Aren't? I guess, 'cause there's two of them.... Anyway, they AREN'T barefoot. Don't let them kid you. Anything that covers the foot is, guess what, NOT BAREFOOT. OK, they DO allow the same flexibility one has being (IN FACT) barefoot. But the same range of sensations, breathability, experience? ONLY a Mitt Romney would say YES.
To paraphrase Gertrude Stein: A shoe is a shoe is a shoe! Certainly, if you want more flexibility in running or walking, these minimal shoes are likely helpful. ONLY BAREFOOT IS BAREFOOT.
Kind of reminds me of this audio program called "The Living Barefoot Show" that's on the internet. They have segments plugging various styles of minimalist shoes....WTF! Barefoot is with bare feet! Anything else is being shod folks!
^^^It gets cold here unfortunatly. When I lived in Tucson I was barefoot a lot. In phoenix I once burned the crap out of my feet running on hot blacktop from my car to the grocery store entrance. It was late July and like 115 degrees.
Wearing things on your feet is not barefoot. Duh. I didn't think being barefoot was the point of vibrams.... The point ranges from better health to a fashion statement.
talking about shoes in this forum approximates to talking about pork meat on a kosher forum unless it's for telling how much those things suck ... get over this ppl ! :bigcry: jeez, some of us here grow annoyed by even "wearing" a goddam piece of band-aid plaster on their soles, go figure...
