If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
These shoes were atually reviewed along side with Vivo Barefoot and Vibrams.
Here's a thing, the concept does feel better on your feet and posture because it rercreates a natural feeling of a foot rolling on the ground just like it's suppose to be when you walk barefoot, with a big exception - your foot actually doesn't roll voluntiraly. You can not control the movemenet of the sole of your foot and what is very obvious here, you can't actually work the muscles of your feet because there's a 10 inch platfotm between the foot and the ground
Looks like a slightly cheaper alternative (read "knock off") to MBT. The so-called "Masai Barefoot Technology" shoes (because nothing says "Masai" like a huge shoe) have their faithful adherents, but I'd agree with those above: Get low and get real. For the cost of one pair of MBT's you could get two pairs of Five Fingers.
If you want a (slightly) lower cost shoe that "improves posture and helps strengthen muscles," then consider checking out the Earth shoe. The Lazer-K has minimal structure and the deep sipes of a Nike Free. It's flexible and allows your foot to move somewhat more naturally. Not barefoot, but a reasonable "gateway drug" if you're looking to get a barefoot addiction. I used them to transition from standard shoes to Nike Frees and moved from the Nike Free to Vibram.
I've been bumming around barefoot for a long time (granted, only in Spring and Summer, risk of frostbite the rest of the time), and my foot has never rolled when I'm barefoot.
Depending on how fast I'm walking, my heels might not even touch the ground. And I never land on my heels.
Geoff: My gateway drug were 10 French Franc espadrilles I got from the market every spring. They were so cheap (in every sense) I would go through 2 or three pairs in between Spring and the end of the Indian Summer.
Once you learn that you create your own reality and that you are fully responsible for your life, you can begin to see the world as it is and then you realize the limitless possibilities.
I recently wrote some blog content for a fairly prominent US shoe store that sells MBT (among other brands). The target keyword phrase was "barefoot comfort," so I wrote from the evolutionary angle. Talked about fossil records, millions of years of bipedalism, etc. The marketing VP lambasted me for discussing such a "controversial" topic. According to him, the benefits of barefoot have "nothing to do with the theory of evolution."
I guess I can understand him not wanting to alienate the 60% of the US population that's still ambivalent (or blatantly hostile to) about evolution from a business perspective, but I found it really difficult to omit it. It's kinda funny how the Primal Blueprint seeps into every aspect of one's life. I held my tongue and left it out. It wasn't easy, though.
According to him, the benefits of barefoot have "nothing to do with the theory of evolution" ...</blockquote>
Well, it is kind of irrelevant. That is to say, I don't have to know how my foot got to be how it is to know how it is.
And, frankly, I don't think there is any clear idea of why the feet of humans differ from the feet of their hominid precursors. Since they do, it must presumably be because the feet we have conferred some kind of survival value on our ancestors, but exactly why that was involves a certain amount of speculation. There are some competing theories.
So it has a tangential relevance, if any. North American Indians - who didn't wear shoes that damaged their feet - didn't need to know anything about the biological history of the foot. Professors of biology, who might, don't necessarily wear minimalist shoes.
It's also true that some people try to use the theory of natural selection as a kind of guide to life when it's actually an explanatory principle. Even worse it's been used as a kind of rhetorical battering ram to justify whatever anyone wanted to justify - and said was in accordance with it. At one time notions of eugenics were justified in those terms - until people realized that heredity was actually more complex than they'd supposed. (The same goes for many other social movements, including, strangely, Marxism.) But The Origin of Species never suggested that Natural Selection was anything more than an explanatory principle.
All anyone really needs to know is that comparative studies have shown that people who don't generally wear shoes have feet that are structurally healthier. The study from the University of the Witwatersrand comparing the feet of Zuls, Sotho, and Europeans shows that:
(FWIW, one of the authors is the curator of the fossil collection and the other a professor at the Institute for Human Evolution. But it wouldn't matter if they weren't. The point is whose feet exhibit "pathologies". And the answer is those who wear shoes more, particularly women.)
And if one is looking for explanations, then the relevant ones - and the ones that people probably should know about - are ones that explain what's going on in terms of the mechanics of the foot.
NicoB, my foot does "roll on the ground" when I walk barefoot. My heels don't necessarily touch the ground all the time, but I don't stomp around like a horse either which a lot of us tend to do when we were regular shoes with a thick padding