39 replies to this topic

[downunder runner]

Hi there, been running for 13 years and mainly in cushioned shoes like Nike air zoom etc.  wanting to transition into more minimalist shoe but don't know where to begin.  I have a neutral foot, and I am 58kgs, and currently do 65-70kms a week with 18km long run.

I was told in the past to train in my heaviest runners, and then switch to racers on race days..

I am 43.. It is too much to ask my joints to go into less supportive shoes, after years in cushioned shoes?

Thanks for any insight and shoe suggestions!!

[halfwaydown]

I transitioned into Nike Free first then this year got a pair of Merrel Road Gloves

I train 4 times a week and wear the minimalist pairs on 2 of those - I find them particularly good for the recovery run and hill training as they encourage soft feet.
But I still stick to more cushioned shoes (Nike Pegasus) for the LSD and on race day  ie I like a bit more comfort on my joints when I'm going hard or expecting to be out in the saddle for a long time.

No issues to date.

[Tony123]

What about light weight trainers eg Adidas Adizero shoes?

Are they suitable as a minimalist shoe?

[age7875]

I transitioned from Asics Kayano into the Saucony Kinvara. Introduced the Kinvara slowly. After running in the Kinvara for a while I also introduced the Nike Free 3.0 and just recently the zero drop New Balance Road Minimus.

Just go slowly. In particular as you drop heel height. Typically shoes have a heel to toe differential of ~12mm. Minimalist shoes have much less (e.g. The Kinvara is 4mm). Running in less heel height puts a lot more stress on your calves when you are not used to them.

[Safari]

I've spent a small fortune trying nearly every new model that pops up on an almost weekly basis...after plodding through the minimalish Adidas and Saucony models, pulling on Altra and Nike Free's, I am a firm fan of everything New Balance, ran in the much hyped Salomon Sense for a while on the trails (not bagging it, it's a great shoe but I go sockless and these shoes pulled up a few blisters) but went back to the NB MT110; ultimate gladiator of the mountains... have a couple of pairs of NB Minimus Road and the often overlooked 730 for the tarmac, really hate wearing anything with an elevated heel over 4mm now but it takes patience and a bit of luck I reckon ...just take your time and don't jump into a pair of Vibrams and try to rock your way through a mara ...

[Seano]

Hi.
I alternate between Vibrams & NB minimus, & barefeet.
I find the barefeet the most cost effective.
I'm doing about 60k a week on average.

Doing that kind of mileage currently, you might need to drop back for a while.
I have been running in these for 2 years & have dealt with one foot injury which kept me from running for 6 weeks about 9 months in.
I think it was just a too much too soon injury.

If you haven't already, you might have a look at the Transitioning to barefoot thread.
i am 40, so I don't think age is going to be an issue for you, particularly given you are light.

I'm with safari on the elevated heels. I have a pair of Brooks runners in good nick, which I can never bring myself to put on, even to walk around in, because of the high heel. I wear Dunlop Volleys whenever I can, or bare feet.

Edited by Seano, 16 August 2012 - 05:48 AM.

[Pom]

I started in Brooks Pure Connect (4mm drop I think) back in January, running 4km max in them once a week. Gradually increasing the distance every couple of weeks as long as I felt comfortable. I have also bought a pair of VFF's, and in the beginning found that I had to run shorter distances in them over the Brooks, because of the heel height. Now I'm happy running about 16km in the VFF, and I'm aiming to run a HM in them later this year. I've taken it slowly, as I've tried to fit the transition in with my "regular" runs. I still enjoy my Pure Connects for faster/longer runs.  I believe the Brooks Pure Flow has had very good reviews as a minimalist shoe, with a generous amount of cushioning, it that's what you're looking for.

[Tony123]

Why do runners change to minimalist shoes?

Is it to prevent injuries, or to run faster?

[Stewymee]

I transitioned into low drop shoes over 5 years ago, after years of injuries and fed up with orthotics. The nike free range was the first brand i tried and loved them.  I find i always go back to them. I have used the saucony kinvara's, brooks pure flow, nb minimus road, 730's and the mt10, and vivo barefoot, and a few of the mizuno range. Ive found by transitioning slowly and listening to my body more, the nike free's suit me.

So happy with the nike's i use the nike sfb boot at work.

[Tony123]

Stewymee, on 16 August 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

I transitioned into low drop shoes over 5 years ago, after years of injuries and fed up with orthotics. The nike free range was the first brand i tried and loved them.  I find i always go back to them. I have used the saucony kinvara's, brooks pure flow, nb minimus road, 730's and the mt10, and vivo barefoot, and a few of the mizuno range. Ive found by transitioning slowly and listening to my body more, the nike free's suit me.

So happy with the nike's i use the nike sfb boot at work.

How do minimalist shoes prevent injuries?

[age7875]

Doesn't work for everyone. But many have had success converting to less shoe. The main reason is helps you run with better form. Just one of many articles on the topic http://runningtimes....ArticleID=22192

For those who have not read it, I also recommend this great book on the greater topic http://www.amazon.co...ASIN=B00872J5VI

Edited by age7875, 16 August 2012 - 03:31 PM.

[Tony123]

Cant you run with good form with normal shoes, eg Nike Pegasus?

[Pom]

Tony123, on 16 August 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Why do runners change to minimalist shoes?

Is it to prevent injuries, or to run faster?

Why not try changing it?  Long story short, I found myself having to chase a dog up the street, and had no shoes on at the time. I found myself enjoying running barefoot just as a different experience. I have found it has helped with injury too, but I agree that better running form can be achieved in traditional shoes also.

[Safari]

I think its about what works for you, I came down with a nasty case of Plantar Fasciitis and realized after looking at all those marathon and ultra photos that I was heel striking all the time, shuffling far too much and really wearing built up trainers with a 12mm drop seemed a little silly so I embarked on my mission of learning to run like a 10 year old; pumping legs and arms and a soft mid foot strike, straight back and relaxed form... no serious injuries to date, no return of the dreaded PF (all that daily stretching I do might have something to do with it too).. I knock off a 60mile or 100 mile race every month or two and I can now fly down hills and up them and I enjoy my running so much more... probably not for everyone but a complete change of form and footwear worked for me.

[age7875]

Tony123, on 16 August 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

Cant you run with good form with normal shoes, eg Nike Pegasus?

Yes. No doubt that you can.

But many have found it beneficial to run in less shoe to force them to improve their form (i.e. higher cadence, no over-striding, less chronic heel striking etc.)

[Tony123]

age7875, on 16 August 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Tony123, on 16 August 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

Cant you run with good form with normal shoes, eg Nike Pegasus?

Yes. No doubt that you can.

But many have found it beneficial to run in less shoe to force them to improve their form (i.e. higher cadence, no over-striding, less chronic heel striking etc.)

So minimalist shoes are a means to an end.  They are an aid to improving form

[Katz]

Or it could be said they are an aid to avoid the inhibition of good form caused by wearing shoes.

Or, they are a naid to avoid nasty and dangerous things piercing the flesh while running as nature intended.

[rohan]

age7875, on 15 August 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

Typically shoes have a heel to toe differential of ~12mm. Minimalist shoes have much less (e.g. The Kinvara is 4mm)

The Kinvara is hardly a minimalist shoe.  It is more what used to be called a racing flat, until someone decided that you could brand some of these as 'minimalist'.  It has a fair amount of cushion, though not as much heel to toe drop as some. I've got a pair on right now and I reckon there's more drop than 4mm.

If you like that style of 'minimalist' shoe then look at a lot of lightweight racing shoes.  Light weight, neutral and a fair bit of padding.  Think Nike Lunaflys, New Balance MR1400 and the like.

Katz, on 16 August 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

Or it could be said they are an aid to avoid the inhibition of good form caused by wearing shoes.

Or, they are a naid to avoid nasty and dangerous things piercing the flesh while running as nature intended.

but we invented hard roads, and compacted earth firetrails- often strewn with aggregate, So given that most of us are running on such surfaces then the padded shoe was a magnificent idea.

Tony123, on 16 August 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

How do minimalist shoes prevent injuries?

Well you run less, because it's an ouchy experience, and you feel beat up from the jarring.
Halve your mileage and halve your injuries.

[Katz]

I'm willing to guess rocks and other hard surfaces have been around longer than shoes.

[B+]

Katz, on 16 August 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

I'm willing to guess rocks and other hard surfaces have been around longer than shoes.

Ah yes they were and still are, but running 60-220km per week for the hell of it hasn't been. Neither has choosing to start running after 25 years of doing nothing except sitting on our bums and eating too many doughnuts.

Even the legendary Indians in Born to Run wear something on their feet. sandals.

Train safe

[SirRatty]

 rohan, on 16 August 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

The Kinvara is hardly a minimalist shoe.  It is more what used to be called a racing flat, until someone decided that you could brand some of these as 'minimalist'.  It has a fair amount of cushion, though not as much heel to toe drop as some. I've got a pair on right now and I reckon there's more drop than 4mm.

If you like that style of 'minimalist' shoe then look at a lot of lightweight racing shoes.  Light weight, neutral and a fair bit of padding.  Think Nike Lunaflys, New Balance MR1400 and the like.

I thought the MR1400 was more like a lightweight regular runner (even though it is marketed as a flat, it still has a big stack and a big drop).

Looks like there are a decent crop of new low-drop shoes with thicker soles (and thus more padding) around/coming at the moment - maybe something like this would be a better transition/trial plan?

 Tony123, on 15 August 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

What about light weight trainers eg Adidas Adizero shoes?

Are they suitable as a minimalist shoe?

 Tony123, on 16 August 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Why do runners change to minimalist shoes?

Is it to prevent injuries, or to run faster?

 Tony123, on 16 August 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

How do minimalist shoes prevent injuries?

 Tony123, on 16 August 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

Cant you run with good form with normal shoes, eg Nike Pegasus?

 Tony123, on 16 August 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

So minimalist shoes are a means to an end.  They are an aid to improving form

Nice plan Tony, keep asking questions until you get a response you like, and then agree with it

The OP asked: (emphasis added)

 downunder runner, on 15 August 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Hi there, been running for 13 years and mainly in cushioned shoes like Nike air zoom etc.  wanting to transition into more minimalist shoe but don't know where to begin.  I have a neutral foot, and I am 58kgs, and currently do 65-70kms a week with 18km long run.

I was told in the past to train in my heaviest runners, and then switch to racers on race days..

I am 43.. It is too much to ask my joints to go into less supportive shoes, after years in cushioned shoes?

Thanks for any insight and shoe suggestions!!

To which some anti-minimalist-inclined posters seem to want to recreate a debate into the benefits (or otherwise) of minimalist running. How is that helpful? Do you want to scare somebody off an experiment that may result in benefits to them? Worst case (or is that best case for you), downunder runner finds out that this kind of shoe is not for her and goes back to the traditional (oh, wait 30 year history of marketing shoes rather than thousands of years of running history... whatever) runners she was using before.

My opinion: physiologically there is no reason not to try it out. Joints, muscles, tendons, ligaments etc. are quite adaptable things. However, take it slow and beware as many of the necessary changes take place in avascular tissue which requires some time to adapt.

I don't like the advice to train and race in different shoes, as your body will be accustomed to running in one pattern and then forced to make (minor) adjustments on race day, whilst pushing pace and possibly distance. This sounds like a recipe for injury to me.

[Tony123]

 SirRatty, on 17 August 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

 rohan, on 16 August 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

The Kinvara is hardly a minimalist shoe.  It is more what used to be called a racing flat, until someone decided that you could brand some of these as 'minimalist'.  It has a fair amount of cushion, though not as much heel to toe drop as some. I've got a pair on right now and I reckon there's more drop than 4mm.

If you like that style of 'minimalist' shoe then look at a lot of lightweight racing shoes.  Light weight, neutral and a fair bit of padding.  Think Nike Lunaflys, New Balance MR1400 and the like.

I thought the MR1400 was more like a lightweight regular runner (even though it is marketed as a flat, it still has a big stack and a big drop).

Looks like there are a decent crop of new low-drop shoes with thicker soles (and thus more padding) around/coming at the moment - maybe something like this would be a better transition/trial plan?

 Tony123, on 15 August 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

What about light weight trainers eg Adidas Adizero shoes?

Are they suitable as a minimalist shoe?

 Tony123, on 16 August 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Why do runners change to minimalist shoes?

Is it to prevent injuries, or to run faster?

 Tony123, on 16 August 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

How do minimalist shoes prevent injuries?

 Tony123, on 16 August 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

Cant you run with good form with normal shoes, eg Nike Pegasus?

 Tony123, on 16 August 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

So minimalist shoes are a means to an end.  They are an aid to improving form

Nice plan Tony, keep asking questions until you get a response you like, and then agree with it

I was just trying to understand why the focus on minimalist shoes.  They are almost seen as the magic pill.  
I am also trying to understand what people are expecting out of the change to minimalist shoes, is it to run faster, improve PBs?

I think the focus should be on form, you dont need a minimalist shoe to run good form.
I wouldnt like to have to halve my volume to run in a minimalist show just to improve my form.
Why not run in a "normal" show, keep the same volume and work on improved form

[rohan]

 SirRatty, on 17 August 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

I thought the MR1400 was more like a lightweight regular runner (even though it is marketed as a flat, it still has a big stack and a big drop).

Yeah that's my point. Kinvaras are just another lightweight runner, but with allegedly a lot less drop.. though that's not something I really notice when wearing them.  Whatever, I really don't get what's minimal about it. There's a whole lotta shoe under your foot.

[Katz]

 B+, on 17 August 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

 Katz, on 16 August 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

I'm willing to guess rocks and other hard surfaces have been around longer than shoes.

Ah yes they were and still are, but running 60-220km per week for the hell of it hasn't been. Neither has choosing to start running after 25 years of doing nothing except sitting on our bums and eating too many doughnuts.

Even the legendary Indians in Born to Run wear something on their feet. sandals.

Train safe

Agreed. We are talking about minimalist shoes rather than pure barefoot, aren't we?

[downunder runner]

Yes, Katz...I was asking advice about minimalist shoes.  There seems to be heaps out there.. And definitions as to what is and what is not...I am confused.  I have 'racing flats 'of various sorts...shall I start to run in these a couple of times a week?

[rohan]

 Tony123, on 17 August 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

I am also trying to understand what people are expecting out of the change to minimalist shoes, is it to run faster, improve PBs?

be cooler?

[SirRatty]

I believe most would say that a minimalist shoe has a low- or zero-drop heel to toe, to come close to the foot/limb movement seen when running barefoot.

As far as which one, a trip to a shoe shop (or more than one) will be the best bet. There are definite differences between the different options so better to try before you buy. Also have a look around for reviews for a bit more info - e.g. Merrell trail shoes have a rock plate for a bit more protection on trails that the equivalent NB doesn't have (information from my memory only so don't rely on it!).

As for flats, that could be a fair option, but it really depends if they are flat or just lightweight, and if what you are after is flat or just lightweight. In part response to Tony above, part of the argument for flat shoes is that a larger heel-toe drop interferes with the "natural" running style of landing under the centre of mass on the "mid" foot (which I think is better described as whole foot), and if this is what you want then a flat/minimal shoe may be more appropriate.

FWIW, runningwarehouse <dot> com is a fair source of information about current shoes, even though many of their brands are not available to be shipped to Aus.

[BarefootBj]

 downunder runner, on 17 August 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

Yes, Katz...I was asking advice about minimalist shoes.  There seems to be heaps out there.. And definitions as to what is and what is not...I am confused.  I have 'racing flats 'of various sorts...shall I start to run in these a couple of times a week?

Firstly, congratulations on wanting to try something new! As mentioned previously, there are many opinions on the topic, more or less informed.. Obviously I'm on the barefoot/vibram side of the fence but one thing I think we can all agree on is that running form is the most important in order to run better, more efficient and with less (no?) injuries. The fact is that your body is the best trainer, more specifically your feet. By masking the imputs (ie. by wearing heavily padded shoes) your body can't 'feel' what it's doing wrong. As I've said before, running barefoot doesn't allow you to run wrong. You can still run wrong in minimalist shoes but you're less likely to as your body will tell you - ie. it hurts, you're doing it wrong.

Sadly it isn't so simple as to just chuck the shoes or wear minimal shoes and all your worries will go away. It requires time and effort to run right and many (myself included) had to re-learn how run and I would never have been able to run ultras now without it! (I just completed The North Face 100 in Vibrams)

Taking it slow is usually the hardest because running is suddenly such a joy, it makes you feel like a kid again and you just want to keep going!

Keep exploring, listen to your body and work on your form. If minimalist works for you awesome! Then try barefoot..

[southy]

I think you will find SirRatty that you got it backwards. One of the reasons I love the NB for faster trail running (and grass) is they have a very thin rockplate. If you have thin fatpads in your metatarsal areas  they can provide a lot of protection. I find it helps to avoid stone bruises for me.
Also for some people a compromise works better.  Not everyone wants to go to a zero drop, mainly because as a runner tires they will tend to drop back onto their heel more and this can lead to injuries. I prefer a 4-6 ml drop. I get some protection yet it still allows me to run as nature intended, using the springs in my feet more.
I guess each person needs to figure out what works best for them.

[B+]

 BarefootBj, on 20 August 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

As I've said before, running barefoot doesn't allow you to run wrong. You can still run wrong in minimalist shoes but you're less likely to as your body will tell you - ie. it hurts, you're doing it wrong.

Sadly it isn't so simple as to just chuck the shoes or wear minimal shoes and all your worries will go away. It requires time and effort to run right and many (myself included) had to re-learn how run and I would never have been able to run ultras now without it! (I just completed The North Face 100 in Vibrams)

I think that your "barefoot doesn't allow you to run wrong" statement is a bit overstated as many people do run wrong in barefoot for a wide variety of reasons. Many learn to run better but not everybody learns to run correctly with barefoot.

I am curious how your TNF race went in Vibrams. Had you done this race before your conversion to "barefoot"? What were your times like and how did you pull up from the effort?
Not asking to pick an arguement. I am just curious how you found it as I have had feedback from various runners with mixed answers to their personal experiences.

Train safe

[TCMB]

I have a pair of NB MT10 and after an initial few months of using them on short trail runs, I relegated them to casual shoes. Perhaps I didn't give them enough time, but I find them too harsh a ride without a rockplate. Since then it has been back to running trails with Asics GT-21XX or DS Trainers. They have been great for almost all of my trail (and road) runs, although every now and then I wouldn't mind a bit of extra grip.

I find the MT10 a very comfortable fit so was thinking about getting the MT1010 when it comes out as it has a rockplate and looks a bit softer, but have decided to stick with a more traditional shoe and have just ordered a pair of Brooks Cascadia 7. I appreciate some cushioning and think I can run faster in this type of shoe.

[didit7]

Tony123, on 17 August 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

I was just trying to understand why the focus on minimalist shoes.  They are almost seen as the magic pill.  
I am also trying to understand what people are expecting out of the change to minimalist shoes, is it to run faster, improve PBs?

I think the focus should be on form, you dont need a minimalist shoe to run good form.
I wouldnt like to have to halve my volume to run in a minimalist show just to improve my form.
Why not run in a "normal" show, keep the same volume and work on improved form

the thing is most good forms advocate using springiness of your calf, leg, and achilles tendon to absorb impact and to propel body upward and forward.  For this spring to function properly, you need enough space under your heel so your spring has enough time and space to absorb the impact energy before reusing that energy to bounce back.

Most "Normal" running shoes has about 8-12 mm height difference between heel and mid/front foot, that basically means your springs only have half or less the space and time to absorb impact.  the remaining impact energy will be converted as shock energy and can't be reused to propel body up and forward.

so eventhough it is all about form, it is pretty hard to have a good form if you run on stilletto.

[Tony123]

didit7, on 21 August 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Tony123, on 17 August 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

I was just trying to understand why the focus on minimalist shoes.  They are almost seen as the magic pill.  
I am also trying to understand what people are expecting out of the change to minimalist shoes, is it to run faster, improve PBs?

I think the focus should be on form, you dont need a minimalist shoe to run good form.
I wouldnt like to have to halve my volume to run in a minimalist show just to improve my form.
Why not run in a "normal" show, keep the same volume and work on improved form

the thing is most good forms advocate using springiness of your calf, leg, and achilles tendon to absorb impact and to propel body upward and forward.  For this spring to function properly, you need enough space under your heel so your spring has enough time and space to absorb the impact energy before reusing that energy to bounce back.

Most "Normal" running shoes has about 8-12 mm height difference between heel and mid/front foot, that basically means your springs only have half or less the space and time to absorb impact.  the remaining impact energy will be converted as shock energy and can't be reused to propel body up and forward.

so eventhough it is all about form, it is pretty hard to have a good form if you run on stilletto.

Thanks, makes sense

[Wiefranz]

downunder runner, on 17 August 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

I was asking advice about minimalist shoes.  There seems to be heaps out there.. And definitions as to what is and what is not...I am confused.

There's no need to adopt confusion. It's inconsistent with minimalism which is actually an attitude of mind: reduction to the essential without any ludicrous argumentation.
Examples of minimalist shoes: www.forefootrunningshoes.com
Good luck!
Christian

[southy]

Good form implies your foot contacting the ground directly underneath your body. Many people manage to do that in normal shoes as well as barefoot & minimalists shoes. Minimalists shoes are no magic pill and in some people lead to serious injuries. I like less shoe because usually the midfoot region is a bit more flexible, which allows the push off nature intended us to have , rather than running on a stiff board.
What ever you do, whenever you instigate change , proceed very carefully and gently.

[southy]

Bruce, i find the nb 101 a good compromise . A thin rock plate in forefoot for protection, a small amt of cushioning, flexible mid foot , anf abt 5ml heel toe drop. You cant get them here in aust though, nb dont bring them in hete. You can order them for abt 65 $ overzeas though.
Pm me if you want more info. Ive been using the same pair for grass & trail racing & intervals for over 2 yrs now, so hold up well. Ive recently ordered another pair to put up for when i need them. I tried the merrels, nice casual shoe but not enough protection for me.

[TCMB]

Thanks Southy. I had a good read up about the 101s on irunfar a while ago. Reviews were good and it did look like they may work for me. I know quite a few others on CR like them. The 1010 seemed even more promising as it sounds as though it has a little bit more cushioning, and perhaps a little bit more standard feel. In the end I gave up waiting as the release date kept getting pushed back. Will see how the Cascadias go, might try the NB in the future.

[Brick]

TheyCallMeBruce, on 22 August 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

Thanks Southy. I had a good read up about the 101s on irunfar a while ago. Reviews were good and it did look like they may work for me. I know quite a few others on CR like them. The 1010 seemed even more promising as it sounds as though it has a little bit more cushioning, and perhaps a little bit more standard feel. In the end I gave up waiting as the release date kept getting pushed back. Will see how the Cascadias go, might try the NB in the future.

BTW: The NB1010 are available in the USA already.

[BarefootBj]

B+, on 21 August 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

BarefootBj, on 20 August 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

As I've said before, running barefoot doesn't allow you to run wrong. You can still run wrong in minimalist shoes but you're less likely to as your body will tell you - ie. it hurts, you're doing it wrong.

Sadly it isn't so simple as to just chuck the shoes or wear minimal shoes and all your worries will go away. It requires time and effort to run right and many (myself included) had to re-learn how run and I would never have been able to run ultras now without it! (I just completed The North Face 100 in Vibrams)

I think that your "barefoot doesn't allow you to run wrong" statement is a bit overstated as many people do run wrong in barefoot for a wide variety of reasons. Many learn to run better but not everybody learns to run correctly with barefoot.

I am curious how your TNF race went in Vibrams. Had you done this race before your conversion to "barefoot"? What were your times like and how did you pull up from the effort?
Not asking to pick an arguement. I am just curious how you found it as I have had feedback from various runners with mixed answers to their personal experiences.

Train safe

Hi mate, I agree that not all people will learn to run correctly barefoot, you still have to work on your form! All I'm saying is that it is a lot harder to run wrong when you're completely barefoot..  Re TNF - prior to running barefoot (about a year and a half ago after reading Born to Run ) i was only up to half marathon distance and struggling. I had so bad shinsplints to  the point I had to stop running or try something new.. three months after relearning how to run barefoot and in vibrams I did a 5 min half marathon PB. I would never have been able to run much further than that as I'm no natural endurance athlete by any means (have always been a sprinter in the past) but I enjoy to push my body and see what it can do.. Running 'right' with better form is the only way I could be efficient enough to finish ultras..  So back to TNF, first 100k after a 50k effort last year. I wore the new Spyridon trail shoes that held up amazingly; no blisters, one set of socks and feet were fine for the full 22 hours it took me to finish.. The slow time had nothing to do with the shoes and everything to do with the runner.. Quads were blown and started to cramp at 19k so it was a long slog to the finish (running sideways downhill takes some time)..
I hope that answers your questions..

[stevewaters]

Would have to agree with Bj here - swapping between my VFF and other shoes I find it really hard to tell exactly what is happening with regards to my feet and make slight adjustments to strike. So it does make it easier to run with better form in barefeet or even VFF just due to ground feel.

And not sure who it was up higher but running barefoot and in VFF makes me feel like I am a kid again too - it just feels good and natural.