Answers (14)
1
Vibram, one of the manufacturers of the barefoot/five finger shoes, say that the shoes were made with the intention for use with Pilates and Yoga.
Personally, I think that there is a higher risk of damage to the foot as more of the foot is exposed as opposed to a pair of sneakers.
Too, although the client likely signed an waiver of informed consent, the fitness center can still be held liable if one injures him or herself as a consequence of training in those shoes.
I would limit use of the shoes to the class formats for which they were intended.
Personally, I think that there is a higher risk of damage to the foot as more of the foot is exposed as opposed to a pair of sneakers.
Too, although the client likely signed an waiver of informed consent, the fitness center can still be held liable if one injures him or herself as a consequence of training in those shoes.
I would limit use of the shoes to the class formats for which they were intended.
0
I have my own studio and do not see a problem with them in that setting. Our clients are always with a trainer, and dumbbells are handed over and taken back to the rack.
I personally own a pair and use them for any exercise I want to do, even though I prefer to be barefoot it I possble can.
In a regular gym setting, though, I can see why they make the wearer very vulnerable to the negligence of others. A regular pair of sneakers protects the feet much better from injury.
I personally own a pair and use them for any exercise I want to do, even though I prefer to be barefoot it I possble can.
In a regular gym setting, though, I can see why they make the wearer very vulnerable to the negligence of others. A regular pair of sneakers protects the feet much better from injury.
0
The whole "proper shoes" policy is really intended to deal with three main issues in my mind (prevent slips, reduce the risk of injury if dropping something on the feet, and hygiene). I don't profess to be an expert on these shoes and have never used them myself, but they seem to satisfy reasons #1 and #3, but not necessarily #2. Looking at this strictly from the perspective of the gym or studio owner, I think that the risks outweigh any possible benefits. While some of the wearers of these shoes may be very comfortable and proficient in their use (such as Karin above), I think that Karin's point is well-taken in that others may not be so careful around the wearers and so it could increase the gym's risk of an injury.
LaRue, CSCS
www.lecfitness.com
lecfitness@yahoo.com
LaRue, CSCS
www.lecfitness.com
lecfitness@yahoo.com
0
We also have the same policy at our corporate wellness center.
But I must say, they are great for lower body training (squats, pistols squats, deadlifts, kettlebell swings, glute-ham raises) because they do not have an elevated heel like a regular sneaker does, so it's easier to “sit back” and get your weight on to your heels. When your feet are planted, you can feel the floor and grip using your toes.
As a martial artist, I do most of my own training barefoot :)
But I must say, they are great for lower body training (squats, pistols squats, deadlifts, kettlebell swings, glute-ham raises) because they do not have an elevated heel like a regular sneaker does, so it's easier to “sit back” and get your weight on to your heels. When your feet are planted, you can feel the floor and grip using your toes.
As a martial artist, I do most of my own training barefoot :)
0
We have a no "street/outdoor shoes" policy. Yoga and pilates classes are the only ones done barefoot. I do, however, sometimes have my clients train barefoot if we're doing balance training or other full body exercises where no external weights/equipment is used; the feeling of being more closely rooted to the ground is very helpful and empowering.
With regard to the "five finger" shoes, my understanding was that they were designed to be used in lieu of barefoot i.e, in yoga, pilates or some other gym activities. I agree they can be dangerous if used in place of a regular athletic shoe, when lifting weights for example. You would think common sense would reign supreme when people are deciding what the best footwear is for a particular activity; obviously this is not the case. I guess each facility has to state its policy clearly, and ensure that all users are aware of it.
With regard to the "five finger" shoes, my understanding was that they were designed to be used in lieu of barefoot i.e, in yoga, pilates or some other gym activities. I agree they can be dangerous if used in place of a regular athletic shoe, when lifting weights for example. You would think common sense would reign supreme when people are deciding what the best footwear is for a particular activity; obviously this is not the case. I guess each facility has to state its policy clearly, and ensure that all users are aware of it.
0
Common Sense?
With the rising popularity of VFF's this gym member sent this letter in response to banning VFF's in the gym. I will post in an effort to inform.
"To Whom It May Concern:
I have been informed that I am and will be unwelcome in the Wellness Center fitness/weight area, based solely on the shoes I wear to train. The shoes in question are the Vibram FiveFingers KSO (from this point onward, I shall refer to the shoes as VFF); please visit this site (http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/products/products_KSO_m.cfm) for information on the shoes themselves, including its cousins.
The reason cited thus far for the prohibition of this shoe from the weight/fitness area is "safety." Allegedly, the belief is that a standard running shoe offers more "protection" than the VFF in the event of a weight being dropped on a foot. I challenge this claim and I challenge it vehemently. I have a couple pairs of New Balance running shoes (what would be considered "safe" shoes under the alleged claim) and have done a bit of measuring work. The New Balance models in question are the 710 and the 615. The results are not surprising (well, to me).
VFF: At its thickest, near the entry point of the foot, the thickness of the fabric is about 3 millimeters. Its thinnest point is roughly 2 millimeters, which covers the rest of the foot. Taking into account the Velcro strap across the bridge of the foot, the maximum thickness comes to about 1.1 centimeters.
710: At its thickest, which includes the tongue and the laces, the thickness of the shoe reaches about 1.2 centimeters. The tongue accounts for about 5 millimeters, the laces an additional 7-8 depending on orientation. Elsewhere at the top of the shoe (including the fabric above the toe), the fabric thickness is closer to that of 4-5 millimeters.
615: At its thickest (top of the tongue + laces), the fabric covering the foot is in the neighborhood of 1.4 cm. Elsewhere on the top of the shoe, especially at the toe, the thickness of the fabric is closer to 4 millimeters.
For posterity, let's also assume socks are worn in both cases (yes, there are socks designed for the VFF). It's a wash, as both sets of socks measure out to a thickness of 3-4 millimeters.
#1. The assumption that a running shoe is "safer" than the VFF is, at best, flawed. Firstly, no shoe manufacturer in its right mind will claim that its shoes offer any sort of significant protection outside of blister/callus or wart protection unless it is of ANSI standard. There is no middle ground. (More to come on that later.) A 50-pound dumbbell being dropped from a height of 2-3 feet onto a foot clad in a running shoe will inflict just as much damage as a foot clad in VFF. There is no special property of regular shoe fabrics that invokes a strong resistance against weight being dropped on it. If the aim of the Wellness Center is to prevent injury in the (rare) case of a weight being dropped on a foot, then it will be necessary to outlaw any regular running shoe. In fact, to prevent such injuries from occurring, it will be necessary to amend Wellness Center policy to state that only ANSI-certified, and OSHA-compliant, shoes can be worn in the weight training area.
In other words, everyone has to buy a pair of steel- or plastic-toed boots. As per the OSHA standard, ANSI performance criteria, and ASTM performance requirements:
"Each affected employee shall wear protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects, or objects piercing the sole, and where such employee's feet are exposed to electrical hazards."
Now, the last clause (electrical hazards) shouldn't apply to the Wellness Center -- or at least I'd hope so! -- but the rest of the policy applies perfectly to the Wellness Center. Falling weights, rolling barbells with weights loaded, and/or the rolling and/or dropping of benches, are all potential hazards in the Wellness Center weight area. Yet, when at the Wellness Center earlier this evening, I saw not a soul wearing shoes that comply with OSHA, ANSI, or ASTM standards. Reference ASTM F2413-05, ASTM F2412-05, OSHA 29 CFR 1910.132, OSHA 29 CFR 1910.136, as well as http://www.labsafety.com/refinfo/ezfacts/ezf252.htm.
Therefore, the claim that the Wellness Center is making to ensure the "safety" of its members results in a violation of OSHA, ANSI, and ASTM standards, especially of its fitness room employees.
#2. However, there is more. I was told by the fitness room employee (I shall not name this person, as he was but a messenger of this sudden new "policy") that whilst the VFF cannot be worn in the weight room area, they can still be used in other areas of the Wellness Center, like the basketball courts. This again makes no sense. If a person is not allowed to wear VFF in the weight room area for "safety's" sake (in case a weight were to fall on a foot), then what of the possibility of having a foot landed on by a fellow student who has jumped to get a rebound during a basketball game? This student could weigh 150+ pounds (and in the case of some, 200+ pounds), not to mention the fact that this person may be falling onto the foot from three feet in the air. Once again, the damage incurred from either a standard athletic shoe or a Vibram FiveFingers shoe will be substantial, and the standard athletic shoe will offer no more protection than will the VFF. Standard physics will tell a person this. (I should know; I am a physics major.)
I have previously been told of the Wellness Center's policy on shoes in the weight training area. The official wording, from what I recall, is that a patron must wear "close-toed athletic shoes." Vibram FiveFingers once again fall into this category. Vibram has developed the FiveFingers brand as an athletic shoe, markets the FiveFingers as an athletic shoe, assembles the FiveFingers as an athletic shoe, sells the FiveFingers as an athletic shoe, and intends the FiveFingers to be worn as athletic shoe. From the Vibram FiveFingers website, the KSO is designed for running, fitness training, CrossFit, light trekking, bouldering, travel, and water sports. Its various cousin shoes are designed for similar exploits, including martial arts, yoga, boating, kayaking, and the list grows from there. Also, it is plainly seen just by looking at the FiveFingers that they are close-toed; sure, each toe has its own enclosure, but each toe is enclosed. As such, all the VFF shoe types are close-toed athletic shoes; thus, they meet Wellness Center standards.
#3. Another potential concern is the belief that the FiveFingers shoes can slip off like slippers. This, while an adequate concern, is incorrect. Each and every VFF shoe has a method by which the shoe is secured to the foot. The Classic and Moc are secured via an elastic cord. The Sprint is secured via a Velcro strap and two heel straps. The KSO (and KSO Trek) is secured by a Velcro strap and a heel strap that is connected with the Velcro strap. The Flow is secured with an over-foot strap and a heel strap. When properly fitted, none of the VFF shoes will come off the foot like, for instance, sandals.
#4. Yet another objection would be the soles of the FiveFingers shoes. Each variety of the VFF has a sole of Vibram TC-1 performance rubber, razor-siped for flexibility and slip resistance. This offers grip and stability on par with typical athletic shoes; in the case of making cuts on a basketball court, I've experienced even higher grip from VFF than from regular shoes. Yet again, this objection falls by the wayside.
#5. In fact, wearing Vibram FiveFingers shoes falls perfectly in line with the supposed ideals of the Wellness Center. The soles of VFF are designed to follow the contour and shape of the human foot, allowing the foot to move naturally. The sole, combined with the toe pockets, work to strengthen and stretch muscles within the foot that are oft-neglected when in regular athletic shoes. Balance, proprioception, agility, and strength are all improved when the VFF are worn over a long period of time. Furthermore, wearing VFFs put the body in a more natural body posture when performing lifts on one's feet (e.g., deadlift, squat, standing military/DB press, lunges). The heels are not off the ground. Force is not dissipated through a heavy rubber sole (which inhibits incorporation of the feet). The sole and structure of regular athletic shoes actually results in instability during the middle of a set. With the feet off the ground, they are more prone to move; being closer to the ground (ideally, right against the ground) allows for a more solid base, again leading to a reduced chance of injury. Thus, wearing typical "athletic" shoes actually increases the chance of injury due to the fact that these shoes throw the human body out of its natural alignment. So, to prohibit VFF from the Wellness Center would result in going against the Wellness Center's professed goals and mission!
I will be appearing at the Wellness Center tomorrow morning to contest this "decision" further, regardless of any answer I may receive between now and then.
Regards,
With the rising popularity of VFF's this gym member sent this letter in response to banning VFF's in the gym. I will post in an effort to inform.
"To Whom It May Concern:
I have been informed that I am and will be unwelcome in the Wellness Center fitness/weight area, based solely on the shoes I wear to train. The shoes in question are the Vibram FiveFingers KSO (from this point onward, I shall refer to the shoes as VFF); please visit this site (http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/products/products_KSO_m.cfm) for information on the shoes themselves, including its cousins.
The reason cited thus far for the prohibition of this shoe from the weight/fitness area is "safety." Allegedly, the belief is that a standard running shoe offers more "protection" than the VFF in the event of a weight being dropped on a foot. I challenge this claim and I challenge it vehemently. I have a couple pairs of New Balance running shoes (what would be considered "safe" shoes under the alleged claim) and have done a bit of measuring work. The New Balance models in question are the 710 and the 615. The results are not surprising (well, to me).
VFF: At its thickest, near the entry point of the foot, the thickness of the fabric is about 3 millimeters. Its thinnest point is roughly 2 millimeters, which covers the rest of the foot. Taking into account the Velcro strap across the bridge of the foot, the maximum thickness comes to about 1.1 centimeters.
710: At its thickest, which includes the tongue and the laces, the thickness of the shoe reaches about 1.2 centimeters. The tongue accounts for about 5 millimeters, the laces an additional 7-8 depending on orientation. Elsewhere at the top of the shoe (including the fabric above the toe), the fabric thickness is closer to that of 4-5 millimeters.
615: At its thickest (top of the tongue + laces), the fabric covering the foot is in the neighborhood of 1.4 cm. Elsewhere on the top of the shoe, especially at the toe, the thickness of the fabric is closer to 4 millimeters.
For posterity, let's also assume socks are worn in both cases (yes, there are socks designed for the VFF). It's a wash, as both sets of socks measure out to a thickness of 3-4 millimeters.
#1. The assumption that a running shoe is "safer" than the VFF is, at best, flawed. Firstly, no shoe manufacturer in its right mind will claim that its shoes offer any sort of significant protection outside of blister/callus or wart protection unless it is of ANSI standard. There is no middle ground. (More to come on that later.) A 50-pound dumbbell being dropped from a height of 2-3 feet onto a foot clad in a running shoe will inflict just as much damage as a foot clad in VFF. There is no special property of regular shoe fabrics that invokes a strong resistance against weight being dropped on it. If the aim of the Wellness Center is to prevent injury in the (rare) case of a weight being dropped on a foot, then it will be necessary to outlaw any regular running shoe. In fact, to prevent such injuries from occurring, it will be necessary to amend Wellness Center policy to state that only ANSI-certified, and OSHA-compliant, shoes can be worn in the weight training area.
In other words, everyone has to buy a pair of steel- or plastic-toed boots. As per the OSHA standard, ANSI performance criteria, and ASTM performance requirements:
"Each affected employee shall wear protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects, or objects piercing the sole, and where such employee's feet are exposed to electrical hazards."
Now, the last clause (electrical hazards) shouldn't apply to the Wellness Center -- or at least I'd hope so! -- but the rest of the policy applies perfectly to the Wellness Center. Falling weights, rolling barbells with weights loaded, and/or the rolling and/or dropping of benches, are all potential hazards in the Wellness Center weight area. Yet, when at the Wellness Center earlier this evening, I saw not a soul wearing shoes that comply with OSHA, ANSI, or ASTM standards. Reference ASTM F2413-05, ASTM F2412-05, OSHA 29 CFR 1910.132, OSHA 29 CFR 1910.136, as well as http://www.labsafety.com/refinfo/ezfacts/ezf252.htm.
Therefore, the claim that the Wellness Center is making to ensure the "safety" of its members results in a violation of OSHA, ANSI, and ASTM standards, especially of its fitness room employees.
#2. However, there is more. I was told by the fitness room employee (I shall not name this person, as he was but a messenger of this sudden new "policy") that whilst the VFF cannot be worn in the weight room area, they can still be used in other areas of the Wellness Center, like the basketball courts. This again makes no sense. If a person is not allowed to wear VFF in the weight room area for "safety's" sake (in case a weight were to fall on a foot), then what of the possibility of having a foot landed on by a fellow student who has jumped to get a rebound during a basketball game? This student could weigh 150+ pounds (and in the case of some, 200+ pounds), not to mention the fact that this person may be falling onto the foot from three feet in the air. Once again, the damage incurred from either a standard athletic shoe or a Vibram FiveFingers shoe will be substantial, and the standard athletic shoe will offer no more protection than will the VFF. Standard physics will tell a person this. (I should know; I am a physics major.)
I have previously been told of the Wellness Center's policy on shoes in the weight training area. The official wording, from what I recall, is that a patron must wear "close-toed athletic shoes." Vibram FiveFingers once again fall into this category. Vibram has developed the FiveFingers brand as an athletic shoe, markets the FiveFingers as an athletic shoe, assembles the FiveFingers as an athletic shoe, sells the FiveFingers as an athletic shoe, and intends the FiveFingers to be worn as athletic shoe. From the Vibram FiveFingers website, the KSO is designed for running, fitness training, CrossFit, light trekking, bouldering, travel, and water sports. Its various cousin shoes are designed for similar exploits, including martial arts, yoga, boating, kayaking, and the list grows from there. Also, it is plainly seen just by looking at the FiveFingers that they are close-toed; sure, each toe has its own enclosure, but each toe is enclosed. As such, all the VFF shoe types are close-toed athletic shoes; thus, they meet Wellness Center standards.
#3. Another potential concern is the belief that the FiveFingers shoes can slip off like slippers. This, while an adequate concern, is incorrect. Each and every VFF shoe has a method by which the shoe is secured to the foot. The Classic and Moc are secured via an elastic cord. The Sprint is secured via a Velcro strap and two heel straps. The KSO (and KSO Trek) is secured by a Velcro strap and a heel strap that is connected with the Velcro strap. The Flow is secured with an over-foot strap and a heel strap. When properly fitted, none of the VFF shoes will come off the foot like, for instance, sandals.
#4. Yet another objection would be the soles of the FiveFingers shoes. Each variety of the VFF has a sole of Vibram TC-1 performance rubber, razor-siped for flexibility and slip resistance. This offers grip and stability on par with typical athletic shoes; in the case of making cuts on a basketball court, I've experienced even higher grip from VFF than from regular shoes. Yet again, this objection falls by the wayside.
#5. In fact, wearing Vibram FiveFingers shoes falls perfectly in line with the supposed ideals of the Wellness Center. The soles of VFF are designed to follow the contour and shape of the human foot, allowing the foot to move naturally. The sole, combined with the toe pockets, work to strengthen and stretch muscles within the foot that are oft-neglected when in regular athletic shoes. Balance, proprioception, agility, and strength are all improved when the VFF are worn over a long period of time. Furthermore, wearing VFFs put the body in a more natural body posture when performing lifts on one's feet (e.g., deadlift, squat, standing military/DB press, lunges). The heels are not off the ground. Force is not dissipated through a heavy rubber sole (which inhibits incorporation of the feet). The sole and structure of regular athletic shoes actually results in instability during the middle of a set. With the feet off the ground, they are more prone to move; being closer to the ground (ideally, right against the ground) allows for a more solid base, again leading to a reduced chance of injury. Thus, wearing typical "athletic" shoes actually increases the chance of injury due to the fact that these shoes throw the human body out of its natural alignment. So, to prohibit VFF from the Wellness Center would result in going against the Wellness Center's professed goals and mission!
I will be appearing at the Wellness Center tomorrow morning to contest this "decision" further, regardless of any answer I may receive between now and then.
Regards,
0
I don't think my gym has a policy on those kinds of shoes because I see them all the time. But I have yet to see someone use them with their trainer or in a group exercise class. Also, our martial arts and mind/body studios are barefoot areas unless you have shoes specific to the sport.
0
ACE discusses these shoes in their latest newsletter. Here is the link: http://www.acefitness.org/certifiednewsarticle/1641/like-barefoot-only-b...
0
I've heard the "weights being dropped on feet" concern before; frankly, I find it a silly one. I have slammed my hands into things with weights, but no one is recommending I shield my hands and fingers from the possibility of hurting them (more likely to hurt hands and wrists than feet). If I were to drop a weight on my feet when I'm wearing my Mizuno running shoes or my Nike training shoes, I risk the same injury. I don't believe that the Five Fingers shoes are for everyone, but that's a matter of preference. Typically, I will not do lunges, squats, hill sprints, etc unless I'm wearing mine.. They're not an attractive shoe, there are people who should not wear them, and they're pricey. Other than that, to each their own.
0
I couldn't agree more with Debbie above with regard to the shoes. For lower body training they create better proprioception and for some less hip/knee pain by changing foot angle. Personally, I am a 1-footed overpronator and wouldn't road run in my Vibrams, avoid walking on cement EVER without more cushioning and support. I've seen some seniors (80+) have success wearing versions of minimalist shoes rather than big clunky 10 year old poor fitting shoes. They don't trip or shuffle as much and do gaiting exercises with more alacrity. As far as facility policy: Our Country Club requires closed toed shoes in the fitness center. I've recieved many complaints about barefeet and flip-flops but never vibrams. In group fitness we have people go barefoot with free weights being used. Yes, releases have been signed, yes the club would be liable...but again, is the argument with a member worth how many times we've all seen a weight drop on a toe/foot and cause a fracture?? See Gretchen's
note above.....
note above.....
0
A very interesting question. When I run on the beach I much prefer barefoot! In a gym, group exercise setting I think shoes are the most appropriate. In a weight training setting, even though the risk of dropping a weight on the foot is minimal, I think the appropriate rule is that closed-toe shoes be worn. Having your client sign a release doesn't necessarily mean that you are released from potential liability.
Take care, Daniel
Take care, Daniel
0
Not everything can be controlled in the industry and as we are seeing big corporations with a great advertising campaign are once again attracting mobs to their product.
I guess the gym is allowed tho have their "rules" and the client can go elsewhere if they don't like them.
I guess the gym is allowed tho have their "rules" and the client can go elsewhere if they don't like them.
