barefootrunner.com : natural running & healthy living

Skora releases concept of minimal running shoe

David — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 22:24:58 +0000

For those that haven’t subscribed to receive newsletters from Skora then we posted it here.

Consumers saying “no more” to Motion Control running shoes

David — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:43:57 +0000

June 2009 retail figures* are showing that:

‘Motion Control’ shoe sales fell 13%, ‘Stability’ shoe sales fell 2%,

while ‘Neutral’ cushioned running shoe sales increased by 16%.

I think this is much more than seasonal trend, it’s proof that consumers and runners alike are searching for shoes that are ‘less‘ rather than ‘more’.

In a related post on Time, Christopher McDougall shares that not a single running shoe company has reached out to him since his book, Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen dropped. Are you listening shoe companies?

* Source

You’re incapable. Hail the running shoe!

David — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:00:00 +0000

I find it amusing yet disturbing how mainstream running footwear brands try to enforce their belief that there’s something wrong with your body. Somehow you’re born with deficiencies that prevent you to run, thanks to running shoes a remedy was found. Too funny!

ESPN poll suggests 1 in 3 people would run barefoot

David — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:48:36 +0000

ESPN recently conducted an informal poll asking:

“A recent theory in the running world proposes that running without shoes is better for you. Would you consider running barefoot?”

The result? The average from coast-to-coast shows 34% would give it a try…

Below are the results from over 6,000 respondents across the country. Quite promising data despite nearly 40 years of ’shoe technology’ marketing. More detail (per State) after the jump.

Baring your sole

David — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:53:51 +0000

[Image courtesy: mikebaird] |
Original post by STEVE KILGALLON - Sunday Star Times

Thirty years ago, the modern running shoe was invented. Since then, running-related injuries have risen. And so a growing movement of runners are taking to the streets barefoot.

Perhaps no man has had more positive influence upon running than Arthur Lydiard. Yet you could, perversely, almost blame the Kiwi master-coach for the pernicious rise of the modern, high-technology running shoe even though Lydiard’s cadre of world-class runners trained only in canvas plimsolls.

American Bill Bowerman ran with Lydiard in the early 1970s, and returned home inspired to experiment with his wife’s waffle iron to create the first Nike running shoe. Lydiard was aghast; he thought such footwear would cause injuries and poor technique. And as with so many other things, Lydiard, it appears, was ahead of his time.

Since 2002, the 30th anniversary of the first Nike, and driven by statistics showing an alarming rise in running-related foot, ankle and knee injuries, a fringe community of runners have been rejecting shoes altogether and going barefoot.

Now it threatens to go mainstream, and the mad movement’s reluctant prophet is a very sane running writer, Chris MacDougall, whose story of conversion to barefoot theology makes inspiring reading. His manifesto appears in his new book, Born to Run, in which he writes: “Blaming the running injury epidemic on big, bad Nike seems too easy but that’s OK, because there’s a lot to throw at them”. He says the book sits 13th on the US bestseller lists.

Six months ago, sick of constant muscle soreness in my hips and adductors which stopped me running the big miles I wanted to, I began visiting a sports biomechanist called (ironically) Greg Pain.

Pain, who runs Auckland clinic BioSport, is a running heretic. He thinks 98% of people run wrongly and blames a Western culture which encourages us to take cars, buses and trains and sit at desks when we should be running and walking. He believes it causes us to become unbalanced, with overdeveloped thighs and hips which take on too much work and eventually lead to injury.

He reconstructed my unique running style, which resembled an old lady chasing a bus while carrying four bags of shopping. Now I run straight-backed, with shorter strides, tensing my core muscles, `firing’ my gluteals (bum muscles) and hamstrings to flick my heels behind me to get more kick. I’m faster, more efficient and injury-free.

A lot of what Pain and MacDougall say seems to fit. I threw Born to Run to Pain a fortnight ago. It was his Archimedes in the bathtub moment. “It’s a great book,” he says. “It challenges the way we wear shoes the way we do; even more so, it challenges our lifestyle.” Ten days later, we went barefoot running.

As we trot through central Auckland, Greg spots two blokes looking at us as “if we were idiots”. We pass a woman who gives me the disgusted glance you might cast at someone who allows their dog to foul the pavement and doesn’t pick it up. We may be New Zealand’s early-adopters: I suspect there aren’t many other blokes running around the city without shoes.

But they all laughed when Christopher Columbus said the world was round. This may be the future. It certainly seems to work. It’s amazing how your stride immediately, unconsciously, changes when you run barefoot. It becomes shorter, choppier and lighter: something Pain preaches because it cuts the stress on your feet.

In shoes, you almost always land on your heel, where the manufacturers place the most padding. Barefoot, you land on the natural cushion of your mid-foot. It’s not painful, but you do feel every footfall, and not every surface is created equal: I found the dark asphalt of the road itself the best. In the interests of science, we burst across a muddy park. It’s very tactile: like squeezing jelly between your fingers. I like it. So does Greg.

On the phone from the US, MacDougall explains. “The foot is the greatest disciplinarian. You can’t over-pronate, can’t over-train, can’t over-stride … if you do anything wrong, the foot will tell you `uh uh, don’t do that’. Shoes are like morphine: a sedative that deadens the pain.”

Because the foot tells you how to run, MacDougall says anyone can make the transition within three weeks. He offers a few tips, then adds: “I still feel definitely the student here, not the master; very grudgingly I will give people a couple of pointers. I didn’t feel qualified to at first, but I found it is so easy, there is little to teach.”

The science behind MacDougall’s claims is impressive, led by a Newcastle University (Australia) study which found no evidence-based research to show high-tech running shoes are in any way beneficial.

MacDougall’s thesis boils down to this: the best shoes are the worst (one report suggested you are 123% more likely to sustain injury in more expensive shoes, because they offer too much support); feet like impact (and “it’s preposterous to think that half an inch of rubber is going to make a difference” when 12 times your bodyweight pounds through them); and finally, that humans are designed to run shoeless, and shoes weaken you. He cites one doctor who describes them having the same wasting effect as plaster casts.

Pain says the common ankle, back and knee problems his clients arrive with support these theories and says the shoeless science makes “perfect sense”, although he’d only use barefoot running as a measured part of training.

Born to Run isn’t just an anti-Nike manifesto. It’s also a fantastic tale of a reclusive tribe of Mexican Indians, the Tarahumara, who embark on two-day trail-race adventures wearing home-made leather sandals. It’s the story of how MacDougall and a group of crack ultra-runners tracked them down to engage in an epic desert ultra-race. It’s how the experience changed them all, and how MacDougall learned from them exactly how to run. The Tarahumura, incidentally, are aware of their subsequent impact on the running community, but, says MacDougall, don’t care. “It’s irrelevant to them; like talking about Hollywood to the Amish.”

The most extreme of the book’s ultra-runners is ‘Barefoot’ Ted MacDonald. By email, he says he doesn’t think the movement will threaten the shoe giants. “Threaten, no. Allow 1000 blossoms to bloom, yes. I am not dogmatically barefoot, even though I think it is the best. I have no problem endorsing companies making minimal shoes and not telling me I’m broken by design.”

MacDougall, meanwhile, who ironically only began barefooting after the epic race (pushed into it by a broken toe) is now a devotee. Has it made him a better runner?

“I see it differently than I would’ve a few years ago. If I could do a 3:59:59, instead of a four-hour, marathon, that was better. Now I couldn’t give a shit about that 1sec. Better to me means I don’t ever get hurt, I enjoy it, and I never dread it.”

New documentaries examining America’s food system

David — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:35:27 +0000

Original post: good.is by Peter Smith

There’s a bumper crop of new documentaries examining America’s food system. Here’s a sampler.

The slurping of ramen in Tampopo makes me want to run out to the noodle bar. Mario’s Italian food in Mostly Martha turns even humble, dried pasta into something sensuous and ripe with meaning. From Pulp Fiction’s “Royale with Cheese” dialogue to the butter scene in Last Tango in Paris, food has often played a supporting role in movies. Just think about the Reese’s Pieces in E.T., the pie-eating contest in Stand By Me, Lelaina’s snack food subsistence in Reality Bites, or the opening fish preparation scene in Eat Drink Man Woman.

This summer, however, food is taking the lead in a cornucopia of documentaries hitting the big screen, the festival circuit, and the DVD aisle. They tend to offer something considerably less sweet than the familiar food-infused cinematic concoctions. The filmmakers show us again and again just how disgusting eating has become. This crop seems to follow the tradition of narrative exposés like Fast Food Nation and Humane Society’s downer cow video. Here’s a look at what’s coming up.

Food, Inc.

Director Robert Kenner manages to depict what’s wrong with the food system in 93 minutes with the help of authors Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser. Kenner explores the consequences of the industrial food system with infographics and devastating personal stories, including those of a mother who lost her 2-year-old son because of an E. coli-contaminated hamburger and a Mexican-American family that opts for fast food because it seems cheaper than fresh vegetables.

The film also hints at the brighter side of the food system, from organic yogurt pioneer Gary Hirshberg’s attempts to go big by getting his products into Wal-Mart to proclamations about good food from Joel Salatin, the celebrated farmer from Polyface Farm in Virginia. The scenes from Salatin’s chicken slaughtering yard, an investigation into workers’ rights, and a companion book gives this film something for everyone—from neophytes to food policy wonks.

Watch the trailer. (In select cities June 12).

The Greenhorns

Severine von Tscharner Fleming’s upcoming documentary focuses on farmers under 40. While that might not sound like a big deal, considering that the average age of farmers in the United States is 57, her twenty- and thirty-something farmers represent a new face of farming that is both whimsical and sensible. She’s also launched a blog, a magic goat emblem (!), and a guide for beginning farmers—all hoping to inspire a new crop of youthful agrarians. With so many food documentaries focused on gurus like Pollan and company, expect this film to examine the demographic who will actually cultivate farming’s future.

Watch the trailer. (November 2009).

FRESH the movie

Ana Sofia Joanes’s documentary also features sustainable food gurus Joel Salatin and Micheal Pollan, but tries to put a more positive spin on the reforms the food system needs. Based on a Salatin clip (in which he compares chemical agriculture to a drug trip) alone, the film may prove to be funnier and less heavy-handed than the others. Also expect appearances from Will Allen, the founder of the urban agriculture organization Growing Power, and other sustainable agriculture heavyweights talking about those baby steps we can take towards greener pastures. Think less scaremongering and more idealism.

Watch the trailer. (On the film festival circuit.)

Killer at Large

Film producer Bryan Young, who lost 40 pounds making the documentary, reframes obesity as a societal problem exacerbated by poorly managed food policy. The film depicts a 12-year old girl getting a liposuction and attempts to explain the hardwiring that compels humans to seek out fatty, high-energy foods. The film includes interviews with the consumer advocate Ralph Nader and the food psychology expert Brian Wansink. Expect a narrow and deep look at the psychological and evolutionary side of America’s epidemic of expanding gutlines.

Watch the trailer. (Theatrical version now on DVD.)

Food Fight

Chris Taylor’s film frames problems with agribusiness as a way to introduce the many heroes of California “countercuisine” such as chefs Alice Waters and Suzanne Goin and writers Michael Pollan and Russ Parsons. While its glorification of the movement might feel like hagiography to some, Grist’s Tom Philpott offers some incisive commentary in what could be a companion for Julie Guthman’s academic, but comprehensive, Agrarian Dreams.

Watch the trailer. (On the festival circuit.)

The End of the Line

Billed as the first major documentary about overfishing, reporter Charles Clover, author of a book of the same name that’s been called the “maritime equivalent of Silent Spring,” follows politicians, a tuna farmer-turned-whistleblower, and restaurateurs. Expect a British reporter aggressively exploring the darker side of seafood.

Watch the trailer. (Opening in limited venues on June 19).

These documentaries are part of a growing awareness about food—and watching them might just inspire a home-cooked meal, a community garden, or a call to Congress. Still, food cinema that celebrating the act of eating tends to show up more often in foreign titles. In Gastronomica’s long list of food films, even the movies made in Hollywood have a tendency to focus on ethnic foods: the Italian food in Big Night, for example. Maybe this is the collective point these documentaries make: In America, we’ve got some work to do before we can celebrate the sensuous, regionally distinctive side of nation’s cuisine on the big screen.

Should You Toss Your Running Shoes and Just Go Barefoot?

David — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:57:58 +0000

[Image courtesy: heather] / Original post: usnews.com

Remember when you were a kid? You raced around the playground or the yard for hours at a time, somehow managing not to hurt yourself despite your lack of $150 running shoes and custom-made $400 orthotic inserts. There’s a growing sense in many quarters that your childhood impulse may have been the correct one and that the very shoes we think are protecting us from harm may be causing it.

For decades, there’s been a grass-roots movement for extremely minimalist, i.e., barefoot, running. (See barefootrunning.org for stories from this crew.) But only in the past few years have companies begun to get in on the act, too. They now offer stripped-down models that don’t have the padding and structural elements that characterize conventional running shoes. There’s no little irony in Nike’s instructions to begin “barefoot-like” running with one $90-plus model of its Free lineup, then phase down through two more models before you’re running with a “nearly naked feeling.” (Presumably, they don’t want you to take the next step and swap Nikes for the actual naked feeling, though.) Other companies, including New Balance, Newton, Ecco, and Terra Plana, also have minimalist footwear for running and walking.

In his recent book, Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen, author Christopher McDougall explores the broader notion of what “natural” running would entail. Taking aim at shoe companies, he argues that modern running shoes promote a heel-first stride that makes us more vulnerable to injuries. (He’s a convert; since running in Vibram FiveFingers, a neoprene socklike foot covering, and changing his stride, he’s seen his problems disappear.) McDougall cites studies showing that more expensive running shoes don’t necessarily lead to fewer injuries. Other research suggests that heavily cushioned shoes actually prevent your foot from sensing the ground and can make you stomp down harder than if you didn’t have all that padding.

“They don’t let the foot, and ultimately the body, work like it’s supposed to,” says Galahad Clark, owner of Terra Plana, which produces a shoe technology—Vivo Barefoot—that puts just a 3-millimeter, flexible (but puncture-resistant) sole between your foot and the ground. “Expensive running shoes let you run in a way and arguably for distances that you normally wouldn’t have been able to do,” he says. Walking and running barefoot, or close to it, allows what Clark calls your “amazing” foot to adjust to whatever surfaces—even modern, hard ones—and circumstances it experiences.

So what’s the evidence behind this notion? And should you try it? There isn’t strong evidence that barefoot running is any better or worse than running with more structured shoes, says Veni Kong, a kinesiologist at the University of Texas-El Paso, in part because there aren’t enough regular barefoot runners with whom to compare users of running shoes. But there’s a lack of a solid evidence base for running footwear in general, she notes. People are often prescribed shoes with elevated, padded heels that are designed to control pronation, but a March review in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found no evidence behind the idea that this will prevent injury or improve performance.

Keith Williams, an exercise biologist at the University of California-Davis, says humans are both incredibly varied and incredibly adaptable. The former means some of us pronate our feet as few as 2 degrees, and others as much as 25 degrees. Our bones articulate differently, our ligaments are structured differently. Some of us are heavy, some aren’t. And some people, he says, have truly been helped by modern shoes, inserts, and orthotics. Others probably don’t need the bells and whistles. So to prescribe one kind of shoe (or lack thereof) or running technique for everyone is not a good idea. “I’m against the one-size-fits-all approach for anything,” he says.

On the other hand, Williams says, our adaptability means that a lot of us could probably adjust over time to running with minimal or no cushioning, and for some, it might bring benefits. Just by wearing lighter footwear, you reduce the amount of energy involved in running. That kind of change, or varying the stresses on the lower legs, could theoretically reduce injury or improve performance for some people.

If you’d like to give it a whirl, don’t jump into it whole hog. Start off slowly, advises Kong, and stop if it doesn’t feel right, since you’re probably used to wearing regular shoes and need to adjust. “If we said to everyone in the world, just kick off your shoes and go running, a lot of people would hurt themselves,” says Clark. Obviously, be aware of the surface you’re running on; simply to protect against cuts and scrapes, going totally barefoot down the sidewalks of New York is probably not a great idea. If you’re using minimalist shoes, try to avoid landing on your heel, which you may be used to doing in padded shoes, and perhaps start out by running on grass, Clark says. In the end, he says, the ultimate experts on footwear are you and your body.

–

Support this site by considering your purchase of Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen through this link.

I stare at runners, I admit it.

David — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:49:30 +0000

[Image courtesy: Todo-Juanjo]

I’ve been staring and studying runner’s strides more and more often. I’ve covered this in a previous post however I must admit that my concern for my fellow runner’s health is concerning me more than ever. SportsOneSource reported a few months ago that running is increasing in interest in 2009. No surprise here. An inexpensive and natural way to stay healthy and fit - running is natural.

Just today while walking Lucy, the family black Lab, a runner caught my eye. The guy was fast. Faster than me. He was wearing shoes. He was heel striking. I was concerned that his form (no thanks to highly cushioned shoes) was going to cause him injury sooner or later.

I was about to call out. I wanted to stop him. I didn’t. Meanwhile my wife is hushing me to keep quiet in order to not embarrass her on yet another evening stroll.This happens nearly every day.

From time to time I’ll notice shod runners actually are midfoot/forefoot landers. This isn’t a common occurrence mind you. It’s moments like that that I can’t help but think that even a non-barefoot runner (or observer) would question the purpose of cushioned heel wedges. Want to know the truth?. There is no prupose. It serves as a ‘filler’ of air between the heel and the surface. A critically dangerous design that causes your body to ’strike’ harder than nature intended. Why? Because your feet and body want to feel the surface you’re running on and naturally adjust your stride, your stance and your performance. If you want to run in shoes, a minimal midsole (at best) is all that is needed. No more than an 0.33″ in my opinion, even that is excessive. That being said, it’s better than the standard 0.86″to 0.91″ that major athletic shoes design into their heels (not counting the insole).

Just looking and staring out for your health my friends, just staring out.

French Films and Fluid Feet

Sherian — Wed, 20 May 2009 02:04:00 +0000

Last night Andrew and I got the children off to bed, brewed an herby pot of chamomile tea, and snuggled deeply into our matching, fuzzy-red La-Z-Boy recliners. The DVD selection for the evening: “Amelie” in French with English subtitles.

It had been a few years since I watched a subtitled movie, so it took me ten or fifteen minutes to retrain my brain for this activity. It is a skill, though pretty easy to learn. I am not a neurologist, so I don’t know exactly how this works, but I can describe what if feels like. Basically, you keep your attention focused on the movie picture and effortlessly allow a part of your brain to drop to the subtitles. That brain part reads the words and sends the messages (as well as the emotions they convey) to the part of the brain that is enjoying the pictures. It is amazing really. A little bit more difficult than watching a movie in your native tongue, but once you get the hang of it, it is quite enjoyable.

This morning I packed my fanny pack with a bottle of water and a pair of flip flops, and set off on my third barefoot hike in the Boise Foothills. The Military Reserve Trail is part of our wonderful “Ridge to Rivers” trail system. If you have never recreated in Boise, spring is the time to visit. It was absolutely spectacular. As I found my stride and began the gradual climb up to the desert ridge, I noticed an interesting thing. My brain was doing the same thing as it was last night while watching Amelie. My attention was focused on the landscape, the brush covered hillside, the cityscape below me and the miles of yellow arrowleaf balsamroot flowers. But there was a seemingly detached part of my brain that was focused downward. This brain part was “reading” the trail just three or four feet in front of me. Just as in reading subtitles, it read the information in a constant stream and fed it to my body giving me the information I needed to step in the world without distracting me too much from the big picture.

I knew it was true when I found myself simultaneously watching a Turkey Vulture (who seemed to take up the whole sky) and a tiny green snake that slithered in front of my toes.

Watching a Hollywood box office hit is like hiking in your boots. You can ignore everything and just get lost in the movie. But hiking barefoot requires the delicate consciousness of watching a great foreign film. You may find yourself pausing and rewinding. On my hike for example, I paused to watch a Calliope Hummingbird perch on a piece of rabbit brush and was able to sneak up surprisingly close. I rewound to investigate the insides of a large black beetle that had been squashed flat by a fat mountain bike tire. I noticed the different sizes of canine foot prints in the sand, the smell of the stream and the different temperatures of the ground as I passed from sunlight into shadows.

So it seems that barefoot hiking is much more than training the feet and legs. It is also a challenging, yet enjoyable, brain exercise. Building new neural pathways is what adaptation is all about. If it has been a while since you enjoyed a foreign film, I recommend Amelie. You won’t be able to stop smiling.

Shoe Marketing: Tech-not-logic (Part II)

Tue — Mon, 18 May 2009 11:20:01 +0000

Read: Part I

Technology That Is Not Technology

We’ve been indoctrinated to believe that when running shoe companies develop new “advanced” materials (without real scientific evidence proving their benefit) that these advancements are better for us. They still call it “technology”, but do not let you be fooled. When shoe companies say “technology”, they just mean: we have created a new piece of rubber with a fancy name. They have totally neglected one of the most noble definitions of technology: “the application of scientific advances to benefit humanity” (Source: The Franklin Institute Resources for Science Learning)

Try an experiment. Go to Asics’ European website (choose UK for example). Wow, there is a link called “Technologies”. Click on it. Now, click on “Glossary”. Check out the descriptions. Do any of the technologies actually benefit the way our body works or do they just describe isolated and unscientific features? The philosophy seems to be: Make it sound cool, make it sound like the shoes will enhance performance, make it sound like shock absorption is a must. I mean, just listen to the names: “AHAR: High Abrasion Resistance rubber” (a rubber with a fancy name), “Biomorphic fit” (I cannot even figure out wich part of the shoe upper this is, but it is obviously a very amazing “technology” that ensures “a better fit, improved comfort, less risk of injury and enhanced performance” - all in one single blow), “Duomax” (the old “max” always works), “Propulsion Plate” (eh… with a supersonic de Laval nozzle?), Trail Sensor System” (I am a robot shoe, and I can sense everything. Just lean back and let me carry you, Mr. Runner) and “Impact Guidance System” (wow, does it have lasers?).

Can you see the pattern? Make it sound innovative. Make it sound technological. Make it sound cool. And then people will buy it. Technology is always good, right? And the more of it, the better. Well… IT IS A SHOE! It is not a rocket, and it is not even real technology! It does not improve anything – it is just marketing. A shoe is not even necessary. Your feet work pretty well. They are a brilliant piece of biological “technology” by themselves. Would you walk around with rubber blocks on your hands, if glove companies offered you a Biomorphic Abrasion Resistant Propulsion Sensor Guidance Quadruplemax Technology? Well, you probably would, because it sounded cool and you thought it would enhance your “gripping performance” or something, but the fact is that it would prevent you from using your hands properly.

Asics is not the only brand to blame. Here is some “technology” from other companies (Yes, they all call it technology!):

Adidas: “GeoFIT”, “Pro-moderator”, “Torsion System”, “Quickstrike”, “Adiprene” etc.

Puma: “FitIn-concept”, “Duocell”, “M2D”, “Internal Archtech”, “KMS Lite”, “Evertrack”, “Trirate” etc.

Saucony: “CMVEA”, “Comfortemp”, Decoupled SRC Crash Pad”, “Flexion Plate”, “Forefoot Stretch Zone”, “Heel ProGrid with Respon-Tek”, “Impact Interface” etc.

Nike: “Air Zoom”, “Air Max”, Nike Shox”, “Nike+”, “Speed+” etc.

New Balance: “Acteva Lite”, “Stability web”, “Abzorb DTS”, “N-fuse”, “Nlock”, “N-Grip”, “AT Tread”, “Biocool”, “Lightning Dry” etc.

Is it not a bit silly? Or do you buy something just because it has “max”, +, “pro” or “bio” in it? It seems that running shoes are the biggest deception of all shoe deceptions. In fact, I fear that the companies actually believe in it themselves. If the designers were really innovative, they would create whole new concepts. They would not just “max” this and “max” that.

Minimal Shoe Marketing

Let us return to minimal shoes. Here we have the honest marketing, and clever designs, I have been looking for… not! Do not think that a shoe is good, just because a company mentions words like “barefoot” or “natural”, or because they promise you better sensory perception, better posture, better breathing or the like. In fact minimal shoe marketing can be even more boastful and fake than running shoe marketing, when it comes to health aspects. They use barefoot philosophy as an excuse for impossible promises.

Common Sense

So where does this leave us? Of course some good products are available. And of course marketing will always be a necessity (though it can take many shapes). Minimal shoe manufacturers should take a fresh and honest approach to market the facts of features and benefits. My aim is not to criticize marketers. They can promise me the world if they want to. My real goal is to criticize you and me. Please, let us use the device we carry on top of our necks. Unless they are completely wrapped up in ‘duo max foam’, we can still use our brains when deciding what to wear on our feet.

Let us see through the “technology” approach of running shoe marketers. Then, let us see through the health approach of minimal shoe marketers. Finally, let us use common sense. As it is now, our feet (and in fact our whole body) still work best, when we can actually use them – when we can control them and create variation during our activities. Feet are a brilliant tool that should not be cast in rubber or idiocy. They deserve to be used wisely and with consideration. A shoe should only offer a minimal layer around the foot. A shoe should not be a crutch. “Technology” cannot make your feet better at being feet, but neither can a so-called “natural” or “healthy” shoe. Your feet are just feet. So, if you want to wear a shoe, choose a shoe (link to what to look for) that lets your feet be feet. It can still be fashionable, waterproof, protective or whatever you may like, but the real task is to keep it as minimal as possible while offering these features.