I had tried to avoid the "VFFs are ugly" conversation specifically because Chie and Rym were rocking them at PAXE. Like I said, footwear is about preference and comfort above anything else, and I totally understand the weird feet struggle. I have a killer pair of Red Wing Beckmans, but I don't wear them everyday because I'm flat-footed and Vibrams are so much more comfortable and conducive to good posture.
In terms of the fashion argument, who fucking cares? If you're dressed well and your shoes look great, you're saying, "I know how to dress." If you're dressed well and your shoes are immensely practical but ugly, you're saying, "I know how to dress; but, my feet are a mode of transportation first, and I treat them like sports cars." I know which one I think is cooler, but YMMV. That's what makes fashion awesome.
I get constant compliments from ladies when I wear them, both at conventions and in general. Girls seem to use them as an excuse to strike up a conversation.
I've noticed the same, though I'd imagine the VFFs draw more comments since they're more visually distinctive than the Vibram trail socks I wear. Any sort of barefoot shoe tends to say, "Hey, I do cool outdoor shit, ask me about it," which is a pretty attractive thing.
I'd also note that the vast majority of people probably think VFFs are ugly (based on current fashion), but the people who compliment/engage you based on them are probably cool people. Clothes are social currency, and anyone who thinks "Whoa, Vibrams, neat," is probably into a lot of the same cool outdoor shit as you.
I'm not into them, to be honest, they're not my thing(boots all the way), but I don't really see anything wrong with them, besides the price - but then again, that could be said of many shoes. I don't buy Chuck Taylors for the same reason. VFFs are no less abominably ugly, in my opinion, than some of the neon monstrosities that come out of Nike, Adidas, etc etc of late.
My podiatrist -- one of the top foot docs in Boston -- says they can cause some impressive foot problems. As I have no arches the point is moot as far as I am concerned. Also, they are ugly as hell.
My podiatrist -- one of the top foot docs in Boston -- says they can cause some impressive foot problems. As I have no arches the point is moot as far as I am concerned. Also, they are ugly as hell.
Thing is, I've been going around mostly barefoot my entire life. I never wear slippers, I was barefoot as much as possible outside as a kid. Thus, vibrams are just an extension of my existing habits.
As for research, I find a complete wash between studies showing benefits of barefoot running (over shod running) and those showing detriments. There isn't statistically significant evidence for better or worse overall outcomes in either direction.
I found a study showing that purpose-built running shows can increase the risk of ankle or foot injuries, and another saying the opposite. Some studies show that people who experience issues running barefoot tended to have uncorrected foot problems beforehand that were masked by their shoes.
The best I can figure, from the research I've found, is that barefoot and shod running have equal propensity for injury, but different kinds of injury. Barefoot leads to more foot (arch/heel) injuries, but shod leads to more knee/ankle injuries. Both lead to toe injuries.
I can't find anything that breaks the complete tie.
Did anyone notice if The Behemoth booth had those chonku chonku machines at East? I got a couple at Prime and I want some more. I'm hoping they'll still have the machines.
Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. Reviews with their devs basically said the reason it took so long to get CC is because they focus almost zero manpower on porting games.
Comments
OK, OK. Sometimes I wear a polo.
(Had to get a headshot taken today for an article I wrote).
In terms of the fashion argument, who fucking cares? If you're dressed well and your shoes look great, you're saying, "I know how to dress." If you're dressed well and your shoes are immensely practical but ugly, you're saying, "I know how to dress; but, my feet are a mode of transportation first, and I treat them like sports cars." I know which one I think is cooler, but YMMV. That's what makes fashion awesome.
I get constant compliments from ladies when I wear them, both at conventions and in general. Girls seem to use them as an excuse to strike up a conversation.
YMMV, but that has been my experience.
I'd also note that the vast majority of people probably think VFFs are ugly (based on current fashion), but the people who compliment/engage you based on them are probably cool people. Clothes are social currency, and anyone who thinks "Whoa, Vibrams, neat," is probably into a lot of the same cool outdoor shit as you.
As for research, I find a complete wash between studies showing benefits of barefoot running (over shod running) and those showing detriments. There isn't statistically significant evidence for better or worse overall outcomes in either direction.
I found a study showing that purpose-built running shows can increase the risk of ankle or foot injuries, and another saying the opposite. Some studies show that people who experience issues running barefoot tended to have uncorrected foot problems beforehand that were masked by their shoes.
The best I can figure, from the research I've found, is that barefoot and shod running have equal propensity for injury, but different kinds of injury. Barefoot leads to more foot (arch/heel) injuries, but shod leads to more knee/ankle injuries. Both lead to toe injuries.
I can't find anything that breaks the complete tie.
1) Warmth.
2) Spiky things hurt! Also hot beach sand. Also lava.
If I lived in the tropics where every walking surface was smooth and clean, no more shoes.