stomper
Guest
Barefoot TJ wrote:I don't
Actually, I was just ripping off Last Place Jason there. This was part of the specs he had suggested in the post I linked to earlier in this thread. I think he meant that the shoe should not be forcefully curved (as some big thick running shoes are). However, in the context of the other specs we're talking about, I agree this thing about curving is confusing, and IMHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHO it's probably unnecessary.
I've been waiting to see what people have written in here but I can come up with version 0.2 if you'd like, perhaps this weekend.
Barefoot TJ said:
Actually, I was just ripping off Last Place Jason there. This was part of the specs he had suggested in the post I linked to earlier in this thread. I think he meant that the shoe should not be forcefully curved (as some big thick running shoes are). However, in the context of the other specs we're talking about, I agree this thing about curving is confusing, and IMHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHO it's probably unnecessary.
I've been waiting to see what people have written in here but I can come up with version 0.2 if you'd like, perhaps this weekend.
I'm in Portland and about to
I'm in Portland and about to move to town (tomorrow). I've been in the country about a half hour out of the city since moving to America three months ago. Ryan lives in Vancouver, Washington just on the other side of the river from Portland.
I'm in Portland and about to move to town (tomorrow). I've been in the country about a half hour out of the city since moving to America three months ago. Ryan lives in Vancouver, Washington just on the other side of the river from Portland.
stomper
Guest
the main thing I'm wondering
the main thing I'm wondering about before I type version 0.2 is:
do people here think there should be just one standard, as in XYZ = minimal shoes?
or do people think there should be several levels, for example "minimal shoes" and "somewhat minimal shoes"??
the main thing I'm wondering about before I type version 0.2 is:
do people here think there should be just one standard, as in XYZ = minimal shoes?
or do people think there should be several levels, for example "minimal shoes" and "somewhat minimal shoes"??
I think we need to classify
I think we need to classify what is a Traditional Running Shoe (TRS), what is a Reduced Running Shoe (RRS), and what is a Minimalist Running Shoe (MRS). Is that what you mean, or are you talking about breaking each of these categories down even further?
Be prepared to make a Version 3 after you've released Version 2, Stomper. We are fine-tuning here, and sometimes after you've completed a project, or think you have, it's best to sit back and wait for new inspiration, new direction, new input, etc., to fine-tune it even further.
So Josh, I ask because I was wondering if you guys have met up with either of the two Oregon Chapter Presidents for some runs. I'm hoping that chapter will start to get some meetups together.
I think we need to classify what is a Traditional Running Shoe (TRS), what is a Reduced Running Shoe (RRS), and what is a Minimalist Running Shoe (MRS). Is that what you mean, or are you talking about breaking each of these categories down even further?
Be prepared to make a Version 3 after you've released Version 2, Stomper. We are fine-tuning here, and sometimes after you've completed a project, or think you have, it's best to sit back and wait for new inspiration, new direction, new input, etc., to fine-tune it even further.
So Josh, I ask because I was wondering if you guys have met up with either of the two Oregon Chapter Presidents for some runs. I'm hoping that chapter will start to get some meetups together.
So, not to steer this thread
So, not to steer this thread in a different direction (okay, thats exactly what I'm doing), but I think it would be more useful to come up with a list of things we would like to see in a shoe, rather than waste time on classifying shoes as one type or another. Such a classification and definition is really only useful when talking about existing shoes, and I don't think its going to make much of a difference whether we call a shoe "the ideal minimal shoe" or "a death trap". The shoe will be exactly the same as it was before. However, if we come up with a list of stuff we would like to see in a shoe we could tell manufacturers to include all the suggested features. I'm pretty sure the companies would rather see a list of prefered features than a rule book about what shoes fit into what classification anyways.
This is kinda what is happening already, but we should have less "I think minimal is this!" and more "I won't buy or wear the shoes if they don't breathe." Did I mention that I would like breathable shoes?
So, not to steer this thread in a different direction (okay, thats exactly what I'm doing), but I think it would be more useful to come up with a list of things we would like to see in a shoe, rather than waste time on classifying shoes as one type or another. Such a classification and definition is really only useful when talking about existing shoes, and I don't think its going to make much of a difference whether we call a shoe "the ideal minimal shoe" or "a death trap". The shoe will be exactly the same as it was before. However, if we come up with a list of stuff we would like to see in a shoe we could tell manufacturers to include all the suggested features. I'm pretty sure the companies would rather see a list of prefered features than a rule book about what shoes fit into what classification anyways.
This is kinda what is happening already, but we should have less "I think minimal is this!" and more "I won't buy or wear the shoes if they don't breathe." Did I mention that I would like breathable shoes?
Danjo, I thought that's what
Danjo, I thought that's what we were doing. Stomper is just gathering the data to put together the "ideal" shoe we envision. Since we won't get that "ideal" shoe from all shoe companies, we have to sort out what's left.
Danjo, I thought that's what we were doing. Stomper is just gathering the data to put together the "ideal" shoe we envision. Since we won't get that "ideal" shoe from all shoe companies, we have to sort out what's left.
Well I think some people are
Well I think some people are doing that, and some people are arguing the technicalities of the definition of "minimal". I don't think its important to define the outer limits of the word minimal, because I don't want a manufacturer making the least minimal shoe possible while still being minimal. I think we should stick to more of the "should haves" than "shouldn't haves". Also, since we aren't anywhere near a consensus, we should try to keep it simple for the first draft, and then add some specifics. Its like the Constitution, we need to make some comprimises to figure out something we can all mostly agree on, and we can add amendments later.
Well I think some people are doing that, and some people are arguing the technicalities of the definition of "minimal". I don't think its important to define the outer limits of the word minimal, because I don't want a manufacturer making the least minimal shoe possible while still being minimal. I think we should stick to more of the "should haves" than "shouldn't haves". Also, since we aren't anywhere near a consensus, we should try to keep it simple for the first draft, and then add some specifics. Its like the Constitution, we need to make some comprimises to figure out something we can all mostly agree on, and we can add amendments later.
I love this discussion, and
I love this discussion, and have a few thoughts from a few different points throughout the 5 pages.
On the "curve" discussion, the sole shouldn't be anything but FLAT when it's just sitting there without a foot in it. For example those martini flip flops someone used as an example have all kinds of shape to them, vertically. Those Martini things have toes curved upward and the middle of the shoe seems to be kind-of in a valley, with raised parts all around the outside, especially under the arch.
"roll into a ball." into a ball or a tube? My Soft Stars and huaraches can't be scrunched up like a piece of paper the way my isotoner slippers can be, but they are certainly minimal. Ball just makes me think of what you do to a receipt before you toss it in the garbage.
The "steps" or "stages": If we go in that direction, we should make sure the word doesn't sound like it's a process to step down from Sketchers Shape-Ups to Barefoot. The whole point is to just throw your shoes off, not pussyfoot around for a year slowly transitioning from one expensive pair of shoes to another. Stages will bring to mind baby foods for some people, like Stage 1 is super runny, watered down stuff, and stage 3 is all chunky.
I can see someone standing in a shoe store faced with a wall of "approved" "minimal" shoes, each with this big well designed circle on it, with a number inside. The person is standing there in fluffy motion control shoes, wondering if they should REALLY step ALL THE WAY down to level 1, or if they might better start with level 3 (4,5,6) and work from there. Seems like that whole step idea could cause more confusion than it would be worth.
I do like the TRS-RRS-MRS idea.
Maybe another good thing to come up with would be the best 5 or 10 tidbits of advice to give a newbie barefooter, and have them printed on a card. Approved shoes would have this info card in the box with them, as well as the stamp of approval on the outside of the box. of course, the shoe company would pay for production of the info cards. I just see too many people diving headfirst into this barefoot thing without doing any research and SURPRISE, TMTS injuries pop up.
I love this discussion, and have a few thoughts from a few different points throughout the 5 pages.
On the "curve" discussion, the sole shouldn't be anything but FLAT when it's just sitting there without a foot in it. For example those martini flip flops someone used as an example have all kinds of shape to them, vertically. Those Martini things have toes curved upward and the middle of the shoe seems to be kind-of in a valley, with raised parts all around the outside, especially under the arch.
"roll into a ball." into a ball or a tube? My Soft Stars and huaraches can't be scrunched up like a piece of paper the way my isotoner slippers can be, but they are certainly minimal. Ball just makes me think of what you do to a receipt before you toss it in the garbage.
The "steps" or "stages": If we go in that direction, we should make sure the word doesn't sound like it's a process to step down from Sketchers Shape-Ups to Barefoot. The whole point is to just throw your shoes off, not pussyfoot around for a year slowly transitioning from one expensive pair of shoes to another. Stages will bring to mind baby foods for some people, like Stage 1 is super runny, watered down stuff, and stage 3 is all chunky.
I can see someone standing in a shoe store faced with a wall of "approved" "minimal" shoes, each with this big well designed circle on it, with a number inside. The person is standing there in fluffy motion control shoes, wondering if they should REALLY step ALL THE WAY down to level 1, or if they might better start with level 3 (4,5,6) and work from there. Seems like that whole step idea could cause more confusion than it would be worth.
I do like the TRS-RRS-MRS idea.
Maybe another good thing to come up with would be the best 5 or 10 tidbits of advice to give a newbie barefooter, and have them printed on a card. Approved shoes would have this info card in the box with them, as well as the stamp of approval on the outside of the box. of course, the shoe company would pay for production of the info cards. I just see too many people diving headfirst into this barefoot thing without doing any research and SURPRISE, TMTS injuries pop up.
I have 2 criteria for minimal
I have 2 criteria for minimal shoes:
[*]Does the shoe impact my ability to run naturally? (After using it on and off for a Winter season, will my running form still be in good barefoot running shape?)[*]Is it a reasonable price?
I guess #2 is just about me, but I don't like paying a lot for a "minimal" shoe, if I know that there are much cheaper alternatives that will do the job of keeping my feet warm in the winter.
I have 2 criteria for minimal shoes:
[*]Does the shoe impact my ability to run naturally? (After using it on and off for a Winter season, will my running form still be in good barefoot running shape?)[*]Is it a reasonable price?
I guess #2 is just about me, but I don't like paying a lot for a "minimal" shoe, if I know that there are much cheaper alternatives that will do the job of keeping my feet warm in the winter.
Great discussion.This is a
Great discussion.
This is a bit like the issue of food: vegan, vegetarian, vegetarian+fish, ... omnivore, strict carnivore.
I do like TJ's categories: traditional, reduced, minimal, barefoot. After all, I think that we're all reacting in part to the annoying oxymoron "barefoot shoe". (And, to me, it's logically annoying, not just because I am partial to running truly barefoot.)
Although I don't have much to add on the definitions, I do think they should be precise and measurable. I would thus avoid definitions like not impacting "my ability to run naturally". (as Matt suggested). The word "naturally" is open to too much interpretation (IMHO). It has powerful rhetorical appeal, since who can argue with nature? But, one person's "natural" is another person's heel striking. (Exactly this debate has raged among the critics of the Pose method, who say that you can't teach correct running.)
Cheers
Jamie
Great discussion.
This is a bit like the issue of food: vegan, vegetarian, vegetarian+fish, ... omnivore, strict carnivore.
I do like TJ's categories: traditional, reduced, minimal, barefoot. After all, I think that we're all reacting in part to the annoying oxymoron "barefoot shoe". (And, to me, it's logically annoying, not just because I am partial to running truly barefoot.)
Although I don't have much to add on the definitions, I do think they should be precise and measurable. I would thus avoid definitions like not impacting "my ability to run naturally". (as Matt suggested). The word "naturally" is open to too much interpretation (IMHO). It has powerful rhetorical appeal, since who can argue with nature? But, one person's "natural" is another person's heel striking. (Exactly this debate has raged among the critics of the Pose method, who say that you can't teach correct running.)
Cheers
Jamie
Jamie -- Maybe I should have
Jamie -- Maybe I should have been more specific about what I mean by "naturally". By that I mean running barefoot, which is my default and what I do most of. In terms of measurables, how about speed? If a shoe slows me down, it's less and less of an ideal minimalist shoe. I don't care what the shoe is made of, thicknesses, upper, lower, outer, inside, all that stuff. I care about function. What can I do in the shoe?
If we get overly concerned with the form of a shoe, then a shoe might have all the right forms, but be so poorly designed or thought out, that it sucks in terms of function.
And purely speaking, form is about getting from point A to point B, with as little energy wasted as possible.
Jamie -- Maybe I should have been more specific about what I mean by "naturally". By that I mean running barefoot, which is my default and what I do most of. In terms of measurables, how about speed? If a shoe slows me down, it's less and less of an ideal minimalist shoe. I don't care what the shoe is made of, thicknesses, upper, lower, outer, inside, all that stuff. I care about function. What can I do in the shoe?
If we get overly concerned with the form of a shoe, then a shoe might have all the right forms, but be so poorly designed or thought out, that it sucks in terms of function.
And purely speaking, form is about getting from point A to point B, with as little energy wasted as possible.
You are both correct, and I
You are both correct, and I think we need to address both ways of thinking on this. This will be a difficult project, so expect it to get messy now and again, until we can fine tune it to get it just right, or the best it can be. Right now, everyone is thinking out loud, which is in essence brain-storming. It's a very important part of this process.
You are both correct, and I think we need to address both ways of thinking on this. This will be a difficult project, so expect it to get messy now and again, until we can fine tune it to get it just right, or the best it can be. Right now, everyone is thinking out loud, which is in essence brain-storming. It's a very important part of this process.
I suppose one could measure
I suppose one could measure the decrease in speed. It would probably run parallel to the increase in weight. I would think that a minimalist shoe has to be light by definition.
I just wanted to say that things like 4mm sole, no tilt in the sole etc. are more precise.
One of the things that will be hard to measure is the amount of "sole feedback". As BFRs know, the feedback of pure skin on the ground cannot be beat. Virtually anything on the feet is going to take something away. I can think of other applications of, say, very thin latex that, to date, has not yet gotten quite to the real thing.
But for me, the feedback issue is more important than any other. I don't know how to measure it, but a minimalist shoe has to maximize the feedback, at least for what is possible for layer of something between my skin and the ground.
Cheers
Jamie
I suppose one could measure the decrease in speed. It would probably run parallel to the increase in weight. I would think that a minimalist shoe has to be light by definition.
I just wanted to say that things like 4mm sole, no tilt in the sole etc. are more precise.
One of the things that will be hard to measure is the amount of "sole feedback". As BFRs know, the feedback of pure skin on the ground cannot be beat. Virtually anything on the feet is going to take something away. I can think of other applications of, say, very thin latex that, to date, has not yet gotten quite to the real thing.
But for me, the feedback issue is more important than any other. I don't know how to measure it, but a minimalist shoe has to maximize the feedback, at least for what is possible for layer of something between my skin and the ground.
Cheers
Jamie
I guess I'm looking at this
I guess I'm looking at this from a slightly outside point of view. I run primarily in VFFs, and while I enjoy an occasional BF run, especially in the summer, I have never transitioned completely. Mostly, I keep finding reasons not to, like the fact that I usually run bike paths or sidewalks before sunrise and can't see very well. This is what fits into my schedule and my neighborhood.
So, for me, a VFF was a HUGE step from a regular sneaker, and when I do run BF, I find this actually a smaller transition. I'm currently running in Bikilas, which apparently don't meet everyone's definition of a minimalist shoe! I find that amazing! Put it next to a sneaker. It has a tiny fraction of the padding, no heel, no arch support, and it flexes. This is not a "reduced" shoe at all. It is a different concept. I call that concept minimalist. We can argue about degrees, but I can't see a system where VFFs and similar shoes currently in production are not labeled as minimalist. If you want to invite outsiders to understand your viewpoint, then it has to make sense when compared to the mainstream.
Ground-feel, flexibility, thinness, etc. are all great! But people started wearing shoes thousands of years ago for reasons. Those were minimalist shoes. When we really lost that was when shoes started becoming fashion, or tried to replace strength with technology.
I guess I'm looking at this from a slightly outside point of view. I run primarily in VFFs, and while I enjoy an occasional BF run, especially in the summer, I have never transitioned completely. Mostly, I keep finding reasons not to, like the fact that I usually run bike paths or sidewalks before sunrise and can't see very well. This is what fits into my schedule and my neighborhood.
So, for me, a VFF was a HUGE step from a regular sneaker, and when I do run BF, I find this actually a smaller transition. I'm currently running in Bikilas, which apparently don't meet everyone's definition of a minimalist shoe! I find that amazing! Put it next to a sneaker. It has a tiny fraction of the padding, no heel, no arch support, and it flexes. This is not a "reduced" shoe at all. It is a different concept. I call that concept minimalist. We can argue about degrees, but I can't see a system where VFFs and similar shoes currently in production are not labeled as minimalist. If you want to invite outsiders to understand your viewpoint, then it has to make sense when compared to the mainstream.
Ground-feel, flexibility, thinness, etc. are all great! But people started wearing shoes thousands of years ago for reasons. Those were minimalist shoes. When we really lost that was when shoes started becoming fashion, or tried to replace strength with technology.
I happen to think that all
I happen to think that all versions of VFFs are and should be considered minimal. I would never put them in the reduced category. We are looking for healthy alternatives to traditional footwear, and I think the VFFs are at the top of the list in accomplishing this. Thanks, Tyrin, for your input. At the same time, we are considering if we should have "levels" within the categories, and the thickness of the soles would fall within one of those levels. Again, we're just hashing it out right now.
I happen to think that all versions of VFFs are and should be considered minimal. I would never put them in the reduced category. We are looking for healthy alternatives to traditional footwear, and I think the VFFs are at the top of the list in accomplishing this. Thanks, Tyrin, for your input. At the same time, we are considering if we should have "levels" within the categories, and the thickness of the soles would fall within one of those levels. Again, we're just hashing it out right now.
How about just a request for
How about just a request for clear advertising standards? If manufacturers had to list things on the box like:
Total sole thickness:
Heel rise:
Toe box width:
Flexibility:
Only the last one would actually require some sort of new measurement. The others can be easily measured in mm or inches. If we had that to start with, it would be pretty easy to tell HOW minimal a given shoe is, without adding a "step" or "stage" system.
How about just a request for clear advertising standards? If manufacturers had to list things on the box like:
Total sole thickness:
Heel rise:
Toe box width:
Flexibility:
Only the last one would actually require some sort of new measurement. The others can be easily measured in mm or inches. If we had that to start with, it would be pretty easy to tell HOW minimal a given shoe is, without adding a "step" or "stage" system.
That's an excellent idea,
That's an excellent idea, Tyrin! I would like to see healthy warnings on the box as well, but I doubt I will ever get that. What do you think? Is that asking too much? How do you suppose we get the shoe manufacturers to follow along with a labeling standard?
At the same time, I think it's still important to qualify what is a minimalist shoe, what is a reduced shoe, and what is a traditional shoe.
That's an excellent idea, Tyrin! I would like to see healthy warnings on the box as well, but I doubt I will ever get that. What do you think? Is that asking too much? How do you suppose we get the shoe manufacturers to follow along with a labeling standard?
At the same time, I think it's still important to qualify what is a minimalist shoe, what is a reduced shoe, and what is a traditional shoe.
Received this flyer from one
Received this flyer from one of my old shoe purchasing stores... Guess this is their thoughts on minimalist shoes.
uzzled:
Slightly hard to read after resizing but it says:
"The next best thing to barefoot running is here. The Nike FREE RUN+."
"Designed with a better fit for an epic ride, this comfortable shoe trains your feet to be stronger, so you become a better athlete."
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/4820/dm044800x600.jpg
Received this flyer from one of my old shoe purchasing stores... Guess this is their thoughts on minimalist shoes.
uzzled:Slightly hard to read after resizing but it says:
"The next best thing to barefoot running is here. The Nike FREE RUN+."
"Designed with a better fit for an epic ride, this comfortable shoe trains your feet to be stronger, so you become a better athlete."
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/4820/dm044800x600.jpg
