Food Fight!
Over at Barefoot Running University, Jason Robillard has given up the fight regarding the abomination of calling minimalist shoes “barefoot shoes”. Meanwhile, Ken Bob Saxton, at Running Barefoot, insists that the distinction should be made.
You’ll never guess which side of the debate I fall onto.
(Hint: check out the emphasized word, above.)
Anyways, Jason recognizes that popular cultural keeps calling minimalist shoes “barefoot shoes”. And he’s tired of fighting the fight. Along the way he suggests a couple of reasons (besides his original “the masses have spoken”).
His main extra reason (in “edit #2”) suggests that it is pride that has us keeping the distinction. As he says:
I think we’ve rejected the idea because of pride. For those of us that have run barefoot, we take pride in our accomplishments. For most, going through the process of going from traditional shoes to running barefoot is a difficult process. Running a race barefoot is even more of an accomplishment. When someone runs a race in Vibrams, then brags about running the race barefoot, we’re pissed. It diminishes our accomplishments. I suspect the emotions behind this is the primary reason this is such a big issue. I get that.
Ken Bob stresses that it is the direct contact with the ground that make barefoot running (real barefoot running) work. You must have your soles touching the ground for them to teach you how to run more gently and safely. And buying into the big-money advertising campaigns about “barefoot” running really does confuse people, and in a bad way. As Ken Bob says:
Still there remain many millions who tried running “barefoot” in the shoes, and even more since the rise in popularity of minimalist shoes since “Born to Run” who are bypassing the whole literal “bare” foot thing and believing that they can run “barefoot” in “barefoot shoes” and then after injuring themselves, rejecting the whole idea and spreading the word that “barefoot” running doesn’t work … all the while they have never even tried barefoot running (except in the marketing perception of the term).
Finally, Jason says that our insistence on using “barefoot” to really mean “barefoot” builds a wall between us and those who need our expertise.
I think that has it backwards. We’re the supposed experts. We’re the ones that people come to with questions. We’re the ones with the responsibility to get it right.
If I go to a gun safety class, and the instructor doesn’t know the difference between a clip or a magazine, I would wonder (and so should you) whether he really knows what he is talking about when it comes to guns in general, and safety in particular.
If I go to my mechanic and he talks about the do-hickey instead of the catalytic converter, that tells me I need a new mechanic, not that he is being overly prideful.
Yes, I understand the difference between prescriptivist and descriptivist linguistics. but when it comes to EXPERTISE, I’m afraid that I insist that the experts really do know what they are talking about and that they be able to make the fine distinctions that are the very essence of their expertise.
And for us, that is knowing, and expressing, the difference between barefoot running and minimalist running, and barefoot shoes and minimalist shoes.
So call me anal retentive. I also know the difference between its and it’s, and know when to use there, their, and they’re.
I don’t mind so much the mechanic that calls a catalytic converter a “do-hickey”… but the mechanic that claims that having a catalytic converter is just like NOT having a catalytic converter, or implies it by calling the catalytic converter a “NOT catalytic converter” … that’s what the term “Barefoot Shoes” tells me … it’s the same as calling footwear, “NOT footwear”.
My entire rant on the issue seems to have been misunderstood. I agree with Ken Bob. Barefoot is barefoot and the tactile sensation is a HUGE advantage when learning good form. It provides form feedback and acts as a regulator to prevent TMTS injuries. I never claimed “barefoot shoes” are in any way analogous to being barefoot other than they allow the same form once form is learned. We have this knowledge of the advantages of barefoot which is valuable to those trying “barefoot” shoes.
The problem- we have no way of reaching those people unless they search us out. As the demographics of the people expressing interest in natural running change (my early adopters versus early majority discussion), fewer and fewer people, as a percentage of the total trying this, seek us out. So how do we reach a bigger audience? We change our tactics.
I spent over a decade as a teacher in public schools. I learned a valuable lesson very early in my career. As a teacher, you can have the best message in the world, but it is irrelevant if the students aren’t open to receiving the message. The crux of teaching isn’t repeating a message and hoping people listen, rather it’s finding a way to make your message relevant to the intended audience.
If I can spread a wider net and help more people learn the value of actually going barefoot BEFORE using any type of shoe, why wouldn’t I do that? It makes no sense to me to NOT tailor my message to the intended audience. The term ‘barefoot shoes” annoys the hell out of me, but I can tolerate it if it serves a greater good. In this case, that ‘greater good” is teaching people that would otherwise not seek out the information we have to share.
I have no doubt that Jason agrees that people should start out barefoot, to get the full benefit of sensory feedback from bare soles. However, that issue is absolutely clouded simply by perpetuating the use of the term “Barefoot Shoes”, which in itself is deceptive (and I believe purposely so).
Again, I bring back my whole wheat bread analogy (and I don’t really care if you think we should eat wheat or not). My point is there are laws that prohibit bread being marketed as “whole wheat” unless it actually contains some WHOLE wheat. Unfortunately, marketers have figured out that people are easily confused, and so they throw a little brown coloring into white bread (which is made from refined wheat), and market it as “wheat bread”, and many people will buy it, believing they are getting the same fiber and nutrition as they would from whole wheat.
Now, if I were a nutritional educator, I would make a point to clarify the fact that these are marketing terms and tactics designed to deceive. I would not make a point to accept or perpetuate these terms as used by marketing people, in fact, I’m not a nutritional educator, and I still feel responsible to point out these distinctions to those who look to me for advice on this subject.
There are no laws requiring shoes that are obviously not barefoot, from being marketed as “barefoot shoes”. And like the use of the term “Wheat Bread”, which is only subtly deceptive, the term “barefoot shoes” isn’t even a subtle deception. It is obviously a term designed to help convince people that they will get the same benefits from this footwear as not wearing footwear.
I don’t think any responsible educator would, or could with clear conscience, want to perpetuate such an obvious deception.
Rather than following and perpetuating the practice of deceptive marketing terms and practices, I’m only asking Jason to be a responsible educator and make it a point to educate people that “Barefoot Shoes” is not an accurate description of the product, and people should, as with any decisions they make, be critical of what their being sold or purchasing, and why.
oops… what “they’re being sold”
P.S. I will concede that I too am using the term, but I do so in a derisive manner, as in the other day when I was explaining to a younger fellow of 54-years who had a knee replacement several years back from running, that the important thing about barefoot running IS the tactile sensation and how it teaches us to run gently, and that if he is curious and wants to try it, not to start with the “barefoot” shoes! … then I clarified why they don’t work for beginners, and the dangers.
So, I do understand that we will be using the term as a reference to what is becoming a popular term… Much like my argument for the term, “jogging” doesn’t apply to barefoot running. As I’ve said many times, barefoot runners do not “jog”, they move smoothly, gently, no jolting, no jarring, no striking, no pounding, no “jogging”.
I use the term, but educate people as to why it is a misuse of the term.
At least with food, the law won’t allow bread to be sold as “whole grain” unless it contains at least a smidgeon of actual whole grain, that’s why marketers use the term “wheat” bread, and why you shouldn’t buy anything sold as “wheat” bread because without the whole grain, you don’t get the whole nutrition.
Without the whole sole being bare, you don’t get the nutritious information about how well, or how poorly each of your steps (or miss-steps) are.
Have fun,
-barefoot ken bob
Ken Bob, why are we the only people commenting on this? 🙂
I agree that the term is not good. To the uninformed, it may lead to injuries that are then attributed to actual barefoot running. I think Matt Fitzgerald’s Competitor article about barefoot injuries perfectly exemplifies this.
The problem- the term has already been adopted by the shoe industry, the people that analyze the shoe industry, shoe retailers, and their customers. This has the potential to be a disaster for those of us that have promoted the benefits of barefoot running. Or it could be a golden opportunity.
If we work with the shoe manufacturers to develop educational materials that start with barefoot running, then get the shoe retailers to buy into the idea, we help the consumer understand the difference between barefoot running and running in ‘barefoot” shoes. Additionally, it gets an entire new group to try barefoot running. Many will continue doing it at least part time because of the intrinsic joy it brings them. This is a win-win. We spread the word about barefoot running, eliminate the problem of people getting injured by doing too much too soon or running with horrible form in minimalist shoes, and we slowly chip away at the old “you need raised heel motion control shoes to run” paradigm.
In my experience, both shoe manufacturers and retailers are open to the idea. Not all, but enough to make it worthwhile.
As an educator, I feel a responsibility to teach people the difference between being barefoot and using barefoot shoes. A major component of that responsibility involves getting that message to the very people that need it the most: runners that buy the shoes but don’t bother to do research to learn to use them properly. Everything we do to teach barefoot running is useless to the people that don’t seek it out. The challenge becomes reaching those people. The best route is to reach them at the point where they buy the shoes, which is a possibility if the manufacturers and sales staff deliver the message.
Perhaps a more appropriate label is “natural-form shoes”. After all, isn’t that the point of the whole movement? Yes, I’m a marketing guy, but the core of a truth is often the best positioning.
The reason Jason and Ken are the only two commenting is they appear to be the two who are so passionate about this issue. You two are the purists. The reality is that many who follow both of your posts do so for our own information and education. Bottom line is that each of us regardless of running shod, barefoot, or in minimalist (the term I personally like best) foot wear, must find what works best for us and helps us improve our form. Well that’s my opinion anyway. Run On!
Well, I hate to have to say it, but one reason, I suspect, for the lack of comments from others is that I don’t think my blog gets anywhere near the number of hits that yours does.
[…] been having a discussion with Jason over at the Barefoot Running University, and on Bob Ninast’s blog about Jason’s concession to use the term “Barefoot Shoes” even though Jason […]
I’m surprised at the explosion of minimalist footwear, and pleased. I am going to get a pair to help me transition to true barefoot. Not for running so much as my all the time wear. I suspect that as we become stronger and stronger in our feet we will find paying outrageous prices for ephemeral foot covering will make less and less sense. Radically sane individuals will eventually win the day.
One of the biggest mistakes people make is believing that minimalist footwear will somehow help them transition to true barefoot. The problem is the same as the reason people buy them, they allow you to run further than your feet are ready to (or should) run while barefoot. Bare feet let you know not only when you’ve done enough, they also teach you more about how to run barefoot – a few steps across some rough gravel while barefoot will teach you more than weeks of running in minimalist footwear, and a few steps is enough to begin with, because your feet, if they’ve been supported with stiffer running shoes for years or decades need months to strengthen up before they’ll be ready to do any real distance. That, and the fact that they haven’t learned as much about technique with their sole muted, is why I see and hear from far too many people getting stress fractures from running in their minimalist footwear.
Or, I should say, “From trying to LEARN to run barefoot in minimalist footwear”. May as well wear a blindfold when you’re learning to throw darts, that way you won’t be bothered by the fact that you might not be hitting the target.
I had been an all season true barefoot runner when I lived in the States. You’re right, no minimalist shoe can compare to it. When I moved back to Ireland (about 5 years ago), I realised that treading the ground without any protection was a bad idea. The broken glass and other sharp debris that is littered across both the cities and the countryside here is dangerous. Consequently, I invested in a pair of the minimalist shoes so that I could approximate barefoot running. My experience has been a good one. It’s not the same, but I can spread my toes and use them. I couldn’t do it here in Ireland without the minimalist shoes.
I learned to run barefoot by taking my shoes off. I know that is the only way to run barefoot. I’m happy with the minimalist shoes, but they aren’t the real thing.