alternatives to Vibrams? page

[kallyn]

After reading so much about Vibrams I had to give them a try, so I found a local outfitter that carries them and went in today to try some on. Well, they just do not fit my toes at all. My big toe and second toe are stuffed all the way into the end almost straining the toe sleeves (or whatever they're called), while the 3 little straggler toes on the end are swimming in far-too-large toe sleeves. My pinky toe is so dinky it kept slipping out of its sleeve entirely.


I'd really like to enjoy the barefooting experience but I don't want to actually be barefoot! Any good alternatives to the Vibrams?

[Mick]

Yes, there are alternatives you might consider.


Basically, you want to look for something that:


* has no heel (not even a low one)

* has no "toespring"

* has been made on a last without inflare

* has no concavity under the ball of the foot

* has a flexible sole

* does not weigh too much

* is wide enough across the toes

* has a thin enough sole for you to feel the ground

* has no "arch support"


It's explained here, if you want the details:


http://www.unshod.org/pfbc/pfrossi2.htm


That's actually quite a tall order. Most shoes fail on most of those criteria. The average footwear on offer is as bad as the average diet.


You could try Terra Plana Vivo shoes - those have some toespring, but otherwise fulfill just about all the criteria:


http://www.terraplana.com/womens-vivo-barefoot-c-154_163.html


Traditional moccasins were ideal. But many modern shoes selling as "moccasins" are nothing like a moccasin. Some moccasin firms are good, though - here's one:


http://www.softstarshoes.com/


Otherwise, something from the Finnish maker Feelmax might suit.


For children, there's a South African firm called Froggies that do very minimalist heel-less flexible shoes and have approval from several podiatry bodies. They export to several countries. Or Soft Star Shoes (linked above) also do kids' shoes.


You might also look at some ballet, dance, or Tai Chi shoes.

[maba]

The back part of my foot hurts when I wear the Vibrams - the part above the heel. I felt good wearing them the first couple of times but today I had to remove them and wore flip-flops instead. There's no gap between the skin and the shoe, so no chafing either. Any idea why that could happen.

[Clint]

Maba-

Is it your achilles?


This can be painful when first starting to wear Vibrams due to the stretching of the achilles tendon through its natural range of motion.


Most commercial shoes inhibit this motion, so people become hyper-aware when switching to Vibrams.


Kallyn-

An inexpensive "close" substitute are Chuck Taylors. Note, I said close. Not perfect, but cheap. If money is not an issue, then Vivo's are going to be your best bet IMHO

[maba]

Yes Clint, it's the achilles. It's the point where the flap - the tiny part at the back that extends above the shoe line - meets the skin.

[kallyn]

Thanks for the indepth post Mick!


Clint, I actually have a pair of Chuck Taylors but haven't worn them in ages. How familiar are you (or you Mick!) with the Vivo Barefoot shoes? They look the nicest of all the links I looked at, but I can't tell how rugged they are. I wanted the Vibrams for hiking, do you know if the Vivos would be up to that?

[Clint]

My only experience with Vivos are through second-hand accounts


Those few people, also, only got them for a barefoot alternative for work in an office job. So I have absolutely ZERO info for you and their ruggedness for hiking. Sorry.

[hannahc]

Maba, it took about a week for the back of my heel to "break in" my sprints. Unless it also hurts when you just walk normally, I think it's probably just a sking-toughening issue. My classics are a bit different at the back there, I haven't broken those ones in yet. Keep wearing them some every day, and you'll probably be okay after a week or so.

[Mick]

[quote]

I wanted the Vibrams for hiking, do you know if the Vivos would be up to that?</blockquote>


I&#39;ve had a couple of pairs, and I would, and do, use them for that. However, the pair I&#39;ve got are canvas, which wouldn&#39;t be ideal in very wet conditions. (But maybe the leather ones would be fine.)


They are tough, although light. The sole is only 3mm thick but it&#39;s made from a material that contains kevlar. I&#39;ve used my current pair almost daily for weeks on all sorts of surfaces, and there&#39;s virtually no wear to be seen. The stitching seems stout, too.


So maybe not in the damp - and they&#39;d be too cold in the snow, of course. Otherwise, OK, I think.


I think habit, and perhaps a lot of marketing, has convinced people that they need very heavy shoes for hiking. I don&#39;t believe so. Lewis and Clark covered vast distances wearing moccasins. (To be fair, they did have to pull thorns out of their feet on occasion!) Australian Aborigines went "walkabout" with nothing on theirs.


The high sides on conventional walking boots don&#39;t allow the movement the ankle needs and undermine its strength, which can lead to twisted ankles - the reverse of what&#39;s intended.


Also the lack of flexibility in the sole is a big problem:


http://nwfootankle.com/home/FootHealth/drill/2/112


One irritation with the Vivos is that they come up small. I&#39;ve got UK size 10 feet (44 in international), but I need to buy size 11 (45 in international) Vivos. Everyone, including the staff in two stores that sell them has told me the same: buy one size larger than normal.


You might also want to take a look at Feelmax shoes. I understand that letting the wet in was a problem for those, but their latest model - the Niessa - is made from a waterproof fabric:


http://www.feelmax.fi/index.php?lang=en

[socracheese]

Barefoot Ted has reviews and links to different "barefoot" shoes


http://barefootted.com/