wear them on the boat.
Yeah if you’re already a competent runner using traditional shoes then switching to Lunas or similar will absolutely blast your calves if you try to maintain even a remotely similar pace or volume at the start.
I trail run and hike in my Chaco sandals. I need the arch support. I also wear socks when I do it because then small stones and rocks don't cause any issues.
I argue that doing any sport would help with the bad ankles. For me it worked, for kid it worked, so I have two data points to offer. Of course if you have them and want to get into real performance sports you'll still need ankle support, but for the daily life this got us fixed.
To add to all the anecdotes I enjoy barefoot running to this day. I was never able to run with shoes very well and without them I run 10-15 miles a week at a 8:30 pace. Totally get it might not be for everyone but it helps me enjoy something I otherwise hated. I do wear what amount to rubberized socks[0] for puncture protection since I’m in a city.
0: https://www.skinnersfootwear.com/products/comfort-2-0-carmin...
I mostly run barefoot now, but I’ve run in Skinners a lot too (everything up to full marathons), and still do sometimes when I’m unsure of the surface I’ll be running on. I just finished a run in them a couple of hours ago actually. They are great. A lot more minimal than Vibrams or similar. Describing them as “rubberised” doesn’t really capture the benefit though. The sole is tough but bends like fabric, so it’s not like a thin shoe sole – there’s no rigidity. It gives you a much better sense of the ground under your feet, and you can roll them up or squash them flat, so they are very packable.
If you're like me and the $75 price for something strange scares you a bit, you can also take a look at WHITIN "yoga socks" on Amazon which are the cheap Chinese knock off for $20 version. They're not as good as the Skinners (material is thicker and rubbery feeling) but they're good for testing the concept out. I've ran in them on the treadmill and occasionally outside for the past year. Also nice on trips as an emergency shoe.
I run a lot, so people are always asking me about this and what kind of shoes to wear. I think the answer is pretty clear - training and paying attention to what hurts or doesn't hurt your personal feet is much more important than any particular shoe. Wear shoes that are comfortable, and try to run in a low impact way. Barefoot running is a good exercise for that, maybe but I always sort of think .. just run like you have no shoes on, but with shoes, and collect all the benefits.
To add to the anecdotal support for barefoot running: I ran in traditional running shoes for years ... and my knees were eventually not happy. I gave up running, assuming I just had bad knees.
When I heard about barefoot running a year or so later, I tried it. Running on the balls of my feet took some re-learning but the knee pain never came back. I continued to run for 4 or 5 years. (I'm not sure why I started walking instead of running — getting older? Or to share the time with my non-running wife?)
(On a tangent: I dislike any kind of shoe-clip when biking. I feel that pulling up on your leg/knee to power a bicycle goes against the design of our knee.)
Same for a friend of mine, years of heel strikes and doctors appointment to cure his bad knees. Cured after 5 mins of barefoot running and finding his natural stance
Don't pull up with clips on the bike. No need to. I recall (but will not look up) a study showing the most efficient pro riders don't pull either.
I read Born to Run and loved it. I never did the barefoot running thing. I just started running. That was four years ago. Weight is down. BP is down. A1C in the middle of normal. It’s done wonders.
There’s a passage in there about how humans have evolved to run that’s fascinating. Made me realize maybe we are naturals at running.
Was is David Attenborough's "Planet Earth"? There was a bit about a tribe that hunt antelope or some other kind of herd animal. After separating one from the herd, the human eventually "outruns" it. Not in speed but just tenacity, endurance — the animal eventually collapses.
Blew my mind that we could do that.
It's possible it's in both places. In the book there is a passage, "if you can run six miles on a summer day then you, my friend, are a lethal weapon in the animal kingdom. We can dump heat on the run, but animals can’t pant while they gallop."
So really nothing beats running on a good surface completely barefoot; it is amazing, but it is also not always practical, and is definitely not necessary to get most of the barefoot benefits.
Nor for that matter are odd looking feet gloves, ultra-thin soles, expensive sandals etc.
What does matter though is a) having a shoe that allows the mechanics of the lower leg and foot to work; zero drop, no arch supports and a wide toe box are essential. And b) taking the time to build up the wasted musculature (mostly in the feet) that may well have had a lifetime of being splinted and not being used as it was evolved for.
Least that's the sample size of one experience of a late fifties, 100kg who did multiple marathons, half's etc both before and after switching to barefoot and minimalist shoes after coming across the Born to Run book in 2010 while trying to figure out how to avoid injuries.
(bonus injury prevention tip would be off-road running in the green. Not only good for the head, but the added terrain variety varies the loads on the joints and helps train core stability)
There are so many things put together here almost randomly, because of that its easy to criticise the whole thing, but there are some reasonable things in it.
Having barefoot connection with soil is definitely good for you, so is any reasonable exposure to nature. The key here is exposure to nature, walking on asphalt or concrete is not nature. This is about walking barefoot so that your soles connect to the soil, earth, dirt, grass or sand. In the modern world of course you have to be careful and watch out for sharp objects, all kinds of garbage etc.
People who have a piece of land, garden or park access can definitely use it for barewalking, running or just standing - it doesn't matter as long as feet touch the soil, without any fancy, minimal, shoes or anything like that.
In many spiritual places they require you to remove your shoes and even your socks, there are certain benefits of doing that, but even the holiest of people would wear shoes when going on rough terrain, thats just a question of sanity.
> Having barefoot connection with soil is definitely good for you
Citation needed
There are studies you can find about it, for example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11211751/
The simple way to understand it is exposure to nature activates some internal mechanisms that evolved with us through millions of years of species living in nature. In a similar manner it feels so good to go to a beach on a sunny day - you have exposure to earth, water, sun and wind.
Yeah...I'm not saying he's wrong, but I am saying you can get hookworm that way. Choose your soil wisely.
My recommendation would be to just try it out, to feel for yourself.
Just because something feels good, doesn't mean it is good.
Not always, yes. But in this case I can test it by general wellbeing and shape of feet. The more I walk barefeet on grass and rock, the stronger my feet are. And more sensitiv. With shoes, I don't really feel my feet, with barefeet I can now feel the grass on different parts on my skin. Feels good. Improves my mood -> is good for me.
While that feels good for you, this does not constitute the evidence that "going barefoot is good for you." A sibling posted some studies that would be more interesting (I'll admit I've not read them).
What "good for you" would look like to me would be longer life expectancy, better health outcomes at different stages of life, etc. "Strong feet," for example, doesn't meet that standard for me. I'd want to see a link that work to actively strengthen one's feet creates those better life outcomes.
Do you need a study for every little thing?
You body does provide you with a quite elaborate feedback system. And you can also objectivly meassure. (E.g. how long you walk without pain)
And studies can be very misleading. For example it matters a lot, if and how often you walked barefeet as a child. If you didn't, your bones will be not so strong developed and then barefeet walking/running can be even dangerous. Trusting a general study that maybe did not take this into account (or did not mentioned it prominently) here vs trusting the feedback from your nerves in your feet would be not wise.
> Do you need a study for every little thing?
I didn't say that. What I said:
> What "good for you" would look like to me would be longer life expectancy, better health outcomes at different stages of life, etc. "Strong feet," for example, doesn't meet that standard for me. I'd want to see a link that work to actively strengthen one's feet creates those better life outcomes.
"It feels good" isn't an objective outcome that necessarily means something is "good for you."
> And you can also objectivly meassure. (E.g. how long you walk without pain)
This is a better outcome but I'd say it's not objective because I walk without pain while wearing shoes.
Not sure of any benefit of soil-feet connection.
But make sense to being able to move our feets freely without any hard sole that limits the development of the foot musculature and joints.
Come on man. 1+1=2 citation needed?
1+1=2 in fact requires hundreds of pages of (kind of old school) math to prove.
I don’t need a citation. Just a simple explanation why it is so obvious and so beneficial.
Do you need an explanation of why the touch of another human would be obviously beneficial? I find walking on bare dirt or earth to be similar. I think experiencing is believing.
I think the need for an explanation/citation scales relative to how common a given anecdotal experience is.
I’ve spent plenty of time walking barefoot outside but apparently have not experienced what people here are claiming. Not saying no one can/does, but at the very least the experience doesn’t seem to be universal.
Definitely there are studies about that, for example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11211751/
>but apparently have not experienced what people here are claiming
Or you did have experience it just did not notice. The problem with experiential comparisons is that different people have different levels of sensitivity and attention. So just because you didn't feel it consciously doesn't mean you did not benefit from it.
> Or you did have experience it just did not notice.
Exactly my point, and this is why personal anecdotes are just not sufficient for something like this.
Life is full of people telling us to do <thing>, because they’re convinced that their personal experience with that thing indicates some universal truth.
In the circles I grew up in, that meant growing up unvaccinated among many other highly questionable things.
The point is that the burden of proof must be higher than “it feels good to me” or what amounts to the naturalistic fallacy.
I have no actual opinion about the efficacy of walking barefoot other than to note that I didn’t knowingly experience what other people passionately describe. I also know there are many things that make me feel good that have no effect on many people.
OK now I need a citation lol.
Cite me then as far you trust I'm representing my own truth. I don't even know what you are demanding exactly. There's not going to be any universal human truth so its going to be made up of opinionated reporting with arbitrary scientific assignments. You don't believe that the average person has positive feelings about walking on meadow or mud or whatever scientific endpoint? Or you don't think human touch is on average perceived positively? Or you want to see some +X years survival for those in arbitrary group compared to this other arbitrary group. Like I said, I believe what I experience, so very sorry to extrapolate a simple life experience almost universal to all humans since the dawn of time onto my suburban vice lord.
>You don't believe that the average person has positive feelings about walking on meadow or mud or whatever scientific endpoint? Or you don't think human touch is on average perceived positively
As noted elsewhere, something being "perceived positively" is different than "good for you". I perceive drinking beer positively, after all. But I think we can agree that it's not good for me.
Your whole comment is basically "science doesn't matter because I feel good when I do X".
>Like I said, I believe what I experience, so very sorry to extrapolate a simple life experience almost universal to all humans since the dawn of time onto my suburban vice lord.
This is unnecessary snark.
By all means, go barefoot or whatever makes you feel good. I even think that there's probably some sort of merit to it. But you don't need to get so defensive over someone asking if there's something more substantial than "well I said so" when it's being recommended to them. Especially if there are counter-examples also in the thread.
Do you need a citation or can I safely assert: "Things are good for me that make me feel good absent it being a poison." I just don't think walking on grass or whatever is that far away from ground truth. Coming by in a thread discussing fairly universal experiences and asking for a citation isn't productive at all. "Ya well my great uncle didn't have feet so it would be excruciating for him to try to walk on grass." is just as productive.
>Do you need a citation or can I safely assert: "Things are good for me that make me feel good absent it being a poison."
I don't need a citation, no, this is pretty obviously false.
Once again, go ahead do do what you want, but asking for a citation when people are recommending a change in lifestyle because it is "good for you" is a completely reasonable thing to do.
Especially when their first ask was "Just a simple explanation why it is so obvious and so beneficial." (i.e., not a scientific study or anything), to which you responded with some hand-waving and a question instead of a simple explanation.
In my opinion, I would rather walk through mud with some kind of footwear on than barefoot, and I think the beauty of a meadow can be appreciated with or without footwear
nod I grew up with access to a big back garden, so barefoot walked on it a lot, unfortunately it involved crossing a little bit of asphalt pathway to get to, and I still have nightmares of the feeling of small sharp stones digging in my feet.
A similar late-teens habit I developed was going out and laying on the grass pretty much naked, when I couldn't sleep late at night, and just staring at the milky way. It was a peace I have no idea how I'd get back.
"In modern world you have to be careful and watch out for sharp objects, all kinds of garbage etc."
Also in the pre modern world. Spikey plants are in many places and my feet regular hurt in summer.
"but even the holiest of people would wear shoes when going on rough terrain"
Unless when done with purpose. It is a good awareness training, walking through the bushes barefeet. One moment of distraction .. ouch.
>even the holiest of people would wear shoes when going on rough terrain, thats just a question of sanity.
https://medium.com/mr-plan-publication/natures-footprints-ex...
I’m a barefoot runner. Not a good runner, but middle of the pack. I ran >6km every day barefoot in February, and ran a half marathon on Sunday barefoot too. I’ve been running completely barefoot for about a year and before that I ran in Skinners for several years, which are basically socks that are tough on the bottom. I still wear Skinners if I’m unsure of the surface I’ll be running on, and I’ll switch to trail running shoes if I’m going for a trail run, but almost all of my training runs are barefoot in my local park or track.
I don’t put too much weight in the claims that it’s going to make me healthier. I think there’s a good argument for it, and there is at least some evidence that it does good, but it’s not hugely compelling to me. I run barefoot because it feels good to be light on my feet and connected to the ground.
Since running in Skinners / barefoot, I’ve had a weaker knee stop giving me problems. But how much of that is down to running in general (running is good for your knees) as opposed to doing it barefoot, I don’t know. But I’m running more because I’m enjoying it more.
The article is pretty awful. There was a fad, not a hysterical mob going after people. Runners are pretty chill. Nobody is going to attack you for wearing the wrong thing.
My girlfriend at the time got into this. I didn't run but expressed interest in giving it a go, so I got a pair of lightweight running shoes and she instructed me how to run "properly" like dogs and other animals, that is on the balls of my feet and not on my heels.
I injured myself on my first run and couldn't walk for two weeks. I still don't really know what happened. Nothing obvious happened on the run; I didn't fall or twist anything and wasn't in pain during or after the run. But when I awoke the next day I couldn't stand. I was very fit at the time due to daily cycling both as transport and as a sport/hobby. So my theory is my "cycling muscles" were way stronger than my "running muscles" and something in the latter just gave.
This theory was corroborated by the fact that I could not walk at all during my two week recovery period, but I could still cycle. I was in pain most of the time. It's the only time in my life I've taken painkillers regularly. It actually seemed to be getting worse, then one day I woke up, the pain was gone, and I could walk again.
Suffice to say I've never tried running in this completely unnatural way again. I've run since and never injured myself again. I run the way my body tells me I should run.
Forefoot running helped me tremendously, but the people in the shoe store advised me to use proper shoes for that (I guess I took the Nike Fly thing, which was good for that) and to start slowly with it. I used months to slowly adapt myself to it, starting with no more than 50 meters on these things per day, and I was already an experienced runner at that time.
I had a similar experience, except at the time I was an avid distance runner. I had run a number of ultras and was training for a marathon. After a single 15 minute run in a pair of Nike Free shoes, I was unable to run for two weeks. It felt like a combination of shin splints, knee problems, and calf cramps. It was horrible.
The strange thing was that I never really favored the big, bulky shoes anyway. I always sought out the lowest cushion, lowest drop shoes I could find. And in 2010 I was already 20 years into running regularly.
The fad did have a lasting effect on me though. I can now buy nice, low cushion zero drop shoes, and I love them. But no-cushion is definitely out for me, and I can’t imagine running shoeless at all.
I got mine around 2012 (but not the toe version) and quickly found out that running in them for more than 15 minutes makes my feet hurt, with no sign of a training effect.
But they still serve me well as gym shoes with a very low packing volume (great for business trips).
I've been running barefoot (real, but sometimes also in 'barefoot' shoes) on and off for years, and my feet quickly got used to it.
But then, I've always had a forefoot strike.
I also do a lot of barefoot walking.
However, the first few times I definitely ran for less than 15 minutes. That seems like overkill when getting used to barefoot running. I was sore enough in my calves for days from five minutes of running the first few times.
Switching to Vibram Fivefingers in 2009 allowed me to continue to run as it solved multiple periostite and knee injuries I had done to myself while running with "normal shoes".
I still really like Vibram but I’m forced to wear them less and less for one single reason: the smell!
I’m still ashamed for that time where I boarded a plane while wearing my vibram. For whatever reason, we had to wait 5 minutes outside before boarding. It was raining. My vibram were soaked. Then I went to the plane, sate dow and… the smell started to appear.
Sorry everyone for that… I’m never wearing Vibram when traveling anymore.
I really liked the idea of "barefoot running" at the time, but it was always pretty clearly an extreme take. I do still think (with 0 evidence) that a lot of supported shoes are overly padded - that said, people run on a pretty wide variety of surfaces, it seems hard to argue that people evolved to run on concrete.
Nice bit of context for anyone interested but not wanting to read the whole book is Christopher McDougal's TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-iGZPtWXzE
"The concept of running shoes as we understand them today, specifically designed to improve running efficiency and comfort, did not emerge until the late 19th and early 20th centuries."
It's a neat idea imagining what running footwear was like throughout history. Was Pheidippides barefoot when he purportedly ran from Marathon to Athens? Did Indigenous Americans debate which style of moccasins was better for your long term foot health? Did warriors develop plantar fasciitis from poorly designed boots?
>> Was Pheidippides barefoot when he purportedly ran from Marathon to Athens?
I doubt it. I would think thin soled leather sandals were quite common at the time. Curious what the evidence has to say about this.
So called barefoot shoes, which are notable for their thin, flat soles and wide foot boxes, are not based on an appeal to nature at all. Constricting the foot and movement of the toes results in visible changes to feet and complications like ingrown toenails which are otherwise rare. Thick soles cause a transition to a hard heel strike pattern which ultimately increases stress on the heels and knees. The amount of hard data which is currently available is limited, but also rather dramatic.
My work involves walking all around urban environments. I had long had problems with overly narrow shoes, and when I transitioned to barefoot style shoes my gait completely changed. The result has been a massive improvement in quality of life with foot and joint pain that used to be constant now completely gone. One interesting part of this is that it took a full two years to completely make the transition, and now when I want to buy shoes I almost always find a range available in my size because so many attempt to transition to wearing barefoot shoes turn back because it is genuinely painful, difficult, and dangerous, especially at first in the initial two weeks or so.
This article is interesting, but to me seems a bit off. More interesting than the brief spike of strong interest is the fact that interest in barefoot running and barefoot shoes remained elevated afterwards relative to before.
I wear nothing but minimal shoes day to day. I find them so much better. I used to have precision manufactured orthotics etc, then went to another podiatrist one day who had moved to specialise in barefoot. She basically said "your feet are fine, try these shoes out and see how it goes". It went great.
TBC on running, I have tight achilles and need to put in a lot of prep work to be able to run without pain so cbf. Day to day though, give vivobarefoot or something a shot - I have 7 pairs. They're great.
If you have tight Achilles a high drop shoe will help a lot because it takes the load off the Achilles.
I have almost the exact same story. I'm not a runner (I was a jogger when I was younger), but my unusually flat feet had me wearing orthotics most of my life, and the podiatrists kept prescribing thicker and more extreme orthotics. Finally, a physical therapist I was seeing (not for foot problems) suggested I try "barefoot" (zero rise, minimal support) shoes, and go barefoot as much as possible, also try to be conscious of using my arch muscles to avoid pronating as I walked. tl;dr: Haven't worn orthotics since, no more foot problems. My favorite brand is Merrell.
I remember running down the street and back with my new vibram 5 fingers just to try them out. The next day my calves were so sore I could barely walk. I couldn't wait to do it again.
I've since moved on to minimalist runners with a flat thin sole and wide toe area. Unfortunately I ended up stepping on a small sharp pebble at one point and have a very hard and sometimes painful area of tough skin on the pad of my foot. Nevertheless, I'll still answer the call to run on a warm sunny day.
Hah! I had a more or less identical experience after getting my first pair in 2008. Went out to the track, jogged a single lap, and that was enough. Calves were absolutely wrecked the next day. Four years later I ran my first marathon (3:54) in them.
17 years later they are still the only shoes I ever wear for running or working out. And I have bigger calves than anyone in my local CrossFit gym
I am thankful for this movement because I now mostly wear xero shoes (or DIY sandals) and now I never get shooting pains up my leg (caused by arch support) nor squished pinkie toes.
I also have no need for high heels in my daily life so "zero drop" is great. I don't think heels are good for your back.
It's also nice to not that the shoes are extremely light weight/flexible (no breaking-in) and breathable (no stink).
I don't plan to ever wear a high-heel pointed shoe again.
I bought some unstructured shoes last fall, which I ordered online because none of the shops I went into sold them, because "too many people were getting injured". When I forst got my shoes the forst thing I did was go for a 2 mile walk, and sure enough I hurt something under my left arch, which gave me minor grief for a couple weeks.
When winter arrived I started using them for the real reason I bught them: winter trail running, and for that they're great. Like mocassins, your foot conforms to the ground and they provide provide pretty excellent grip on snowpack. I consider it an improvement over lugged trail runners for winter.
I previously owned some Converse high-tops and found their lightly structured soles worked well in winter, which is what first got me curious about unstructured shoes. That and the 6 months I spent surfing in Mexico, in which I was barefoot 90% of the time. To note, I am not a serious runner. I hike and cycle, but for running the trend over the last 5 years has been to go for trail runs in winter 1-2 dozen times a season.
I trained muay thai before the hysteria, so I was already used to being on my forefoot a lot. It seemed like you had to use your forefoot or you wouldn't be agile enough to avoid injury. So it was kind of odd when other people discovered this.
I also found "barefoot" shoes weird. I used to trail run through rocky forests in leather mid-height hiking boots. As long as the sole is flexible, you can still forefoot/midfoot strike. More specialized shoes are nice, but not necessary.
Looking back, it was the quintessential "secret ancient knowledge that the advanced city-folk forgot"-meme. We didn't forget... plenty of people who needed to run for a living knew about it. It's just that "running" wasn't a thing any normal person did until the 70's.
The human body is an amazing construction; it knows exactly how to run, it's more a question of letting it run its way as opposed to making it run the way you think it should.
The main issue with running for me is emotional. Like many others, I tend to overdo it; and then its not fun, which means I stop doing it.
I am the most amateur of runners. What I mean by that is that I haven't really read any books, joined any running forums, or done any research at all on the "proper" way to run.
All I can say is that when running on the treadmill in my basement, I can run for FAR longer in my socks than when in shoes.
I always felt that running with slim sneakers (very thin sole) was best for me. Of course I never run on asphalt (somehow it always seemed to me crazy). So, running barefoot is not that crazy if you run on grass or sand. Running on asphalt with or without shoes doesn’t sound right to me.
I was a bit late to the barefoot trend, probably more like 2015. Oh well, I've never been one of the cool kids, why start now?
Anyway, I ended up loving barefoot shoes for walking the dog, light hiking, etc. But for actual running? Not so much.
I like a low stack, low drop shoe for tempo and speed work. And a moderate stack, moderate drop for distance runs.
And I absolutely can't stand higher stack stuff... I want to like some of the newer "super shoes" for racing, but they're so tall... I feel like I'm going to twist an ankle.
Barefoot got me into running. It simply seemed easier and freer to run almost barefoot than in boxy shoes that everyone (falsely) assumed you needed. I did 2 marathons and many, many half marathons and 10 milers this way. Ironically I just switched to hokas, which have a barefoot feel in a very padded, spongy sole
For me, it's just that being barefoot feels really nice - especially on a textured ground. But I'm on spectrum, so that's a part of that too.
Yeah, it’s nice going for a run barefoot. I feel light on my feet and connected to the ground. When I run in shoes it feels like I have weights attached to my feet in comparison.
While you should not be doing miles barefoot or minimalist shoes
you SHOULD occasionally run barefoot on a safe surface like grass
Watch professional and semi-elite runners train and you will occasionally see them running barefoot on the grass between the track as "barefoot strides"
It helps you feel your form properly.
Modern shoes, especially the new "super-shoes" since 2016, are completely isolated from the feel of the road and can make you develop some very bad habits.
Anecdata: I had persistent knee issues in my early - mid 20s. Lasted for years, doctors were no help. I could only run half a mile - a mile before pain stopped me.
I switched to minimalist shoes (zero drop, thinner sole with less cushioning but not toe shoes) and a midfoot / forefoot strike and the issues went away. I can't prove causality, but it did definitely seem like shoes fixed knee.
I had the same issue, but kept the same shoes and just switched to mid-foot striking and had the same result.
Those thin soled shoes are hell for hiking, I did 1700 miles in a pair on the PCT, by 25-30 miles in a day my feed were screaming in pain. Had insanely thick callouses on my feet(it split on my heel and I could see at least 1/2 inch of nothing but skin).
Switched to sandals with much thicker sole at the 1700 mile mark, and after that I could do 45 miles per day with no pain.
Anecdotally, I see a lot of people wearing minimal shoes in their daily lives. But pretty much no minimal/barefoot runners anymore
We're in the goofy looking clown tier carbon plate $400 shoes that self destruct after 50km era:
https://assets.adidas.com/images/w_600,f_auto,q_auto/2d9fa49...
In 10 years we'll be writing about how dumb this trend is while we revert to barefoot running
The only way we'll be seeing that trend go away is if they're banned. Those shoes improve race times so much they stretch the definition of what should be legal in racing. Nobody's going to revert to barefoot running for racing unless they don't care about their times.
Yeah, they may look goofy but they work, similar to how lycra makes one look like a power ranger but you won't see anyone in the TDF wearing a hoodie and jeans.
I know a guy who has been no shoes for almost 20 years now. I think he does use the shoes with the toes when running, but in everyday life, he's just no shoes, no socks. The exception is situations where he's in a formal wear, in those cases he does put on shoes.
Most others who didn't the barefoot running have all quit.
Man, I miss barefoot running. It took me years to build up my pads to where I could run truly barefoot anywhere (concrete, asphalt, trails). The I blew my knee out on of all things a damn rowing machine. I didn't realize how hard it was to condition my feet until I tried to do it again after recovering. One day!
Idk about running, but I love my Vibrams for walking even though they look ultra dorky and don't last very long. I do believe they improve foot health, primarily because more muscles are engaged in the foot as I walk.
I have been wearing barefoot shoes for walking and felt better, no more pain in the knee, but outside of my personal experience, I haven't been able to find convincing studies on the benefits of barefoot shoes. Does anyone know any links about that ?
Are "regular" shoes with thin soles the same as "minimal" shoes?
For example converse all stars / vans / boat shoes?
I prefer to feel the pedals when I'm driving a car and use thin soles, but yet walking with these shoes really (excuse the pun) tires out my feet.
"Minimal" usually also implies a wide toebox, so your toes aren't scrunched, and flexibility like https://www.feelgrounds.com/cdn/shop/files/feelgrounds_origi..., so your foot can bend naturally.
Just adding to the sample size: I wear Xero shoes nearly exclusively. I bought a pair years ago, wore them occasionally and increased frequency over time. There's no question that my feet are stronger, and I can only imagine that being a good thing.
I’ve been using my treadmill mostly on socks, just because I’m lazy. The thought of running barefoot outside seems… interesting and risky.
Interestingly I seem to be able to run for longer barefoot (on socks) than with shoes. There’s something about shoes that makes my legs tire faster.
> There’s something about shoes that makes my legs tire faster.
Less weight on the parts of the body that move most during a run is an obvious benefit of not wearing shoes.
A blast from the past!
I read the book and did some actual barefoot running (got a lot of weird looks) and a lot of friends bought the shoes.
Now I think about it, I’ve not seen anyone in Vibrams for years
I see people in Vibrams and Vivos at the gym all the time. I wear nothing but minimalist shoes (since long before the hype, I was the barefoot kid where I grew up in the 80s/90s), so maybe I just notice it more?
Quite frequently people will come up to to me to ask me about my shoes, so there's definitely an interest.
I've been wearing vivobarefoot shoes and bedrock sandals exclusively after reading born to run about 10 years ago
Even as a non-runner, I found Born to Run to be a fantastic book and was a really captivating story. I ended up buying vibrams for hiking and LOVE them.
> strongly worded claims: barefoot running prevented injuries; barefoot running was more efficient; heel striking was evil; barefoot running was the natural and therefore "correct" way to run.
Anecdata: a friend of mine has been running for years, and for years he complained about knee pain. As it turns out he was heel striking the whole time, it completely disappeared since I told him to run 50 meters barefoot to find his "natural" point of contact
FWIW I had knee pain whenever I ran and my natural point of contact has always been the heel. I forced a change to mid-foot and it went away. Felt pretty unnatural for a bit and I was slower, but was able to build up to my heel-strike pace eventually. (all this done with regular running shoes)
I don't think it's fallacious to appeal to nature. Sure, not all things natural are good for you (deadly viruses etc.). But when you have something that works for millennia, and has been optimized (by evolution) for that specific purpose, making changes to that specific thing is likely to ignore the context in which that specific thing was created. It's like trying to change a legacy software system with no documentation. You have to be very careful not to introduce bugs, and in most practical cases, "how the legacy system does it" is GOOD, and you should hold the burden of proving that the new system is actually better.
Definitely true. Most people walk/run on flattish, hard surfaces (roads and paths) most of the time, though, which is a change significant enough from what we evolved with that I'm not entirely sure the null hypothesis holds.
This article is rather scant and hyperbolic.
> “… was dominated by an aggressive mob mentality around barefoot running”
Really? Most of the barefoot running enthusiasts I encountered were super friendly and open-minded.
> “… the appeal to nature fallacy: a logical fallacy in which a subject is claimed to be good simply because it is natural”
I’m not sure it is a fallacy to revert to tradition (proven heuristics) in a complex realm of limited first-principles understanding. Much of the barefoot running enthusiasm (and general naturalist or anthropologically-oriented problem-solving) is less oriented to proving various theories and more so trying to find gains with a clear awareness of uncertainty.
Personally: I suspect simple shoes best honor the immense structural complexity of the feet and legs (and the integration with the rest of the body). I wear thin-soled shoes in order to maintain healthy lower limbs. As a lover of walks for a clear mind I advocate for simple, thin-soled shoes (but I don’t believe we need an inquisition and I haven’t yet started collecting funds for a mission).
The few times I attempted to wear shoes with significant support I noticed dangerous knee strain that went away upon returning to simple shoes. While there’s no overwhelming body of evidence there and I probably can’t write a paper about it, that’s sufficient signal for me to stick with simple shoes.
Yeah, labelling this as a hysterical mob going after people is weird. Runners are pretty chill as a group. There was certainly a fad, but this article exaggerates it to the point of dishonesty.
I bought a pair of the original Vibram Five Fingers while living in London, 2007/2008. It was more out of curiosity than anything. They were displayed in a shop window in Spitalfields and looked bizarre in an appealing way.
I was never a runner/jogger. But I do walk a lot. Especially in summer. For example, if something is 20 walking minutes away and public transport takes 15, I walk.
I wore the Five Fingers all summer, every summer, ever after.
I never had any sore feet when wearing these. And what's more, I have exceptionally strong feet and I attribute it to these shoes. I only found this out when I started tango dancing and several of my teachers told me.
My first pair from London disintegrated, a decade later, in 2017.
Every pair of five fingers I bought after that lasted a maximum of two years.
As such they're both an example of a great product as well as great example of enshittification.
> I have exceptionally strong feet and I attribute it to these shoes.
It’s probably more because of this:
> But I do walk a lot. […] For example, if something is 20 walking minutes away and public transport takes 15, I walk.
Maybe it's indeed just the walking.
The shoes I wear most other times are oxfords, monks or brogues however.
These kinda lock your foot in place, metatarsal and arch of the foot are not 'exercised' as much because of the rigidity of these shoes.
I do use more feet muscles in my Five Fingers for the simple fact that these shoes allow me to do that.
You can kinda flex your feet and e.g. choose to land only on the metatarsal and feel safe.
Exact same experience—first pair from 2008 lasted over three years of heavy use (running on mostly pavement) and each replacement has barely survived one or two years.
Shop window in Spitalfields - that didn’t happen to be a personal training gym called The Foundry, did it?
We went crap shoes, barefoot shoes, huge (Hoka) shoes, now carbon-stuffed-futuristic-foam fat cheater shoes.
