I wish these manufacturers would quit calling minimalist footwear "barefoot". There is a world of difference between *something* between the foot and the ground and *nothing*.
Truly barefoot yields a world of additional feedback that cannot be replicated by any minimalist footware. Furthermore, covering the foot at all prevents ventilation for both cooling and drying--and raises the foot temperature on average by many degrees.
Attempting to learn to run with a natural gait is only hampered by minimalist footwear--since important sensory feedback is dampened.
Minimalist footwear should be considered as footwear for *experts* at barefoot running--for those that have already learned natural gait. Otherwise, people attempting to run in this type of footwear often get injured *worse*, because they attempt to run before learning the gentle, natural gait but are now doing so w/o any padding from a traditional shoe at all.
I have several pairs of Fivefingers footwear and I'd consider them minimalist. They also have Vibram soles. I've found them liberating as long as I stick to tarmac and grass (some thistles still get through) but even then I've not yet done more than 3 miles in them before experiencing some discomfort.
I do enjoy the feeling of being more in touch with the ground and certainly wear mine for casual use in warm weather.
What on earth do Merrell mean by 'building 'the body's ability to burn more calories'.'?
Burning more calories implies expending more effort (to achieve the same result). Except for causing injury, that is the worst thing I can think of in walking footwear.
I think you'll find barefoot is meant as theres purely a similarity and the fact you dont wear socks in products such as Vibram Five Fingers and this new Merrell product.
I can only assume the mention of more calories comes from the fact the running on the forefoot uses different muscle than heel striking. Therefore developing other muscles and increasing your overall calorie consumption due to an increase in lean mucle, which burns more calories at work or at rest.
Know you don't strictly have to but people do wear (toe) socks in five fingers. More about getting the shoe out of the way of the foot I think. Socks surely don't restrict your feet in any meaningful sense.
Actually suspect 'ability to burn more calories' is simply pointlessly bizzare marketing speak for getting you fitter/ letting you walk further via improved gait etc!
I had Merrell a couple years ago. Now, they join in the competition for minimalist shoes. Well, I think it's worth it. I'm currently using Vibrams and they are great. I also read an article two days ago about Merell teaming up with Vibrams. I forgot the site but you can search it on Google.
By the way, I think these Merrel shoes above somewhat look like an Inov - 8. I'm not sure if you have seen it but anyway, here's a sample picture so you can compare it. http://barefootrunningshoes.org/inov-8/
I like the idea of minimalist shoes for more general use, if its true that they do help the foot muscles develop more naturally. But I would not use them for hiking or running, I think that's when a bit more support and protection is required.
I tried some vibram 5 fingers and to be honest they are a pain to get on, I thought they would be good as a camp shoe, but they are no good when you want to get up in the middle of the night. These look a bit more user friendly from that perspective .
I do find the vibrams good for kayaking though my feet are to big to wear normal footwear in a kayak, so these protect the soles from sharp stones when getting in and out.
Agree with Nick above, though we have to start somewhere. Most people likely need education on how to use their feet properly and be mobile enough to use the shoes without feeling discomfort, that will increase performance but may take a little effort to re educate your nervous system.
.jpg)
