No New Shoes

All this recent talk about barefoot running has me thinking about one thing: buying new shoes. Because apparently to run barefoot, we have to have barefoot running shoes, which mimic being barefoot, but cost just as much or more than regular running shoes. And apparently running barefoot in your regular running shoes (i.e., without socks) doesn't count.

I touched on this subject back in May. I now have three pairs of running shoes over the 500-mile mark -- one pair is over 600 miles. The only pair under 500 has just under 300 miles. This is the first year I have not bought new shoes. Two of the four shoes in my rotation were part of the Akron Marathon's giveaways in 2007 and 2008. This year, Brooks is giving marathoners a jacket instead of shoes.

Bottom line: If I want new shoes this year, I'll have to pay for them myself.

Chances are I'll need new shoes in the next six months. I've given a lot of thought to the possibility of buying into this barefoot running marketing propaganda. I like the idea from a training perspective, but it doesn't seem like a wise choice now as winter is fast approaching. Vibram FiveFingers don't look like they'll have much traction on icy terrain or much insulation from the cold.

So, I've come to this conclusion: My current shoe roster will shepherd me through the winter, and I'll wait until spring 2010 before making any sort of new shoe decision.

Besides, I'd rather save my money for a new banjo.