These are out. 99% sure I saw some 1-2 months ago at Medved in Pittsford. There is a store in fairport that stocks the most VFF of anywhere locally AFAIK. They call them "running" shoes but I and some others think they are moving away from the VFF motto of minimalism because they are starting to introduce a little bit of padding. If you want trail shoes the trek are your ticket because they are twice as thick as KSOs. I have worn my sprints on some trails around here and they are perfectly usable on trails unless the rocks are really sharp. Vibram and some other company are coming out with true trail shoes next year (?) or in the fall and they look a lot more normal I think the toes are even webbed together.Vibram has some trail "shoes" coming out soon called the Bikila. I may try them out, they are the only hope I have of minimalism. I run on some ridiculously rocky/rooty terrain and the protection a trail shoe offers is very important to me.
Unless you're really grinding each step 400-500 km is a joke for these shoes, they'll have no problem tolerating those miles.I think I'd only really want them if the soles lasted longer running on the road than the KSOs though and I figure if I can get somewhere in the neighborhood of 400-500km out of these, then they're cost competitive with my regular shoes anyway.
It's a personal thing and depends on how many miles you ran before.Some people are recommending ramp ups of up to a year before you can run without shoes as hard as you would with shoes
No need, they are landing in front as they do for every runner on the planet. Many who don't understand physics think they land under their center of mass (including minimal coaches) but they don't and you'll never see a video of somebody landing under mass; it's always ahead. This is mandated by human movement and physics and completely beyond question.I don't really have any idea whether my feet are landing in front of me or under me. I guess I should try recording myself.
Man I am doubting myself now but I SWEAR I saw the bikila in a store. I even posted a an impression of them on runnersworld forum.Are you going to try the Bikila when they hit the shelves?
I specifically avoid wearing these in public unless I am actually RUNNING because I do not want to spend time talking to people about them (willing to online, less interest in real-life unless I sense a genuine interest/openess to the concept). The majority of people think they look ridiculous and I agree wholeheartedly that they do.
These are out. 99% sure I saw some 1-2 months ago at Medved in Pittsford. There is a store in fairport that stocks the most VFF of anywhere locally AFAIK. They call them "running" shoes but I and some others think they are moving away from the VFF motto of minimalism because they are starting to introduce a little bit of padding. If you want trail shoes the trek are your ticket because they are twice as thick as KSOs. I have worn my sprints on some trails around here and they are perfectly usable on trails unless the rocks are really sharp. Vibram and some other company are coming out with true trail shoes next year (?) or in the fall and they look a lot more normal I think the toes are even webbed together.Unless you're really grinding each step 400-500 km is a joke for these shoes, they'll have no problem tolerating those miles.It's a personal thing and depends on how many miles you ran before.
Don't force yourself heavily on your forefeet. The majority of people in these shoes or barefoot do have heel touch down after the forefoot initially strikes.No need, they are landing in front as they do for every runner on the planet. Many who don't understand physics think they land under their center of mass (including minimal coaches) but they don't and you'll never see a video of somebody landing under mass; it's always ahead. This is mandated by human movement and physics and completely beyond question.Man I am doubting myself now but I SWEAR I saw the bikila in a store. I even posted a an impression of them on runnersworld forum.
This guy's been running in his since July: http://www.runnersworld.com/communi...75afPost:40d0ec79-85c7-4ea1-a085-7d2e5915a92c
This guy had his in June: http://www.runnersworld.com/communi...ities/barefoot-running/disappointment-bikilas
Just wanted to stop in to say that I love running in my VFFs; but I don't think I've ever put more than a 5k on 'em at a time. Fun stuff, though.
I really like the feel of it too (when there's no pain). That's part of the reason why I'm sticking with it despite the fact that running in shoes has been working just fine for me.
I had a look at Bikilas in store last weekend (I was traveling in Baltimore). At this point, I don't think they offer any advantages over my KSOs and I'd actually rather not have the slightly thicker sole. I may look at them again when my KSOs need replacing.
It's very hard to get them in my size right now anyway.
Are you going to try the Bikila when they hit the shelves?
Talking to the Vibram folks at the Boston Marathon Sports Expo, the Bikilas have included beef-up parts of the sole to make them more durable than the KSOs.
I think I read of a high recall reate in the initial bikilas. One thread said that somebody who went into a store was told by the owner that of the 70 sold 15 had been returned.Talking to the Vibram folks at the Boston Marathon Sports Expo, the Bikilas have included beef-up parts of the sole to make them more durable than the KSOs.
Yeah I think the upper would go first.Interesting. I've seen reports of people getting up to ~1000 miles on them and the soles were not the first thing to go. I'd be plenty happy with anything even approaching that.
Well, the first round didn't last very long My feet are weaker than I might have hoped. The aches from my last run have been very slow to go away and have been costing me training time in my regular shoes.
I'm going to keep the vffs off my feet for at least a week, then do no more than walking in them for a week. After that I will limit my runs to 1k for a while. I'm going to do this still, just real slow.
I think I read of a high recall reate in the initial bikilas. One thread said that somebody who went into a store was told by the owner that of the 70 sold 15 had been returned.Yeah I think the upper would go first.
And regarding feet pains you can easily take months acclimating to the vffs.
How are these things, though? I only read of one knock off thread, a guy on runners world forum and it sounded like his knockoffs sucked.Vibram has had quality control for a while now.
And b/c of their price and quality control, some folks have been going for knock-offs. These in this thread have gotten pretty good reviews - http://www.dealextreme.com/search.dx/search.fivefingers~r.96035782
Thread - http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/1006683/
I may try out the classics for $32
You're doing a much better job than me.
I looked at a few Trek reviews and it does have beefier "soles", but I think the Bikila is still, for me, a better Five Finger choice. Thanks for prompting me to look at them again.
No running in vffs yet but I'll start with short ones again soon.
A lot of people in the bf/minimalist community advocate doing some real barefooting even if you plan to run in shoes most of the time, because even something as thin as a vff can protect you and hide form issues. I figured what the heck, it can't hurt to at least try, so today after my normal run I did about a half kilometre on my sidewalk. It was alright. I think I'll try it again from time to time for the fun of it, at least as long as the weather's ok.
You'd have to be pretty light for VFF's to protect you from bad form. The force of impact set me straight pretty god damn fast about any problems with the way I planted my feet.
I haven't run and have only done a little walking in vffs lately but my feet are more or less healed and I should be getting regular mileage in my shoes again this week.
Getting injured quickly forced me to think a little bit about why I would even try a change, given that I've never really had issues in regular shoes. I figure I may as well record my reasons here...
The first reason is that I like the concept of minimal running. When it comes up in conversation, I pretty much always argue for it (unless I'm talking with someone who is already strongly in favour) but this seems kind of dumb when I haven't tried it myself. If I can make the change, then I have some experience to back up my positions. If I can't, then I'd better rethink them, or at least be aware of caveats.
Secondly, I've always liked less shoe. This has normally been in the form of light, flexible soccer shoes. When I started running, I didn't really realize minimal options were out there and my shoe store basically only carries big shoes. I don't know what I would have thought of racing flats if I'd seen them. I have preferred running shoes with as much mesh on the top as possible and I've disliked large shoes. I once went half a size lower than my usual because the shoe didn't feel snug enough, but this resulted in a lot of discomfort.
Running takes way less equipment than just about anything else. If I can do it without $100+ shoes, then there's even less
Third is that it's sort of a fun challenge. In theory most people should be able to run as well barefoot as with shoes but we can't because our feet are week. It will be kind of neat to be strong enough.
Lastly, it's fun. But I didn't see that coming until I had tried it.
1.5k jogging in vffs last week, about 5k walking yesterday and 0.7k jogging in bare feet today.
No soreness from this afaict. I did more damage to my feet doing my weekend LSD in "old" padded shoes. Having a pair of expensive shoes be unsafe after less than 700k is more motivation to run in vffs.