I am very interested in buying minimal shoes, preferably from New Balance. I own 2 pairs of the trail 100s and i love them. But i would love to buy minimal shoes more suited to road running as well. It seems New Balance nailed it with shoes like the rc152 and rc130. Can someone please tell me when and where i can get shoes from New Balance like this again??? I want to buy New Balance but it seems like there are dwindling options. I would love someone to get back in touch with me if there are shoes like these on the horizon. Thanks.

New Balance fan

Tim White

I began practicing the Chi method of running with the NB800 shoe, but felt that there was an unnecessary amount of weight and cushion involved with the shoe. Definitely helped me in the starting phases of learning a new running form, though. Good shoe, but I grew past them. I switched over to an ultra light Nike racing comp with flat and minimal soles and, with correct form, have been running pain and injury free for over a year. New Balance has comparable shoes. I went with the Nikes because they were on a clearance sale and it was my first test with a racing comp. They work really well and I *******ume that most racing comps from most companies will. Why be so hung up on NB? Also, I have noticed that my right foot, which I sprained severely two years ago during a construction project has improved strength now and no longer aches since running in the racing comps.

Aurum6, I\'ve found the NB 790 trail shoe to be a thin soled, minimalist shoe, perfect for coming closer to mimicking barefoot running, and strengthening the foot. Cheap too ($39). Hope this helps.

I've read a lot of reviews of the MT100 trail shoe and how they are a great alternative to barefoot running. The only problem is that there aren't any 2E/4E sizes so I can't try them out :(

I see no minimalist shoes offered by New Balance, see if you can start making a shoe with no heel lift and no arch support thats not narrow in the forefoot. A shoe built for mid- foot strikers, New Balance only makes shoes for heel strikers. New balance is missing out on this part of the shoe market.

I agree with Trock. I would gladly support and promote a New Balance shoe with the characteristics mentioned. The MT100 isn't a minimalist shoe, it\'s just less of a traditional trainer. I don\'t think a serious barefoot runner would consider it an "alternative" to barefoot running. The shoe can be a good tool for trail conditions that may warrant more protection, but it's not even a remote approximation of barefoot running.

Furthermore, I find it disappointing that New Balance had to roll out the same tired scare tactics with this line: "And—think about it—during a race, it doesn’t seem like hitting the porto for a bio break would be the most sanitary of options." It is marketing like this that alienates the barefoot running crowd.

Michael Gotfredson, the CEO of Road Runner Sports, sent a m******* email to the subscribers of his company\'s newsletter using a similar tone. It was interpreted as a foolish attempt to use scare tactics to push a product. A word to the New Balance marketers- you do not have to convince barefoot runners to buy your products IF your product can stand on its own merit. We test any shoe that appears to be even remotely minimalist. We review them on our websites. If the product is good, we flock to it (example- Vibram Five Fingers, Terra Plana Vivo Barefoot line.) The MT100 is beginning to develop as one such product. I was considering purchasing the shoe because of the reputation it has earned in barefoot running circles. If this is the marketing tactic NB is going to choose to use, I am going to reconsider my purchase.

New Balance, please don't alienate your barefoot running fans. We're desperate for a major shoe manufacturer to begin developing a true minimalist shoe... we were counting on you to be one such leader. We DO buy shoes. If your product is a quality product, we'll support it. You don't have to use scare tactics... please do not stoop to this level.

I am a runner.

NB, I appreciate that you took the time to enter this debate and have actually taken strides to meet the needs of reduced and minimalist runners. I believe you still have room for improvement, but I will continue to buy MT100\'s/Rc152\'s, and others as long as you are working towards meeting our needs.

I run for many reasons but each run I appreciate the fact that I CAN run...when so many others cannot. And the research is beginning to mount in support of the fact that running shoes do not prevent injury and in many cases promote running styles which increase the risk of injury.

In my experience (and in more and more people\'s experience) barefooting full time or part-time will help you improve your form and stay injury-free.

I love many of my NB shoes and will continue to wear them when the situation dictates; but I love being injury-free even better. Let us improve together.

NB, Thanks for joining the conversation. I have purchased many pairs of NB over the years. Unfortunately, due to back issues, I can no longer wear shoes with a heel lift and have been forced to switch to other more minimal brands. I would love for NB to produce shoes with a zero differential so I can once again wear them. Does such a shoe even exist now at NB? For those of us leaning towards the minimalist side of things, having variations on that zero differential with more or less amounts of cushioning (only in the sole) would be beneficial. Much less protection is needed on smooth asphalt than on a gnarly trail. And please, don't limit them to only a medium width. That was one of the things I loved about NB, being able to get a 4E size. Of course, if the toe box were wider by default, that may make 4E sizing redundant. Perhaps you could look into applying something similar to the Munson last form to some models. That could be an even better shape than what Vivo Barefoot offers.

As others have mentioned, scare tactics are unnecessary. There has been mention in other forums that shoes companies couldn't produce anything other than a built up shoe because it would admit they were wrong. Perhaps that is what makes these scare tactics seem appropriate. They're not. Different customers want different things. Some customers want a built up shoe. Other customers want a more minimal shoe. You should be able to provide shoes for the full spectrum of users, from orthotic to almost barefoot. It's all about meeting the needs of the customer. I'm a customer in need of minimalist shoes. It's nice to meet you.

Thanks for all of your feedback. The varying needs and interests of all runners are of primary importance to us, and this is a discussion we'll continue to follow closely.

Aurum6: Thank you for your feedback. We have more minimalist road shoes in the pipeline that sound like they will meet your needs. In the meantime, here are a bunch of suggestions from what's out there now: Many folks have had great success taking the MT100 to the pavement in addition to the trail. There’s also the rubber lugged version of the RX506 cross-country shoe which is similarly capable, though in my opinion not as versatile as the 100. For the midfoot striker looking for pseudo-minimalism, there’s the RT801 which replaced the 800 MFS. For race flats, you may still be able to find pairs of RC152's and RC205's, which is an oldie but a cl*******ic for sure. There’s the RC769 which is lightly posted, but could work as well. Finally, the product team is in development with several Team New Balance athletes hard at work on a cutting-edge race flat we’re hoping to debut in the near future.

Jason (and Trock): Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. It wasn't our intention to belittle or distort the needs of barefoot runners—apologies if that's how it came off to you in the article. In addition to the MT100, there are some recommendations above for current low-support models we recommend, but we hear you that your ideal would be something far more minimalist. It's an area we're investigating and will continue to investigate in the lab, as Sean Murphy mentioned in the Globe article reference above. We appreciate your perspective and will do our best to continue to develop gear that meets the unique needs of runners like you.

Notleh: Thank you. We welcome and appreciate your feedback, support, and input.

And to everyone, keep the comments coming! It’s conversation like this that gets us up in the morning. Thanks for everyone’s thoughts.

Full disclosure: I run in Vibrams and occasionally barefoot. I run on pavement and trails with lots of rocks, and will be running my first HM later this year, and my first M early next.

I am comforted to hear a shoe company speak of barefoot/minimalist running with a tone other than contempt, which is pretty much what we get everywhere else. This is how you get and keep customers.

When the MT100 came out, I was thrilled to hear how much attention was paid to the opinions and running styles of the two trail runners you had (sorry, I forget their names), and I tried to imagine a situation where similar attention would be paid to minimalst/barefoot runners. I had a hard time then, but maybe I have a little hope now.

I get this is a marketing tightrope: trying to sell shoes to a segment that espouses the benefits of no shoes, but effort goes a long way, and barefoot runners aren't always barefoot running. For example, I wanted an everyday shoe that still supported my minimalist running: something lightweight, very flexible, and as little padding as possible. I fell in love with the now discontinued NB790 so much I bought several pairs from Nordstroms.

If my trail running was getting more technical and even more rocky, I'd be getting a pair of MT100's in a heartbeat.

I can imagine a time when I might want something inbetween something like a Vibram KSO and an MT100 for road work: something truly flat, something supremely flexible (the MT100's rock plate is the problem here), and if necessary, something with a modicum of padding. Maybe this would be for someone checking out or easing into barefooting. Maybe it would be for someone who loved barefooting but felt they needed more padding every day. Maybe its for a barefooter who needs a day off the bare feet after a particular trying run. Who knows?

The point here is that barefooters aren't always barefoot, and minimalists aren't always so either. A shoe company that recognizes this market instead of marginalizing it stands to gain a lot in the long run, be it from shoes that meet our needs, or to accessories and clothing.

I appreciate the attention NB is paying to this as well. Perhaps minimalist running shoes is not for the m*******es but those who care about foot strength and technique take it very seriously.

My request is that NB hold true to honoring your wide foot fans. I'm a loyal NB customer because I can get reliable wide fitting (EE) shoes that fit my feet. I find a real hard time finding sizes, and so far my search for wide fitting minimalist shoes has been difficult. I did special order a pair of RC769 but I notice for example the MT100 doesn't come in a wide size. Please keep us wide shoders in mind!

Thanks for the foray into the minimalist footwear/barefoot running debate.

As the proprietor of the unofficial Vibram Five Fingers fan site - birthdayshoes.com - I have a dog in this fight. I just want to say this:

Come up with a neutral heeled shoe that has a sole less than a centimeter thick. Also, allow adequate toe box room for toe splaying. Those two criteria will go a long way to having a real contender in this growing niche.

Thanks!

Justin

Thanks for your thoughts, Justin. We will definitely look at that as we develop products for this consumer.

domerjon, we will certainly continue to offer widths in as many of our products as we can. It\'s part of our heritage that we don\'t want to lose.

Great discussion, everyone, keep it coming!

Regarding the comments- so people are complaining about scare tactics and that they want shoes so loosely built that they don't care about protection against sharp/puncture-able objects? I don't think that's the point of THESE EXACT shoes, running as a hobby is one thing but.....well let me break this down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail

And I quote: A trail is any variety of path, typically primitive, used for travel. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary provides the following definition.
“ (1) : a track made by p*******age especially through a wilderness (2) : a marked or established path or route especially through a forest or mountainous region. ”

—Merriam-Webster[1]

Look at the dam pictures people. I'm reading a whole lot of words in the above posts like ROCKS and ROADS and "I WANT THIS" and THAT which is great cause that's their job to supply the consumers but I'm unimpressed with the many comparisons I'm seeing about NB shoes like the m100's and your (Insert "minimalist" shoe HERE).

It seems like the word is no longer subjective to any of you. I'm gonna cut this post short and simply get to my POINT now- I like the balance in these shoes and I don't like to see people PUSHING companies to compromise basic important infrastructures that make a shoe.

You want to be CAPS LOCK COOL and bare foot/ minimalist run then do this:
http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Cool-Weather-Minimalist-Running-Shoes

There congrats to every single one of you.

@ConfidenceMan,

Whether it is sky diving, bungee jumping, or running in minimal footwear, let us choose for ourselves how much risk we want to take. It's our bodies, our lives, our choices. Some people want more footwear choices. Now one is saying it's an either or situation. Some want built up/protective shoes. Others want stripped down/minimal shoes. There needs to be more variety of choices, not all built up, but minimal as well. I'm confused by your vitriolic verbiage. I don't want to remove your choice. So, how is my choice your problem? You buy maximal; I'll buy minimal. I would like both to be NB.

I think it\'s great that you guys at New Balance are willing to consider the the fact that minimalist shoes do have some potential benefit especially compared to traditional athletic shoes.

I was a little skeptical at first about this whole barefoot movement, but after reading those articles you posted and checking out somebarefoot shoes online it seems like this movement and the philosophy behind it makes sense.

I did find you guys have the MR800 shoes. Would you guys consider them barefoot running shoes? They seem more padded than the other minimalist shoes out there, but I know from the description that these shoes encourage forefoot running.

By the way... does anyone know where i can buy either the new balance rc152s or rc130s?? Please let me know!!

tim

Thanks for giving the interests of barefoot runners such thoughtful consideration. I have a experience using minimalist shoes from several other brands, and it would be great to see NB enter the market as well.

I linked to this post from my own website tonight - the more people we can bring into the conversation, the better! Keep up the great work.

Aurum6, you just have to look around. I found some at the Fleet Feet in Sacramento, which carries a huge stock of shoes so they usually have shoes long after the model has been discontinued.

One of my main issues with shoe companies is that whenever I seem to find a shoe that I really love it is discontinued 3 months later. Or it gets "improved" and doesn't fit me right anymore, hah. But I understand the marketing game so I stock up when I find the right model for me.

Your best bet is to probably Google them or try Zombierunner.com or Zappos.com. Avoid Road Runner Sports, as they have a bad business model and are run by an ignorant tool.

The main downside to online is that you cannot try on the shoes though, so I recommend you go to your local running store, or to a sports store with a great return policy. I have found Scheels to be VERY receptive to shoe returns when they just do not fit right.

But, back to the barefoot topic. Running is a very personal sport. Each of us has different personalities and running styles and even running philosophies. The fact that NB is even willing to enter the fray on this topic wins major points from me and puts them at the top of the list for companies to receive my hard earned money.

aurum6 you can find the RC769 comp here: http://www.nbdelaware.com/track-and-field-new-balance-racing-comps-c-17_70/new-balance-rc769wbu-men-s-racing-comp-p-239.html

i think this is an ******* to the RC152 and RC130

dpm052 (and all) -

Just to clarify, the RC769 is not directly related to the RC152 or RC130 which were extremely lightweight comps. The RC769 is slightly more substantial and does contain some mild posting in it. Should be similar sizing to the other two flats, however, if you're familiar with those.

I'm glad NB is exploring the barefoot fad but it appears that the evidence supporting this running method is premature at best. Even if you allow the foot's mechanics to operate close to their natural capabilities, the problem of wear-and-tear on knee, hip, and back areas is nowhere near solved. Those who wish to run barefoot may but it would be terrible to end up with damage that otherwise would've been either eliminated or mitigated by a sensibly-cushioned shoe.

Think of shocks on a car. Imagine, instead of springy shocks to absorb impact, the car had stationary metal rods. Would be a pretty awful ride. And you can bet you're car would be in the shop constantly. Same thing with any object that travels over various surfaces, i.e. feet. Cushioning, in varying degrees, is the sensible approach if you want to run effectively AND often.

Thanks to NB for keeping up the good work in the cushioning department. Fads come and go, but solid, time-tested impact protection and support is here to stay.

@NBenthusiast,

As for it being a fad, which as been around longer, heavily cushioned shoes or minimal/bare feet? Our frame of reference for time can be very short.

You also have it backwards in your example. The stationary metal rod is the locked knee heel strike. The springs are the bent knee and mid/forefoot landing. The metal rod requires a cushioned heel, but still transfers much shock and torque up the leg. The springs can be used with or without shoes, but is more easily done if a large cushioned heel does not impede the landing.

TButterfield -

I suspected any response my post would receive would include the barefoot-shoe longevity claim. It is not a matter of time but of practicality. Yes, God created us barefoot. He also created us barehanded. Should we fore-go gloves in winter cold? For construction? For yard work? Sure, we could, but it is sensible? Are we working more efficiently or smartly? Prob not. Why tear up your hands digging or freeze them in winter when you can PROTECT them, and even improve your efficiency with better grip or padding. Apply this logic to feet.

In running, a balance between efficiency and performance must be struck. It seems more people than ever are currently disagreeing on how to strike that balance. My point is that the foot - or many people\\\'s feet - and its mechanics operate no matter what footwear is wrapped around them. Running in a snow boot is obviously inapproprate but you understand the idea. A person\\\'s running success is almost exclusively reliant on his/her innate ability. Running footwear may be suited to varying shapes, arches, etc for better FIT but ultimately does not improve a runner\\\'s performance beyond their inborn capabilities. That said, what\\\'s left? Protecting the foot to some degree. Yes, we\\\'re designed to be able to run barefoot, but not for repeated, long durations. The impact is far too taxing.

And you\\\'re right, my car shocks example was wrong. Instead, I should\\\'ve proposed a car with no shocks or support at all. It would\\\'ve better compared to a foot with no cushioning at all.

As far as fads, the case can be made that barefoot running is just that. In the constant search for improving the running experience, it seems we\\\'ve run out of groundbreaking cushioning ideas to get behind so the pendulum has swung all the way back to something that hasn\\\'t yet been mainstreamed: barefoot running.

I don\\\'t wish to discourage folks barefooting; slap away by all means. I simply don\\\'t see any evidence that barefoot running improves performance in any way. And it\\\'s prospects as a standard in the field or preferred method to the majority are quite poor, in my view. Things that don\\\'t stand the test of time either don\\\'t work or are fads. Barefoot running just might fit both bills.

@NBenthusias(t),

You are right in that we do wear gloves for conditions of extreme wear or temperature. But, do you wear gloves every time you leave the house? Does your everyday life cause such extreme wear on both hands and feet? I wear shoes in the winter as conditions warrant it, but they are still minimal shoes with very little height difference between forefoot and heel. In warmer weather, I prefer to be even more minimal or even barefoot. I would like to be barefoot as often as I am bare handed, though that does not happen. Do you really wear gloves as often as you wear shoes?

I still disagree with the no-cushion equal no springs. As Da Vinci said, the foot is a masterpiece of engineering and a work of art. You mentioned God creating us barefoot. He also declared the bare foot perfect or very good even without shoes. The many tendons and bones in the foot and legs are the springs. When you lock the knee, you lose much of the built in spring. Try running in place and see if you land with a locked or bent knee and what part of the foot touches down first. Likely, you will land with a bent knee and on mid/forefoot. Bend at the ankles a little and that same action works when moving forward.

You are right in that, regardless of footwear, people's feet do operate. But, there are various levels in what that operation allows. In my particular case, the high heel differential did not just affect how I ran or how I felt when running. The affect was much greater. It determined whether I could run at all. I used to wear NB shoes with a sizable heel differential. I also walked with a cane when I did that. It was only after switching to minimal footwear that I was able to run at all. I am not unique in that this switch has been helpful. I put some of my history in a blog post:

http://www.timbutterfield.com/blog/2010/03/04/back-to-basics/

It is not that I just do not want heavily cushioned shoes. I do not want to give up the mobility going back to them would likely cause.

As I said before, we are all slightly different in our needs and desires. I do not want to deprive anyone of the heavily cushioned shoes they want. But, I, too, would like to have a wider choice, especially as heavily cushioned shoes are just not an option. From the current 'fad', it appears many agree with me.

TButterfield,

No, I don't wear gloves each outing. But neither are people wearing running shoes and running every time they leave the house. You wear the proper gear for any given task. How often is irrelevant. Your proposition doesn't apply.

My discussion is operating on the basis that the common runner - i.e. most runners - need only mild corrective footwear (pronation control, cushioning, fit, etc), if any at all. Your perspective is coming from that of a unique case - closer to anomaly than to mainstream. While this doesn't prove or disprove a point about barefoot running's legitimacy for the largesse of runners (with no significant physical limitations/hinderances), it does simply state that barefoot running is virtually parallel to cushioned running... from someone with running challenges that do not represent the majority and from someone for whom barefoot running has purportedly, specially worked. This doesn't qualify barefoot running as legit nor does it approve barefoot running as a widely usable method.

It's interesting that even though we possess the ability to run, our normal mode of movement is walking - a heel-to-toe footstrike. Running barefoot encourages a forefoot strike but this isn't evidence barefoot is the proper running method. If the forefoot strike is the natural method of running, why does the foot still go heel-to-toe when it is running in standard shoes?

I'm not advocating "heavily" cushioned shoes. Or lightly cushioned shoes. Or advocating at all. I'm proposing that barefoot running is impractical as a standard running method. It causes people to change their footstrike. It removes helpful technology for individuals who need it (pronation control, support, etc). A lot of running shoe choice is about minimizing or eliminating risk - injury risk, poor performance risk. Barefoot running, from where I stand in regards to the studies available, does not minimize or eliminate these risks. It is theory based on a gamble that it improves endurance and mechanical efficiency.

Maybe it is a fad that will go away in time. Maybe it's a niche method for a handful. Based on all that running science has established over the years, barefoot running has no shot at becoming the mainstream method. Again, even though people have varying types of feet, the basic mechanics of the foot still apply to each of us. Running injuries or poor running efficiency is almost always credited to the runner's own physical limitations, not to their footwear. Shoes that are well suited to a person's feet don't hinder performance or cause injury. Barefoot running, however, invites problems rather than solves them: increases injury risk, eliminates helpful correction for many (for whom a lack of tech would cripple their already poor efficiency), and promotes a footstrike change that may or may not monkeywrench people's running gaits.

I'm not sure about that. I used to wear NB running shoes every time I left the house, though I was not running. I would guess the vast majority of NB running shoes are not used for running, but for casual activity. That is what I was getting at. It is not just a specific activity, but any activity. NB has many varieties of shoes. Unfortunately, none appear to be sufficiently minimal.

Just watch a child run to see that the barefoot running form is not impractical. It is the natural, default running form. It was only by adding cushioned heels that the locked knee heel strike form became possible. That 30 year fad has been propagated by marketing PR. To my knowledge, no study has been done claiming it is better or better for you. Maybe that fad will go away in time.

While I may be an edge case, it does not diminish that going minimal has allowed me to function. A great many people are finding they also function better with a change similar to mine. That is why there is so much talk of it as a fad. If it were not being done, there would be much less talk of it.

I have supported NB in the past because they actually make some shoes in the US. If NB could make a minimalist shoe in the US, I would consider buying some.

As I indicated, appropriate attire or gear for any given task either protects or enhances.

I disagree - bare is the natural state of the foot and the foot may behave a certain way when it is both bare and running, but running barefoot is not the optimized method. Humans are created with the ABILITY to run but are not meant to constantly and consistently run for long periods of time. If so, we'd all be running everywhere we went, all the time. When you put a foot into a cushioned sneaker, it takes advantage of the cushioning. There is no downside to this. There is, however, downsides to barefoot running, of which increased wear and stress are two.

And you are mistaken about the "locked knee heel" strike for heel-toe. Heel-toe is a fluid transition; forefoot absorbs impact with the upper leg, knee, and lower leg all locked in at an angle. To run barefoot as a constant form, notice the tensing of the tendons and muscles in and around the knee. Imagine repeating that for thousands of miles of running. Not good. It's asking for broken down knees prematurely. You won't find that happening in heel-toe.

Let's be blunt here. It's literally impractical to barefoot run for most people, in most environs, on most terrains. Vibrams aren't going to cut it on trail runs. Or on winter morning asphalt jogs. Or in marathons or uneven surface races. To say that heel-toe running is PR marketing concoction is laughable. Millions around the world have been running heel-toe in appropriately cushioned shoes from NB, Asics, Brooks, etc for decades now - without issue, mind you - and that's a PR invention? When barefoot running has essentially just arrived as an idea? Might wanna re-think that. Yes, plenty of time has been put into the heel-toe - how to encourage a more fluid transition, what cushioning properties to pair with it. Why do you think all the top running companies spend so much time refining their top offerings and tailoring them to suit the needs and method MOST runners? Ask renowned triathlete Conrad Stoltz if he helped design his Avia 2124's for barefoot or heel-toe. Anyone who's seen or run in this shoe knows the answer quickly.

Good for you that b.f. running has been effective. I don't doubt others' enthusiasm for it as well. And fads are brief, fringe interests that don't sustain. There's chatter over b.f. running because it's a new idea. Crystal Pepsi was a new idea once, too.

You can't usurp what works and has worked, successfully, for decades.

Decades, all three of them, the success of which is unproven when it comes to footwear. The billions invested have resulted in more mobility problems than ever.

Our natural ability is frequently trumped by our laziness. We like things soft and cushy, just like our recliners. The downside is the current condition of the majority of the US population. The general health and fitness of the majority of the US population is not improving. While modern medicine is better, as a society, we are more overweight and out of shape than ever before.

As for the long term effects, witness the Tarahumara who run this way well into old age. In general, our society of cushioned shoe wearers cannot say the same. Sure, this is one example. I am not sure how many shod societies can match the unshod into old age.

It was not b.f. that has been effective for me, it was the switch to a minimal shoe. B.f. just happens to mesh well with that. Since you mentioned food, I will end my commenting on this thread with that. I view regular cushioned shoes as junk food for our feet. Sure, lots of people use it, have been using it for a long time, but the benefits are unproven. Like footwear, many claim the use is harmful. Many others do not see the problem. The popularity of something does not prove its benefit. Given a choice, I will try to wear healthy.

I'm confused why NBenthusiast feels this is such a new concept, and why people who want a minimal shoe with a flat sole don't feel they have choices. The following article is from Wikipedia under "racing flats".

"Racing flats, or simply flats, are lightweight athletic shoes designed for long distance track and field, cross country, and most often, road races. They differ from normal training shoes mainly by the lack of a substantial heel (hence the name). They are also a great deal less durable and typically last half to a quarter of the distance of a normal training shoe (125-250 miles or 200-400 kilometers). The removal of the heel in racing flats has 4 principal effects: weight reduction, better foot to ground power transfer, providing less support and giving less cushioning. These features allow a runner to race more efficiently.

Racing flats differ from spikes in several ways. First, there are no holes for metal pins in the shoes. Second, flats do not have a particularly aggressive tread (shoes that have very aggressive treads but no holes for pins are sometimes called 'racers'). Third, flats are designed for only long distance races (although they can be used for short races to no ill effect), whereas spikes are designed for short middle or long distance depending on the shoe. Popular examples of racing flats include the Saucony Type A3, Saucony Fastwitch, Nike Zoom Streak, Nike Zoom Marathoner, Nike Lunaracer, Nike Mayfly, Adidas Adizero PR, Adizero RC, Asics DS racer, Asics Piranha, and numerous others.

Because of the lack of support and cushioning, racing flats are typically not recommended as a daily training shoe. However, studies have suggested that some running injuries can occur as a result of the significant arch support and cushioning found in "traditional" running shoes. This is mainly because of the use of correctional shoes for people who don't need them. As a result, a small number of runners train and race exclusively in racing flats. This is known as minimalism.

The benefits of racing flats are most evident in their weight. Most weigh less than 9 oz., thus making it easier for a runner to run a long distance race without being weighed down. If one trains in heavier, cushioned shoes, the change to lightweight racing flats give the sensation of the runner's legs being almost weightless. During the course of several miles, that feeling benefits the runner both physically and mentally."

In other words, it does not seem like a new concept. Elite runners have been doing this for a long time.

Butterfield,

Clearly you're locked into your mindset/beliefs on what works. I'm going on results. Cushioned running works. It works for an array for feet, body sizes/types, and running gaits. It works on asphalt, concrete, trail, and mountain. Please, feel free to tell NB, Asics, Brooks, Saucony, and Avia that all their years of proven technology, refinement of that technology, and research mean nothing and aren't "healthy". Really, don't hesitate to do that. I'm sure they're eager to hear how running in aqua socks is superior to their cushioning and support systems that have specifically been designed to protect and enhance the foot's mechanics.

You claim cushioned shoes have resulted in "mobility problems"? There are no problem shoes, only problem feet. Shoes can be made to accommodate any foot. Feet, however, cannot accommodate just any shoe. You cite foot problems from cushioned shoes? I cite improper footwear choices. I cite naturally inefficient running gaits. You really musn't imply that all feet are perfect machines thrown out of wack by mean old traditional footwear.

As I said, it's all about results. Let's examine the 3 recent decades of running, as you mentioned. What's prevailed throughout that time? Lightweight cushioning and stability tech. Your "Americans are lazy" claim has nothing to do with sensibly employing the appropriate cushioning in footwear. With already dozens of running footwear configurations and developments for so many foot corrections, you can't seriously suggest stripping all of that away from people who need it and suggest barefoot to them, which would make their current situations 10x worse.

You talk of cushioned shoe benefits being unproven. Let's, for sake of argument, say they are unproven. What is proven is that those under/over pronators and those with additional gait-impairing characteristics would be either worse off trying to run or unable to run at all without the tech you talk down. If decades of cushioning benefits are unproven, barefoot running is amateur hour, quite frankly. I'm prefectly content to let the barefoot running enigma play out. Reality will make the call on it soon enough.

@Interested, barefoot running is a new concept in terms of the attempt to introduce it on a large scale. I have no problem with flats, as they still have a measure of structure and cushioning, even if minimal. I've owned and worn out New Balance's RC 550 racing flat. Liked it very much. As you wrote, some foot injuries that have occured were the result of footwear ill-suited to those particular feet. If people would only take the time to *******yze their own foot needs and find the right shoe for those needs...

Regarding the comment to find the right shoe for your needs... the reason I found this discussion is because I was researching shoes and as part of that stopped by a NB company store in an affluent area. While I was browsing a man came in and picked out two very nice looking $140 shoes to look at. He asked the salesman which ones he would recommend. The salesman asked "What are you going to do with them?", to which the customer replied maybe a little running but mainly to lift weights at the gym. The salesman replied that if that was the case either would be fine, as if either was more than he needed.

Two comments. There was no determination if he needed motion control or cushioning, and there was no examining wear patterns on an old pair of shoes. If he did do a little running, they may have been the wrong shoe. If he were to do 500 pound squats at the gym in highly cushioned pronation control shoes, I'm pretty sure thay would have been the wrong shoe. But they sure did look nice, which is part of the marketing.

But NBE, you have to admit that it's hard to compare 3 decades of running shoe development with millions of years of the development of the human foot. Clearly, running in traditional running shoes DOES work for most people. But I would suggest that we can't say with certainty that it's the best way to run - not that minimalist running obviously is either (although it's undeniably the more natural way to run and proof to my mind that there is nothing inherently flawed with the human foot, which is the implicit *******umption behind the design of running shoes).

What I find so compelling about minimalist running is that I did not need to consult with a shoe-fitting expert about the proper product or products. I did not risk getting improperly fitted or diagnosed. I just started running. And in doing so I built up the structures within my body that are designed for long distance endurance running (read Brains, Brawn, and the Evolution of Human Endurance Running Capabilities by Lieberman and others again - re: your comment a couple posts above about how humans are "not meant to constantly and consistently run for long periods of time" - apparently, we are.). I am wonderfully free from worry about whether my shoes have flattened out, whether the anti-pronator device has blown out, or whatever. At this point in my running career (who knows, it could change), I don't know what a traditional running shoe could offer me.

RE: "Vibrams aren't going to cut it on trail runs. Or on winter morning asphalt jogs. Or in marathons or uneven surface races" But they do. For lots of people. For the record, I have been running quite comfortably this winter in Anchorage in a pair of Feelmax Niesas.

@Interested - there you have it. Failure on the saleperson's part and on the customer's part. There's a prevailing thinking out there that anything remotely considered "athletic" footwear not only works for everybody's feet but is OK to use for any given activity. Steel-toed construction boots would hold up thru any athletic abuse you could throw at 'em but of course they're a competely ridiculous choice for anything but construction. People's lack of critical thinking skills and decision-making is a huge reason why they're getting injuries and blaming it on a particular shoe or brand. The blame is on themselves.

@Evan - I don't see the timeframe the human foot has existed in has anything to do with running, actually. The which-ones-been-around-longer argument doesn't prove superiority of one over the other, as I think you indicated. As an aside, I don't believe in evolution so theories in that vein are lost on me. I know what God's done with the foot - I know how it works and how it behaves with respect to the footwear or lack thereof around it. The adjustment of footstrike from cushioned to barefoot says nothing of which is better, it just reveals how God made the foot adaptable. The main issue with barefoot is not the toll on the foot but the realignment and position of the leg above it. Maybe it's a non-issue for some and a problem for others. Based on my study, however, barefoot works for a select minority number of runners, just as there is a certain number of biomechanically optimized, pronation neutral runners. The debate is whether or not barefoot can parallel or replace cushioned running as THE running method. And the debate continues. It becomes a your-word-against-mine thing because there are cases to be made on both sides. I happen to think, based on results and the foot's capabilities, that cushioned running will remain the default running mode. It's just been proven to work for too long for too many people to, all of the sudden, be debunked.

@NBEnthusiast

I'm getting old now, but I did run cross country in high school in 1969, before Bill Bowerman made his first pair of Nike's in his wife's waffle iron and NB had 6 employees. Yes, both companies have been very successful since then, but I also remember the cross country meets where I had my Adidas trainers and the star athletes reached into their gym bags for their racing flats. I also remember the 1968 Olympics where video of Kip Keino training by running barefoot through Kenya was shown. The announcers made a big deal of his running barefoot, but he did win Olympic gold.

Just remember what you told me above. "People's lack of critical thinking skills and decision-making is a huge reason why they're getting injuries". I think all some minimalist runners are doing is exercising their "critical thinking skills and decision-making" skills as to what works best for them.

NBEnthusiast,
Even if you believe in a young earth, that still puts upwards of 10000 years against your 30 that people have been running with no or minimalist footwear. Millenia of a mode of running that's proven itself quite acceptable. Maybe all I can hope you might agree to is this, that heel striking and cushioned running only exist because of shoe companies. If shoes with cushioned heels were never invented, we would still all be running the way all people on the planet who grow up unshod learn to run from infancy. But at this stage of the game there is so much inertia (read: money) behind the idea of running shoes, it's unlikely to give way either very quickly or very quietly. I don't accept the idea that minimalist running will only work for a small select group of people. On the contrary, I think it might be completely acceptable, if preferable, if not much more enjoyable (based on my personal history - I would never had gotten interested in running again if I stuck with traditional running shoes) for a great many people. Unfortunately, shoe companies are, for the most part, going to make it hard for a lot of people to discover that on their own.

@Interested - Good for those people. I should only hope it doesn't result in structural damage or arthritis down the road. Time, and research, will tell.

@Evan - I understand what you're saying. I just don't see eye to eye with it. My take on the foot is that it switches to forefoot strike when barefoot running to protect the heel, which has much less padding than the forefoot. You'll notice a natural heel-toe strike when walking barefoot, as it is more efficient for the foot to bear the weight that way. Essentially, the barefoot forefoot strike is a protection reaction, not the inherently optimum strike it's being made out to be. I really look forward to much more research on both running iterations.

You're critical of shoe companies but there are scores of people over many, many years whose foot ailments have been mitigated or eliminated via cushioned tech. And, as I said earlier, it is a challenge for many to run just under those circumstances. Imagine recommending they run barefoot. They'd promptly find a sofa and park. Far more good has come from appropriate cushioning than hasn't. Nothing is perfect in the world. But the results are on cushioning's side.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1170253/The-painful-truth-trainers-Are-expensive-running-shoes-waste-money.html

I have been a heel-striker for the past two years that I've been running and in the last two weeks, have been adjusting to forefoot strikes. The early example of the shock absorber/spring is clarified like this: if your legs are a shock absorber and your leg muscles/tendons/ligaments are the springs, then landing heel-first basically decreases the length of your shock absorber. If your legs are, say, 32" long, and your foot is about 12" long, then you could actually have 44" of shock absorption as opposed to 32". However, even then, it is not merely length; the foot itself contains much more cushioning ability in the arch, the parts of the foot itself, so in terms of percentages, you are really removing a lot of the natural shock absorption abilities that your body has. for myself, I've gotten stronger by running on my forefeet; new muscles are being strengthened that I didn't use previously. Imagine you are doing calf-raises like in a gym, except you are doing them step-by-step, miles at a time. it is fairly obvious the performance advantage after your legs have built up the strength to support forefoot running. Makes sense, right? And when you look at track sprinters, do they ever land on their heels or are they on their toes?

Regarding barefoot itself; indeed the only reason you need to land on your forefeet is because landing on your heels would suck. but with the right flats, you can reap all the benefits of barefoot, without actually going barefoot. I recommend anyone to simply run around the block on your forefeet; that initial pain is not biomechanics gone wrong, it is your body telling you that your muscles are weak in those areas and you need to work on them.

I agree with many of TButterfield's points, who had the patience to go round-for-round with NBenthusiast; in the end if is some laziness enabled by the existing paradigm of heavily cushioned shoes that will continue to support that style of shoe; recognizing not that forefoot strikes are a fad but a rediscovery of the way things were will certainly help companies in the future.

For all the commenters in this thread, especially those unfamiliar with how forefoot strikes actually feel, just try it out in your existing shoes and you'll see the difference. As someone else mentioned, start slow, start with low mileage; I am considering my switch to be a complete restart. And, for scientific evidence, please check out the scientific data that the article in Nature was based on. Lots of video, data, etc.

http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/

“Teens Exercise Support of the Arts at the LA Marathon 5K”

On Saturday, March 20, 2010, teenagers Natalie Resendiz and Guillermo Hernandez will be walking in the LA Marathon Charity 5K starting at Dodger Stadium, in order to raise funds in support of Inside Out Community Arts, a non-profit that provides free after-school arts programs for under-served and under-privileged youth throughout Los Angeles.

Natalie and Guillermo will be representing thousands of youths whose lives have been changed by Inside Out over the past 15 years. Inside Out uses the arts as a vehicle toward personal empowerment, community betterment, and accessing strategies for future success for all its participants.

Please help Los Angeles youth keep the integral, transformative power of the arts alive! Sponsor Natalie or Guillermo at http://tinyurl.com/iocalam


CONTACT: Varina Bleil, Executive Director, Inside Out Community Arts

Varina.bleil@insideoutca.org or 310-397-8820 x110

@Interested - that's nothing more than a sales job, a point of view at best. Just like this is a point of view: http://www.runningbarefootisbad.com/about/

If barefoot running is the clear choice, countless millions would've been running that way for decades now. It would be mainstream. If there's a new funky and effective way for people to do something, they'll do it. Funny how barefoot has never caught on as a credible method with most runners. And aside from day-to-day runners, look at the professional runners, the real athletes. How many are going barefoot in competition? Needle in a haystack numbers.

Oh, but those wily shoe companies! They've pulled one over on us for years with all that heel cushioning! Just making money!

Really? You don't think they know how the foot works? If forefoot strikes were the natural norm, don't you think they would've just designed shoes to encourage and enhance that? They'd make just as much money. And I don't hear rumbling across the country, or world for that matter, of people up in arms that they've been lied to about their shoes and how to run. It just isn't reality. Again, let's just fly in the face of not one, not two, not three, not four, but multiple shoe companies who've been developing and studying for years, who know way more about the foot than you or I. Perhaps we should equip cars with wooden wagon wheels instead of traditional rubber tires. After all, the wagon wheels would allow us to travel more naturally, both material-wise and ride-wise.

We're not going to convince each other of anything, frankly. You're a barefoot believer. I'm not at all. I think barefooters are playing with fire. And the shoe-runners-have-more-injuries thing is BS. Yeah, shoes caused that - pay no attention to the individual's physical conditional, running gaits, running surface, etc.

@avisualperson

"I agree with many of TButterfield's points, who had the patience to go round-for-round with NBenthusiast; in the end if is some laziness enabled by the existing paradigm of heavily cushioned shoes that will continue to support that style of shoe; recognizing not that forefoot strikes are a fad but a rediscovery of the way things were will certainly help companies in the future."

Of course you think Butterfield's right. You came in agreeing with his position. "Patience" Ha. "Laziness enabled by heavily cushioned shoes" In any fad, the groupthink mentality of "We're more advanced with what we're doing" is laughable.

As I said, folks. Let the research play out. You'll be proven wrong. I won't laugh. Seriously, I won't.

Oh, one more thing.

Take a look at other sports with plenty of running; Basketball, Football, Soccer.

Heard any complaints from those athletes? Seen a minimalist movement in those sports?

Didn't think so.

Carry on.

NBenthusiast,

what did you think of the research that was performed on the harvard site? and, have you tried a forefoot strike before?

bringing up other sports is very funny:
basketball is not running so much as pivoting constantly with sprinting in between; same goes for football so shoes for those sports are about lateral stability (and grip on the playing surfaces). for basketball specifically, when it comes to jumping, do you land on your heels or your toes? regarding soccer, you are kicking a ball with your feet. you need to protect the feet from that contact. but looking at the profiles of soccer shoes, they are indeed flat.

@NBenthusiast,

I was not going to comment again, but you are guilty of the exact thing you accuse others of.

"You came in agreeing with his position." "a sales job, a point of view at best" With a handle of "shoe company enthusiast", you came in disagreeing with a position and dismissing valid research. It is not surprising that shoe companies feel threatened. After all, they have been marketing built up shoes for decades.

"Let the research play out." Though you dismiss it, it already is playing out. But, please, show us the research showing shoes are better, provided such a thing even exists. There have been decades to perform the shoe research. Where are the results? If they exist, they are hidden for fear of their effect on the market. If not that, why is it hidden?

"www.runningbarefootisbad.com" This site appears to be run by RoadRunnerSports (first link on "shop" page), a running shoe retailer who has demonstrated they feel threatened by minimalist footwear.

"If barefoot running is the clear choice, countless millions would've been running that way for decades now." Actually, they do. They just don't do it in this country where marketing/PR is so wide spread. Just look to where the fastest runners are coming from for more examples. Of course, once someone pays them to, they convert to shoes to fuel the PR machine.

"I won't laugh. Seriously, I won't." I am not laughing, either. I just feel pity for you. It must be terrible to feel as threatened as you come across.

@avisualperson - I didn't think anything of the Harvard study. Anyone can do a "study". And fudge facts to promote an ideology. Think the man-man global warming hoax.

Yeah, other sports run but the run differently. Ok, buddy.

@butterfield - Please. Really, please. The thin "It's all PR/Show me how cushioned is better" is interllectually dishonest at this point. Marketing is enslaving running now? Is that what your debate has come to? Who is this silent majority of barefoot runners you believe is out there?

There isn't evidence to prove cushioned is better than barefoot or vice versa. It's not there. My contention the whole time is that cushioned running is a time-tested, widely-used-without-issue method. Running shoes aren't preventing m*******es from running. Running shoe companies do not exist explicitly to manufacture specific products for a specific purpose that don't work.

You went from posting a simple argument for your side to intellectual snobbery. I should think it's unfortunate to whiz all over your points by ending it with a "pity" line.

You know, I've realized something about this topic that I should have at the beginning, and that if I had, I wouldn't have bothered to post at all. The realization - or reminder - is this: The pro-barefoot debate isn't about science. It isn't about proving a "better" method. It isn't about honesty. It's about ideology. It's about a belief in something. It's about how it makes people "feel". Just like recycling or driving a Prius. It doesn't save the earth, it just makes people think they are, which makes them feel better or smarter. That's the pro-barefoot debate in a nutshell.

There are two excellent pictures of the two best womens marathoners in the world, Paula Radcliffe and Catherine Ndereba, on the wikipedia listing for Marathon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon ). They show the form of a highly trained world cl******* athlete, and neither looks like they heel strike. Unfortunately, most non-professional runners do not get that kind of training.

I looked at the runningbarefootisbad website, and though the headlines were provocative, I thought the text sounded like one person ranting that all the research was stupid and flawed. There were many studies in Christopher McDougall's book that did not sound stupid.

I do not go barefoot, but I do buy minimalist footwear. I went to the NB store to see the MT100s and it turns out the retail locations do not stock them, but they did have a lot of the soft and thick kind. My thinking is along the lines of the Stanford coach, less is more.

Most things in life are idealogical. Take the current healthcare debate, the facts are that healthcare is expensive and that people without healthcare are dying. How to best fix it is highly controversial. The fact in this forum is that runners still get injured even after buying expensive running shoes, how to fix that has been highly controversial in this forum.

@Interested

"Take the current healthcare debate, the facts are that healthcare is expensive and that people without healthcare are dying. How to best fix it is highly controversial. The fact in this forum is that runners still get injured even after buying expensive running shoes."

The "people without healthcare are dying" thing is a lie and you know it. Go to any emergency room in this country - no one is being denied care. Britain and similar counties, where the 6-week wait for a CAT scan can mean death, is where people are dying from lack of healthcare. Just as I said, ideology - blind allegiance to pervasive myths, beliefs, etc.

And don't play off a few injuries that cannot be conclusively attributed to footwear as "runners still get injured" - as if it's an epidemic.

So you think that a person without health insurance is likely to be diagnosed with a partial arterial blockage? And if they were, can turn up at an emergency room for free stents?

You seem to disagree with the study that 45 to 85 percent of runners get injured every year, and the Bern study that found that the more expensive the shoe the more likely the possibility of injury. Just remember, it is the running shoe companies that market their shoes as medical devices. Quaker had to take heart healthy and lowers cholesterol off their cereal boxes unless they wanted to be regulated like a drug company. The government frowns on unproven medical claims being used for marketing. Shoes are a gray area the government has let operate with relative freedom. I think people here are looking for honest help, and not be sold 'multi-angled forefoot gel pods' and 'midfoot thrust enhancers' unless they really help. And if less is more, they should go there too. And they should back it up with some serious research, because they are selling medical devices.

NBenthusiast,

if you think global warming is a hoax, then I think I understand your point of view that much better. interesting that you think feelings and beliefs are not important to runners' success.

For those of you who actually are interested in peer reviewed research/articles, this Runner's World forum post has the names of many: http://tinyurl.com/yaqm3cg

@NBenthusiast, Don't bother. We know your mind is already made up. Your contentions runs counter to the evidence of studies done. Perhaps that is why you dismiss them so easily, not with data, but with diatribe. As for my prior "pity" line, it was genuine. To think of having such fear makes me literally shudder. I am not afraid of what is happening. I have nothing to hide. Unlike you, I am using my real name here and have linked to my personal web site. Unlike your claim, this is not about an ideology. We are not trying to save the planet. We are only trying to save our own bodies. Many people, myself included, simply cannot run in overbuilt shoes. When they find alternatives, they find they can run again or run without the pain they once experienced. You claim to want critical thinking and then complain when it happens. People are asking questions of what they have been led to believe and you are getting upset. Make up your mind.

@Interested -

“So you think that a person without health insurance is likely to be diagnosed with a partial arterial blockage? And if they were, can turn up at an emergency room for free stents?”

Nope. Immediate care will never be denied. What you’re referring to is universal health care, in which my tax dollars go towards providing health care for people who can’t/won’t buy it. No thanks. I make my own way in life and everyone else should too.

No, I don’t agree with that study. And no, shoes aren’t marketed as medical devices. They’re marketed as support aid, not podiatrist-fashioned/recommended prescriptions.

@avisualperson -

Man-made global warming is a hoax. Natural warming and cooling trends do exist. That’s the state of the earth’s climate. Period.

In regards to feeling and beliefs per running shoes, I suppose if a runner has convinced themselves that running on slats of pine is his/her optimum mode of transport, that’s a right they have. But there is a line between reasonable/sensible and purposely bucking convention for the sake of it.

@Butterfield -

You speak from what works for you personally. Cite 1 million pro-barefoot “studies” and there’s 1 million pro-heel strike “studies” to match them. There’s theoretical information out there for both sides but that’s about it at this point. I haven’t cited studies for the fact that they are inconclusive. Remember the peanut-butter-causes-cancer allegation some years back? The barefoot debate falls into what I view is that crackpot-esque science category ultimately. You disagree - fair enough. You lampoon me for having my “mind made up” but your mind is made up about barefoot. The difference between you and I in this debate is that, sans inconclusive studies, I tend to go on what works, at least for me, and cushioned running has had a ton more research and time put into it than barefoot. Cushioned doesn’t work for some people? Encourages injuries for some people? It’s not for them then, and they need to figure something else out. At the end of the day, this is what we know: a majority of runners run cushioned/heel strike, some run barefoot/minimalist, and some runners aren’t made for cushioned/heel strike and some runners aren’t made for barefoot/minimalist. But the whole barefoot-is-the-superior/revolutionary-method mentality has got to stop. There’s no evidence for or against it. You try to bomb-throw the word fear (that makes you “literally shudder"? I hope that's hyperbole. If not, yikes) in a petty attempt to elevate yourself and insulate yourself from criticism but it’s a worthless ploy. My take is a “diatribe”? I guess that goes well with your trifling commentary. And I applaud you for using your “real name” on an NB message board. Make sure to inform everyone else who’s posted here under created screen names that they too are “hiding”. I’m sure that’s precisely what they’re doing. Either that or they don’t give a damn.

@TButterfield

You were right, don't feed the troll :-)

@Interested

Hey pal, you guys are the wackos. I came in here with a valid point of view, whereas you people have offered nothing but blind allegiance to an unproven theory and snobbery.

In other words, you've lost. Simple as that.

@NBenthusiast

I see, this was about insulting everybody here so you could "win". Actually New Balance lost, because I won't do business with a company that lets fanboys use their forums to treat people like you have.

@Interested

I didn't insult anyone. You cannot take a shot at someone and not expect a reaction. It's unfortunate you've chosen to look at the debate negatively. I don't think using the word "troll" when there's honest points being made on both sides helps the discussion. You and Butterfield may thank yourselves for lowering the discourse. It's been made clear that if one doesn't accept your support of barefoot on face value, or disagrees with you period, here comes the condescension.

The "NB" in my screen name could mean anything; don't make *******umptions.

I stand by my commentary on the subject. If how I approached that commentary was off-putting to anyone, I apologize.

@NBenthusiast,

"you guys are the wackos" "I didn't insult anyone." Right. Please read your words again.

"blind allegiance" Those are your words, but apply them to yourself. Inconclusive or not, studies still provide data each of us can *******yze for ourselves. There are many studies supporting one view. If there are issues with them, show it and refute them. You have said there are studies supporting the other, but refuse to provide them. I do not know of any such studies being published, but if you can provide evidence instead of conjecture, I am willing to listen. That is hardly blind allegiance.

"In other words, you've lost. Simple as that." You speak as if some big change has just occurred, but declaration does not make fact. It is also not clear exactly what was supposedly lost. My feet still feel okay. People can still chose for themselves. If nothing else, you may give some a reason to look just to see what all of the fuss is about.

Hindsight is 20/20. The discussion in this thread turned out worthless to me, save for one thing. I realized that I don't care how people run, or what they wear or don't wear when they do. It was my mistake to engage. It was also perhaps a reminder that there are wiser choices to made with time than posting on a little-read message board about something that isn't exactly atom splitting.

Best wishes all.