According to this article on a research yes
Barefoot is best
That is a subjective question with a subjective answer. Watches tell more than time, and shoes do more than run. In the end, is the price difference between a Toyota and a Lexus worth it? Lexus drivers would say yes.
yea i have seen a few articles on this subject. and the barefoot thing has some appeal to it, realistically i dont know of anywhere that i currently run that i would actually consider running barefoot… roadrace-nope, highschool track-nope, treadmill at the gym-maybe, but i would look at it as an all or nothing thing. but i do like some of the more recent (and im sure some in the past as well) shoes coming out trying to mimic the barefoot technique.
With my foot probelms (I wear orthotics) no way! I think when it comes to running shoes, it’s not what you spend, it’s how good you are at choosing the right shoes for your feet. In other words a great podiatrist and an excellent sales person help alot!
I could not disagree more. As YO pointed out, you can make the same comparison with many things.
I spend some spare time in the cycling industry. While a basic bike that retails for $300 WILL get you where you need to go, you certainly wouldn’t be competitive in a race, or it may not be the most efficient (or reliable) bike for a 500 mile tour. Of course, that doesn’t mean spending a ton of money will get you what you want, it all comes down to how you use it, and yes a good salesperson will help you with that decision. Whether it be bikes, shoes, kayaks, skis, etc.
Well said.
From a purely performance standpoint I’m slightly skeptical, but its not THAT hard to believe I suppose. You think a cheetah would run faster with Nikes? That said, we are all nature’s creatures and our feet are they way they are for reasons.
A lot depends on the rider, for $300 one could piece together a bike fit for 500 miles, if one was so inclined, but it would take a lot of parts scouring. I find this more impressive than winning a 500 mile race on a $5,000 bike, but that’s just me.
Not to high-jack the topic, sorry.
There’s a lot of overpriced running footwear, but it comes down to fit and comfort, do you get what you pay for, not always.
The advantage of running barefoot or in extremely minimal shoes (vibram 5 fingers, Nike free3.0 to some extent) is that it prevents you from heel striking way out in front (bad) and reinforces a more natural forefoot strike directly underneath you (good). Most shoes offer huge cushioning because heel striking is extremely jarring to the body and creates all the injuries that are common to runners. The body is made to absorb impact through the toes, metatarsals, achilles, calves, quads and hamstrings, not through the heels where the energy goes directly into your knees. You’d never jump rope on your heels right? Anyways, the article glosses over the point that running technique is really what causes or prevents injuries. With proper technique, you can run in any shoe, or barefoot. With bad technique, the cushioning will delay injury, but not prevent it. the nice thing about about, barefoot, minimal shoes is that it kind of self corrects your technique.
If I had to run on my bare feet I woult quit runnig today.
I started out with rather cheap shoes from a supermarket, that
performed surprisingly well. (In fact it was the second pair, that I bought, but the first one was useless.) For those two pairs I spent 25 Dollars.
After 3 years of regular training on forest soil I longed for something
better and had a thorough analysis at “runners boint”. At the end I bought a pair of “Brooks” and after several hundred kilometers I do still love them.
They are just rigth for me.
I do doubt, that they are significantly more expansive to make than my old pair but the are definately better were well worth the money.
All the best.
Yours mo-i
I was waiting for this one… it just further illustrates how subjective the topic is. I’m a bike nerd, therefore I appreciate the more expensive technology. One could tour the length of the US on a 1970’s Paramount and never have a major problem if one were so inclined. Weren’t there some runners in the NY marathon that were going to run with tires on their feet? They made it right next to thousands of runners with nice shoes.
wow, can’t believe that this thread has gotten so many replies in this short amount of time.
…and everything for such a silly comment.
Core is a in fact a sneaker board.
Sneakers and cars are just fun to talk about. They are emotive products. We can talk about grips on surgical implements if you like… start it up.
Incorrect.
While I agree with you about the subjective portion, there is also an objective portion to the question. I believe the article spells out the answer pretty well.
As for device design, the glucose monitering kit will have a higher compliance if given an emotive design thus bringing a better quality of life to the user. Consumer items may have more buzz, but it does not diminish the equal design effort put forward on medical devices.
And NURB, racing has always been and always will be about the engine. LA will drop you, me and 99.99% of the world on that $300 bike.
Because he’s a cheater…
I never said it couldn’t be done, its just not as efficient, light, reliable, etc etc for my tastes. Because it’s completely subjective.
for the most part you get what you pay for with shoes. the thing is you may not need what you are paying for. you may not need all of the bells and whistles of a super expensive running shoe, but someone else does. i ma neutral runner and the best running shoe for me has been an $85 pair of running shoes but if you have pronation problems you may need the more expensive shoe.
and lets remember - that paper that was linked to in the OP - it’s not wise to take it seriously - they ran a story last week entitled, ‘Twitter makes you immoral say scientists,’ then the day before that, ‘Facebook will make you fail your exams’. For more info, join one of the anti Daily Mail facebook groups. 
While you your opinion may be that I am incorrect, I am, in fact, correct.
Any performance measurements are based on human perception which is always biased. Some athletes believe black shoes are more supportive and white shoes are lighter. They are not. Some people prefer certain cushioning technologies. Some don’t. I run in a pair of Nike Pegasus that where designed in 1983, I prefer them. They are simple and comfortable to me. Perception is reality, and perception is subjective.
You may be assuming that all running shoes are used for running, and all bikes are used to race Lance Armstrong. Not a good premise. Few people get to race lance, and most running shoes are communication tools not performance devices. I don’t need a high performance product to shuffle for 3 miles at a snail pace… I do need feel like I look cool. An even more subjective parameter than cushioning or traction.
No doubt, but those kinds of products are not purchased based on their emotive characteristics whereas running shoes are. You are preaching to the choir, a detail on grip of a surgical device is as important to me as the next set Audis, but it isn’t to consumers. People might by 2-3 toasters over their entire life, but they probably spend an average of 10 minutes per toaster on the decision making of that purchase… and this is something they might use everyday to provide sustenance. A new pair of shoes however are transformative and communicate a lot to the world around you. this is why there are a gillion different running shoes at the mall. The market supports the choice.
You are right there. A Kobe or a Lance or a Schumacher will dominate the no matter what, but again, dominance of a made up game is not the goal of most people. Staying fit while feeling cool typically is.
The advantage of running barefoot or in extremely minimal shoes (vibram 5 fingers, Nike free3.0 to some extent) is that it prevents you from heel striking way out in front (bad) and reinforces a more natural forefoot strike directly underneath you (good). Most shoes offer huge cushioning because heel striking is extremely jarring to the body and creates all the injuries that are common to runners. The body is made to absorb impact through the toes, metatarsals, achilles, calves, quads and hamstrings, not through the heels where the energy goes directly into your knees. You’d never jump rope on your heels right? Anyways, the article glosses over the point that running technique is really what causes or prevents injuries. With proper technique, you can run in any shoe, or barefoot. With bad technique, the cushioning will delay injury, but not prevent it. the nice thing about about, barefoot, minimal shoes is that it kind of self corrects your technique.
well said
Because he’s a [size=0]8]cheater…[/qoute]
ooooohhhhhh! aaahhh snap!!!
Good thread.
Bill Stumpf talked about perceptions over the reality of our lives in The Ice Palace that Melted Away. He talked about students at UW in the 1960’s riding Tour de France style bicycles in winter. These bikes weren’t made for snow, but they made the riders feel cool. Today, I see people ride elaborate mountain bikes with suspensions and carbon fiber through the snow in Montreal. Probably neither is a very good idea.
As for the shoe industry taking advantage of poor consumers, it’s too complicated to lay blame. There are so many factors that go into buying a product: marketing, sales people, design, engineering, social trends, popular media, peer pressure, quality of manufacturing, environmental impact, etc, etc. Perhaps an expensive shoe that catches on was engineered and designed for show, not performance. That’s not the fault of the dev. team. Meanwhile, a shoe with great performance may not move at all. In that case, do we blame the stupidity of the consumer?
Lastly, I would love to talk about medical design. However, everyone on Core has direct experience with shoes. I rotate myself through about six pairs. However, I have very little experience with medical products (thank god).
Again, I am not disagreeing with you about the subjective portion of the use of running shoes. But there is also an objective portion which you imply doesn’t exist. Did you read the article? Its premise is pretty straight-forward; the use of modern running shoes = more injuries than bare feet = a decrease in performance. All of those measurements are quantifiable. If you have any data to dispute that, please post it. I would be very interested in learning more.
I never made such assumptions.
Incorrect.
I will agree that devices don’t take their emotive qualities as far as shoes and other consumer devices, they nonetheless do exist. Do you think there is no marketing behind medical devices? There is no positioning strategy? And if there is, it is purely based on function? You don’t think devices don’t have to appeal to the typically inflated ego of surgeons? There is not a stigma carried by diabetics who have an “uncool†glucose monitor?
Yes, there is a higher standard of safety and efficacy with medical devices but there is no doubt the emotive qualities contribute to the purchasing decision, and sometimes it is the sole driver. Maybe if running shoes kept to a similar high standard of safety and efficacy there wouldn’t be as many injuries.
Correct.