Barefoot Running Magazine's Autumn/Winter 2013
It's Here! Barefoot Running Magazine's Autumn/Winter 2013 edition is out! Be sure to check out the BRS's Society Pages too!
http://issuu.com/davidrobinson0/docs/barefoot_running_magazine_issue_10_
How come almost everyone is shod?Barefoot Running Magazine's Autumn/Winter 2013
It's Here! Barefoot Running Magazine's Autumn/Winter 2013 edition is out! Be sure to check out the BRS's Society Pages too!
http://issuu.com/davidrobinson0/docs/barefoot_running_magazine_issue_10_
It's a winter book and we all know us Brits is wimps!How come almost everyone is shod?
Few of the shod are in winter clothes though . . .It's a winter book and we all know us Brits is wimps!
Thanks Barefooting Bob for being a great sport and submitting the classic winter running photo (pg 112)
For those of you looking for winter footwear with that barefoot feel ... check out the reviews for Product of the Year (pg 144-160)
Lots of good information in the Magazine ... give it a read!
Few of the shod are in winter clothes though . . .
I guess this is an instance of barefoot = natural/minimalist. That's fine. Just a pity that so many are missing the sensuous/tactile element, and only honing in on the biomechanic benefits. I'm not a purist, but I think the movement could use a few more Ken-Bobian traditionalists to balance out all theopportunistsothers jumping into the fray.
I agree with you completely George, but people like us get accused of being purist, when in fact, our stance isn't ideological, it's practical.I would say that it isn't even possible to truly hone in on the biomechanic benefits without experiencing the sensuous element, ie losing the shoes completely.
Sure, people can take chi running/pose method/whatever other kind of classes are offered out there, but until you totally lose the shoes you are just making the changes so much more difficult than they need to be.
You can always tell when people wearing shoes are trying to run in the "barefoot style" (I hate that term.) Their running looks so unnatural and forced.
If you ask me, association of minimalist footwear with barefoot running just impedes the progress of the barefoot running movement (I don't even like calling it a movement because that makes it sound like something rebellious or some kind of crazy idea.) People literally think running in Vibrams=running barefoot. They run with Vibrams, get hurt, and then say barefoot running doesn't help prevent injuries at all.
I went running with a friend of mine last weekend. It was about 50 degrees out and she has known about me running barefoot for some time. I walk out of my house without shoes to meet her right outside and the first thing she says is "why don't you just buy Vibrams?" Though I've been asked these kinds of questions so many times, it seems so illogical to my brain that I can hardly muster the energy to respond. That question is basically equivalent to, in my eyes, "why don't you flush $100 down the toilet and go hurt yourself?"
Minimalist shoes are mostly just another way for companies to make more money, and another way to put off the inevitable admission by doctors, podiatrists, and everybody else, that barefoot is best.
Note: I distinguish between (1) minimalists by preference and (2) barefooters who use minimalist shoes when the need arises. Seems trivial, but I think the difference in outlook and experience can be huge.
I also agree that the word 'movement' is kinda silly. I was just using the one of the terms that's out there. I guess my preference would be 'barefoot approach,' 'barefoot practice,' or some more depoliticized term like that, although rebelling against popular misconceptions is always sound politics, no matter how trivial.
How come almost everyone is shod?
Shoe-wearers really should be the ones to carry a social label, such as faddist, conformist, or all around weenie.
If barefooters must have a label, then I find the following acceptable: barefoot enlightened or just enlightened.
This would make shoe-wearers encumbered or overencumbered.
I agree with you completely George, but people like us get accused of being purist, when in fact, our stance isn't ideological, it's practical.
However, given the difficulty of getting folks to see the practicality of running barefoot in order to improve one's form, I think it's best to practice a 'big tent' approach and pretend that minimalists (by preference) are part of what we do, so that we don't turn them off. We need to keep them open to that 'aha' moment of realizing the importance and joy of true barefooting.
Nonetheless, it is irksome when folks with little or no interest in barefooting use the term 'barefoot' to push products or services, I agree.
Note: I distinguish between (1) minimalists by preference and (2) barefooters who use minimalist shoes when the need arises. Seems trivial, but I think the difference in outlook and experience can be huge.
I also agree that the word 'movement' is kinda silly. I was just using the one of the terms that's out there. I guess my preference would be 'barefoot approach,' 'barefoot practice,' or some more depoliticized term like that, although rebelling against popular misconceptions is always sound politics, no matter how trivial.
I like to think about people who think that going barefoot is weird, like this:
They think that NOT putting on shoes is weird. We wake up in the morning, get up and DO NOT put on shoes...we just remain the normal way we are supposed to be...
They get up in the morning and, many times, for no reason at all, enclose their feet in things that are unhealthy for them.
They are the ones DOING something (putting on shoes) when we are just staying normal.
Thinking about it like that just cracks me up.
I also cringe when I hear or read about the barefoot running movement and how it began with "Born to Run". I was running barefoot for eight years BEFORE Born to Run was published. And Ken Bob, Barefoot Ted, and and many others were already long-time veterans when I started!
........but my barefeet and tutu was pretty awesome though