I agree.  As far back as high school I've never been able to get a good running routine down because after a week or two I get bad knee pain that leaves me limping when I walk.  I've been running for a month with these and so far there is no knee pain.  That first week they felt weird as I was trying to focus on not heel striking but after that I had things settled and now I'm just working on building endurance.  Today I did 15 minutes at 6mph with no pauses, walked for a minute then went back to the 6mph pace for another 5 minutes.  That's not much to most people but it's a personal best for me.

Yeah and then our foot and calf injuries would go way up.  This type of shoe, let alone form is not the cure all for running issues.  People are always going to push themselves too far, too quickly and want/have to run the majority of their milage on asphalt/concrete.  If this was a cure all, dont you think it would bigger than just 5% of the entire running market?  Dont you think more studies would be coming out proving its better?  SMH

I was thinking "SmithC in 3....2....1...."

Yeah, but the winners of the Boston, NY, and Chicago marathon all wore them (VFFs), right?

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/cambridge/articles/2011/01/09/youre_crazy/?page=1




Caveat Emptor

heh heh

Lieberman is an idiot.  Guess what buddy, we didnt have concrete a 1000 years ago.

My wife and I love ours...I have been wearing them for about two years now. I also have a pair of trail gloves that i wear to work daily, and she really likes her new balance minimus. The vff's are by far the most comfortable, but I can't wear them to work.

Just take it slow for the first couple of weeks. You are going to use and stress muscles/ligaments in your feet and legs your body forgot you had.

Just out of curiosity, what would you tell people if you ran into a major injury down the road?

I never said it was a cure all for everything. But riddle me this, why would the human body be designed to need padded heels on shoes? Hominoids walked and ran without shoes for a few million years, man has only worn shoes for a few thousand and thick soles for only a few hundred and padded soles for less than a hundred.

Shoes protect the feet. In an attempt to make them comfortable we have introduced padding which has changed the way we walk and run and our bodies are reacting to that.

That being said I don't enjoy running on concrete with five fingers, (I don't like it with any shoe) I try to run on natural and uneven surfaces.

I am far far more stable in five fingers than anything else. The stability in my knees doesn't compare to with something with soles.

The injuries in them come from just what I said, you cannot continue to run like you did before. I only run 15-20 minutes in them because there is no way I could keep running correctly beyond that without seriously working on it.

They are not magic, buying them is the easy part. Relearning how to run, much harder.

Ive run shod for over 20 years with no issues what so ever.  This goes back to a post I posted in a different thread.  Its ridiculous how people who have tried these shoes connect the dots.  Let me rehash here in my last post.

You all want to praise the shoes for these fixes, when its the form change that did you the most good.  It does not matter what kind of shoes you wear, or where youre running, if your form sucks, youre going to run into issues.  Thats why most of you guys were having issues before.  (that or your training regimen was horrible)

So running resumes are required to discuss this? Who cares how long you've been running? I'm also not interested in "rehashing" anything.

If you want to discuss anything with me, then discuss what I'm saying not every argument by every person to own five fingers, I'm not them nor do I care to defend their positions.

99% of the action pistol shooting world shot weaver 30 years ago, so what do I care what market share minimalist shoes compose? It's not a relevant data point to prove anything.

Stability of the entire structure is a completely different issue from running form. Yes I think forefoot striking is safer, and these shoes and running barefoot etc force that on you. So yes form is more important than shoes,, no where in anything I said was some statement that the shoes alone were some sort of magic. For me it was surprising to remember how we used to run in track and cross country as opposed to what I'd been doing the last 25 years once I starting road running.

 But being stable from being flat on the ground as intended has noting to do with running. As I said, I work out in them and I know my knees are happier and much more stable than in shoes that put me off the ground. I would probably be healthier if I wore them all the time but there is no way they would be socially acceptable in my life and work.

Until I started working out and running bare I had no idea how much my stability had been compromised over the years. My coordination in all things concerning my feet and legs has gone WAY up since going barefoot. 

It's hard to remember how coordinated you were as a child and how free your movement was. For me once I started with FF and bare I could feel the difference. It was startling how clunky I had become.

My peer group who wears them are older and all have had a very athletic lives with lots of destruction being brought upon their bodies, wether from SOF service to collegiate football etc. besides the fashion issues they'd all be wearing them all the time, except when specialty footwear is required. 

Are they the answer to everything and all problems? No of course not. Could a person injure themselves from using them wrong? Sure, same could be said for a weight set and any athletic endeavor. 

I've personally been motivated enough by using them that I have gone much more "minimalistic" in all my footwear, and have been much happier closer to the ground. 

Who said anything about a resume?  I answered a question that you posed with a personal experience like you did.  You demonize the shod shoe because of the issues you've been dealing with your entire life.  I gave you a personal anecdote of mine that says otherwise.  You say barefoot isnt a fix all and that form is important, yet you continue to blame the shod shoes for all your problems.  How does that work?  You cant agree with me saying you think form is important, but still blame your previous issues on the shoe.  Im sorry you made the wrong choice for footwear in years past, but I think its time to reflect a little rather than blaming your misfortunes on a type of shoe.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/making-the-case-for-running-shoes/

I run the classics, ,mostly a gym shoe and casual wear deal for me....when I wear mine out, I plan to get the merrells, the vibrams are cool, and I enjoy them, but it's time to try a new minimalist shoe.

And how long did it take the majority of folks to transition to isosceles after somebody won a major competition?

Aero handlebars were relegated to triathletes and a few Race Across America riders, a fringe minority of cyclists, until they helped Greg LeMond win his second Tour de France.  The next year they were ubiquitous.  The point being, that even in a sport as bound by tradition as cycling, when something new or fringe is proven to "work", it quickly permeates the rest of the elite field.

The first time I heard of barefoot running was Zola Budd in the '84 Olympics.  If barefoot running or extreme minimalist shoes clearly conveyed some performance advantage you can bet that the elites would quickly adopt such equipment/methods.  The fact that they have not should give rational folks reason to ponder the perceived benefits purported by the manufacturers of such footwear or advocates of such methodology.

As far as injury prevention, the jury is still out.  I would advise those considering VFFs, barefooting, or similar ideas to proceed with caution and to integrate them into overall training very slowly.

Sometimes I have to wonder if the reduction in injuries/pain that newbie minimalist runners experience is entirely or mostly due to the fact that those folks have to dramatically reduce their volume and intensity as a result of wearing less shoe.  

If it's working for you, keep with it, but be cautious.

I have been wearing the Trek LS off and on for about the last 9 months or so. I'm just getting back to wearing them after winter (or the lack of) here in ohio. I mostly wear them to take the dog on walks and to the dog park. I wore them for probably 2 months straight last fall at work. I'm on my feet and on concrete all day in a warehouse and walk between 8-10 miles a day at work. When I was wearing the at work I definitely noticed an instant reduction in lower back pain just walking in them during that time. I also began to see changes in my calf muscles and muscles in my feet. I'm not saying that the shoes were the reason for this, but I feel like they helped a good bit.

I'll probably buy another pair this summer because the Treks are fading to almost gray from washing them so much.

I've had the KSOs for over a year now and have done every workout I do with them on.  I really like them for my weighted workouts.  They are absolutely fantastic for that sort of thing.  I don't like them for any distance runs (more than a mile) or any plyo exercises.  It just seems that my joints take a beating when doing those workouts in the VFFs.  I absolutely love them for canoeing and being in the water.  They fit tight enough around the ankles to keep any dirt, sand, gravel out and they drain very fast.  

They have a place in the workout world, they just aren't the be all, end all in footwear.

I've worn VFFs for two years.  Bottom line for foot and back sufferers-these rock.  I had fallen arches and still have Morton's Neuromas.  The minimalists shoes will not address the neuromas better than VFFs unless they have toe pockets.  



I was a size 13 AA most of my life.  I am 11.5 WIDE now.  My arches are back and my feet are shorter and wider.  My knee pain is virtually gone and my lower back is definitely gone (blown knee and bulging L4).  I run 3 miles max in my VFFs to train for the USAF PT test.  I wear the things everywhere but church (my wife would kill me).

Has anyone won a race in VFF's? I couldn't find anything on google apart from some AARs from clods that were happy they finished a 5k/10k race.

Doubtful anyone has won any "major" race or it would be plastered on applicable web pages.  

I'm certainly a skeptic of VFFs or other uber-minimalist footwear as the primary shoe for serious runners, but I can certainly see a role for them as a training tool.  I try to put in a couple runs/week in Brooks "minimalist" Pure Connect.

I ran a few errands for my wife this weekend. My wife and 9 yr old son were working on a project and my 2 yr old daughter was wanting to get involved. So I took her to the store with me. I sat her in the buggy and she had a bigger sippy cup just filled. I had my toe shoes on and she dropped that thing right on top of my foot. Right on the bone, wow it hurt.

After checking out, there was a Mom and teenage daughter behind me and I heard the girl ask her Mom for a pair cause they were cool. Mom says, "NO! Those things make his feet and him look freaky!"

I turned and looked and saw the personification of trailer park. I said, "Wow lady, I can hear you."

Please explain what you mean by this?

'Water shoes' are far cheaper and give the same results.

Far cheaper and not the same results at all.

Why is that?  I know a ton of people who have been using minimal shoes for quite some time and have gone to something like that or a cross country flat in order to save money.  Theyre all made out of EVA foam, have somewhere around a 4 mil offset from heel to forefoot and no real cushioning system.

I have worn a pair of VFF for over a year and found that I really like them for lifting, plyo, and other gym type exercise but don't like them for running or yoga.  I like them for lifting and plyo because my balance seems better.  For running, I just can't get past heel striking so they just don't work.  That is my fault though, not the VFF.  With yoga, I learned with bare feet so nothing else ever feels quite right.

I'd say it really depends on the quality of water shoes.  The good water shoes are probably a good alternative.  I've got a pair of Merrels and they are very minimalist but still a comfortable shoe.  The cheap assed water shoes are junk and wouldn't hold up.  Quality is the difference there.  I really like the VFFs as water shoes.  Probably more so than the merrels.  They fit more snug around the ankles, so when in and out of a canoe they don't let mud or gravel into the shoe.

I don't like the VFFs as a running shoe, but I normally run in a trail shoe so I'm used to a heavy, cushiony shoe.  I run a lot in the pastures and the VFFs would let grass and shit get stuck between the toes.  Pretty annoying, but not as bad as the time I ran in them and ran through a sandbur patch. You haven't lived until you've had sandburs covering your feet and stuck between your toes.  Pretty much complete stop, don't take one more frickin' step.  Then tip toe out of the sticker patch and never go back.

What type of major injury? Like a stress fracture in my foot?

I agree with this 100%
It was the vff's that made me change my form. And my crappy form I blame on my high school track coach who insisted that heal striking was the way to go.

Yes sir.  Stress fracture occurrences went up over 200% last year because of minimalist shoes.  Theres never been a study thats taken into account long term issues.  This is why it bugs me when people anoint these shoes when theyve been in them at most a little over a year.  How do you know there wont be some damaging long term issues with them?

I believe if used correctly minimalist shoes will have no negative effects on me. I am using my body as designed, not pushing it to do something it isn't capable of doing.

I feel the same way about lifting belts and straps. If my body needs support equipment to lift something, then I am obviously lifting too much weight. Work on the weak links first.

With this sort of outlook, you definitely give yourself the best possible chance to succeed.

so in staying with this line of thinking...if you walked/ran/jogged your entire life with full support shoes and you switched to shoes with zero heal lift and zero support, wouldn't it stand to reason that you wouldn't be able to walk/jog/run near as far as you used too until you shore up the weak links?

If I squat my whole life with a belt and knee wraps, I can't expect to be squatting the same weight without them. I would need to start back at square one and train all of the muscles and ligaments that I have been neglecting my whole life. I think this directly correlates in a switch from full support to no support shoes. I don't think the shoes can be blamed for the rise in stress fractures, the blame should be placed on people going to fast/hard too soon.

Yes, I completely agree.

And this is one reason IMO that there are so many people who get injuries from them....plus you have a lot of people who really aren't runners at all using minimalist shoes and they go run long distance once a week or something and their body just can't handle it.

Yes, I wanted to put a but in my response, but you did it for me.

What type of runner you are, as well as age and weight can play a large role on how easily someone will adapt.

Absolutely...I'm not much of a runner (compared to you more serious guys), and at 5'9" 175-80 I'm not built like one...long distance in minimalist shoes would fuck me up. 2-3 miles or less though and I'm GTG.



You really need to know your body and its capabilities and limitations before stepping off in minimalist shoes.

So are we in agreement that the shoe did not cause the rise in stress fracture, but more to the intensity of training?

The increase in fractures is likely due to people that are not all that fit buying the VFFs and using them as a motivator to go and workout.  They overdo it and then they're injured.  They blame the shoes alone when the truth is that they were not ready to take these shoes to that level of exercise.

I would say yes mostly.  The person is always to blame for pushing to far, to fast.  Terrain is a choice as well, and that can come into play.  I cant really put any blame on an inanimate object...

if you put the shoes in a plastic shopping bag in the freezer overnight it kills the smell.

Kill bacteria, kill the smell. Right?

I cant imagine thats very good for the midsole/outsole...

There are also folks who just don't change running form and continue to heel strike.  I've seen, actually I heard them first, folks on the treadmill or track plugging along in VFFs for more than a hundred yard stride, whacking their heels down on the pavement.  Ouch.

The VFF web page has the appropriate disclaimers, but some advocates (and I'd have to assume some sales associates) of VFFs claim that the shoe "forces" you to run with "better form".    It doesn't; not necessarily.

So, VFFs don't "cause injury" like guns don't kill people, but just like some guns are safer than others for the less skilled user, so some shoes are safer than others for less "skilled" or ideal form runners.

Yup,

If anything its the extreme advocates that blindly recommend that shoe with no advice on how to adjust anything that should be getting sued.

Or for drying them out.

correct, zero issues with doing this with the three pairs i have owned.

Going to exchange mine today, Trek Sport's strap broke yesterday and two of the grip "crosses" have broken off within the month. I thought Its just wear and tear because a normal shoe wears down like that as well but apparently vibram's aren't supposed to, spoke with the company this morning and they said its an instant 90 days guarantee. Still hands down the most comfortable pair of shoes I have owned. I tried to put my old hi top sneakers on and it just didn't feel right.