hey all you idiots who think barefoot running is a "fad"

EZ10Miler wrote:

More importantly why do you care if anyone runs in shoes or not?

You apparently are part of the fad group that has latched onto the barefoot thing, but please for the love god leave the rest of us alone.

Stop your preaching for God's sake!

++++1. Exactly. Stop preaching. It's -10 degrees here today. I would give my left nut to see you run barefoot from my house. There are a ton of African kids who grow up barefoot running... then as soon as they get the chance they snatch up shoes, ANY shoes to wear. If it's so awesome then why don't we see more Africans staying barefooted?

Barefoot jogging is a fad.

onlineshoppingspree wrote:

There weren't half a million hobby joggers trying to finish marathons before 1960 like there are now!

Don't blame the shoes for your injuries! Typical, American attitude to blame something or someone else for your own weaknesses. It is not the fault of the shoes, but rather your own mistakes and poor, inbred genetics!

Maybe you should take a look at your body, your poor diet, your awful sleep habits and the artificially hard (read: pavement or asphalt) surface that you run on?....maybe those have to do with the fact that you (and tons of people) are getting injured?

In the spirit of evolution, it is the survival of the fittest and perhaps those that aren't fit enough to run without injury (shod or un-shod) shouldn't.

Maybe you guys didn't read my entire post. I'm pretty sure I specifically said that going totally barefoot is not for everyone, certainly not right out of the blocks.

It sounds like you're talking to just me. If you want just my experience: I've never had a running injury in my entire life, ever. I broke my ankle playing basketball once, that's about it. I hit 106 last week, most of it in shoes that are entirely without cushioning, and probably have over 2000 miles on them. I've been running for 15 years, and training high mileage for at least the last 9. I also have not bought a new pair of running shoes since 2004.

My argument wasn't about my athletic accomplishments - I personally am not blaming anyone for my "weaknesses" - and where did I say I had weaknesses, exactly? I can only assume you interpreted my concern for the health of the running community as an indicator that I had some kind of physical shortcoming. Would be interesting to see how your brain put that together. You are seeking to attach an ulterior motive to my purpose that simply doesn't exist, while making a ridiculously broad generalization by lumping me in with some vague and undefined American "attitude."

Humans were born to run. No doubt the survival of the fittest is an apt way to describe why some people are injured easier than others. And I'm sure some of it has to do with unhealthy habits as well. Yet to ignore running shoes as a contributor just because there are other contributors, makes absolutely zero logical sense. Your statements, however true, do not discount my point.

The point I would argue is your first. There was a sufficient number of people running seriously before the 1960's and 1970's, that some of these injuries would have been discovered. Injuries do not simply apparate because more people are running. That's like saying Stephen Strasberg wouldn't need Tommy John surgery if there weren't any other pitchers in baseball. More athletes may make injuries more common, but they don't create them. Seriously, if you can find a reference to PF being documented on a few occassions before the Nike era, I will retract my statement that running shoes created injuries.

Aerobication wrote:

++++1. Exactly. Stop preaching. It's -10 degrees here today. I would give my left nut to see you run barefoot from my house. There are a ton of African kids who grow up barefoot running... then as soon as they get the chance they snatch up shoes, ANY shoes to wear. If it's so awesome then why don't we see more Africans staying barefooted?

Barefoot jogging is a fad.

I do very little running actually barefoot. I have shoes with almost no cushioning in them. It was 8 degrees this morning when I went for a 13 mile run, mostly on snow trails. It wasn't a jog. I'd love to hear about what kind of run you went for today.

That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. If I'm saying anything (since "preaching" seems to be the label you ceaselessly impatient and divisive and closed-minded sorts like to use, we can use it) - if I'm preaching anything, it is open mindedness. Barefoot running is not a fad. Some of the best and most influential coaches in the world expound upon its benefits. Entire running cultures - past and present - have thrived without shoes. This is not, as I have said, proof that you should throw your own shoes out and run completely barefoot in negative 10 degree weather. It is you who is painting the picture in absolutes, not me. If a change is to be made, it should be slow and rational, and it's going to be different for almost everyone.

In the very least, it is a significant alternative. Putting it out of mind because of your impatience, because it's what you've always done, and because of your desire to give away your left testicle in an effort to prove your own manhood, is just plain illogical. You are only cheating yourself.

And why don't we see more Africans staying barefoot? Tell me aerobication, how many Africans do you "see" training? How do you know how they train and what they wear? All you know is who they are sponsored by and what they say they wear. And they say they wear shoes from whatever company is paying them. As do most elites. That doesn't mean it's what they actually do. And even if they do it, that doesn't mean it's the best alternative for everyone, automatically, no questions asked. I'll preach against that black and white absolutist mindset for the rest of my life.

my fat, 50+ pound overweight neighbor does not need to be out running barefoot or in vibrams. the problem with "fads" is that people with no business getting in on them get involved.

Of course barefoot running isn't a fad. People have been doing it for about the same amount of time as the planet has been getting warmer.

The major shoe companies came out with supportive shoes, claiming that they would prevent injuries. I enjoy the fact there exist new companies coming out with non-supportive shoes, claiming that these shoes will prevent injuries. And get this: they charge just about the same amount of money for their non-supportive shoes! But us shoe-wearers are merely ignorant fools who don't know what's good for us. So please go ahead and get taken for a ride!

Quote-

It was 8 degrees this morning when I went for a 13 mile run, mostly on snow trails. It wasn't a jog. I'd love to hear about what kind of run you went for today.

I doubt you yourself actually did that. But if you must know, I ran 14 miles in 7-degree weather. With Brooks Beasts. In 1948.

Yep, going barefoot is bad. We in shod america have the highest percentage of foot problems, but in other countries without shoes, they have very little problems. Going barefoot is horrible for you. We were born with shoes on our feet.

sunarm wrote:

Quote-

It was 8 degrees this morning when I went for a 13 mile run, mostly on snow trails. It wasn't a jog. I'd love to hear about what kind of run you went for today.

I doubt you yourself actually did that. But if you must know, I ran 14 miles in 7-degree weather. With Brooks Beasts. In 1948.

haha, if i was going to make up a run, why would i make it only 13? nice sarcasm. though i don't know what brooks beasts or 1948 are supposed to mean.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. I believe barefoot running is beneficial for most runners; however, I don't want to risk my own feet with this thing although they claim that it's completely safe. As an alternative to that, I believe barefoot running shoes is the solution. Many athletes endorse this types of shoes because it can also emulate the feeling of barefoot running without the need to risk our own feet. Health benefits and protection are just great. In fact, I've read this article "Barefoot Running versus Barefoot Running Shoes: Are there any differences at all?" and I learned a lot from it. It's very informative and highly recommended to read. Check it out here - http://tinyurl.com/BR-vs-BRS

Minimalist is still a shoe.

The Waterboy wrote:

This whole argument ended when the first person said "man was meant to run barefoot, but man was also not meant to run on pavement"

end of discussion. You can go barefoot for soft stuff, but shoes for pavement or courses with a bunch of rocks etc.

What he said

Johnny Langenwanker, Sorry if you thought I was targeting you specifically with my statements- I wasn't. When I wrote "you" I was referring to all of those individuals that support this barefoot running/minimalist craze. People are always looking for short cuts, the magic bullet. They want a simple answer to all there problems. They can't step back and realize that the whole system of their life and their running involves multiple variables....a complex process.So to think that cushioned shoes make people injured? Not that simple.Since you brought your personal history into account I will say this: we both have something in common as I too have never been injured (15 years of running so far) and have averaged 100+ mpw for most weeks out of the last 3 years. But I will get nice, new running shoes every 400-500 miles because I don't want to change anything...I don't change my form either because I think it will hurt me.The human body does amazing things when it has to adapt. For humans now, we have adapted to run on an artificially hard surface (pavement) using cushioned shoes. It is practical and it allows a lot of fat hobby joggers the ability to waddle down the road.I don't believe that there were that many fat hobby jogger marathoners back before 1960. I'm not going to look into when "PF" was discovered or what the numbers exactly are- but you have to take into account that technology was a lot more primitive back then. Training methods for distance runners weren't consistent, people still thought smoking was good, and only the "nut-job" hard core runners attempted marathons.So are you saying that Nike's cushioned trainers created PF? I'd say that PF always had cases- but because of the few, limited incidences nobody seemed to care to diagnose it. Hardcore marathoners ran through more pain back then because they weren't weak and soft like the "marathoners" of today.So there, not a personal attack on you. I would be interested in hearing about the year that PF was coined and the numbers of marathoners back in those days...

johnny langenwanker, I am little bit confused.

Correct me if I have misunderstood - You are saying that elites are wearing shoes because they are sponsored by shoe companies and the rest of us are sheep.

You are also saying that you should only go barefoot on soft surfaces.

As long distant races are predominantly run on hard surfaces (and indeed a high % of us 'westerners' live in an urban environment), why are the motives of the shoe companies suspect? They make it possible for us to run.

Regards

RH

Of course you know, rocks don't exist in nature, man made those. And those huge lava spills that are really hard, man made those, and those cannot be run on. The whole argument is stupid. So when you put shoes on your using man made stuff, man wasn't meant to run with shoes, so your reducing further what man was meant to do. Plus, I bet half of you even if you run on trails, don't run without shoes, even though that's what man was meant to run on.

done with knee pain wrote:

The Waterboy wrote:

This whole argument ended when the first person said "man was meant to run barefoot, but man was also not meant to run on pavement"

end of discussion.

I hear this a lot.

Assuming you believe in evolution, and that human evolution happens over millennia, can you explain where man was "meant to run"?

Go back 500 years, or 50,000. Where is the (natural) surface that you think is easier on the feet than clean modern pavement?

Ummm...grass?

whats wrong with asphalt? It's one of the fastest surfaces we have

RunningHigh wrote:

johnny langenwanker, I am little bit confused.

Correct me if I have misunderstood - You are saying that elites are wearing shoes because they are sponsored by shoe companies and the rest of us are sheep.

You are also saying that you should only go barefoot on soft surfaces.

As long distant races are predominantly run on hard surfaces (and indeed a high % of us 'westerners' live in an urban environment), why are the motives of the shoe companies suspect? They make it possible for us to run.

Regards

RH

I'm not saying all elites wear shoes only because they are sponsored by that company. I'm saying I think it's a rational possibility that SOME elites SAY they wear certain shoes because they are paid to do so. I am not saying that the rest of us are sheep to these elites. I'm saying there are a lot of people - especially young - who are influenced by marketing schemes.

It would seem to make sense to only go barefoot on forgiving surfaces. But it is different for everyone. Once again, I'm not proposing any single absolute idea. People are built differently and have different backgrounds. There are plenty of people who can - and have - run very high mileage for a long time on largely concrete surfaces (read Abebe Bikila's biography, "Barefoot Runner" - awesome book). There are some who would crumble if they did that. It is different for everyone. There are more than two answers. Shoe companies would largely have you believe there are two answers: 1) barefoot and you die, 2) choose from a variety of cushioned shoes and be safe. ALL I'm saying is that while those two things might be true in some cases, they are not a rule, and they are not always true, and that absolutist mindset is unhealthy for a runner seeking the best footwear/lack of footwear solution.

Your post considers all these ideas to be absolutes, just as shoe companies advertise one absolute way of thinking. Shoe companies make it easier, in some cases possible, for some people to run in some places. They do not "make it possible for us to run" as a broad truth.