The rule of thumb is 500 miles. I never payed attention and just got new ones based on "feel". It seemed to be every 4-6 months when I was running a lot.

Now that I don't run, my running shoes (that I only use to run in) have lasted like 2 years and still look brand new!!

VFF's are consumerism.

The rule of thumb is 500 miles. I never payed attention and just got new ones based on "feel". It seemed to be every 4-6 months when I was running a lot.

Lol and you claim VFFs are consumerism!

I never claimed I was a 'runner'. I have never been a weekly runner for pleasure. Those shoes lasted years of running, indoor soccer, cycling and many other forms of excersize.

Regardless I have been running all my life in various forms. VFF feel amazing to run in.

Lol and you claim VFFs are consumerism!

I never claimed I was a 'runner'. I have never been a weekly runner for pleasure. Those shoes lasted years of running, indoor soccer, cycling and many other forms of excersize.

Regardless I have been running all my life in various forms. VFF feel amazing to run in.

See my comment on tires. When you are a runner, your shoes are tools, not the latest trendy shit.

It sounds like what you had was just a pair of sneakers or tennies, sure, they'll last a while. Don't pretend that your experiences have anything to do with running.

My consumerism comment was directed to Hauraches.

Also, the toes were not evolved to be held wide like the VFF's do, for those "Cavemen are perfect" sorts in the crowd.

Geez, you're really getting worked up. Hmm, no matter what I say, you're going to get all aggro to show me just how wrong I am. Nevermind the thousands of miles I've run in my life.

You should cede your ego and listen to others ideas or even logic instead of attempting to look like some e-badass amidst your malcontempt for what seems like the entire climbing community.

No wonder you hate running shoes. 8 years? Dude...if you're actually running 3x a week, you can get a year, depending on distance, before the support and cushion kicks the bucket...if they're gross and falling apart, they're not doing their job anymore and haven't been for a while. You don't wait until your tires have holes in them before replacing them...

The beauty if that with these types of shoes you don't need padding, even on the harshest pavement. I ran 10k on street blacktop today in ~40 minutes and the only pains I have are from climbing.

The first use was a bit of a trial by fire doing my normal street 5k, and I definitely was a bit bruised. But using them on my normal run was good because I learned very quickly (and painfully) that landing on one's heel is bad, and hurts. As it should. It takes some time to build up the muscles (I guess ligaments/tendons/whatever too) and technique associated with this type of running style, but in the end I was a stronger runner for it.

Knowing we didn't evolve with running shoes, that forefoot striking will work muscles more in a different way, that some muscles are completely unsuited for forefoot striking after running in sneakers, and the painful nature nature of heel striking it was fairly clear the standard heel strike style (wild and outrageous claim incoming) was inadvertently developed by the shoe industry and adopted by people, rather than heel striking being the norm and shoes being developed to maximize running potential.

Go to a field/track when there is a little softness to the ground, and give both barefoot heel striking and forefoot striking a shot. If you found heel striking to be prime, no harm no foul in trying something different out.
If you found forefoot striking to be optimal, go with it.

VFF's aren't perfect, but pulling small shards of glass out of the sole (that would easily pierce heavily callused feet like mine), I'm glad for the marginal protection in a shoe that doesn't cramp my style.

If it is true that forefoot striking is the "natural' way, why don't you point me to some info that actually would substantiate this claim eh?

What sort of proof do you want?

Sure it is obvious that shoes are 'natural'. And surely it is obvious that our bodies have evolved to run varied surfaces.

There is less than a centimeter of soft tissue between the bottom of your heel and bone. Basic physics would tell you that this would lead to tissue damage from heel striking on hard ground, banjolele's anecodal evidence also shows this.

But our gait and our foot strike is completely dependent on the ground type. Forefoot striking on soft sand would be odd and could lead to injury. A mid foot or heel strike is superior on soft sand. This is obvious really.

I remember finding this out the hard way running into a volcanic northern california beach. I sprinted into the water, unfortunately for me the sand change to rock/pebbles just below the water line. Bruised heels because I was heel striking.

Ah another post full of anecdotes, seriously dude it's not that hard. I want some data/research suggesting people ran with a forefoot strike before they got influenced by the heelstrikenazi's.

I seriously don't get the fascination with these shoes. Seriously.

Toe socks had a 3 month moment of appreciation in the early 80's (?) and I would rather wear those than these monstrosities of fashion.

So, they help build muscle when you run? Maybe run barefoot. I hear people have been doing that for a couple decades, at least.

People have been running for decades under the close scrutiny of Nike/Adidas/Whoever. Do you seriously think that they missed the advantages (not!) of offering a shoe with five toes in independent sleeves of rubber that may make other people ask questions prior to laugh and pointing?

Again, I just don't get it, and even if I did, I have more self-pride than to allow myself that indiscretion.

Do you need data or research to tell you that dropping a hammer on you toe hurts?

I am not you librarian so I am not getting you your data. Go for a barefoot run on hard ground and decide for yourself.

Or I can choose to ignore your idiocy!

Do you need data or research to tell you that dropping a hammer on you toe hurts?

I am not you librarian so I am not getting you your data. Go for a barefoot run on hard ground and decide for yourself.

Yeah, go run barefoot on concrete to determine the natural way to run on the savanna.

Even if that could prove that it is more "natural" to run with a forefoot strike, "what is natural" is a red herring. The issue isn't which is more natural; it's which is better (less injurious, more efficient, etc.).

So, you have proposed an invalid test of the wrong hypothesis.

I wasn't suggesting this. You will see that I have already pointed out that we naturally heel strike on some surfaces barefoot.


I haven't proposed any test whatsoever.

Nor have I argued that VFF are more efficient or universally less injurious.

If it is true that forefoot striking is the "natural' way, why don't you point me to some info that actually would substantiate this claim eh?

Yeah, go run barefoot on concrete to determine the natural way to run on the savanna.

Even if that could prove that it is more "natural" to run with a forefoot strike, "what is natural" is a red herring. The issue isn't which is more natural; it's which is better (less injurious, more efficient, etc.).

So, you have proposed an invalid test of the wrong hypothesis.

Jay

Do barefoot runners get injured less?
Barefoot runners often adopt forefoot or midfoot strike gaits and have softer landing, which may reduce their risk of injury. While there are anectodal reports of barefoot runners being injured less, there is very little scientific evidence to support this hypothesis at this time. Well-controlled studies are needed to determine whether barefoot running results in fewer injuries.