Recent Posts

The problem is that forefoot striking is not sustainable. At long distances you will either midfoot or heelstrike (depending on shoe and your endurance).

Proof for that statement?

isn't it AMAZING??!!

It depends on what you do with the shoe. I could not wear a Bally loafer to run in snow and slush. I agree paying full price for VB is to be avoided, and I did, got mine at LLS for less than half the price. But I don't see any other shoes that can meet my needs as well as the Evos right now in a winter running shoe: ground feel (4mm sole with insole removed is real good), reasonable sole flexibility, toe box, stability (foot not moving around in the shoe), grip on snow and ice, protection from cold, water resistance, dirt resistance and good looks. And I still haven't seen any winter boots that meet my needs as well as the VB Off Road Hi. There is a lot of personal preference that comes into play when choosing a shoe.

The Dharma is was actually cheaper on TheClymb than when Vivobarefoot had them on Ebay for $60 +25 shipping (http://myworld.ebay.com/terraplana254/?_trksid=p4340.l2559). Pretty impressive, except they only had size 45-47.

Little rant:
I find Vivobarefoot's athletic shoes (Evo/Neo/Aqua Lite/Lucy Lite) to be enormously overpriced because in the actual store they sell them for 2 pairs for $80 or $50 each for the clearance stuff, as opposed to $140-160. I can stand Vibram marking up 25-40% (but we're talking about up to 250% markup for Vivobarefoot.

The only thing that warrants Vivobarefoot to charge more than standard shoes is the development of their 3mm sole technology (the toeboxes on athletic models on anything but the Aqua Lite/Lucy Lite are pretty standard), but the parent company is Clarks / C&J Clark International Ltd...which is ridiculously profitable (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/8545195/Profits-at-Clarks-boosted-by-North-American-appetite-for-shoes.html ; the founder of Vivobarefoot is of Clarks family http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1355357/Are-shoes-killing-Modern-footwear-harm-health.html).
There's nothing stopping you from grabbing a pair of wide-width Mary Jane/ballerina flats from Payless for <$30 if you're a woman or if you're a man, resoling a pair of wide-width driving mocs or loafers with 1mm Vibram toppers like women do with Loboutins. The cobbler was able to completely resole a pair of my father's 30+ year old Bally loafers, so I suspect if you were to rip off the entire heel and put 1-2mm Vibram topper material it would possibly be better than Vivobarefoot.

Case in point: http://www.saveyoursole.co.uk/shop/

Trek sole on ice? Must be my Bormio isn't broken in enough, it slides on cement with ice (i.e. the clear one).

Nope it's a rehash but with more data.

No one is always a forefoot striker or a heel striker. Your form depends on many factors, including your speed, the terrain, whether you’re tired and so on. But most of us have a predominant strike pattern, and so it was with the 52 Harvard runners. Thirty-six, or 69 percent of them, were heel strikers, while 16, or 31 percent, were forefoot strikers. The proportions were similar regardless of gender.
...
All of the Harvard runners wore shoes, and most, as Dr. Lieberman says, “wore different shoes every day of the week.” Some ran in well-cushioned shoes and became injured, while others did not. Likewise for those who usually ran in minimal racing flats. Some got hurt; some did not. And forefoot striking, over all, was not a panacea. Many of the forefoot strikers were felled by injuries.

The problem is that forefoot striking is not sustainable. At long distances you will either midfoot or heelstrike (depending on shoe and your endurance).

Also look at http://www.runblogger.com/2012/02/vivobarefoots-barefoot-is-best-campaign.html

Transitioning to forefoot striking has its own problems, such as metatarsal stress fractures and achilles tendonitis.

Good for you!
(just remember to wash them before the "odor" builds up)

A few sprays of rubbing alcohol from a spray bottle (like for plants) after each run and you'll never have a problem.    Congrats on the KSOs Tim.  Still probably my favorite model.

Is this old news?  I just saw it for the first time today:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/why-runners-get-injured/

As Lieberman agrees, let's be clear - this doesn't say that barefoot is better (speaks only to foot strike, not shoe selection).  And it's a small sample size.  But a twofold greater risk of injury for heel strikers is pretty interesting.

So you are a solid 39 in VB's? (except for the Brooklyn.. which is a whole different story).  How do you feel they compared with Stems, VFF's, and Merrell Pace gloves as far as comfort/toebox/ground feel?

Stef - hope you don't mind if I give my 2 cents.

I have the VB Neos and Off Road High, in a W41 (I wear W40 in VFFs). I don't have the Stems, so I can't comment on them. 

When I wear something other than VFFs (which is rare), my "go to" shoes are my VB Neos.  I took out the insole.  The toebox is roomy enough for me, ground feel is excellent and these are very comfortable.  I have run in the Neos, but prefer my VFFs as I find the Neos a bit "sloppy" or lacking a customizeable fit. 

I also have the pace gloves, but I don't wear them as they seem too stiff to me, probably because of the rock plate.

I did too. I'm trying to hold out on seeya. But it's a loosing battle