Thursday, September 3, 2009

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.

6 comments:

Funnyrunner said...

hmmm. Be careful of injuries. Injuries can sneak up on you when you switch shoes or run too long on an old pair. Take it from someone who had to take 6 mos. off of running because I had been running in the wrong shoes. It's been about 6 years since that injury, and I haven't changed it up since then. I say... if it ain't broke, don't fix it...

Al's CL Reviews said...

Seriously, 600 miles?
The bottoms of my shoes are worn out (inside and out) by 300.

The Sean said...

I find that old shoes are just find as long as they are neutral trainers without all the gimmicks... I have 4 pair on my rotation with a combined 2000 miles on them. the freshest I wear on my long runs up to 3 hours, or on the fast days. The point of barefoot running is about the form, the foot interacting with the running surface... if that is sound then injuries should stay away.

Spike said...

I can’t decide of you are super hardcore or you just hate shoes, but I love learning vicariously about barefoot running.

BrianFlash said...

I wish I could play the banjo...

southofthecliff said...

Definitely get the banjo. Keep your shoes around (I still have mine; haven't worn the brand new pair of $90 Asics since last April) because, hey, you never know, the barefoot thing could be part of some kind of Communist Plot to take over the world or something.

I find the Vibram's to be nice when large gravel is involved, but otherwise they're kind of pointless. I'll be wearing them on a technical half marathon in a few weeks, for the reason stated above and because there's a time limit (I'm still veeeeery slow over gravel barefoot).

Re winter, we'll see. Vibram's might be handy (footy?) then. Or the $6 aqua socks.

- Josh
181 barefoot miles since July 15