// you’re reading...

Barefoot Running

Running Scared – How the barefoot running movement is driving one CEO to ruin a brand.

By Clynton ⋅ January 27, 2010 ⋅ Email This Post Email This Post ⋅ Print This Post Print This Post ⋅ Post a comment
Filed Under  , , , , , , , , , , , ,

latestpost thumb Running Scared – How the barefoot running movement is driving one CEO to ruin a brand.

Playing the Fear Card

Mike Golfredson, CEO of RoadRunner Sports, has lost it. He’s been caught running his mouth off in public. In a classic knee-jerk fashion, Mike makes a feeble attempt to scare customers away from the growing barefoot running movement.

Trying to play to people’s fears in an effort to stop them from being informed will surely fail. Especially when research from none other than Harvard is being published. Trying to combat information with fear doesn’t work for long (one need only look at some previous US administrations to see that). Indeed, the only effective way to go up against information is with credible and convincing counter-information.

See Mike’s email for yourself below.

It’s Just Plain Bad for Business

As many of you are aware, I am a firm believer that running barefoot makes a ton of sense and that we can all benefit from doing at least some barefoot running. However, I only need to put my business cap on to see plenty of reasons why Mike’s newsletter is a big mistake. It breaks some cardinal rules of customer engagement and interaction. Mike should have held his tongue (and his head of marketing should be fired and a new PR agency hired – one with plenty of experience cleaning up after reckless CEOs).

Here are some of the rules Mike broke by sending such an email out to customers along with explanations for why it’s bad for his business:

1.  Let your emotions guide your statements, not be your statements. The whole newsletter reeks of personal emotions. Using such strong language as barefoot running is a “major injury waiting to happen,” and bold type with multiple exclamation points is over the top emotionally.  Taking a personal tone with customers is a good move if you have something positive to say. For example, sharing a personal run over the weekend and how it reminded you of why you love running can offer motivation. However, in discrediting an activity that has many people enthusiastic from a personal stance can come across like you are using the company platform to lash out.

2.  Back up your statements with verified facts. Mike obviously knows that barefoot running has been in the press a lot lately. He therefore is aware that many of his customers could have read some of these articles. Though Mike only references reading the headlines, he’s surely read or been told how many of these articles actually mention possible benefits of running barefoot. That’s probably why he felt the need to send out this email. So, why doesn’t he provide some sort of research to back his statements up, knowing very well that there is research supporting the opposite of what he’s saying? Not providing support will result in a loss of credibility as an informed partner in people’s running endeavors.

3.  Treat your customers as intelligent individuals. Businesses just never seem to learn that talking down to people only backfires. “Don’t blindly follow the latest trends” infers that without his help people would do just that. How can that possibly have a good effect? What must Mike think of his customers if he thinks “pea-sized rocks” will leave them sidelined for weeks? He makes it sound like he thinks his customers are all frail invalids who will suffer a massive injury from stepping on “pea size rocks.” Give your customers more respect than that.

4.  Provide value in every interaction. It’s quite simple: don’t interrupt people unless you can offer them a solution to a real need of theirs. Providing a discount, an added service, or new and helpful information often meets this criteria. In this email, though, Mike offers nothing new. A call to shop for new shoes at the end of the email, after saying running with no shoes is bad, bad, bad, is not only void of value, it’s a final reminder to the reader (just in case they didn’t make the connection already that barefoot running is very bad for your business) that this email is all about selling more shoes. So much for the opening statement about caring for people’s wellbeing. It sounds like money comes first for Mike.

5.  Never, ever, look desperate. Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes Mike made in sending this email out is that it makes him look like his back is against the wall, and like a scared animal, the claws come out. The saying, “’Em are fighting words,” comes to mind. As it will for RoadRunner’s customers. Taking a defensive stance smells of desperation. And customers don’t like doing business with desperate companies. They want people they can trust will be around over the long haul. Leaders of product and dialogue. Companies setting the standards, not trying to tear new standards down.

image thumb Running Scared – How the barefoot running movement is driving one CEO to ruin a brand.

Some Running Retailers Embrace Barefoot Running

“The whole barefoot running thing,” as Mike puts it in his email, isn’t inherently a bad thing for retailers of running gear. ZombieRunner, a store in Palo Alto, CA, focused on the trail and ultra running markets has actually embraced barefoot running. After reading the book Born to Run, co-owners Don Lundell and Gillian Robinson, hosted several barefoot running clinics where the author of Born to Run, Chris McDougall, along with one of the barefoot runners mentioned in the book, Barefoot Ted, taught people how to transition back into running without shoes. Participants weren’t allowed to wear shoes, not even the very minimal Vibram Five Fingers.

When asked why a retailer, whose shoe sales make up a good percentage of their overall revenue would actually promote barefoot running, Gillian matter-of-factly responded that it was good for their runners.

Therein lies the difference between companies like RoadRunner Sports who lash out against barefoot running and those who not only accept it but embrace it. Don and Gillian are focused on spreading the joy of running that they experience. They sell only products they would run in and firmly believe are the best for runners. RoadRunner Sports, I’m afraid, values the bottom line more than running. It probably wasn’t the case when RoadRunner Sports started, but as they’ve grown they’ve forgotten running and what’s best for the sport.

As to why exactly why Mike wrote the email, your guess is as good as mine. It probably came down to money. He’s probably pissed that he turned down what has become the hottest shoe on the market, the Vibram Five Fingers. Or his worldview is based on the belief that man is not as smart as machine. Whatever the case may be, Mike should think twice about his next move.

When you’re next in the market for running gear or information, think about the people behind the company. Are they in it for the love of the sport? Do they sell anything they wouldn’t buy themselves? Is what’s best for you driving their business decisions?

Full-Transparency: I receive no perks from  any retailer nor am I currently part of any affiliate program. I was a previous customer of RoadRunner and am now a customer of ZombieRunner among other retailers of running gear.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Ping.fm
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Twitter

Discussion

Comments for “Running Scared – How the barefoot running movement is driving one CEO to ruin a brand.”

  • One of the things I find funny about the larger dialogue of barefoot vs shoe, is that for a lot of people - they are basing their understanding of the topic and its arguments from a level of anecdotal and personal experience. Unfortunately, most people's personal experience in running does not expand to a time prior to the advent of modern running shoes and sneakers, much less living a life primarily without shoes.

    One person will say, "humans have been running without shoes for a million years."
    And the other will reply, "but what about glass and rocks?!!?!"

    I think it is going to take more and more scientific studies, and mass media exposure for people to stop thinking about their learned behaviors from a lifetime of wearing shoes, and start thing about what science and evidence is actually saying about the human body and how it was meant to move.
  • rogerinsydney
    Obviously there's a degree of self-interest in telling people that they should be buying shoes, just as there's some degree of self-interest in making sure that customers know you put them first. I think that for people who are well and truly into running and do it regularly and have at least some contact with reliable information and good buddies to argue with, the latest hype around barefoot is no big deal. But the trouble is that when detailed studies get boiled down to headlines and delivered as unqualified fact to people who run casually or based only on what they're told, then there's a risk. It's like the Galloway method - yes, sure, if you can't actually run a whole marathon, then run-walk is a good way to build up. But if you actually do run long distances, then all run-walk offers is a staccato world of hurt. Yet some people swear by it because they haven't experienced or considered the alternatives.
    Barefoot is at the very least a valuable training and conditioning tool, probably for everybody to some degree. But if it's going to be the next rendy religion, then it's a good thing that somebody's telling people to have a think about it. For example, the author of this article throws in a personal positive about Vibrams. That's cool, especially if people know about them. But there's a big difference between wearing them on uncivilized trails and natural surfaces that our joints evolved around as opposed to flat hard roads that really only appeared in the last few hundred years. I know of at least one Vibram-wearing runner in Sydney with fractured toes who can attest to that.
    It's a bit of a dull way for RR to try to sure up market share, but it's hardly 'lashing out' against a movement. If anything, it's badly written marketing that comes off as patronising, which might be why it's provoked better written if similarly reactive responses. Perhaps sweeping generalisations about running would be better presented in future by saying, "If you actually have half a clue about running, please ignore the following..."
  • rogerinsydney
    p.s. This has actually been on my mind since New York Times first took up the barefoot flag about 6 months ago. There was a ridiculous partial interview with this guy talking about being a barefoot running convert and how he's been running city marathons barefoot and how he runs coaching clinics to train other people wanting to run barefoot and long distance. His marathon time was 4h45min. It doesn't matter whether you're running 2h15min or 6h15min - if you love your running and your right into it and you see it through to the end of either the race or your body, that's awesome. But if you're running 5-hour marathons and you want to take people's money for coaching, they're saps and you're a giant douche cashing in on well-meaning gullibility, in my opinion.
  • While your point is valid - and I appreciate you being straight-forward and sharing your opinion - let's not call anyone names here. I say that if someone is straight up on what the payee is going to get out of the coaching, fine. There's more to learn than just speed when it comes to running a marathon. Now, if someone is signing up for barefoot lessons because they read that it can increase their speed, and this coach said he could help them do that but withheld or lied about his own speed, I fully agree with you. However, we don't know if that's the case or not here.

    A big and important point that I think is fueling all of our comments is that no one should rush into anything when it includes physical activity. Do your due diligence and get out there and try something. Just take it slowly, pause to assess how your body is, and then decide for yourself if the change is a good thing for you.
  • rogerinsydney
    i kind of feel comfortable calling the occasional person a name but, just to be clear, i'm not calling anybody here a name - just to make sure that's not lost in webslation : )
    Good call --> "Do your due diligence and get out there and try something. Just take it slowly, pause to assess how your body is, and then decide for yourself if the change is a good thing for you.". That's about as well as it can be said, and i think it's a shame that this kind of sage advice is almost never attached to media buzz about the latest finding. I think we could all do a better job of decyphering and questioning studies. I don't run roads or trails barefoot because I just don't feel the appeal, but I do a nice 10 mile training run in soft sand because i feel like it really helps my ankle strangth and movement and release built-up junk in my legs, as well as working my joints and posture. I'm a fan of barefoot as a component of running, and I admire people who do hectic distances barely shod or unshod. I just get annoyed when the findings of detailed studies are trumpeted by mainstream media without any of the caveats noted by the researchers. Australian news has been running the barefoot story over the last fortnight and all i've heard it say is that research has found that running barefoot is better for you than running in shoes. That's it. I can just picture what happens next. And it's going to involve injuries and "but nobody told me...". You know what I mean? Broken toes might just be this generation's Kayano. LOL.
  • I think that most of us on this thread are in "violent agreement" and a few things:

    1) Different strokes for different folks.
    2) Ease into anything new and evaluate it in light of your situation.
    3) Barefoot running has at least some value.
    4) The media often gets it wrong, which can be dangerous for those who are new to running.

    Two things maybe we don't quite agree:

    1) The original post was about whether the email from RRS was at least a little bit self serving (and maybe a lot self serving) and not altogether altruistic.

    2) Just because someone isn't great at something doesn't mean they can't teach it. People that teach programming give their students the tools. That doesn't mean they've written code that is the best out there. Most people who teach word processing or English have never written a novel, let alone a successful one. Some of my best teachers have been people that never worked in the fields they taught.

    However, this whole thread has been very interesting, mostly calm and civil, and I think good for all of us.
  • AQ
    Can I just say that this has been the most interesting and useful thread on this subject that I have read anywhere? Now that the conversation has died down a bit and needs to get stirred up again, I’ll jump in...

    First, I am with Roger in saying the idea of not needing to know a subject to teach it sounds totally bonkers to me. Would you really hunt out the guy on the court who was missing 9 out of 10 free throws and ask him to teach you about hoops? I have been studying German for almost a year, and while I could function at a basic level in Germany, I’d think you were nuts if you asked me to teach you, let alone if you offered to pay me. What’s more, my lack of knowledge of advanced German would probably cause me to lead you astray even about the things that I think I know.

    The speed at which we run a race (any race—100 miles or 100 meters) measures our knowledge of running. I think that’s why most of us bother to race at all—to measure how much we’ve learned and improved since the last time. It certainly measures other things (your dedication to the sport, the amount of free time you’ve had in the preceding weeks to train, etc), but primarily it demonstrates how well you understand running (how to train, how to hydrate, how to approach the race itself, etc). As Roger said, there is nothing wrong with running a 5 hour marathon, just like there is nothing wrong with hitting 1 out of 10 free throws, as long as you are enjoying what you’re doing. However, running a marathon at that pace doesn’t indicate any deep understanding of the sport (with the obvious exceptions, such as if the runner was older). A runner who is at the very beginning stages of learning the sport might be someone you would want to swap thoughts with if you were both at that level, but taking lessons from him could lead to real problems. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

    My second thought, and I realize that this is provocative before I even say it, is that I am not convinced that barefoot running is a means to an end. Particularly to the end of healthy running. Barefoot running is not a panacea--running barefoot exposes you to injury just like any physical activity does. Certainly the kinds of injuries you encounter might be different than those when wearing shoes, but as Dr. Victor points out, we just don’t have a large enough body of science to know whether it will decrease the rate of injury. The Sapporo Half Marathon study that he cited suggests to me that it is overstriding and inefficient form that causes problems rather than shoes or the way the foot lands—as runners get better at running, they tend to develop a more efficient (i.e. faster and less injury prone) form whether they are wearing shoes or not. I think what Paul called something like “heel roll in” is a very different thing from “heel strike”, and my guess is that these Sapporo study runners were doing something like roll in, although the study didn’t specifically make the distinction between the two.

    I have recently been logging all of my miles barefoot and will continue to do so, but I do it simply because I enjoy it. In other words, it is an end in and of itself. In my mind, that is the only reason to do it. It doesn’t particularly make me a better runner (I certainly would never race barefoot), and I am very sure that I will get running injuries in the future regardless of how I run.
  • Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...... Took me a while to find time to respond but here goes:

    I think that part of the problem I see with many runners online is they think that if you're not running ultras or tris, or even marathons, then you aren't really a runner. They forget that there is a whole population of people out there spread all along a spectrum from world class athlete to weekend jogger.

    "The speed at which we run a race (any race—100 miles or 100 meters) measures our knowledge of running. I think that’s why most of us bother to race at all—to measure how much we’ve learned and improved since the last time."

    Some people never run races. Does that mean none of them understand running? I think not. They just don't like races for some reason. Some have no desire to go faster, but only to maintain a certain level of fitness. They are still runners in my book.

    I agree that being experienced, knowledgeable, and skilled with something is an plus when it comes to teaching. But there are a lot of counter examples. There have been successful coaches in all of the major sports that either never played or only played in high school. Many very successful teachers, at all levels, have never had a "real world" job in the field they teach in. I had a Physics teacher in high school that never worked outside the classroom but I learned more from him (about Physics and life) than most of my college science professors.

    I don't think barefoot running is a panacea either. And much of what we hear is indeed anecdotal and/or based on limited time frames. But at this point, with literally hundreds if not thousands of people finding value in it, it clearly should not be dismissed as something that is too dangerous, particularly by someone who has financial motivations to do so.
  • rogerinsydney
    that's a webalized misrepresentation then - I totally agree the mailout is self-serving. The absolute giveaway is that he tries to scare people about glass at the beach. The beach is about the one place you actually want to run across glass if you're going to because it sinks into loose sand more easily than into skin. I think that good running shops are altruistically self-interested - they know it's better to have customers return because their needs are looked after and their horizons expanded, rather than because they have been scared into buying cr@p they don't necessarily need. I wouldn't put this dude in the Darth Vader basket, but he's definitely some kind of doofus.

    So worthless though it may be to know, I'm mostly agreeing with you. And I like your analogy about teachers delivering tools and building blocks but you could coat the 5-hour marathon coach with banana and peanut butter and try to wash it down with frosty cola and i still couldn't swallow it. See your 1.) i guess. :-)
  • A reminder to all: any comments that are disrespectful or spiteful towards another poster won't be tolerated. Heated discussions happen, but it should be kept respectful. Disagreement healthy. Animosity not.
  • drvictorjrunco
    Besides being a doctor that has treated runners and thier injuries for 11 years I also own the San Diego Running Institute a retail running shoe store in San Diego. My first comment is as a doctor and former researcher. Running injuries are related to how far, how intense (hill repeats, speed work etc), how often and how much recovery is done btween runs. As far as I know it matters not what type of shoe you are in or not in. If you run to far or to often you will eventually break down.
    My second comment comes as a researcher. As far as i know NO RUNNING SHOE has ever prevented any running injury from happening. Even though in the running community it is a commn belief that "more stability" or "more support" will somehow help of prevet injuryit is simply not true. Where did they get this idea....probably from shoe manufacturers marketing efforts.
    Thirdly as a rnning shoe store owner and an utramarathoner i hae a simple view of shoes. They should be comfortable and provide protection from the ground or whatever may be on or sticking out of the ground. This morning my ultrarunning club was running in SycamoreCanyon and te topic of barefoot running wasbrought up....probably due to Mike's email. When asked my opnin I provided baically what I just said above but also this. If you want to run barefoot do it. Do it safely and smartly. If you like it and it works for you that is awesome. It is all about comfort and what you like. If you feel better doing it that is great, if you don't and want "mimimalist" shoes I would be happy to show you some.
    For some reason this topic is stimulating emotional responses from "those without shoes" and "those with". The bottom line is do what makes you happy and jus run.
  • Dr. Victor,

    What do you make of the growing body of research about avoiding heal striking and the benefits (stronger feet, calves, etc.) that occur with barefoot running? And what do you think about the assertion that running barefoot gives the runner instant feedback and therefore "teaches" him/her the correct form?
  • drvictorjrunco
    Hi Bob,
    Years ago I was videotaped for 10 miles never once heelstriking. I did not think it was a problem then and still do not. As far as i know i have read most all of the available research papers on running to be published in peer reviewed medical jounrnals to date. I am not aware of "a growing body of research about avoiding heel striking and the benefits of barefoot running". There are many who claim the benefit as there are many that claim the benefit of their stability shoes. Your feet have nerve receptors in them that provide your nervous system with feeback called proprioception. This tells your body what type of surface you are running on, how hard it is etc. If you are not wearing shoes then the input into your receptors is amplified as opposed to dampened when wearing a shoe. Whether or not this results in "correct' form is debatable. There are only a few studies that have examined running form and it appears that our form is modified with a few variables. Age...the older we get we tend to bend our knees less and shorten our stride among other things and speed. The faster we run the more we tend to run out on the balls of our feet. When gait has been examined in elite runners the vast majority are heel strikers and it appears with mid-foot runnners making up 20-something percent and toe runners 1-2%. Keep in mind they are all elite and therefore fast and sucessful. It could be they heel strike because they were taught too, it could be that the human body chooses a form that is most efficient for that particular person or maybe it is because they wear shoes.
    Correct running form is a difficult concept. Correct form in running at the Pacific Beach boardwalk would not be the same form I would choose while running Cowles Mountain or running through all the stream beds currently flowing in Mission Trails Park.
    I would also like to point out that there have been no studies to show that a certain type of form is superior to any other in preventing injuries. But also it is important to note that there are no studies that show running by heelstriking or by wearing the latest and greatest shoe will prevent injury either!
    Sorry to be so long winded Bob. I guess my answer is really this, there really is no research that shows wearing shoes is superior to barefoot running nor vice-versa. Even if barefoot running made your feet and calves stronger... is it necessary? There are plenty of strong looking body builder types out there who would get injured running with or without shoes....an increase in strength does not equate to a decrease in injury necessarily. As far as the increased proprioception goes...well maybe having more input is better... but is it necessary? Baseball players wear mitts to protect their hands hocky players wear gloves for the same reason and footballball players wear helmets to protect their heads. All of these devices are designed to protect and help the athlete but they all also interfere with their proprioception or "instant feedback". What is the difference with wearing shoes?
    So I say again, if you are comfortable and running barefoot suits you great...if you like shoes cool. Just run and be happy!
  • Thanks for the thorough response Doc, and for sharing your expertise. I guess time will tell what is "better" for the majority of people (whatever "better" is). Of course its not gonna be a "one size fits all" situation. As you say, if it works, use it. For me, its hard not to be excited about barefooting when after 34 year of running with chronic pains and injuries no matter what kind of footwear I tried, I have been able to be pain and injury free for about a year now running exclusively barefoot or in Vibrams when necessary for weather purposes.

    BTW: I was born and raised and lived the first 30 years of my life in San Diego. I lived in PB during college (UCSD) and am familiar with Cowles Mountain and Mission Trails. Early in my career I worked in downtown La Jolla and would run up Soledad 3-4 times a week. A far cry from my current "trails" in lower Manhattan.

    Thanks again.
  • drvictorjrunco
    It seems yo uand I switched places Bob. I was born and raised in NYC! Now ilive in San Diego since 1999. When I go back to NYC I can ot find any trails. You almost have to go upstate NY to get decent trails but upstate is cetainly beautiful....once it thaws.
    I am glad to hear you are running injury free too! Maybe we will cross paths at the next NYC marathon!
  • This has clearly turned a corner as per normal online and i'm gracefully bowing out of this discussion. What i want to leave you all with though is a story by Matt Jenkins who as you will know is a legend ultra runner and marathon runner. In fact he has run 16 marathons in just socks and 2 ultras...

    http://runninginsocks.blogspot.com/2009/12/rock...

    The part of interest (aside from much pain and suffering due to teh surface) is this

    "After digging some glass splinters out of my foot the Wednesday after the race, I discovered that I must have stepped on and crushed part of a beer bottle. I was thinking (this week) about whether or not my feet had recovered enough from Huntsville for a shoeless marathon this Saturday and then another one in Missouri on 12/27. I discovered a hole in my foot, and a shiny piece of glass at the bottom of the hole. After about an hour of scraping and digging, I got it out. I'm still debating on whether or not to wear shoes this weekend. I've already decided Missouri has to be done without shoes."

    Anyway. Happy trails.
  • Thanks for the link to this site, Paul. I always enjoy reading these types of debates. Sorry to see you leaving it though. Here's my two cents about the issues.

    Running without shoes in grass is, in my opinion, far more dangerous than running on pavement/concrete. As Paul pointed out, I crushed a broken beer bottle while running in the grass. It's more difficult to actually see those types of hazards when you're running in grass. If I was running in the road and that same beer bottle was there, I wouldn't have had a problem. I think those types of hazards also tend to end up on the side of the road rather than in the road for often than not. A major problem with running in the grass is the fact that most people will go back to improper form, pounding heel first because of the cushioning grass provides. Running on a hard surface provides just enough pain for me that I shorten and lighten my stride, sending less of a shock wave throughout my body. I have stepped on glass in the road several times, but it never gets jammed in there because of my lighter stride. Running in the grass, I was pounding probably twice as hard, which really attributed to the problem. It was a 3-day injury, and didn't affect my marathon schedule.

    I haven't been a big fan of the fact that the barefoot movement is being seen as a way to ruin big shoe companies. I would like to see less cost and more quality (part of the reason I refuse to run in the $135 Vibrams, which I also believe are low quality and overpriced). I was tired of paying $100 or more for a pair of shoes that contribute to my IT band pains. Personally, I can't afford to spend as much money as it is starting to cost to run all of these marathons. Part of the way I've dealt with that is to stop spending money on shoes. This is another issue, but race fees are also out of control. With the struggling economy, race fees are going up like gas prices in some places.

    I just think running should be free, or at least cheaper than it is.
  • Thanks for the link.
  • JS
    Thanks for speaking up! My first thought was "Wow, I don't think I have the desire to ever purchase something from RRS again." Whether I'm barefooting it or not! I'm doing about 50/50 now, and as long as you're not stupid (i.e. run through glass), I feel it's super beneficial to me. Flat out saying it's bad was a huge mistake. I've purchased many clothing items through RRS in the past when I haven't been able to find them at the local store - I'll be finding a new source.
  • Yep. I agree fully. It's a shame, because RoadRunner could have evolved - they had a pretty strong brand. Glad you've had good experiences with running barefoot some of the time. Thanks for sharing!
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9itkEkcQ8WM
    Is it the shoes? It's gotta be the shoes.
  • Thanks for sharing the link. This is a good video. Have you seen the new ones accompanying Dan Lieberman's Harvard research? Still getting through all the great data and analysis. http://bit.ly/9IqQXA
  • Its a tread mill which is not what real off road running conditions are like. The runner is also clearly over striding. There is also a difference between heel "roll in" and heel "strike".

    Seriously people....have any of you actually run a marathon or ultra never mind bare foot?
  • Now Paul, surely you're not saying that only people who have run a marathon or beyond can comment about running. The fact that you have run an ultra is great, and cool. But it only allows you to think differently about yourself, not others. Let's keep it cool.
  • This guy is not attacking the barefoot movement- just highlighting the potential dangers when it comes to glass and such on the roads. As much as it pains me to say it- i'd like to see you all run barefoot on the rocky and sharp trails you find out in the "wild" and then come back to his advice.

    @bob Running bare foot for 6 months is just that. Small "items" on the road is a far cry from sharp broken glass and other items that can puncture the skin.

    I've see this type of argument many times before online. Apple computers vs PC's. Road bikes vs Mountain bikes. Linux vs Windows. Single speed vs gears. And now its barefoot vs runners. I'm not sure why folk take it upon themselves to obsess about such trends.....and take it so personally. If you like running barefoot great. If you don't...great! JUST RUN. No one is right or wrong......

    By the way- wearing vibrams ain't no barefoot.
  • Well Paul, I got to respectfully disagree with you on a few things!

    First, I've personally run over a variety of surfaces and had no problem (once my feet were accustomed to skin on ground, which can take some time to get used to). Glass isn't much of an issue, in reality, more a mental hang-up than anything else. Bob's point about running in a much lighter, quicker form is dead on. Your feet simply don't hit the ground very hard or for very long, so even when I accidentally step on a rock, it only stings for a few seconds.

    That being said, running barefoot is only a means to an end.

    Let me repeat that, because it's important, and distinguishes me and probably you as well from the barefoot fanatics. Barefoot running is only a means to an end.

    What I mean is that it's all about a good form that primarily decreases the chance of injury. I do believe strongly that running barefoot, and only running barefoot, will teach you the proper, natural way to run. However, if you can run that way in shoes, fine. I would just argue that the vast majority of shoes out there (anything not in the Minimal category I outline in another post) will likely lead to some issues at some point.

    For that reason I don't care if anyone thinks of Vibrams being barefoot shoes or not. Because if they let you run almost the same way you would going barefoot, that's great. The point is Vibrams enable you to run in a barefoot form. It's all about the form.

    Regarding your point of view that Mr. G's email is fine because stones and glass are a real problem, you're missing the point. I'm criticizing his email from a business perspective. He might as well be whining about ice cream cones melting on your hand for all I care. The issue I take is through a marketing/brand/business lens.

    From a running point of view, though, he's also wrong. Small pebbles, large rocks, glass, all really not an issue at all if you are willing to run almost daily and keep your eyes open. I would gladly make the mistake of stepping on a nail going barefoot. The Asics I ran in helped contribute to 8 months of disability. That's FAR worse than a minor cut or bruise.

    Gotta try it, man!

    Phew, how was that for a rant!!
  • "Regarding your point of view that Mr. G's email is fine because stones and glass are a real problem, you're missing the point. I'm criticizing his email from a business perspective. He might as well be whining about ice cream cones melting on your hand for all I care. The issue I take is through a marketing/brand/business lens."

    I apologise then as your post does not come across like this at all.

    "The Asics I ran in helped contribute to 8 months of disability. That's FAR worse than a minor cut or bruise."

    I'm pretty sure that it was poor technique rather than the runners (this is what i read and maybe wrong). And good technique can be learnt regardless of what you have (or donot have) on your feet.

    As for trying it. I have. I've run a few times barefoot on the beach and grassy fields which was awesome. I felt 'free" and totally cool to connect to the ground. For a few short "fun" runs- it's great. The difference is that I run with the same technique with runners on too- which all of us can. Barefoot running is just that. If you run in some minimal shoes with good technique- what's the difference exactly?
  • "what's the difference exactly?"
    The difference is that when you put anything between your foot and the ground to lessen the feeling of impact (and this will happen), your body compensates by landing harder on the ground.
    The end result is increased stress on the legs.

    I do agree that with proper form anyone can likely run in just about anything.
    The unfortunate part to that equation is that average Joe Runner doesn't have good form because he was brought up running in motion control shoes.
    If Joe Runner were to ditch the shoes, learn proper form, then he very likely could go back to running with whatever he'd like on his feet.
  • Dude, you have got to be kidding me! There's just no way one could run the same in the huge Asics Kayanos as barefeet. Yes it was poor technique - because of the shoes!
  • To state that it was the shoes that gave you "bad technique" is ridiculous. Why can't one achieve the same form and technique with runners?

    I respect your commitment to achieving your goal of running an ultra mate and the passion you have for barefoot running- but the facts are that it is technique that the key not what you wear. If barefoot helps you achieve good technique then great.

    Happy trails.
  • "And good technique can be learnt regardless of what you have (or donot have) on your feet."

    This is another place we disagree. I ran for 34 year in "runners". I tried lots of techniques, forms, methods. Still had chronic pains. It wasn't until I ran barefoot that I really learned how to run properly. It wasn't until I got constant feedback from my whole foot. It wasn't until my toes were able to get into the action. It wasn't until I could make adjustments in real time when I felt something tightening.

    Perhaps some can learn to run properly with runners on. But even in that unlikely scenario running shoes allow the relevant muscles to get lazy again and for heal striking to slip back into the form.
  • Maybe some people can just run and some cannot? What about that for a concept!

    It's great that you have had such great results, but just because you have does not mean the average runner will. Which takes me back to my original comment that the guy is offering a fairly reasonable alternative to just "running in no shoes!"
  • "Maybe some people can just run and some cannot? What about that for a concept!"

    As far fetched as the concept that the world is flat.
    However, I would certainly have agreed with you at a point in my life prior to ditching the shoes. In mid-May 2009 I couldn't run 10 minutes on a treadmill in my shoes. I did believe I was incapable of running. I had taken many stabs at it and always ended up a failure to myself.
    I read something, I think a NY Times article, around that time about how some elite runners use barefoot running as a method to run properly. This I had never even considered, but the logic resonated with me and I soon tried this on the treadmill. Sure, the first time I made it maybe a mile before blisters were stopping me. But for the first time in my life I absolutely loved running. It was no longer a nasty chore I attempted because I thought I needed to be healthy.
    Since then I worked my way to my longest run in 2009 of a little over 19 miles. This was just me and myself, not a race, I did it because I couldn't help myself.
    I have a 50 mile ultra-marathon goal in 2010 and currently I can't wait to emerge from this cold winter (-4F this morning). While I can make it outside in Vibrams down to about 20F I miss running and especially running without Vibrams.
  • All good points that I have experienced as well.
  • @Paul Have you ever spent any time in lower Manhattan? Chinatown? Broadway? There is plenty of sharp objects and worse around.

    You are missing the point about the article. If my mother, or wife, or friend warns me about the "dangers" of barefoot running that's one thing. But when the "Chief Runner" of a company that makes its living from selling shoes does this its a different story. Particularly when right below the the "warning" are links directly to the online store? You don't see something a little self-serving in that? Does he feel THAT threatened?

    And.... do you really think that I don't already KNOW that there are rocks and glass and other things on the streets I run on? I've been running 35 years. I think I know a rock when I see one. The message of the article is condescending.

    And yes, wearing Vibrams is NOT barefooting. I never said it was. When I run barefoot I call it that. When I wear VFFs I say so. You can check out my blog to verify this. You can even watch a video of my barefeet running on the lower east side of NYC.
  • "i'd like to see you all run barefoot on the rocky and sharp trails you find out in the "wild" and then come back to his advice."

    What do you think humans have been running in for the last 2 million years? Nike Moccasins?

    "By the way- wearing vibrams ain't no barefoot."

    Indeed, though I am working on a medical procedure to graft the neoprene to the bottoms of my feet. The point is, highly cushioned and constricting athletic shoes function totally different from Vibrams, and the barefoot even more so.
    Barefoot > Vibram FF > Nike Free > Nike Air
  • @ Dave. These "humans" are not you not I.....or the average runner. We are not talking about seasoned tribal hunters here- we are talking about the average western person. Before you jump on teh band wagon and start ranting about what you can and cannot do barefoot- maybe go try it yourself. Once you have run an Ultra barefoot then you have grounds to argue- until then- you just keep dreaming.
  • Even if we are talking about minimalist shoes vs. Nike, minimalist would win out. Take huaraches for example. Civilized man has been using sandle based shoes like that for thousands of years. The Roman legions marched hundreds of miles across the Mediterranean on basically the same type of shoe that the Tarahumara indians in Mexico run ultramarathons in.

    The real bandwagon is the one fired up in the 70's that eventually led people to believe that they were better off with atrophied lumps of flesh and bone, encased in nylon and rubber coffins (high-end running shoes), that used to be feet. :D

    Either way, I'm new to the whole barefoot thing, so I won't pretend to be a shining example of its righteousness. But I do have a M.S. in Information Science, and I have a good knack for recognizing well constructed scientific experiments/papers. This new research in Nature, coming out of Harvard is significant, and is worth taking seriously.
  • Very well said, Dave. You're absolutely right - the 'bandwagon' that folks jumped on was out of Beaverton in the 70's.
  • Paul, you ok man? You don't sound like your usual chipper self. Your tone is coming across rather strongly. We have no way of knowing if Dave has jumped on any bandwagon here, let's assume the best of folks. And even if he has, that's not a bad thing in and of itself. Running an ultra is by no means the bar here. Like you said earlier, just running and enjoying it is the point. No one has to run an ultra to prove themselves, though it is a fantastic feat and goal to have.

    You have a point that we don't all necessarily run every day like our ancestors. The wost thing would be for anyone to try any new activity or form and not ease into it, test if it's right or not. But I bet everyone commenting here is doing that.

    Let's remember the focus is on helping people run injury free. That's it.
  • I'm still my chipper self- i just disagree with your point of view with regards to this matter.

    As you said: "Let's remember the focus is on helping people run injury free. That's it." Isn't this what the guys email is focusing on? Surly you can see that if an average runner just binned their runners and headed out and ran on the road that they would get injured?

    I think that you are all looking far to much into the email to be honest. I just don't see it as a disregard or anti barefoot running email. *shrugs*
  • So you think his purpose was purely to warn us humans about the evils of rocks and glass? And its just coincidence that right below his "warning" there are links to buy his products? You don't think there is even a hint of self-serving intention there? If not, then yes, we just disagree.
  • Like i said- i have no opinions about what i see his intentions as. I do however see the information as a sensible point. If an average runner just throws their shoes to the side and heads out on their normal run BAREFOOT (not in sandals or neoprene covers) they will most likely get injured.

    You guys just don't get it. I'm not attacking your beliefs or reasoning for why you run barefoot. I just DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THE EMAIL.
  • "I do however see the information as a sensible point"

    It can only be perceived as such from an uninformed individual.
    If you were to take your shoes off and go for a run right now, you'd come to a few conclusions.
    First, you'd realize that you have never been paying more attention to where you place your feet.
    Second, if you skip the Vibrams and go purely barefoot, you will get a blister before a stress fracture and therefore stop your run prior to any damage occurs. With the possible exception of sore calves.

    If you were to continue running barefoot, then you'd come to the realization that after some time your body becomes incredibly adept at shifting weight as required if you were to step on something painful.

    And this I think is the danger with this type of marketing. It pampers the uninformed masses and cuddles their inhibitions.
  • Did you read the 5 points I outlined? Seems like you are having a different conversation than what I wrote. From a purely marketing stand point, stupid move. He's Definitely not into care for his consumer's feet as much as wallet.
  • To be fair....how can you read so much into a few sentences from an email? As for a stupid move against customers....like i said....he is advising them to be safe...and if they are keen on barefoot running try some medium style shoes.
  • 15 years of marketing consulting experience.
  • Great write-up on the situation recently! Considering the timing of this marketing move (shortly before key research was released) it seems to me it is less about concern over customers' feet and more of concern over company's profits.
  • Yes, exactly.
  • I couldn't say it any better. Spot on!

    @paulpetch: If Golfredson knew anything about barefoot running he would know that rocks and glass can easily be avoided and that after a while small rocks are not a problem because of the way barefoot runners step lightly and get used to small items on the road. I've been running barefoot in Manhattan (of all places) for 6 months now and have never had anything more than a blister. As Mcdougal says, I take two very highly tuned instruments along with me..... my eyes. When I see something I don't step on it. And when I do accidentally I quickly shift my weight to minimize the impact.

    The main point is that there is not reason for Golfredson to do this. What does it accomplish?
  • Clynton, maybe i'm missing the point here but he is just talking sense.....as there is a lot of sharp things out there that will cause damage if bare foot. He is knocking bare foot running as fr as i can see...... and he even mentions minimal runners.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Stay Connected

Subscribe RSSSubscribe comments RSSFollow me on Twitter

Recent Comments

Matt: David,I would like to think that my...
David Crandall: Good observation!And unlike formula...
Matt: David -- To expand on your line of ...
Clynton: Good question. I'm not sure abo...
David Crandall: As someone who is a devout Christia...
Nick: If this was true, and the thought h...
Clynton: Hi Eli, I'm looking into this f...
Eli: I've been wanting to purchase a...
sarah430: What a great feeling. Congrats!...
studioyvr: Fantastic news...

Polls

What do you think of barefoot/minimal running?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Photo Stream


By Erik Rasmussen