Talk:Barefoot running

Is the heel striking or the cushioning of the shoes the problem?
It should be made clear that shoes may not be the problem and proper technique is. Is having a mid foot strike in normal trainers a problem or could it even be beneficial? This seems to be the crux of the argument considering the worlds best marathoners wear shoes and are mid foot strikers. Demonizing shoes as the problem may not be the appropriate way of going about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.200.115 (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources argue that modern running shoes promote heel strikes in the way that they are structured. Cla68 (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, most shoes encourage heel striking, and make it hard to do otherwise. There are several issues with shoes, beyond heel striking, though:
 * Not being able to sense the ground, due to thick and often stiff sole, which leads to, amongst other things, slower/absent reactions to what you step on, and lower balance, grip and stability as you can't properly (if at all) adapt to what you're stepping on. (also, it's like being blindfold. You basically lack a sense, as you can hardly feel anything with the sole of your foot. It feels really nice to feel the ground)
 * Narrow (and fairly stiff) toe-box, which squishes the toes together and prevents them from doing much of anything.
 * Arch support, which prevents the arches from doing their jobs properly, as well as weakening them.
 * An elevated heel, which messes with your posture which, amongst other things, negatively impacts balance and stability. (and comfort)
 * Both the elevated heel and thick sole, contribute to lower ones balance and stability, by putting you higher. This also increases the risk and severity of twisting ones ankle.
 * The stiff sole and upper, means that your feet can't move freely, and thus is limited in what it can do. Most muscles in the feet (of which there are a great amount) don't get to do their job.
 * ...and some other points I can't remember at the moment, no doubt.
 * --ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The promoters of squishy shoes can't have it both ways: their products promote heel-striking. They maintain that this is the only way people run. If they allowed for the possibility of FFS then their "gait analysis" would reveal this group. All their marketing and sales techniques make a big thing of this feature.

A paper from around 1989 (ref needed) showed that the injury rate was directly related to the price of the shoes. They conjectured that this was due to the squishyness of the sole prevented proprioception, and so footfalls were more incompetent. This paper is supported by more recent research. Generally RFS runners get more frequent and chronic injuries than those who run in thin shoes.

It is also "obvious"(OR) from pace/shoe style vs terrain. On smooth tarmac squishy shod runners can keep up with the flats. As the going gets rougher they get dropped.

An elevated heel geometrically (see Euclid) obstructs the athlete's heel. So whilst his foot may be flat/toedown the shoe heel strikes first.

If the athlete attempts to land forefoot in squishy shoes the ultra-stiff sole causes the counter to pull down hard on the heel as he elastically springs off.

Foot-striking position is dependent on pace. At sprint pace the foot is generally toe-only. As the distance increases the pace drops and so does the heel. At long distance the heel might touch the ground first (see Heile Gebreselassi) but significant loading doesn't occur until the forefoot has touched.

Zarlan's bit about "blind men" is slightly paradoxical in that the blind athletes are actually very fast runners. Modern coaching of sighted runners includes "blind running". Frontmech (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The promoters of squishy shoes can't have it both ways"
 * Oh, but they can. They can sell and promote both ways. They sell shoes that are aimed at heel-stikers, mid-foot strikers and fore-foot stikers. It doesn't make sense, and it is direct violation with logic and reality, but that's beside the point, it seems.
 * "Zarlan's bit about "blind men" is slightly paradoxical in that the blind athletes are actually very fast runners."
 * You clearly didn't understand the nature of my analogy. I talked about how wearing a thick soled shoe makes you, more or less, lose a sense, as you can no longer feel the ground with your feet. It feels like you've been blind folded. When you are blindfold, you can no longer see. When you wear thick shoes, you cannot feel (the ground).
 * I was a bit surprised to see my name mentioned here, as I haven't actually touched the article or the talk page, for a long time (it got to be too much of an effort at one point, and I never came back. I still have it in my watchlist, though. I should probably actually watch the page again)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Chill, Zarlan; I think we are broadly in agreement about shoe design/function, just how we write stuff.
 * On the point of marketing: presumably because of the size of the market, the central thrust of most manufacturers sites is that of heel-striking. All the sales support is predicated upon it. If you try to buy flats then you have to be very firm with the salesmen and stop them wasting your time with gait-analysis.
 * "blind-man" is true, they can run just as fast as the rest of us. "blind running" as part of modern running technique training to help runners to use their proprioception (sortof "use the Force, Luke"). Had it been me writing that bit I would have used the more direct comparison with gloves: only use ones thick enough for the job in hand: "would you use wicket-keeping gloves for brain surgery?". Frontmech (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Swiss sock
Why is mention of the Swiss Kevlar sock advertising while mention of the other brands of barefoot footwear isn't? Granted, the initial tone was kind of spammy but with that excised, surely they are notable for inclusion with the other variants. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I reverted it again. Initiating discussion here and then re-adding the material DOES NOT count as re-adding it "per talk". This is clearly advertising and spam, and should not be tolerated with ZERO excuseses. A single statement merely covering the item's existence contributes absolutely nothing to the article, and the product's existence is completely non-notable. WTF? (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid after numerous reading I still can't grasp the logic of your second sentence above (the shouting didn't make it any clearer) but for what, if anything, it's worth "discussion then re-add" looks pretty like "re-add after talk" to me. If you disgree with my argument, that's fair enough, let's discuss it, but there's no basis to call foul. I gave a rationale here as to why I made an edit, expecting you (and others) to either agree with and accept it, or to not agree, edit accordingly and engage here. That shouldn't be a problem.


 * The initial mention of this footwear item in the article was, as I've said, rather promotional in tone and my own initial thought was to simply revert it. However, as I was already aware that this sock had received an amount of coverage on barefoot/minimal web sites and other media (e.g. blogs, mailings) and on checking out the two citations, the first citation at least is entirely independent of the manufacturer and in no way an advert or spam, so I instead retained the mention, re-editing to strip out the spin. If you though have knowledge that this citation is in fact, despite appearances, an ad or spam, please expand on this rather than shouting as a sole basis to establish the matter. The second citation is perhaps more questionable as they are giving away pairs in a competition, so fine, let's drop that one.


 * Aside from independent coverage in more specialist barefoot and gadget-type web sites and blogs (in addition to those mentioned, e.g., , , , etc.) there has been mainstream coverage of this particular brand of kevlar sock. (Incidentally, also in the Daily Mail there is mention of another brand (though no mention of barefoot use) and mention in general terms of kevlar socks in this and this article, though here their decidedly non-barefoot use in ice-hockey). Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Suing of Vibram and Adidas
Are there any updates that can be added regarding the lawsuits against Vibram and Adidas over alleged deceptive claims for their footwear? I can't see any mention after around July last year but am unsure if this means the cases have been dropped or just not come to court yet. Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism
Shrill SHOUTY accusations of vandalism regarding a clearly good faith edit, however ill conceived it is or otherwise, are not helpful. By all means revert it if you think it inappropriate (the link to a peer-reviewed study therein may possibly be worth checking out however) but enough with the continued accusatory tone about other editors. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Said reference citation that was deleted is to the NY times BLOG post about it, and is a TERTIARY citation. It is not appropriate, and also completely unnecessary in the lead section, which should be a summary of the article. Information should be placed in the body and descriptions. Whomever placed the "citation needed" tag in the lead did so improperly as well. It should also be pointed at that the "link" "citation" added was made by an ANONYMOUS USER and NOT a "true editor". Vandals should not be allowed to hide behind the shroud of anonymity. WTF? (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if what you say is correct (and, for what it is worth, Viriditas makes a very good case below that it is not), that in no way addresses the actual points I make above. I am not addressing the worth of the edit, I am addressing the faith in which it was made. The edit was clearly in good faith, whatever you think of its value, and classifying it as vandalism is not in any way warranted. Unregistered users are perfectly entitled to edit (although with some limits) and this in itself is not a reason to call an edit into question. It does not make them "not a true editor" and it certainly does not make them a vandal. Your intemperate and accusatory tone is unhelpful ("bullcrap!" and "ihatebloggers" as edit summaries?) and, as with WP:SHOUTING, is not a substitute for having a valid argument and assuming good faith. I'm surprised that your aggressive user name hasn't attracted attention, coupled as it is with your general tone. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw this discussion on my watchlist and thought I should comment. The NYT source you removed is not a "blog" post by the definition we use. It is a reliable source about this subject and should be added back to this article.  A lot of reliable sources use the term "blog" in their name, but they do so for name recognition only.  When we talk about blogs as unreliable sources we are talking about unknown authors or authors writing outside their field of expertise on self-published websites not subject to editorial oversight.  That is not the case with the NYT article by Gretchen Reynolds.  Her column, "Phys Ed" is reliable for use on Wikipedia and receives editorial oversight by the NYT. I believe the online column is marketed as a "blog" for branding purposes, but it actually is not. In any case, Reynolds is a fitness journalist and this is her subject of expertise.  There is nothing wrong with the source and it should be added back to the article.  As for using sources in the lead, the IP who added the source did so correctly, as the user was fulfilling a cite request.  There is no rule that says cites should not be used in the lead.  The guideline is based on the fact that the lead should summarize the body, and may not need sources if the summary is accurate.  However, disputed statements and quotes always require citations in the lead. I hope this helps in some way. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely! Bloggers are not even "paid staff" at newspapers, hence the term. Bloggers are a bunch of wannabe writers, just like wikipedians. It's basically community crowdsourcing citing more community crowdsourcers. I remind everyone that Wikipedia has a policy against original research. Just because the name "New York Times" is included in there, don't let that mislead you. Newspapers love to use "bloggers" because (a) they can shave more money off of their precious bottom line so as to pay their higher-ups even more ridiculous sums of money and (b) it makes them look like they're in tune with the latest media trends, which is good PR for them. WTF? (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Either you did not read my comment or you didn't understand it. The source in question is not a blog (even though it uses that name for marketing purposes) and the journalist in question is not a blogger.  She's the phys ed columnist for the NYT and her column is subject to editorial oversight.  Is this making sense? Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My views about the absurd reliability of bloggers aside (which said individual IS a blogger, and the reliability of her information is "opinion", and more in line with an op-ed than actual journalism), it would be far better to cite the actual study, which is found via pubmed and is peer-reviewed, than a third party review of that in the blog post. But needless to say, said citation does not belong in the lead section of the article, since that should really not be used to present new information. We should probably actually include this information in the health section instead. WTF? (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you're wrong. The author is not a blogger, she's a fitness journalist who writes columns for the NYT, columns that are subject to editorial oversight.  This meets and exceeds our qualifications for reliable sources.  You seem to be getting hung up on the word "blog". The column appears in print and receives editorial oversight. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine. You win, THIS TIME. She does appear to be legitimate and not just a blog queen. But I still believe that the better source for the material is the actual, peer-reviewed article, not her review of it. That's more of a primary vs. tertiary source thing, and we should favor the primary sources. WTF? (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You really have a funny attitude. It's not about "winning" but about consensus based on valid arguments and why "THIS TIME": the rationale above is either valid or it's not. This isn't a contest. The peer reviewed study is possibly a better source but the NYT is still a good source.


 * When you are nixing sources, you appear to characterise some as "not meet(ing wikipedia's standards of WP:RS" based on gut feeling rather than any sound basis. I'm not particularly fussed about the two you have just removed from the article as the material is still well-sourced but can you point to the passage(s) in the policy that pins these as unreliable? They seem to be thoughtful, independent sites specialising in the very topic of the article; are you party to knowledge which shows they are otherwise? Or do you just unthinkingly shoot from the hip? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Birthdayshoes.com is a personal domain and a personal site, run by an individual named Justin Owings, who claims to be a "Googler by day and minimalist footwear aficionado by night" (his description). While the site might appear on the surface to be professional and journalistic, it is still, nonetheless, a personal site with no editorial oversight. And the key word is that lack of editorial oversight which disqualifies it from WP:RS. As for the other site I removed, all that needs to be said is that it's in the .info domain, an entire TLD that is known as a haven for spammers and malware. That site also has zero editorial oversight, and it's not even clear based on information on the site who exactly runs it (another red flag at WP:RS). WTF? (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. Am happy with a nice considered response like that, rather than than the reactive "bullcrap!" variety. Thusly, we've dealt with this and can get on with the rest of the work. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is this article about footwear?
Barefoot means without shoes. Conflating certain types of shoes with barefoot running is a marketing gag. There should be an extra article "Minimalist footwear running" or something like that.--92.208.245.81 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point. I have a pet peeve for the term "barefoot shoes" meaning very minimal shoes. Let's just say "minimalist" if we are talking shoes, and save "barefoot" to mean skin-on-the-ground.--Karinpower (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Regional use
To suggest that it "is still practiced in parts of Africa and Latin America" sounds vaguely like a racist stereotype. Running barefoot has nothing to do with poverty, and everything with custom. Barefoot running was briefly popular in the 80's, when Zola Budd popularized it. But few people run without shoes in any part of the world these days.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Barefoot running. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110509050734/http://gear.runnersworld.com:80/2011/05/saucony-minimalism.html to http://gear.runnersworld.com/2011/05/saucony-minimalism.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Barefoot running. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110509050734/http://gear.runnersworld.com:80/2011/05/saucony-minimalism.html to http://gear.runnersworld.com/2011/05/saucony-minimalism.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

wp:brd
(cur | prev) 23:33, 5 May 2016‎ Mutt Lunker (talk | contribs)‎. . (36,401 bytes) (+3,844)‎. . (Reverted good faith edits by 173.49.67.200 (talk): WP:BRD, which comment? these are not ads. (TW)) (undo) See the article source. There is a comment (in comment tags)

>Please refrain from adding specific manufacturers of minimalist running shoes here. Wikipedia is not in the business of selling shoes and it is beyond the scope of this article to have a comprehensive list of every manufacturer here.

Anyway, the mention (and illustration!) of certain companies products to the necessary exclusion of others constitutes an advertisement whether it is intended as such. So if I don't see a reply here in a week or so, I will revert your revert because I believe it is a very important priority for wikipedia to not promote certain companies products. If you revert my revert to your revert I will leave it alone then, but please consider taking the time to keep the tags and the grammar edits (mostly in first paragraph) intact. 173.49.67.200 (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The comment was added in this edit, removing what was simply a list of manufacturers, advocating that not every maker be listed indiscriminately, not that every manufacturer be removed. A discussion of notable examples was retained, similar to the current article. There may be a case for this being a separate article but either way, a discussion of such a footwear type would be difficult to limit to the generic when specific examples vary so much. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Barefoot running. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111129005732/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/othersports/2016849728_marathon25.html? to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/othersports/2016849728_marathon25.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)