recommend a 'minimalist' shoe for me.

I have a wide forefoot as well, which is why I probably shouldn't have bought the Newtons. Altras have a nice wide toebox though, as do NB.

GORun from sketchers amazon has some for 40 bucks

also had PF and barefoot running relieved the PF

After 6 months with the GORun ZERO PF

good luck

Has anyone tried the Saucony Hattori? They look interesting, but I'm leery of the velcro strap design.

Azaleas wrote:

Has anyone tried the Saucony Hattori? They look interesting, but I'm leery of the velcro strap design.

Ya, i have them. They are certainly minimal with zero drop but if you're looking to feel the ground and establish any sort of proprioception look elsewhere. They feel so cushioned because of the exclusive EVA material used to construct the sole.

Your feet also tend to move alot inside the shoe while you are running in them. I hated running in them for anything fast. Warming up slow was good, but again, you can't feel anything from the ground with these on thanks to the EVA.

They are the best walking shoes EVER though. You can reap the posture benefits of zero drop while not having to alter your footstrike walking (can heel strike comfortably) because it is well cushioned.

towhee26 wrote:

I want a shoe that is close to barefoot as possible, since my only purpose is to keep my feet strong. But I don't want the separate toes (i.e. VFF) and I want something that is fairly durable. I don't care about price too much but, I don't want to buy a new pair every 200 miles.

Any recommendations?

Vivobarefoot Aqua Lites. Absolutely the best barefoot shoe out there. Runnersworld gave it the best minimalist debut shoe honors this year (even though its been out for some time)

I personally own a ton of Vivobarefoot shoes and they blow everything away. Most of them look GREAT as well. The aqua lites i have a different color for all my outfits and just use them as casual walking shoes they are so comfy. I have about five pairs of them as testament to how good they are. Three for walking, two for running. The Evo is also pretty good, better for faster running like sprints then the aqua's.

Thanks for all the replies. This has been incredibly helpful. I was leaning towards New Balance MR00 so thanks to those who rec'ed them. Never heard of Vivobarefoot so I will check into that too.

The new balance minimus is a terrible product if you're trying to go for that barefoot feel.

It has a stack height of 12mm which means the shoe has 12mm or cushioning between you and the ground. That won't allow you to gain any proprioception about your environment; it's too much.

The Vivobarefoot line on the other hand, the Aqua Lite has ONLY 3mm between you and the ground. The Evo has 5mm. Not to mention the New Balance minimus DOES NOT have a wide toebox like Vivobarefoot does.

You can find aqua lites new on ebay or with coupon codes somewhere for $90bucks as opposed to $110 for minimus.

I wrote:

What injures people is transient spikes of shock from bad form such as heel striking. These may be dulled by soft surfaces, but they're completely eliminated by good form, even on concrete.

Ssrunner wrote:

I can't believe you're serious. ALL injuries are ELIMINATED by good form? You are a very, very ignorant person. I guess you just read Born To Run...?

(and a nasty rant)

Misquoting me is no excuse for a nasty rant. I'd figure you were just trolling, but no troll makes that much effort.

Obviously I meant the transient spikes are eliminated, which they are, and nowhere did I use the word "all" you accuse me of in vehement capital letters. Never read Born to Run, never used Pose, never run an ultra, I run fast, not slow, and have for years. And I'm telling you straight up, you arrogant prick, running on concrete is no problem at all. If there's a bad surface, it's grass.

Don't even think of arguing with me about barefoot running, I'll publicly humiliate you and enjoy every minute of it.

[quote]Bad Wigins wrote:

If there's a bad surface, it's grass.

Don't even think of arguing with me about barefoot running, I'll publicly humiliate you and enjoy every minute of it.[/quote

Truth. Grass has been given the rep of the best running surface simply because it feels good much like a cushioned trainer. And concrete a bad rep simply because it's man made and "hard".

I love running on hard surfaces. I personally hate grass. It feels terrible once you find a natural forefoot rhythm with your running. Once you discover that natural cadence whereupon your bodies stretch reflex operates best then you will realize how disabling grass really is.

In reality, we ran barefoot on hard, sun baked dirt surfaces with very little yield similar to concrete. Grass wasn't artificially mown like it is today; it was thick, it hid predators, and it was tall. We were no more born to run in grass then we were to run in concrete.

Bad Wigins wrote:

ukathleticscoach wrote:

[quote]Old Coyote wrote:

Your foot is not designed to run on concrete

It's "designed" to run on anything, including hard surfaces. The difference between a hard surface like concrete and a soft surface like dirt is trivial.

What injures people is transient spikes of shock from bad form such as heel striking. These may be dulled by soft surfaces, but they're completely eliminated by good form, even on concrete.

Your foot is not designed to run on "anything."

Cactus spikes for instance?

What an idiot you are. Your foot is soft tissue covering some less soft tissue. Similarly your body needs cushioning from the shock of hard surfaces, heel striking or toe striking.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Old Coyote wrote:

Your foot is not designed to run on concrete

'It's "designed" to run on anything, including hard surfaces.'

Ever heard of evolution. 95% plus of land surface is something softer ie not hard rock. You foot is designed to run on that

'The difference between a hard surface like concrete and a soft surface like dirt is trivial.'

That is to ridiculous to even answer

'What injures people is transient spikes of shock from bad form such as heel striking. These may be dulled by soft surfaces, but they're completely eliminated by good form, even on concrete.

Partly true. But again you do not really know what you are talking about. Most runnners go on heels or mid foot when running slow then onto toes when going faster. Now elites are not wearing vibrams but they might at least get away with it. The target maket of these minimalist shoes are mostly not fit enough. light enough our fast enough to run on ther toes for even a 5km race

There is a runner in my running club went to some pose sessions and is even on their video on youtube. She had but had the best technique in the training group. Well the result of doing a marathon in 4 1/2 hours on her toes, 3 months late still not running due to injury

Moving onto running on concrete the same as dirt. Well they asked the coach of El G when he came over to the UK for a BMC talk what running he did on roads. He looked shocked and said he didn't do ANY running on roads. They had seen some good class runner in America running along a road next to a forest trail and thought he was crazy! Perhaps you think you know better than the best ever at the combined 1500/5000m and his coach? Perhaps all the East Africans who do most of their training off road are also making a big mistake!