42 replies to this topic

[Long Arms]

I recently heard that the Australian army purchase their footwear (heavy boots) from China. These army boots fall apart in hot conditions. They also slow our soldiers down in anything from multi day hikes to climbing to short sprints for their lives in battle.

Can anyone explain to me how this heavy style of footwear is more advantageous to our soldiers than a pair of lightweight minimalist running shoes? This concerns footwear both in army training and at war.

If it is to handle rocky, sharp surfaces in training or battle, many makes of lightweight trail running shoes could be more suitable.

It seems that a minimalist trail running shoe with protection from sharp surfaces would be far more versatile than the massive boots soldiers currently have to endure.

[mgi11a]

Been 25 years since I was in the army, but from what I remember of the black boots we wore then is they were pretty water proof.

Unlike an ultra that may be a few days, we would go bush for 6 weeks at a time. Keeping your feet dry is your greatest asset.

Once you wore them in they were pretty comfy, and running in them wasn't that hard.

Someone else may have some more up to date ideas for you.

Cheers

mgilla

[Long Arms]

I have never been in the army. Are you saying you would not take off your boots for 6 weeks? I could understand the reasoning if you were involved in a 6 week non-stop battle but does that sort of thing happen?

[mgi11a]

There were times when you may go for a few days or more without taking your boots off. Then it was a bit of foot powder, a fresh pair of socks and straight back on.

As long as you kept the nugget into them the water wouldn't soak through, you could walk through a 3" deep puddle and not get your socks wet.

[SpecBGT]

As for the country of origin of boots worn by our soldiers, they do have a choice of what they can wear from a number of endorsed brands. As to why they wear 'heavy boots' there are a number of reasons. Protection being the main reason: protection from the elements, pointy objects, contaminants, heavy objects falling etc. Being a boot that wears above the ankle, it also provides structural support to the lower leg. Given the number of different tasks that a soldier has to perform, the boot is the most versatile.They are not expected to sprint 400m in 50sec, nor do a HM in 90min, however they may be expected to route march 50km in a day and then do some construction at the end.

Combat boots have developed over the years, influenced by the perceived need at the time. Pre-Vietnam, they were all leather with thick soles. However, experiences in the tropics saw the development of a lighter weight boot with a canvas upper, allowing the boot to breath and dry out quicker. The modern boot could be called a hybrid.

[vat]

Not that I've been in the Army, but it's basically for the same reasons construction workers and those in the trades wear boots - you need to cover a wide range of environments that range from paved roads to destroyed buildings with broken glass and masonry, mud, water, sand, gravel, grass and so on, with the potential for hot and cold environments, all whilst maintaining traction and proof against water incursion over long periods..  A running type shoe's not going to cut it.

The US Army actually use a Nike designed boot, the SFB.  Very popular with hikers.

Edited by vat, 22 July 2012 - 08:43 PM.

[Long Arms]

SpecBGT, on 22 July 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

As for the country of origin of boots worn by our soldiers, they do have a choice of what they can wear from a number of endorsed brands. As to why they wear 'heavy boots' there are a number of reasons. Protection being the main reason: protection from the elements, pointy objects, contaminants, heavy objects falling etc. Being a boot that wears above the ankle, it also provides structural support to the lower leg. Given the number of different tasks that a soldier has to perform, the boot is the most versatile.They are not expected to sprint 400m in 50sec, nor do a HM in 90min, however they may be expected to route march 50km in a day and then do some construction at the end.

Combat boots have developed over the years, influenced by the perceived need at the time. Pre-Vietnam, they were all leather with thick soles. However, experiences in the tropics saw the development of a lighter weight boot with a canvas upper, allowing the boot to breath and dry out quicker. The modern boot could be called a hybrid.

Which elements? Rain? If it were snowing wouldn't lightweight snowshoes be better?
Pointy objects? Such as what? Their current boots would stop the penetration of an army knife or needle any better than a pair of running shoes.
Contaninants? You may have a better idea on these than me. Please give some examples.
Heavy falling objects? If something falling that lands on a soldier is is heavy enough to break his foot it will break it whether he is wearing running shoes or amry boots

[SpecBGT]

As far as the elements are concerned unfortunately there really isn't the option to carry a boot for every situation. Pointy objects: take your pick, broken glass, sharp rocks, nails. Contaminants: solvents, brake fluid, shit. As for heavy falling objects, if you dropped a hammer on your foot would rather be wearing an army boot or a running shoe?

[M0606]

I am ex army, and I was in at the time of switching from the older style boot to the current style boot.  The current boot is much lighter and gives better support to the ankle. However, the boots we use compared to other countries is embarrassing, as a mater of fact, all the gear we have is so much worse than other countries I have trained with.

The boots these days are better but because the soles are made from cheap plastics they tend to heat up quickly, this burns the bottom of the feet when doing a lot of km on concrete or tarred surfaces.

Being an ex-infantry soldier, I could not imagin being in anything but a boot, you need the ankle support. When you are out in the field you are running, jumping, sliding, crawling across so many different types of ground, a shoe would not give you the support or the durability as a boot.

I ditched my standard issue boots when out field and used a SAS issued lightweight canvas type boot with soft rubber sole that I purchased of an American soldier, best buy ever.

[danish]

How's a drill sargent supposed to make cadets polish his Vibram five fingers?

[ChrisMac]

There are many functions in the Army, each one could justify some kind of specialist footwear, but that would be pretty uneconomical, hence the title "Boots, GP", standing for General Purpose.  I was in the signals trades, which included, amongst other things, laying field cable in rough terrain, digging cable trenches in all weather, and riding dispatch motorcycles.  Strong ankle support and protection from elements and terrain were important.   The infantry guys do a lot of km's on their feet, disembark from moving vehicles, static line parachuting (much harder thump than steerable canopies); and use their boots as a tool for opening locked doors.  The Salomon Speedcross 3 isn't going to cut it.

[Colin]

Can't really understand what the OP is questioning. If minimal shoes ok, why not barefeet- perhaps that's where this is leading.

As someone who has hiked and run on the same hiking trail, I can tell you good hiking boots are the only shoes you should have on when walking a 50km trail with a 20kg back pack, especially if the terrain has everything from mud, hard roots through to jagged rocks.
If you want to go as fast as possible in running kit over 10km on same track then running shoes will obviously be faster.

[tank girl]

I will agree that the current service boots leave a lot to be desired—there is too much 'support' over the achilles tendon and not enough support against lateral ankle rolls which is actually where the shoe is softest. I much prefer my Timberland hiking boots, which are lightweight but still very supportive. And having carried a heavy pack across mountainous terrain in several models of light trail shoes, in army boots and in my Timberlands, I like the Timberlands the best by far, but I much prefer the army boots to the trail shoes. When I'm carrying a lot of extra weight,  my feet are not as responsive as when I'm running with a light daypack. As for the Timberlands (did I mention that I love them?) I have even run a good chunk of the Yorkshire 3 Peaks in them, they are that comfortable.

[Long Arms]

soldiers should be trained so they have improved both conscious and unconscious proprioception in regards to feet and ankles. They should also do strength work for the foot and ankle areas using therabands. Plenty of exercises on wobbleboards and simply running, walking and exercises both barefeet and in minimlist shoes will improve proprioception massively. Once strong and with good reactions soldiers will not roll ankles in rough areas, including when carrying 40kg of weight on their backs. I find walking for several days carrying 20kg far easier in minimlist shoes than being restricted by wearing boots.

I think the boot making undustry have conned a lot of you for too long

[denjah]

 Long Arms, on 23 July 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

soldiers should be trained so they have improved both conscious and unconscious proprioception in regards to feet and ankles. They should also do strength work for the foot and ankle areas using therabands. Plenty of exercises on wobbleboards and simply running, walking and exercises both barefeet and in minimlist shoes will improve proprioception massively. Once strong and with good reactions soldiers will not roll ankles in rough areas, including when carrying 40kg of weight on their backs. I find walking for several days carrying 20kg far easier in minimlist shoes than being restricted by wearing boots.

I think the boot making undustry have conned a lot of you for too long

As a former Grunt( Infantryman) I can assure you that the boots did not present any problem whatsoever in moving fast when the action heated up.And yes we did wear the boots for six weeks or more, through jungle, swamps etc, we all carried extra socks and foot powder.And the packs weighed a lot more than 40 kgs.Especially on resupply days.Sorry but personally I don't think minimlist shoes would cut the mustard.

[madd0ct0r]

Ninja'd by an infantry man - the shame

I prefer even running in boots for fun.

If I was working as a a reemee - (engineering corps) - I'd expect to be marching some distances* carrying heavy loads. I'd be working on broken and loose rubble, with shards of glass, and 10cm spikes of snapped off rebar to watch out for (yes, they can stab you above your ankle).

I might be working in mud, in water or in snow. I would be working around heavy machinery and dangerous tools. In civvie life I'd throw anyone wearing minimilist shoes off my building site. I don't see why adding extra dangers makes light shoes more sensible.

*maybe 3 days, with minimal sleep, carrying 25kg of equipment minimum.

Edited by madd0ct0r, 23 July 2012 - 01:40 PM.

[M0606]

Maybe a POGE can wear minimilist shoes during PT.

Could you imagine a battalion of grunts running at you in 5 fingers.The enemy would not have to fight back. The grunts would be miles away rubbing their very sore feet and stubbed toes.

I am sure minimilist shoes have a place in running and they have some health benifits, however, I don't think the army is the place to start changing harts and minds.

Try the Navy first !!!!

[ChrisMac]

 denjah, on 23 July 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

 Long Arms, on 23 July 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

soldiers should be trained so they have improved both conscious and unconscious proprioception in regards to feet and ankles. They should also do strength work for the foot and ankle areas using therabands. Plenty of exercises on wobbleboards and simply running, walking and exercises both barefeet and in minimlist shoes will improve proprioception massively. Once strong and with good reactions soldiers will not roll ankles in rough areas, including when carrying 40kg of weight on their backs. I find walking for several days carrying 20kg far easier in minimlist shoes than being restricted by wearing boots.

I think the boot making undustry have conned a lot of you for too long

As a former Grunt( Infantryman) I can assure you that the boots did not present any problem whatsoever in moving fast when the action heated up.And yes we did wear the boots for six weeks or more, through jungle, swamps etc, we all carried extra socks and foot powder.And the packs weighed a lot more than 40 kgs.Especially on resupply days.Sorry but personally I don't think minimlist shoes would cut the mustard.

So Longarms, to put your mind at rest, the army also do a lot of other development exercise as well to prepare soldiers for life in boots.  First of all, many people are screened out at recruitment if they are potentially going to have physical problems with the boots.  Secondly, the first few weeks are spent building up to it.  You start out in your army issue jogging shoes (Dunlop KT-26's in my day, a great all-purpose shoe), running everywhere.  Gradually your time in boots is increased.  You spend a lot of time preparing and softening the leather: vaseline on the inside, boot polish on the outer; and tape on your feet if required.  Ongoing physical training (PT) strengthens your legs and improves your adaptability to running in boots.  I used to maintain 3-4 pairs of boots at anyone time, always breaking in a pair or 2 while I had a designated pair for PT and a pair for operations/field work.

[Long Arms]

 ChrisMac, on 23 July 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

 denjah, on 23 July 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

 Long Arms, on 23 July 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

soldiers should be trained so they have improved both conscious and unconscious proprioception in regards to feet and ankles. They should also do strength work for the foot and ankle areas using therabands. Plenty of exercises on wobbleboards and simply running, walking and exercises both barefeet and in minimlist shoes will improve proprioception massively. Once strong and with good reactions soldiers will not roll ankles in rough areas, including when carrying 40kg of weight on their backs. I find walking for several days carrying 20kg far easier in minimlist shoes than being restricted by wearing boots.

I think the boot making undustry have conned a lot of you for too long

As a former Grunt( Infantryman) I can assure you that the boots did not present any problem whatsoever in moving fast when the action heated up.And yes we did wear the boots for six weeks or more, through jungle, swamps etc, we all carried extra socks and foot powder.And the packs weighed a lot more than 40 kgs.Especially on resupply days.Sorry but personally I don't think minimlist shoes would cut the mustard.

So Longarms, to put your mind at rest, the army also do a lot of other development exercise as well to prepare soldiers for life in boots.  First of all, many people are screened out at recruitment if they are potentially going to have physical problems with the boots.  Secondly, the first few weeks are spent building up to it.  You start out in your army issue jogging shoes (Dunlop KT-26's in my day, a great all-purpose shoe), running everywhere.  Gradually your time in boots is increased.  You spend a lot of time preparing and softening the leather: vaseline on the inside, boot polish on the outer; and tape on your feet if required.  Ongoing physical training (PT) strengthens your legs and improves your adaptability to running in boots.  I used to maintain 3-4 pairs of boots at anyone time, always breaking in a pair or 2 while I had a designated pair for PT and a pair for operations/field work.

[Long Arms]

ok, I know you soldiers love your boots. Yes I have heard you may have to carry up to 60kg on the odd occassion- far more if you have to carry a big fellow soldier. Weightlifters wear flat soled, lightweight minimalist drop off footwear and they lift hundreds of kg. Lions carry hundreds of kg of their own body weight and have to walk through similar terrain to soldiers. Elephants carry more. I don't see them wearing boots. Rugby League players often lift opponents weighing well over 100kg who have hit them travelling at speed wearing skimpy modern footy boots with thin leather uppers and often zero drop off, with little plastic studs on the outersoles ands no ankle support at all.  martial artists, sumo wrestlers, etc fight barefeet or with very thin soled shoes

Edited by Long Arms, 23 July 2012 - 02:53 PM.

[Colin]

I think its a troll thread to have yet another ridiculous (in this case especially) barefoot/minimalist thread from a proponent of it.

Sure maybe if you hiked the coastal trail here in Sydney you could on a pair of plimsoles, but the Otter Trail we walked in 2010 - it is a trail race too btw- would be nigh on impossible without problems for most bushwalkers without hiking boots -jagged coastal rocks that would cut up your running shoes let alone vibrams - through to mud and boulders...and that is not even the worst that a soldier would face.

How about a running advice thread Sean?

[Curreo]

If it's good enough for special forces...

http://birthdayshoes...ivefingers-ksos

[ChrisMac]

 Curreo, on 23 July 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

If it's good enough for special forces...

http://birthdayshoes...ivefingers-ksos

.... and it isn't.
http://birthdayshoes...am-five-fingers

[ChrisMac]

 Long Arms, on 23 July 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

ok, I know you soldiers love your boots. Yes I have heard you may have to carry up to 60kg on the odd occassion- far more if you have to carry a big fellow soldier. Weightlifters wear flat soled, lightweight minimalist drop off footwear and they lift hundreds of kg. Lions carry hundreds of kg of their own body weight and have to walk through similar terrain to soldiers. Elephants carry more. I don't see them wearing boots. Rugby League players often lift opponents weighing well over 100kg who have hit them travelling at speed wearing skimpy modern footy boots with thin leather uppers and often zero drop off, with little plastic studs on the outersoles ands no ankle support at all.  martial artists, sumo wrestlers, etc fight barefeet or with very thin soled shoes

I think you're getting hung up on a very small part of the soldier's life.  Soldiering isn't a sport.  Think loading/unloading crates from vehicles; erecting tents and antennae assemblies; building temporary engineering structures; laying barbed wire; operating plant equipment.   Still, I would be interested to know what the Five-fingers feel like after a few days in the sand.

[Curreo]

 ChrisMac, on 23 July 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

 Curreo, on 23 July 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

If it's good enough for special forces...

http://birthdayshoes...ivefingers-ksos

.... and it isn't.
http://birthdayshoes...am-five-fingers

from that link:


To further clarify though - this policy only affects TRADOC (Training & Doctrine Command) which is where all Soldiers attend basic training and officer basic courses. However, the tone of the policy indicates that an Army-wide policy is forthcoming banning ALL "minimalist" shoes.
The original link I posted noted that the army was banning them in certain situations but the 'special forces' that I alluded to in my post were using them as displayed prominently in the picture!

[Curreo]

interestingly they haven't banned any other minimalist shoes for use in basic training or other officer basic courses since this was posted and in fact appear to be supportive of it:

http://www.armymedic...l/mrs/index.cfm

I know this is getting off topic slightly as it doesn't cover actual duties in the field but just thought it interesting seeing the special forces guy jumping out of a plane wearing five fingers. Perhaps heel striking is not the preferred landing pattern when one jumps from 10,000 feet?

[MichaelD]

I found army and also Fire fighting boots comfortable to wear all day marching, walking , standing and for short periods jogging and would rather them than shoes

[Rafferty]

 Colin, on 23 July 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

I think its a troll thread to have yet another ridiculous (in this case especially) barefoot/minimalist thread from a proponent of it.

Hmm, not how I see it.

A quick google indicates some signifcant movement into production of lighter weight  'army' boots.

I note that Nike and Adidas are in this market.

[Long Arms]

 Rafferty, on 23 July 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

 Colin, on 23 July 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

I think its a troll thread to have yet another ridiculous (in this case especially) barefoot/minimalist thread from a proponent of it.

Hmm, not how I see it.

A quick google indicates some signifcant movement into production of lighter weight  'army' boots.

I note that Nike and Adidas are in this market.

running and hiking are such huge parts of being in the army. There are lots of army, former army and potentiallly future army members that are Cool Runners. It seems to have attracted a fair bit of interest.

[chapel]

Long Arms

Wikipedia doesnt agree with the China thing (http://www.redback.net.au/company.html) seems to be an Australian Company. Nor are the Army restrictive about heavy boots?

Since 2000, the Australian Army (As well as other its other Defence branches), primarily uses the Redback Terra Combat Boot as a replacement for the Vietnam War-era General Purpose combat boots. It was given a limited amount of tests in 1999, and was later distributed in 2000. Despite the boot's general aptitude for the tasks which the ADF had first put it in place for, it still had major flaws. 90% of all negative feedback from soldiers was about its inappropriate sizing, having only 43 different sizes. Many also claimed that its sole could rot in worst case tropical circumstances.
Currently, development is underway to create a better boot. To address concerns, the Australian Army maintains a list of approved non-standard issue boots that can be worn by troops.^[5]
Boots approved by the Chief of Army as at 25/6/11 include:

• ALTAMA 4156 or 4158 3LC Hot Weather
  
• Belleville M590 or M591 Hot Weather
  
• Bates 30501 Durashock desert
  
• Crossfire Peacekeeper plus
  
• DANNER Arcadia Desert
  
• MEINDL Desert fox Safari
  
• LOWA Urban Desert
  
• GARMONT T8 Multi Terrain

Edited because my post sounded smart arse-ish

Edited by chapel, 23 July 2012 - 09:46 PM.

[sportsphysio]

 Curreo, on 23 July 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

If it's good enough for special forces...

http://birthdayshoes...ivefingers-ksos

Take a look at the landing zone: it's a water jump. The guy behind him is probably wearing neoprene booties. The idea here is that after landing in the water, he may need to put fins on and start to swim, so boots aren't essential.

 Rafferty, on 23 July 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

A quick google indicates some signifcant movement into production of lighter weight  'army' boots.

Lightweight shouldn't be confused with minimalist. The lighter boots still have several essential characteristics including tough outer and protective sole. The lighter the materials, the thicker the sole can be without added weight.

 Long Arms, on 23 July 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

running and hiking are such huge parts of being in the army.

Agreed but running training isn't done in boots. You'll often see soldiers running in uniform with joggers due to the risk of bone stress injuries from running in boots.

And for hiking, due to the weight carried and the surfaces underfoot, the boots are a far better option. Other than the protective elements, they can minimise energy expenditure as it reduces the amount of ankle stability required, which far outweighs the effort of moving the extra weight of the boots. It also saves countless overuse injuries that would occur due to local muscle fatigue (plantarfasciitis, etc).

Overall, the Australian-issue boots aren't held in high regard (poorly made, not durable and looks terrible with evening wear) but soldiers will opt to buy US boots out of their own cash rather than looking for non-boot alternatives.

[sportsphysio]

 Curreo, on 23 July 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

interestingly they haven't banned any other minimalist shoes for use in basic training or other officer basic courses since this was posted and in fact appear to be supportive of it:

http://www.armymedic...l/mrs/index.cfm

There's a huge difference between offering a guide on a topic and supporting it. The military also offers a guide on sensible consuption of alcohol, it doesn't mean that they are suggesting everyone should give drinking a try.

[AJS]

Yah need a pair of boots to wander around in this crap.

 A Shau Valley.jpg   69.13K   23 downloads

[Curreo]

 sportsphysio, on 23 July 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

 Curreo, on 23 July 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

interestingly they haven't banned any other minimalist shoes for use in basic training or other officer basic courses since this was posted and in fact appear to be supportive of it:

http://www.armymedic...l/mrs/index.cfm

There's a huge difference between offering a guide on a topic and supporting it. The military also offers a guide on sensible consuption of alcohol, it doesn't mean that they are suggesting everyone should give drinking a try.

I probably didn't phrase it properly, what I meant to say was that they dont appear to have an issue with it. There was talk of them banning minimalist shoes after they banned vibrams but this has not eventuated.

[Wedgetail]

 Curreo, on 24 July 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

I probably didn't phrase it properly, what I meant to say was that they dont appear to have an issue with it. There was talk of them banning minimalist shoes after they banned vibrams but this has not eventuated.

Maybe you should clarify who the 'THEY' is.  Are we talking Australian Army or are 'They' the American Army or some other Army.

The principles are the same for any Defence Force.
In a combat zone the feet need to be protected. A minimal shoe or VFFs are no use if the bad guys have a box of tacks or something similar to spread on a path.  If a tack can cause injury to one soldier it takes a full patrol out of the action.  Military boots have thick soles regardless of make to protect against sharp puncture type injuries.
Soldiers are expected to train under similar conditions to which they would fight.  ie if you wear boots in a combat zone, you wear boots for training/ working in peacetime.
Most Defence Forces also wear uniform.  The idea of uniform is that everyone wears the same, looks the same.  If you allow personal choice of footware what about hats, or shirts and trousers.  It just wouldn't look right on ANZAC day to have a company of soldiers marching with all but a few in boots and one or two in VFFs. Public Relations is very important to modern Defence Forces. If wearing a combat style uniform off base and in public approved boots are required.
PT and fitness is a different situation.  In most cases there is some individual choice for shoes for PT  and sporting clothes are worn rather than normal working (combat) uniform.

[halfwaydown]

What the pommes are doing:
http://www.ukgear.co...tary-Sales.html
No evidence of barefoot,
Have teamed up with shoe manufacture to provide approved military traning shoes.
I read somewhere previously that the desert shoe was the prime reason these shoes were created - as in the last decade or so most of the areas of confilct have been hot sandy terrain and there was no shoe on the market able to cope with heat and sand.
I found them only because I bought a pair of PT-03s from Footpoint in Mosman a couple of years ago thinking they would suit my robust running style.  They were pretty robust but the sole is very hard and quite inflexible making it quite slippy on wet rocks.
They are training shoes rather than everyday boots.

[SpecBGT]

Yep a training shoe, not a combat boot. Nice piece of marketing.

[halfwaydown]

 SpecBGT, on 25 July 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Yep a training shoe, not a combat boot. Nice piece of marketing.

To refer to Long Arms original post
"Can anyone explain to me how this heavy style of footwear is more advantageous to our soldiers than a pair of lightweight minimalist running shoes? This concerns footwear both in army training and at war"
I am trying to add to this discussion, not sell a pair of shoes I have no particular affinity with - these shoes were designed in origin for the british military not for civlians who wanted to buy shoes that were designed for the military.
And frankly having grown up in the UK I would say that there are probably as many people there that would be put off with the concept of wearing 'military gear' as put on by it.  The fact they are called UK Gear and have a union jack on the back of the heel would, in my view, probably put a few people off buying them here too.

[SpecBGT]

The marketing refers to the fact that they are targeting military contract sales. So, an Army will purchase this product to issue to it members. It is part of the uniform thing and a duty of care ensuring that it members have suitable equipment in which to train. For large forces, that thousands of shoes a year.

[iRonnie]

1984:

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." George Orwell.

2012:

"If you want a vision of teh future, imagine a barefoot - with well-developed proprioception- stamping on a human face - forever."  

Edited by iRonnie, 26 July 2012 - 05:52 PM.

[Long Arms]

iRonnie, on 26 July 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

1984:

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." George Orwell.

2012:

"If you want a vision of teh future, imagine a barefoot - with well-developed proprioception- stamping on a human face - forever."  

2050:
'If you want a vision of the future, think a world still full of wonderful places to run like parks, beaches, forests, mountain trails and country roads- where footprints rest alongside shoeprints"

Edited by Long Arms, 28 July 2012 - 01:28 PM.

[iRonnie]

Long Arms, on 28 July 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

2050:
'If you want a vision of the future, think a world still full of wonderful places to run like parks, beaches, forests, mountain trails and country roads- where footprints rest alongside shoeprints"

"Oww, wouldn't it be lovely?"   Julie Andrews

Edited by iRonnie, 28 July 2012 - 06:14 PM.

[Running Science]

The US have trialled a Nike free combat boot which had a lightweight upper attached to a Nike free base. Not too sure of the results but would be comfy....