What's the percentage of barefoot / minimalist runners among the US runners ?
- Thread starter fredbros
- Start date
From my very poor estimation
From my very poor estimation by using a big marathon / 1/2 marathon race, I came up with about 0.029%...
That is barefoot not minimalist and a very liberal estimate in my view. Minimalist will make up a much larger percentage. Well depending on what is considered minimalist.
From my very poor estimation by using a big marathon / 1/2 marathon race, I came up with about 0.029%...
That is barefoot not minimalist and a very liberal estimate in my view. Minimalist will make up a much larger percentage. Well depending on what is considered minimalist.
stomper
Guest
yeah, it is really tiny for
yeah, it is really tiny for true BFR. Far far less than 1% is my guess, from the people I see in the park which is a popular running spot. I've seen one guy in huaraches, once, and one teen going BF, once. Out of hundreds or maybe even thousands of people I've seen pass. I see a lot as I'm right near the park.
On the other hand it's making a huge impression on the running community. There's fascination with it because it's so so different than what people have been trained to believe. That they need to put odometers on their shoes, for example, so they won't get worn out and flexible. Or in other words, sort of bearable.
yeah, it is really tiny for true BFR. Far far less than 1% is my guess, from the people I see in the park which is a popular running spot. I've seen one guy in huaraches, once, and one teen going BF, once. Out of hundreds or maybe even thousands of people I've seen pass. I see a lot as I'm right near the park.
On the other hand it's making a huge impression on the running community. There's fascination with it because it's so so different than what people have been trained to believe. That they need to put odometers on their shoes, for example, so they won't get worn out and flexible. Or in other words, sort of bearable.
I've been in more than a
I've been in more than a dozen 5Ks and two 1/2 marathons in the past couple years...I've begun to see more VFFs in the race crowd (maybe...3-5%?)
But I've never seen a barefoot runner up close and in person before. Maybe they're a myth?...oh wait. I'm a barefoot runner. Hahaha.
I've been in more than a dozen 5Ks and two 1/2 marathons in the past couple years...I've begun to see more VFFs in the race crowd (maybe...3-5%?)
But I've never seen a barefoot runner up close and in person before. Maybe they're a myth?...oh wait. I'm a barefoot runner. Hahaha.
Agreed, the actual BF
Agreed, the actual BF population is very small, though there are a lot of people who do hybrid, and I don't really know what percentage to count that for. MR would be higher, but like Abide said it depends on who you count. Personally, if I was going to count, I'd say anyone with a fore/mid-foot landing counts as a MR, just because thats pretty much the idea of minimal running. (People will argue with this, but I'd say that all fore/mid-foot "strikers" share a similar mindset, which is a bigger distinction than the thickness of a shoe sole.) People who do barefoot also use minimalist shoes as tools, and tolerable footwear, but we're barefooters anyways, so thats not important to the statistics anyways.
What exactly do you mean by saying this number is important?
Agreed, the actual BF population is very small, though there are a lot of people who do hybrid, and I don't really know what percentage to count that for. MR would be higher, but like Abide said it depends on who you count. Personally, if I was going to count, I'd say anyone with a fore/mid-foot landing counts as a MR, just because thats pretty much the idea of minimal running. (People will argue with this, but I'd say that all fore/mid-foot "strikers" share a similar mindset, which is a bigger distinction than the thickness of a shoe sole.) People who do barefoot also use minimalist shoes as tools, and tolerable footwear, but we're barefooters anyways, so thats not important to the statistics anyways.
What exactly do you mean by saying this number is important?
A traditionally shod runner
A traditionally shod runner who has a mid/forefoot plant is just that, a traditionally shod runner with a mid/forefoot plant. Likewise, a minimalist runner who has a mid/foot plant is just that, a minimalist runner with a mid/forefoot plant. I do not think a traditionally shod runner should be considered a minimalist runner, even if they do have a plant in common. Minimalism in my book has to do with "less is more," not necessarily technique. If you run in boat anchors, you are a boat anchor runner regardless of how you plant.
Now, that's just my opinion, doesn't make it right or wrong, just mine.
A traditionally shod runner who has a mid/forefoot plant is just that, a traditionally shod runner with a mid/forefoot plant. Likewise, a minimalist runner who has a mid/foot plant is just that, a minimalist runner with a mid/forefoot plant. I do not think a traditionally shod runner should be considered a minimalist runner, even if they do have a plant in common. Minimalism in my book has to do with "less is more," not necessarily technique. If you run in boat anchors, you are a boat anchor runner regardless of how you plant.
Now, that's just my opinion, doesn't make it right or wrong, just mine.
What defines a minimal shoes
What defines a minimal shoes though? I mean personally I don't care, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but at what point is a shoe no longer minimal? You can't really run forefoot in boat anchors, the heel rise just makes it too much work. A forefoot strike requires a certain degree of flexibility and thinness, which are both important properties of minimalist shoes. I can agree with "less is more" but most minimal shoes even still think that "more is more". Vibram put a thicker more rigid sole in their KSO treks, people sometimes double layer their huaraches, Zems includes a padded insole now (they aren't really in on all our barefoot running ways, but the shoe is designed to simulate being barefoot, and last I checked I don't have any padded insoles on my feet). Really the whole reason people wear minimal shoes at all is because they want more protection than their skin can give them.
Oh well, I suppose as long as they call them minimal runners I don't care what they wear. Just as long as they don't try to tell me that there are barefoot shoes and shoe companies. And if someone invents a shoe that only has an upper to make it look like you're wearing shoes, I will even concede that. As long as they make dress shoes.
What defines a minimal shoes though? I mean personally I don't care, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but at what point is a shoe no longer minimal? You can't really run forefoot in boat anchors, the heel rise just makes it too much work. A forefoot strike requires a certain degree of flexibility and thinness, which are both important properties of minimalist shoes. I can agree with "less is more" but most minimal shoes even still think that "more is more". Vibram put a thicker more rigid sole in their KSO treks, people sometimes double layer their huaraches, Zems includes a padded insole now (they aren't really in on all our barefoot running ways, but the shoe is designed to simulate being barefoot, and last I checked I don't have any padded insoles on my feet). Really the whole reason people wear minimal shoes at all is because they want more protection than their skin can give them.
Oh well, I suppose as long as they call them minimal runners I don't care what they wear. Just as long as they don't try to tell me that there are barefoot shoes and shoe companies. And if someone invents a shoe that only has an upper to make it look like you're wearing shoes, I will even concede that. As long as they make dress shoes.
...at what point is a shoe no
...at what point is a shoe no longer minimal? I'm so glad you asked. Have you checked out our just released Run Free 2010 Minimalist Footwear Review & Buyer's Guide yet? 1,084 reads as of now! Oh man! All of those shoes are considered minimal. (Just so happens that one of my future tasks and wishes is to bring in the biggest names in minimal running and minimal footwear to set a minimalist shoe standard, one by which all running shoe companies conform to. Yes, I'm nuts, and yes, I have high hopes.) When a shoe contains anything that alters the biomechanics of an individual--motion control, padding, elevated heels, arch support--your typical traditional running shoe (TRS), a.k.a., boat anchors, that is when a shoe is no longer minimal.
You can't really run forefoot in boat anchors, the heel rise just makes it too much work. You (well maybe not you) most certainly can...as long as you have the training. Look at the big name elite runners nowadays, many of them are wearing TRS. Their wages come from hocking those products. They are professionals and have been trained to run with a mid/forefoot plant. (I won't qualify that statement by saying "Most or All of them either.") Many of the famed Kenyans can also run with a mid/forefoot plant because (typically) they grew up without shoes and instinctively ran with a mid/forefoot plant; no matter what you put on them, they are going to continue to run with a mid/forefoot plant. It's ingrained in them. Many barefoot runners who go back and forth between minimalist shoes and reduced running shoes (RRS) and TRS claim they can keep their mid/forefoot plant as well. (I cannot. I suck as a shod runner.) For most of the rest of us, your typical run-of-the-mill, average Joe runner, a boat anchor (TRS) is going to mess with our mechanics and force us to strike with our heel first...and yes, I do believe that most of us are average Joe runners.
Most minimal shoes even still think that "more is more". I can't agree that "most" minimalist shoes are made with "more is more" thinking. That is a very broad statement.
Vibram put a thicker more rigid sole in their KSO treks. They were responding to market demand by minimalist trail runners, trail runners who knew they would lose ground feedback yet gain a layer of traction. Don't forget though, Vibram has a huge and growing line of VFFs to please many different audiences, and every one of those shoes is still condsidered minimal in comparison to today's boat anchors. Not only that, they kept their original versions to satisfy the rest of us (Classic, Sprints, KSOs). We're not naming shoes "skin layers" or "liners," we're calling them minimalist, because that's what they are, minimal.
Zems includes a padded insole now (they aren't really in on all our barefoot running ways, but the shoe is designed to simulate being barefoot, and last I checked I don't have any padded insoles on my feet). The ZEMS that are on the market today were not intended for barefoot running; but hearing our pleas, they are now in the process of designing one for running. Don't forget too that the insole is removable, and I'm sure the new running versions will be too.
Oh well, I suppose as long as they call them minimal runners I don't care what they wear. Just as long as they don't try to tell me that there are barefoot shoes and shoe companies. I couldn't agree with you more, Danjo. You are a bright guy, and I appreciate your take on things.
...at what point is a shoe no longer minimal? I'm so glad you asked. Have you checked out our just released Run Free 2010 Minimalist Footwear Review & Buyer's Guide yet? 1,084 reads as of now! Oh man! All of those shoes are considered minimal. (Just so happens that one of my future tasks and wishes is to bring in the biggest names in minimal running and minimal footwear to set a minimalist shoe standard, one by which all running shoe companies conform to. Yes, I'm nuts, and yes, I have high hopes.) When a shoe contains anything that alters the biomechanics of an individual--motion control, padding, elevated heels, arch support--your typical traditional running shoe (TRS), a.k.a., boat anchors, that is when a shoe is no longer minimal.
You can't really run forefoot in boat anchors, the heel rise just makes it too much work. You (well maybe not you) most certainly can...as long as you have the training. Look at the big name elite runners nowadays, many of them are wearing TRS. Their wages come from hocking those products. They are professionals and have been trained to run with a mid/forefoot plant. (I won't qualify that statement by saying "Most or All of them either.") Many of the famed Kenyans can also run with a mid/forefoot plant because (typically) they grew up without shoes and instinctively ran with a mid/forefoot plant; no matter what you put on them, they are going to continue to run with a mid/forefoot plant. It's ingrained in them. Many barefoot runners who go back and forth between minimalist shoes and reduced running shoes (RRS) and TRS claim they can keep their mid/forefoot plant as well. (I cannot. I suck as a shod runner.) For most of the rest of us, your typical run-of-the-mill, average Joe runner, a boat anchor (TRS) is going to mess with our mechanics and force us to strike with our heel first...and yes, I do believe that most of us are average Joe runners.
Most minimal shoes even still think that "more is more". I can't agree that "most" minimalist shoes are made with "more is more" thinking. That is a very broad statement.
Vibram put a thicker more rigid sole in their KSO treks. They were responding to market demand by minimalist trail runners, trail runners who knew they would lose ground feedback yet gain a layer of traction. Don't forget though, Vibram has a huge and growing line of VFFs to please many different audiences, and every one of those shoes is still condsidered minimal in comparison to today's boat anchors. Not only that, they kept their original versions to satisfy the rest of us (Classic, Sprints, KSOs). We're not naming shoes "skin layers" or "liners," we're calling them minimalist, because that's what they are, minimal.
Zems includes a padded insole now (they aren't really in on all our barefoot running ways, but the shoe is designed to simulate being barefoot, and last I checked I don't have any padded insoles on my feet). The ZEMS that are on the market today were not intended for barefoot running; but hearing our pleas, they are now in the process of designing one for running. Don't forget too that the insole is removable, and I'm sure the new running versions will be too.
Oh well, I suppose as long as they call them minimal runners I don't care what they wear. Just as long as they don't try to tell me that there are barefoot shoes and shoe companies. I couldn't agree with you more, Danjo. You are a bright guy, and I appreciate your take on things.
I don't think there is
I don't think there is anything mystical about a forefoot plant - it's just the way some people run. I have always been a forefoot runner, even when I was plodding out 13:40 miles about 100 pounds overweight in regular running shoes and not "elite" or "biomechanically efficient" at all. In fact, when I went for shoes with more heel it just accentuated my basic biomechnnics and I became more of a forefoot runner, not less. I have not really ever figured out how heeled shoes forced people into a heel strike - I believe it because lots of people say it, but I can't square it with my experiences (and the wear on my old soles).
I don't think there is anything mystical about a forefoot plant - it's just the way some people run. I have always been a forefoot runner, even when I was plodding out 13:40 miles about 100 pounds overweight in regular running shoes and not "elite" or "biomechanically efficient" at all. In fact, when I went for shoes with more heel it just accentuated my basic biomechnnics and I became more of a forefoot runner, not less. I have not really ever figured out how heeled shoes forced people into a heel strike - I believe it because lots of people say it, but I can't square it with my experiences (and the wear on my old soles).
Yes, J., good point. Not
Yes, J., good point. Not everyone is going to either heel strike while wearing TRS, and not everyone is going to have a mid/forefoot plant while running in minimalist footwear. Just look at Rick. He's a heel-striker AND a barefoot runner. And that's okay for him because it works for him. Apparently, he is able to run every single day for the past several years, without taking time off. His biomechanics allow him to run that way and not become injured. Yes, I know he heel strikes, I've run with him. He's a strong runner, not the fastest, but a very good runner.
Yes, J., good point. Not everyone is going to either heel strike while wearing TRS, and not everyone is going to have a mid/forefoot plant while running in minimalist footwear. Just look at Rick. He's a heel-striker AND a barefoot runner. And that's okay for him because it works for him. Apparently, he is able to run every single day for the past several years, without taking time off. His biomechanics allow him to run that way and not become injured. Yes, I know he heel strikes, I've run with him. He's a strong runner, not the fastest, but a very good runner.
It seems to me that things
It seems to me that things would be much simpler if we called barefoot running, the act of running with nothing on or under our feet except the earth/pavement/(insert favorite surface here). I know this would suck for all the companies trying to sell us something to run barefoot in but it would clear up a lot of confusion.
It seems to me that things would be much simpler if we called barefoot running, the act of running with nothing on or under our feet except the earth/pavement/(insert favorite surface here). I know this would suck for all the companies trying to sell us something to run barefoot in but it would clear up a lot of confusion.
stomper
Guest
Joshh wrote:It seems to me
and
One part of me thinks:
These ideas go really well together. The issue of what is barefoot keeps coming up because a lot of the marketing and journalism says "barefoot=these shoes" which is misinformed at best.
So let's call a spade a spade. Only barefoot is barefoot and anyone who's actually done it will know that.
But let's also recognize that most people will not run barefoot. They are going to want those minimal shoes, and those minimal shoes are an improvement over foot coffins, and in some cases really useful. So defining a minimal shoe standard would be a real contribution.
There's no reason the shoe companies need to be on board. We could define such a standard right here and now, as in today. I know some of you guys (Jason?) have been thinking about it. We have a certain amount of credibility as grassroots practitioners of this art, so I'm sure that shoe companies would be paying attention on some level. Defining a standard now, and keeping it open and non-commercial, could make a significant contribution at this turning point in the industry.
And another part of me says:
F**k it, dude, commerce and bureaucracy always screws everything up. Let's just leave that garbage to them and have a run and a beer.
Joshh said:
and
Barefoot TJ said:
One part of me thinks:
These ideas go really well together. The issue of what is barefoot keeps coming up because a lot of the marketing and journalism says "barefoot=these shoes" which is misinformed at best.
So let's call a spade a spade. Only barefoot is barefoot and anyone who's actually done it will know that.
But let's also recognize that most people will not run barefoot. They are going to want those minimal shoes, and those minimal shoes are an improvement over foot coffins, and in some cases really useful. So defining a minimal shoe standard would be a real contribution.
There's no reason the shoe companies need to be on board. We could define such a standard right here and now, as in today. I know some of you guys (Jason?) have been thinking about it. We have a certain amount of credibility as grassroots practitioners of this art, so I'm sure that shoe companies would be paying attention on some level. Defining a standard now, and keeping it open and non-commercial, could make a significant contribution at this turning point in the industry.
And another part of me says:
F**k it, dude, commerce and bureaucracy always screws everything up. Let's just leave that garbage to them and have a run and a beer.
You want to take this on
You want to take this on Stomper? (I'm going to have to create a position for you. Especially after that wonderful Library you created for the BRS--one of my many wishes fulfilled...and still growing. Hmmmm. What would be a good title for you?) Anywho, if you are interested, I will send you what I've started, my thoughts, ideas, those who I plan to bring on board, etc.
You want to take this on Stomper? (I'm going to have to create a position for you. Especially after that wonderful Library you created for the BRS--one of my many wishes fulfilled...and still growing. Hmmmm. What would be a good title for you?) Anywho, if you are interested, I will send you what I've started, my thoughts, ideas, those who I plan to bring on board, etc.
Based on my experiences in
Based on my experiences in races, I would say that the barefoot running population is 0.001% of the racing population. Based on an average of 2 barefoot runners for my last 2 races (around 2000 or more runners per race). VFF's account for 0% of the barefoot running population. But just because I haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Based on my experiences in races, I would say that the barefoot running population is 0.001% of the racing population. Based on an average of 2 barefoot runners for my last 2 races (around 2000 or more runners per race). VFF's account for 0% of the barefoot running population. But just because I haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Matt wrote:Based on my
Yeah my calculation was in the last race I ran there were roughly 35,000 runners, I knew of 3 barefooters. So I was liberal and used 10 total. Likely there was only 3 though.
I saw about 10 people wearing vff's, and I'm sure other minimalist shoes, but I really have a hard time telling the difference between the Free's and Newtons vs. regular high heels.
Matt said:
Yeah my calculation was in the last race I ran there were roughly 35,000 runners, I knew of 3 barefooters. So I was liberal and used 10 total. Likely there was only 3 though.
I saw about 10 people wearing vff's, and I'm sure other minimalist shoes, but I really have a hard time telling the difference between the Free's and Newtons vs. regular high heels.
