Doesn’t Barefoot Mean No Shoes?
I’m a little confused by this review in Wired of Vibram’s new Bikila shoes. It begins:
FiveFinger shoes made by Vibram, the poster children of the barefoot-running movement, are as close as you can get to running in your bare feet without having to worry about hookworms and broken glass.
One of the company’s newest offerings, the Bikila LS, is designed specifically for the barefoot runner. Named after Abebe Bikila, who ran barefoot and took the gold medal in the marathon in the 1960 Olympics, the Bikila LS sports a few features added specifically for distance runners.
The outsole is beefed up with extra padding on high-impact areas like the heel and forefoot to soften the impact of running on concrete, and Vibram has added cushioning in the cuff and the shoe’s topline to reduce irritation and pressure on longer runs.
I realize the term “minimalist” may not have reached wide usage yet, but there’s something jarring about saying a shoe “is designed specifically for the barefoot runner.” Particularly if it has a “beefed up” outsole with extra padding and added cushioning. To me, that sounds like a shoe.
Perhaps it’s appropriately named after Abebe Bikila, who won the 1960 Olympic marathon in his bare feet. But Bikila went on to win the 1964 Olympic marathon in a pair of Pumas, bettering his record by three minutes.
Sounds like a shoe to me, too! lol
Language has no meaning. The posers won a long time ago.
You’re definitely right. As a minimalist runner and freelance writer I had the chance to review several pairs of minimalist shoes including 2010′s VFF BIKILA. Although Vibram set the fashion trend to minimalism and became some sort of icon, I didn’t find the BIKILA to be close enough to barefoot running. The sole is way to thick and there’s no barefoot feeling. VFF KSO model was closer to real BF. I currently wear huaraches or Soft Star Shoes Run Amoc Lite, both are really “barefoot”.