We randomly came across mention of Vibram Five Fingers over at the Mnmlist blog, where author Leo bought a pair despite his “less stuff” philosophy. Curiosity piqued, we had to check them out, and so we started to do our research on the Five Fingers, and the barefoot philosophy that’s earned a very strong niche following.

Background.

It turns out, our feet evolved into one of our most complex skeletal features for a reason. With so many bones and joints, our feet are designed to be incredibly adaptable to terrain changes, aided in part by the feedback our brains get when the terrain beneath us changes form (causing us to shift our posture, gait, stride, etc). In addition to our physical endurance, this evolution allowed humans to become persistence hunters, in which we effectively ran our prey to their deaths. And, we were able to do this despite the fact that we did not strap hooves to our feet.

That all changed when aesthetic variables came into play in the western world. Earlier generations wore leather footwear roughly equivalent to what we think of as a moccasin. This provided our feet with basic protection, but apparently not enough visual appeal. So, Europeans added impractical heels to our footwear, which required a thicker, less flexible sole. The result was an arguably more appealing figure, complete with the curves and stance still present in modern fashion. Of course, this change also resulted in footwear that cut off much of the tactile feedback our brains got from our feet feeling the ground beneath us. Furthermore, with more rigid soles and heels, we began walking “heel-first,” and rolling our feet to our toes before kicking off. This was a far cry from earlier days, when the balls or middle of our feet hit the ground first, and our toes sprung our next kick forward.

Interestingly, you can see the difference between walking with shoes and walking barefoot immediately. Even if it’s the same person. Try it out yourself and pay attention.

Some studies show that the thicker a shoe’s heel/sole, the harder a wearer slams their heel into the ground when walking, as though the brain is subconsciously trying to get the feedback it desires. This heel-slamming that we do in modern society, it damages our knees and joints, because it’s not how our bodies were designed to take shocks. Similarly, changes in posture, resulting from modern shoes, provide other problems as well, such as shin splints, back pain, and the aforementioned knee problems. All because shoes themselves, courtesy of thick soles, aren’t good for our bodies.

The shoe industry, of course, has adopted. It puts a band-aid on some of our problems by adding more cushion, or curving the toes up to make up for the lack of spring our toes would naturally provide. They add “pumps,” soles that flair out, arch support, and a whole slew of other changes (not to mention aesthetic ones), but few companies look to actually alleviate the health problems modern footwear has produced by directly tackling the underlying issues.

Vibram is a company that’s actually looking to address the core problem. They, and other companies, believe in producing shoes with very thin soles, allowing our brains to get far more tactile feedback than with conventional footwear. Most companies like this still opt for close-toed shoes that still benefit somewhat from additional toe movement, but Vibram took things to another level with their Five Fingers line.

Five Fingers are gloves for feet. They provide a thin Vibram sole and pockets for individual toes. This allows a wearer’s toes to move independently and provide natural spring to a run, and because the wearer can utilize their toes more naturally, and their feet too, stability and agility are enhanced accordingly. Vibram’s idea was to give people the barefoot advantage and still provide some level of protection, and judging from the many reviews out there, Vibram has succeeded stunningly with their Five Fingers line.

Models, and sizing.

When we decided to pull the trigger on a Five Fingers shoe, we first had to determine what model we wanted. The main factor in our decision was that we wanted a jack-of-all-trades shoe for daily use. We would still be wearing dress shoes to the office, but when at home, or working out, we wanted a shoe that would work just as well around town as it did running on pavement or going on light hikes. For us, this meant a shoe that was closed on top, and that eliminated three models from the get-go (Classic, Moc, and Sprint). One of three remaining models was ideal for watersports (Flow), but not necessarily for land sports, and one model (KSO Trek) came with a somewhat thicker sole offering better traction for more robust hiking. The “do-all” model that, perhaps, wasn’t overly specialized, was the KSO.

While REI carries the Five Fingers, their selection varies from store to store. Some stores, in fact, don’t carry them at all, and those that do have stocking issues because supply isn’t currently meeting demand. The KSOs and Treks require a size-down adjustment from the other models, so while our local REI didn’t have the KSOs in our size, we were able to try on three sizes in the Classics and Sprints. By the time we left the store, we figured we’d be a 40 in the KSOs, and immediately got online to place an order. Of course, by the time our order arrived, we were dismayed to find that the shoe was too small. It turns out that the black/black KSOs run small, so we returned our 40s and placed another order.

The 41s we received were quite snug. Arguably, we could have gone up another size, and we’re fairly confident that a 41 would be perfect in any other colour or model. Still, the 41s in KSO black/black didn’t feel uncomfortable at all. So, we took them for a spin.

Day one.

Because of the toe pockets, and that our toes are used to being scrunched up somewhat in traditional shoes, getting the KSOs on took a couple minutes. It’s not difficult, but it still takes a little patience to get the smaller toes lined up correctly. In our case, it was the little toe that didn’t naturally slide into its own pocket right away, and instead curled towards its neighbor for safety.

Walking around the house felt good, like some odd combination of socks and slippers. Stepping outside where it was around 50 degrees out, our feet immediately felt the chill. The mesh on top of the shoes doesn’t do much for keeping wind out, and though our long bootcut jeans may have helped a little, it wasn’t enough. With certainty, we can say that we felt the ground better, but we obviously didn’t notice small gravel on the sidewalks. It wasn’t until we stepped on a rock about the size of a marble that we felt uncomfortable pressure, which we would have just rolled over without much thought in our other shoes.

Back to the jeans, the thin sole of the KSOs obviously reduces our height somewhat. In hiking boots, which we’re used to wearing, our jeans are the perfect length, but with most casual shoes, the edge of the back can drag on the ground. Similarly, with the KSOs, our jeans end up getting dirty because the back bottom either ends up dragging on the ground, else is outright stepped on. Without buying a new pair or becoming a seamstress, we figure we can just deal with it, else maybe cut a small slit in the back so the bottom flays out a bit more. Either way, future jeans purchases will take this into account.

A quick trip through town proved that the KSOs were comfortable. We were concerned with the snugness of the fit more than once, not because there was any discomfort, but out of buyer’s paranoia. In fact, our toes had great movement through the shoes despite that two toes on each foot were pretty much touching the end of their respective toe pockets. If anything, the feel of the wind, that we could spread our toes, and the thin sole, pretty much made our feet feel like they were barefoot, or at least close to it. But how would they hold up running?

We decided to go for a jog with our dog, and ended up doing a couple sprints along what amounted to approximately 16 blocks. It quickly became obvious that running on pavement and landing on the balls of one’s feet isn’t exactly super-comfortable. That is to say, impact to this area of the foot isn’t something we were used to while running. It didn’t hurt, but we half expected to bruise this area of the foot if we continued on. Beyond this expectation, however, our feet felt fine, and we naturally avoided landing with our heels. Indeed, it may simply have been a placebo of sorts, but we felt like we could spring forward from a stride much easier now that our toes we free from their typical footwear cages.

Stability-wise, our short jaunt felt good. So good, in fact, that we felt tempted to jump up on low walls like a newbie ninja-in-training. There’s a reason people don’t tend to roll their ankles when barefoot, and that stability is offered by the Five Fingers without question. It’ll probably take a while to acclimate our bodies to barefoot movement overall, but at slower speeds, the transition is automatic, if only because we’re used to moving around barefoot slowly. At speed is in another issue, because it’s rare that we run around barefoot, so it’s no surprise that when we enter speed-walking or running mode, that we tend to drop our heels into the ground pretty heavily.

By the end of our little jog, we noticed that our feet had warmed up considerably, and that they felt pretty cozy by the time we returned home. Given the temperature outside, we estimate that it’d be pretty comfortable running in these shoes most of the year on the east coast.

The next three days.

When we woke up the following morning, we definitely noticed soreness in our calves. Reports from other new Five Fingers users noted this pain, but we casually dismissed it. But no, it’s true: the muscles designed to stabilize our feet while moving barefoot atrophy in most individuals because they’re simply not used much thanks to modern footwear. In our case, our calves felt about what we expect them to the day after working them out at the gym, only in this situation, we didn’t intend to work them out specifically, and didn’t notice much stress on them in our very short run the day earlier.

With limited time to work out the next couple days, we simply managed to go on short walks after work in our Five Fingers, dog in tow. Nothing particularly notable about these walks other than an adjustment in gait to compensate for the heel-striking in our normal, long stride. We’ll add, though, that we naturally began to prefer walking on grass or dirt than pavement, because it feels so much better. In normal shoes, we like the idea of walking off pavement, but stability-wise, pavement feels better. In Five Fingers, walking off-road is simply a better experience all-around.

That said, hanging out in the dog park, which at this time of year is a little muddy, tended to make the bottom of our feet cold when we weren’t moving much. Just throwing a ball around with minimal movement around the field definitely impacted foot comfort, as our feet would have been more comfortable at least wearing socks. Given that our KSOs are already very snug, we’ll likely rule out socks unless we later decide to get a slightly roomier pair of Five Fingers. We’ll still wear our KSOs in these situations, but when autumn sheds into winter later in the year, we’ll obviously have to make a decision as to what to do.

On our last walk in the Five Fingers over the three day period owning the KSOs, we walked over an old cobblestone street, which made us realize the implications of barefoot movement. Modern society, or in this case recent history, clearly dictated adjustments to footwear even beyond aesthetic considerations. Using the cobblestone street as an example, moving across the man-made pathway in our KSOs was about as uncomfortable as driving a car down the same stretch. While the walk was fine when we carefully chose our footing for each step, moving from stone-top to stone-top, a blind walk down the street simply wasn’t comfortable.

We’d be happy to hear that this was only because we’re not used to the feeling, and that our feet will toughen up to this type of terrain over time, but given the experience, we reckon we’d sooner avoid these types of streets in the future. Picturing us distracted where our gaze isn’t on the stones in front of us, we can only imagine a painful outcome to a run down this same street. That said, after returning home, the Five Fingers remained on our feet, where they felt super-comfortable just hanging out. We can definitely see replacing our slippers with a pair of Mocs in the future.

By day three, only a slight soreness in our calves remain. This weekend, we’ll opt for more activity in our KSOs, as we intend to wear them all weekend long. We’ll continue to comment on the experience as time goes on, and if there is reader interest.

Similar Posts:

• Fivefingers: beyond the first week. – Our first week wearing Vibram Fivefingers made for an interesting experience, and while we intended …


• More toe shoes! – The 2011 autumn lineup for Vibram’s FiveFinger’s line looks good. Birthday Shoes, the de facto outle…


• Keeping Nike’s grubby paws off my $29. – I hate running. It’s a boring, uncomfortable routine that months of practicing didn’t make any more …

When we decided to adopt an American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), we knew that we’d be fighting an uphill battle against the ignorant masses. Thanks to exaggerated, biased media reports that sell their stories by promoting fear-mongering, the press has demonized a number of dog breeds under the “pitbull” label. It’s unfortunate for a variety of reasons, not the least which is the euthanizing of hundreds of “pitbulls” in shelters across the United States.

While we did a fair amount of research into the APBT and related breeds, it’s since become more and more obvious to us that the media is still on its mission to place blame on the wrong parties. The Michael Vick story helped bring certain elements of the issue to light, but the damage to “pitbull” breeds was done by Sports Illustrated years ago, and the damage likely won’t be undone for many years to come, if ever. And it’s not just the media, but regular folks who regurgitate untruths because they simply don’t know any better. For the purpose of promoting facts, let’s clarify some points for those whose knowledge of “pitbulls” is based entirely on hearsay and partial information.

First off, there is no “pitbull” breed. The media lumps several breeds under this label, to include the APBT, American Bulldog, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and others. This even includes mastiff mixes and other mutts. Basically, any dog that vaguely visually resembles a stocky, yet athletic dog, similar in appearance to the APBT, is designated a “pitbull.” Interestingly, the APBT is the only breed with “pitbull” in its name, and it’s the second smallest of the aforementioned breeds. In fact, of those breeds, only the American Bulldog typically exceeds 85lb in weight. Stories of 100+lb pitbulls refer to mastiffs or mastiff mixes. The APBT, for example, maxes out at around 60lbs for a male. APBT’s on the lower end weigh as little as 30lbs. But to understand the “pitbull,” one has to know more than its size.

A little history.

One of the first things anyone will tell you about the “pitbull” is that it was bred to fight other dogs, but this is only a half-truth. To understand the whole picture, one has to go even further back in history. All of the aforementioned breeds have a common ancestor: the old English bulldog. This bulldog breed weighed 45 pounds average (the median weight for an APBT), and was a working dog that technically no longer exists. It was also the father of the modern-day English Bulldog, which is derived from a cross-breed of the old English bulldog and the Pug, and further bred for certain aesthetic elements, resulting in today’s rather unhealthy breed. Its ancestor, on the other hand, was a very powerful, agile, working dog.

The old bulldog breed was named after a sport that placed the breed in high demand: bull-baiting, a sport later outlawed. Mind you, it was also used for other working tasks of the era, to include pulling loads, working cattle, and other farmhouse activities. Nonetheless, the popularity of bull-baiting made the old English bulldog a popular breed, and it is said that the breed was derived of smaller mastiff stock, later bred with greyhounds to increase agility.

The sport of bull-baiting required two important factors, which remain with modern-day APBTs and many “pitbull” breeds. Firstly, strong jaws were required in order for the dog to grab ahold of a bull’s snout and hold on despite any movement by the bull. It is important to distinguish strong jaws and the behavior to hold on at all costs with “lock-jaw,” however, which is a myth. Where the myth of “lock-jaw” originated, we don’t know, but there is no physical mechanism for a dog to “lock” its jaws in a bite. In fact, “pitbulls” don’t have exceptionally stronger bite strength than other dogs, but merely retain the knack of holding onto a target. Most other breeds, when confronted, have a tendency to snap, gnash, slash, and tear. Secondly, “gameness” was required to confront an enormous, bucking bull. This fierce courage would become an important trait for a bulldog’s success in the “pit.” Note that the “pit” in “pitbull” refers to a hole that the bull, and bulldog, were placed into for bull-baiting. It does not refer to a dogfighting pit.

When bull-baiting was banned in 1835 by British Parliament, the bulldog’s popularity declined. Around that time, dog-fighting began to rise in popularity, and it was then that the bulldog was bred with trace amounts of old English terrier in order to increase the breed’s agility. These terriers, too, were known for their gameness. The resulting breed, still quite similar to the bulldog of old, became known in the US as the APBT, while in England, it was named the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. By the 1960s, dog-fighting was banned in most US States, with the last State signing off on the ban in 1976.

The American Staffordshire Terrier is of the same stock as the APBT and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, only bred further for the show ring (and to distance the breed from dog-fighting). The APBT and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, meanwhile, remained working dogs. While they were favored by dog-fighters, they were still used for a variety of working purposes, much like their bulldog ancestors. In fact, so respected were these dogs, that the US adopted the APBT to symbolize America: friendly, courageous, hard-working, and loyal. Indeed, the APBT was considered such a good family dog, and so good with children, than it was referred to as the “nanny dog.” The dog in The Little Rascals: yeah, it was an APBT.

How was the APBT’s reputation not marred back then, despite dog-fighting still being legal in the United States? One reason is simple: traditional dog-fighting did not tolerate human-aggression. In a typical dog-fighting ring, not only were there two dogs, but there were at least two people inside the ring as well, constantly re-positioning their respective dog’s bites for scoring purposes. With human hands in such close contact with fighting dogs, mid-fight, signs of human aggression were not tolerated. If such aggression materialized, the dogs would immediately be put down. Thus, the only fighting dogs that were further bred were those without any signs of human aggression. So it was no mystery that these same dogs, fierce in the ring against other dogs, would be very good household companions. After the ban on dog-fighting was put in place, dog-fighting naturally declined. Most APBTs involved in the sport were re-integrated in the general house-pet populace, along with their non-fighting APBT brothers, and their American Staffordshire Terrier cousins. Since, the APBT has continued to excel as a working and family dog.

Today, dog-fighting lives on, primarily in low-income, high-crime areas. Dog-fighting is linked to the drug trade and violent gangs, and it’s no surprise that most dogs used in the ring for this purpose lead pretty awful lives, not just when they fight, but in their daily lives as well. They are generally uncared for, malnourished, and never properly socialized or trained. Sadly, APBTs are often still favored for the sport, because what made them great at bull-baiting, and in the dog-fighting of earlier days, also make them great at dog-fighting today: their bite-and-hold, gameness, strength, and agility.

Regarding aggression.

Sites like dogsbite.org suggest that “pitbulls” are dangerous, but in actuality, sites like dogsbite.org lie. In this case, it’s a matter of the site owner having been attacked in the past, and now going on a rampage against “pitbulls” out of ignorance. Truth is, the “facts/conclusions” on those sites are made up, and not actually supported by purposeful studies, if any real studies whatsoever.

Based on the history above, there’s an obvious correlation between dog-fighting and APBTs, even though it’s not what APBTs were specifically bred for. Moreover, other dog breeds were used in dog-fighting too. However, the APBT’s traits have made them a choice breed for the bloodsport, in much the same way the breed excels at other working tasks: the “Superdog” title is used to describe any dog that has earned UKC titles in four areas open to all breeds, namely conformation, agility, weight pull, and obedience. Twenty of 47 Superdogs have been APBTs, and nine others Staffordshire Bull Terriers. That means over half of all Superdogs are of the same bulldog/terrier stock, illustrating just how intelligent, athletic, and flexible these dogs are. Similarly, three out of nine UKC Ultradogs were APBTs.

But back to aggression, the CDC’s Dog Bite Fact Sheet draws no conclusions based on breed.

A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years… It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic… There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) concurs. For a longer read, The Pit Bull Placebo has additional facts supporting the CDC’s and ACMA’s claims.

Still, those who claim that the APBT is aggressive relies on the APBT’s dog-fighting past. But as the KC Dog Blog points out, it’s been over 70 years since the American Staffordshire Terrier was formalized, and with most State bans against dog-fighting being enacted in the 1860s, one can reasonably argue that there have been at least seven generations of dogs that were not bred for the ring, so even if a genetic disposition for canine aggression existed, it likely wouldn’t exist today.

And even if such a genetic disposition were scientifically proven to exist in most APBTs today (it hasn’t), it still wouldn’t indicate any level of human aggression, and if anything, would likely debunk any claims of human aggression at all, considering that the very practice of dog-fighting would have increased canine aggression at the expense of human aggression.

So then why does the media focus so highly on “pitbulls”? Well, for one, the media doesn’t care about the truth: sensational headlines sell papers. And really, if the average person can’t differentiate between breeds, what makes anyone think that a journalist can? In fact, DNA testing of dog breeds suggests that visual breed identification is only about 12% accurate. That’s why most shelters refer to any medium-to-large size, black dog as a “black lab mix,” and why “shepherd” mixes are unusually common. The reality is that aesthetic breed-specific traits are notoriously difficult to identify visually, which is why the media lumps so many breeds into the “pitbull” category, despite the fact that many “pitbull” dogs demonized aren’t even of the same bloodhound/terrier stock. This, of course, brings us again to the 100+lb “pitbull” stories, which are in all likelihod mastiff mixes, else dogs from “backyard breeders” who have spent years developing ill-tempered, unhealthy breeds for certain aesthetic characteristics (i.e. low, stocky build, bent-out shoulders, etc). For those who do argue genetics, note that most of these larger “pitbulls” were bred with mastiffs, which were not bread for any human bite-inhibition.

Don’t blame the breed.

The media isn’t just wrong to demonize based on breed, it’s wrong for forgetting what real investigative journalism is. If visual identification of breeds doesn’t work, then why not look for facts that do correlate between dog attacks? The recent killing of a two-year-old girl in Virginia has elements common to similar news stories.

1. The dog was a “resident” dog, not a family dog. In other words, it was not part of the family routine, but instead left outside and not fully integrated into the family.
2. The dog was chained up. This is generally considered a poor way to restrain a dog, is unhealthy, and yet by many dog-fighters, is considered good practice to toughen up a dog and build strength.
3. The neighborhood the incident took place in was below the poverty line, suggesting that the family likely lacked the education, and means, to raise a dog properly. In fact, the dog was probably malnourished, and was probably not routinely taken to the vet, either.
4. The family was obviously negligent. If a two-year old child can wander outside on its own and escape it’s mother’s watch, then imagine what little care the family had for the dog in the first place.
5. Given the family’s financial situation, it’s highly unlikely that there were any lineage papers for the dog, so there’s absolutely no evidence of breed identification in this case, bringing us back to the limitations of visual breed assessment. For all we know, especially since there are no pictures of the dog readily available on any site reporting the attack, the dog was a chihuahua. Aside from the dog’s age, was there anything descriptive about the dog noted, other than that neighbors (who were similarly ignorant) referred to the dog as a “pitbull”?

What all of this comes down to, like many other things, is education. If we had our way, we’d require any potential dog-owners to acquire a license before adopting a dog, to prove that they have the means, and education, to properly care for their pet. (Indeed, this should probably be extended to children also, but let’s discuss one thing at a time.) With no desire to truly incorporate a dog into one’s family dynamic, and no plans to properly train and care for a pet, one does everyone a disservice, and it’s no surprise that a child has died from these circumstances. While the investigation into this last specific case is still ongoing, I wouldn’t hesitate to pass a good chunck of the blame onto the parents here, and file criminal charges against them.

In any case, let’s stop with the stereotypes: with experts concluding that there’s no evidence to justify breed specific legislation, let’s end the “pitbull” hate.

Similar Posts:

• Hillary not a gamer. – When Hillary Clinton was elected U.S. Senator out of lovely New York, I got the hell out of Dodge. I…


• Neanderthals, body hair, and sex. – In Them+Us, Danny Vendramini asserts that neanderthals were as furry as other primates, if not more …


• A Five Fingers journal. – We randomly came across mention of Vibram Five Fingers over at the Mnmlist blog, where author Leo bo…