What’s next?  A “skinnydippin” wetsuit?

Thanks,much appreciated. I was really disappointed with the interpretation as I do genuinely like their shoes and the folks from the company that I have interacted with. They also are one of the few companies who make shoes that I feel comfortable putting on my kids’ feet. But, it’s still important to be honest, and though it can be hard at times when you have a good relationship with a company, it’s worth pointing examples of bad marketing like this out.

Galahad,

I appreciate very much that you took the time to respond here – that is not typical of other shoe companies that I have criticized, and it says a lot about your approach.

My sensitivity on this issue is that all too often claims are made by shoe companies that either distort or or are not supported by the scientific evidence. This is how we wound up with things like the pronation control paradigm (which Runner’s World seems to have just abandoned in their most recent issue), the wet test, the role of cushioning, heel lifts, etc. I believe that barefoot running can be of benefit, and that running in minimalist shoes can as well. I am a supporter of both myself as anyone who reads this blog can tell. But, people are individuals with individual backgrounds of past shoe wear, physical activity, health issues (e.g., diabetes), etc., so we need to be careful in a blanket approach to footwear for all. Some people may in fact need a bit more shoe for any number of reasons, and that’s ok. What’s important is that there is now variety in the market, and people can choose more minimal shoes like yours if they want (as I have myself).

The problem is that headlines and marketing slogans that are over-enthusiastic can get people hurt. Dan’s study was a step in the direction of providing evidence for the benefits of one stride type over
the other, but it’s one study that focuses on a very specific type of
high-level runner (collegiate XC athletes). As I pointed out in my post, it
does not address the safety and benefits of barefoot running or the safety
and benefits of active attempts to alter stride from one type to another
(which is what most people choosing a shoe like yours would be attempting
to do). A solid argument can be made that wearing any shoe on one’s foot
alters mechanics relative to barefoot, so these facts are important to keep
in mind. I get emails from people all the time who have benefited from
moving to a more minimal shoe, but I also know far too many people who have
gotten hurt in attempting to transition to barefoot/minimalist with too
much exuberance. That’s why I don’t like proclamations like “barefoot is
better” or “forefoot striking reduces injuries.” It makes people feel like
this is something they should be doing even if they are running just fine
in their current form and footwear. A lot of folks also don’t understand
just what a forefoot strike is – quite often they think of it as running up
on the toes, and this can put tremendous stress on the foot and ankle.

As I indicated, I wear your shoes regularly, and you make kid’s shoes that
I feel comfortable putting on the feet of my own children (and that’s very
important to me). I also appreciate your efforts at education – this is
what I think needs to be most emphasized right now. But, when it comes to
using science in marketing, let’s take the high road and not overgeneralize
or get too exuberant with research findings. We have a lot left to learn,
and until we have a better handle on who should transition, what the risks
are, and how to minimize them, it’s in everyone’s best interest to take a
very careful approach.

Pete

One element I see crop up over and over again in the minimialist shoe marketing is diagrams of runner – the heel striker at point of landing whilst over-stridding, and the non heel striker with their foot right underneath them or often even behind their COM.  This advert does it, Inov8 has some marketing that tries to illustrate a progression that has the heel striker to forefoot strike and does exactly the same thing and these aren’t in anyway alone in this.   What all these diagrams shoe is the “natural” runner late in stance, but sold as if they have just landed, and the heel striker right at the beginning of stance and doing a dreadful over-stride.   This type of marking is never like for like.  It’s basically deceit.

I can’t help but feel that marketing and over-zelous evangelism does harm to the minimialist and barefoot movement.  Short term gain for long term pain.  It’s like the marketing departments are locked into matching either sides outlandish psuedo-science and unsustainable claims, actually telling the truth gets lost in the hype.

Which is shame because my expectation is that with time the more evidence will come to support minimalist and barefoot running as a valuable approach to running.  The house of cards of high heel drops and motion control shoes is already crumbling, one needn’t create a new house of cards built on pseudo science or mis-representing proper science as an alternative.

I do hope that publicly calling out the dubious marking, like you have done here, will help keep a check on the silliness.  Kudos to kick the ball into play.

Btw, I also like my Vivo’s, though they are a casual ‘work’ or ‘leisure’ shoe for me and cannot run the long distances in them.

I really love any company that makes minimal shoes for kids and Vivo is one of the few that do. My son is currently wearing Merrell Trail Gloves which have not held up very well. We’re planning Vivos next time around.

Hah – I agree. (I do own a pair of Vibrams but do not call them barefoot!). There is a great clip on youtube called “Sh*t Barefoot Runners Say”, where the runner says he is a barefoot runner, then shows the camera his Vibrams, Kinvaras, Minimus etc. Gold.