I don't know why I've waited so long, but I'm finally planning on ditching my Adidas basketball shoes and picking up a pair of Vibrams. My only question is whether I should go with the KSO's or the Bikilas? I plan on using them for pretty much everything; lifting, running, walking to class through the snow, etc. Does anybody have any advice on which one would suit me better? Thanks for the help.
Umm, why? I saw a guy miss is opening squat badly wearing those things. He put on some chucks and killed it. Some fitness gimmick isn't going to suddenly transform your life and turn you into an elite athlete. I need a gimmick to sell, haha. People don't like hard work.
What is this shit? The guy asks about a pair of shoes, and you brand him a lazy ass?
I just got a pair of the KSOs and have squatted and deadlifted in them and they feel good. No change in weight (more or less) on squats (felt better though, but I imaginge if you have weak feet this might not be the case) and deadlifts felt easier, especially at the start, but that's because I've been pulling with normal shoes and this is pretty much like barefoot.
I plan to run in my VFFs as well, but have not done it yet. I'll let you know how it goes though, but so far they've been very comfortable and my feet feel good all day and they seem to have an impact on stretching my calves and ankle mobility (could just be in my head though).
He's talking about wearing them full-time including in the snow. That's fitness marketing hype at it's best. I have it on good authority that all cave men ran a 4.2 40 and had a 40" vertical from being barefoot all the time.
KSO's IMO. The bikali is a bit thicker in the sole than the other vibrams, and kinda of a regression back to the shoe. Bikali's look cool but meh, you're buying these for how they feel. I'd so go with the KSO's. I have a pair of black KSO's, for reference. Love 'em
well right now i currently lift barefoot so it won't really make a difference during my lifting workouts. but during the school year i spend at least 2 hours/day walking around campus in basketball shoes which totally sucks. plus im eventually gonna start running once i stop bulking and start cutting weight, and i want something to run in that won't fuck me up. i do like hard work, but i dont like having my legs in pain from walking/running in crappy shoes. is that really so unreasonable?
Thanks, those are both really helpful answers. sounds like KSO is probably better for me
Exactly what I think. What's wrong with a normal shoe? Heel or no heel.
Not the first time we have had this talk. Some ppl like Vibrams and some dont, go with what works for you and fuck what e/o else has to say. KSO is their everything shoe the Bikilas is more or less just for running.
I have the KSOs'. I love lifting in them. If you are going to run in them, DON'T do it on concrete.
What makes you think theyre a "gimmick?" Also, Im guessing that it isnt a pair of chuck taylors that magically made him hit an attempt.
How many elite powerlifters do you know that wear them for training or meets? Do you advise your training clients to wear them? Are there any controlled studies that show athletes wearing them improve faster than athletes wearing a normal athletic shoe?
The fitness industry is full of gimmicks and fads. Remember the shoes with the platform thing under the ball of your foot? Your heel would never touch the ground, and they were supposed to increase your vertical by strengthening your calves. Seinfeld even had an episode with them on it. They were very popular. Where are they now?
I do literally all of my training that isn't squatting in them, or some flip flops. I actually advise clients who complain of lower back pain to consider them as well. ALL of them. Ive also recommended them to friends and family. As for studies, I didn't make any reference to them being scientifically "required" or reccomended, to that end. Im not sure what youre getting at. Can you show me a study whereas Chuck taylors are scientifically validated as improving performance, or one where wearing Vibrams showed a decreased athletic ability, or a reduction in force output while performing the squat?
I am well aware of the fact that the "fitness" industry is full of fakes, gimmicks, and that ilk. One only need to peruse the offerings of clickbank to see that. I do remember jump soles. Sold about a billion units. Do you remember bodybars? they were validated by all sorts of "science." So too were the myostatin inhibitors." Even the ad copy contained many references to scientific journals. Where are they now?
Ill say this, and be done. If you really feel it is worth your time to try to rip on kids on an anonymous message board then more power to you. I think with your mentions of "hard work" and "finding a gimmick" you would have much more productive things to do with your time.
This give me the LOL's
There is only one way to settle this. Squat contest.
i know a guy in here who can squat a grand, and trains in vibrams.
I had this same thought recently because my gym decided to stop letting me squat and deadlift barefoot. It was between chucks and vibram kso's; i figured i could lift AND run in vibrams, but only lift in chucks.
I got the vibrams and they've been great for lifting. I've also run in them a couple times and it feels great on my knees (you just have to remember to strike with the pad of your foot opposed to your heel, watch some "barefoot running" videos on youtube)
side note- there's also a bunch of pictures in this month's muscular development where one of the ifbb pro's happens to be training legs in vibrams. it's no part of the article whatsoever but i thought its worth mentioning.