Uglier Than Crocs.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

I just saw someone wearing them in the airport.

The poor, betrodden airport. Is there no indignity it will not endure? Juicy faux-velour track suits, hairy men in tank tops, and now outre running shoes. The dream of Juan Trippe is dead, my friends.

^What's your opinion on medical staff outfitted with crocs?

Originally Posted by Ideefixee

Click to expand...

This.

I'm sorry, but I've gotta agree with entrero here. Your vote means absolutely nothing, you're the guy claiming he knows better then a peer reviewed study done at Harvard and published in the single most prestigious academic journal on the planet.

Originally Posted by entrero

Click to expand...

^What's your opinion on medical staff outfitted with crocs?

For ICUs and surgery, or anywhere one might get blood all over one's scrubs, they are absolutely fine. I don't begrudge my mechanic his steel-toed boots, either.

What I can't stand is doctors seeing me in their office in scrubs. Or worse, I had one GP who would always wear Nike golf shirts and pants, with trainers. I felt like asking him if I had interrupted his game before the back 9.

Originally Posted by Coburn

Click to expand...

Well, I run in these about once a week (on grass only). I buy into the idea that they provide a training effect.

I suspect that the overly structured running shoes provide too much protection from over-pronation -- the small support muscles in the foot and ankle atrophy a bit.

It hadn't occurred to me to wear them with business dress. Do you think these would work with a Navy flannel?

Make sure you wear your matching rubber and nylon mesh belt and you should be fine.

I saw a guy recently in Edinburgh wearing a pair of red ones, he looked like a twat.

They're not gemmed...

Originally Posted by mclean

Click to expand...

I saw a guy recently in Edinburgh wearing a pair of red ones, he looked like a twat.

That is the understatement of the year....

Adults in that kind of shoes look like twats in any environment...

The worst cases are matching mum-daughter crocs..

Originally Posted by cptjeff

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I've gotta agree with entrero here. Your vote means absolutely nothing, you're the guy claiming he knows better then a peer reviewed study done at Harvard and published in the single most prestigious academic journal on the planet.

I don't want to argue with anyone, or get involved in any fights, but I think he responded strongly due to the nature in which these things have taken off. He reacted very similarly to many runners I have heard talk about these things.

I don't think anyone is arguing against the science that our bodies are meant to run barefoot, that is pretty clear. The problem comes when every Tom, Dick and Harry think that simply because our biomechanics are structured for running barefoot, these shoes are, therefore, better for their feet than cushioned shoes on any surface or under any condition. That is where it becomes crazy.

They are certainly not ideal for 99% of the population, yet we see them marketed to everyone.

Minimalism is not a new thing to runners, it has been around for a long time. We have discussed the Tarahumara Indian tribe for a years. Believe me, those guys are not overweight and they certainly weren't running on cement paths.

Fun trivia: I met Haile Gebrselassie in Atlanta during the Olympics (I was in High School). I was able to speak with him after a training run. He is a great guy, so nice. There was AT LEAST a half-an-inch of callus across the entire bottom of his foot. You know when you get a really thick callus on a certain point on your body? Or in the summer as a kid when the balls of your feet were callused due to walking around barefoot all day...? His entire foot was like that, but thicker. It was insane. I almost asked him about it but decided against it.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

I've seen people wear these with regular clothing, and it makes me want to be an alcoholic.

I must live a protected life ... I have not seen them.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

I like them! I'm short enough that if I could just get them in pink and glue some hair to the bottom, I might be able to get Liv Tyler to kiss my forehead...or something.

I want a patent leather version to wear at the Academy Awards.

Originally Posted by NoNothingGuy

Click to expand...

I don't want to argue with anyone, or get involved in any fights, but I think he responded strongly due to the nature in which these things have taken off. He reacted very similarly to many runners I have heard talk about these things.

I don't think anyone is arguing against the science that our bodies are meant to run barefoot, that is pretty clear. The problem comes when every Tom, Dick and Harry think that simply because our biomechanics are structured for running barefoot, these shoes are, therefore, better for their feet than cushioned shoes on any surface or under any condition. That is where it becomes crazy.

They are certainly not ideal for 99% of the population, yet we see them marketed to everyone.

Minimalism is not a new thing to runners, it has been around for a long time. We have discussed the Tarahumara Indian tribe for a years. Believe me, those guys are not overweight and they certainly weren't running on cement paths.

Fun trivia: I met Haile Gebrselassie in Atlanta during the Olympics (I was in High School). I was able to speak with him after a training run. He is a great guy, so nice. There was AT LEAST a half-an-inch of callus across the entire bottom of his foot. You know when you get a really thick callus on a certain point on your body? Or in the summer as a kid when the balls of your feet were callused due to walking around barefoot all day...? His entire foot was like that, but thicker. It was insane. I almost asked him about it but decided against it.

The issue about surface is really pretty damn simple to address: It doesn't matter. When you're running on the balls of your feet, whether it's rock, concrete, or grass, all the stress is going into muscle (mostly the calf). If you're hitting on your heels, all the stress goes into your joints (mostly your knee). The surface matters with heel strikes, because you'll get more force or less going into your joints depending on the surface (and the padding).

When you run with something like the 5 fingers, it WILL HURT if you come down on your heel. When you run with standard running shoes, it doesn't. But even if it doesn't hurt your heel, the energy still goes into your skeletal structure rather then your muscles. The entire point of the vibram is to make you run like your body was designed to run by taking away the padding that's encouraged every Tom, Dick and Harry to land heel first and destroy their joints.

And callouses are entirely different. Those aren't much for padding, they're your bodies natural way of keeping your skin from getting cut up. In terms of padding they provide about as much as your standard leather sole would. Basically, the vibram shoe is an artificial callus- it allows you to run barefoot without tearing up your foot.

They are better for your feet and joints because they allow your feet and muscular system to work as designed. When you stop using them as designed, you get injuries.

There's nothing wrong with skepticism in pseudo-science marketing. But I'm getting the impression that even if these were scientifically validated in multiple peer reviewed studies to be just as good as the manufacture claims, they still would not be SF approved because they are ugly. I.e., function follows form.

I used to wear nike frees quite frequently. And I must say, those were the most comfortable shoes I ever wore. Now, I still prefer chucks to any of my boots, some of which have gel-insoles. Furthermore, there is something very enjoyable and liberating about running barefoot. I haven't actually experienced these but I can kind of understand the impetus for wearing them in casual, non-athletic environments. It might feel really good to be able to freely wiggle your toes any time you want.

Originally Posted by NoNothingGuy

Click to expand...

If you think the human body is capable of safely running barefoot on cement and asphalt, you are nuts. If you think the average joe can run barefoot while carrying 10 or 15 extra pounds, you are crazy. I spent a year in California training with some of the top distance runners in the world, many from Ethiopia and Kenya. Sure, these guys grew up running barefoot. Their bodies are also VERY different from most of ours. Lets not forget they ran on DIRT roads and DIRT tracks, not pavement. If you are 5'6" and weigh 85 pounds, you can probably pull these things off. If you are 5'9" and weight 196, you are asking for injuries, even if you do stick to the grass. It is true that our bodies are meant to run barefoot, that is a no brainer. But, it is also true that we are not meant to be overweight, we are not meant to run on hard surfaces and we are not ALL meant to have the bodies capable of running long distances (survival of the fittest). We are all different. If you wear these and enjoy them, fine. Be careful that you do not develop a stress fracture. If you are going to go minimalist, I think you would be better off in a pair of lightly cushioned racing flats. That is just MHO.
I call this a landslide. “People who don’t wear shoes when they run have an astonishingly different strike,” said Daniel E. Lieberman, professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University and co-author of a paper appearing in the journal Nature. “By landing on the middle or front of the foot, barefoot runners have almost no impact collision, much less than most shod runners generate when they heel-strike. "Most people today [in the United States] think barefoot running is dangerous and hurts,"but this is a misconception: "you can run barefoot on the world’s hardest surfaces without the slightest discomfort and pain. All you need is a few calluses to avoid roughing up the skin of the foot."