StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Disclemair: I am not interested in being a ninja or anything related to them. My interest in it is due to its minimalist-shoe design as it connects to barefoot/minimalist-running***.

I am interested in buy jikatabis. I have known about them for some time but recently I have become interested in minimalist running. A look at jikatabis tells me that they do fit the bill without it being advertised as such. For those who are confused, jikatabis are these things:



When they are outfitted with a rubber sole like this they are called jikatabis and relatively new invention (made by Ishibashi Tokujiro in 1923). As such they have nothing special to do with ninjas, as they are normal footwear in Japan (real ninjas probably used them for the same reason non-ninjas did).

Tabis are just socks with a separate pocket for the big toe. Imagine a regular sock with the above setup for the big-toe and that's it. They are a bit more expensive than regular socks because how it complicates the manufacture. It is however true that they were sometimes turned into full-fledged shoes according to this site. If someone can go beyond the Japanese language-barrier and clarify these points for me, please do (in particular, I am curious what the word "tabi" would mean to an actual Japanese person).

I am curious whether is there anybody in the forum with experience with jikatabis and where it is recommended to buy them in Europe (and in Hungary in particular).

My current candidate is this site. The prices seem reasonable, I can buy regular tabis (toe-socks) too and other stuff (I want to buy tabi and 5-toe socks, they have packs). Of course ordering from Japan is going to be a bit expensive due to shipping and VAT. If somebody knows a good European site where I could get these at better prices, please give me a link.

I know that jikatabis (usually) lack the support most regular shoes have, that is why I am calling them "minimalist shoes". They will also look odd but I am determined not to give a damn. I would probably use them a combination of sports (martial arts, some running and regular cycling), as trekking and nordic-walking shoes and everyday street ware. I am concerned about how waterproof these things are (some models are more waterproof than others by product description, I am leaning towards the Rikio Tokusei).

Hence why I am also asking advice regarding these and their experiences (anything from what brands are recommended/are to be avoided, to notes about fitting).

I have a minimalist shoe (a pair of diving shoes) that I like so far. I have been constantly doing excercises aimed at foot and ankles, as well as trying to change my gait or at least be more aware how I walk and run. I am wearing orthopedics (which is why I have become interested in barefoot/minimalist running in the first place). I am trying to be very careful about this and I still wear my orthopedic-soled hiking boots for everyday use.

***It is the middle of winter and just started snowing. So doing the obvious thing is out. The point of minimalist footwear is to deliberately eschew the traditional supports regular shoes have. The goal with this is to allow full movement and utility of the foot and allowing exercise to strengthen it.

Those soles don't look very thick; I'd be concerned about walking over any surface with rocky texture whatsoever.

i thought the whole minimilast running thing had been exposed as a scam?

General Zod wrote:Those soles don't look very thick; I'd be concerned about walking over any surface with rocky texture whatsoever.

Using these would still be much more safer than going barefoot. Part of the point with barefoot/minimalist running is that you feel the ground more. Which is why beginners like me have to be careful when they start out.

Having thin soles is good when you want to feel the ground and Japanese construction workers prefer them for this reason.

As for going on hard terrain, the human foot can deal with it quite well if it is used to it. Mine aren't (they aren't used to much exercise at all) but there are people enough into this to go barefoot on pavement (look up "barefootgirls" on deviantart for examples). If your feet' muscles and joints are used to the strain and skin is thick enough, you can walk and run barefoot on pavement. This is partly because barefoot running/walking discourages you from hitting the ground very hard and instead adapt a gait where you more gradually transfer your weight to the ground. You can even handle slightly sharp (for a rock) edges.

madd0ct0r wrote:i thought the whole minimilast running thing had been exposed as a scam?

Can you please elaborate? I have been trying to look at the science side of this stuff and so far, and some far it seems to be real. There is small level of research done but the mid- or forefoot-gait that comes from barefoot running seems to be better than heel-strike running (weight is more gradually and even transferred, as seen here).

It is likely that some shoe manufacturers tried to jump on the bandwagon without really changing their products and thus end up being bad shoes in both worlds. But stuff like jikatabis pre-date the barefoot-running movement/fad.

Having thin soles is good when you want to feel the ground and Japanese construction workers prefer them for this reason.

Until you step on a nail.

General Zod wrote:

Having thin soles is good when you want to feel the ground and Japanese construction workers prefer them for this reason.

Until you step on a nail.

At least that's what I read from some online sources (including Wiki).

That problem can happen with regular shoes too though. With these you can actually pick up a nail (deliberately).

General Zod wrote:

Having thin soles is good when you want to feel the ground and Japanese construction workers prefer them for this reason.

Until you step on a nail.

The only shoes or boots I've heard of that could stop a nail are the ones from Vietnam with the steel sole to stop spike traps and those with soles thicker than the nail is long.

These seem like they would be fine if you stuck to gym tracks or fairly clean outdoor tracks. I know several in my area where walking barefoot would be reasonably safe.

I don´t think you have to worry about nails when going running. The risk of stepping onto one is so miniscule that it wouldn´t be reasonable to sacrifice your increased fun for some minimally increased safety.
I mean, even if you have really bad luck and step on something what is the worst that can happen? You go through 2 months of suck and your foot is healed.

Darmalus wrote:

General Zod wrote:

Having thin soles is good when you want to feel the ground and Japanese construction workers prefer them for this reason.

Until you step on a nail.

The only shoes or boots I've heard of that could stop a nail are the ones from Vietnam with the steel sole to stop spike traps and those with soles thicker than the nail is long.

These seem like they would be fine if you stuck to gym tracks or fairly clean outdoor tracks. I know several in my area where walking barefoot would be reasonably safe.

I've found tacks stuck in my shoes before; anything less than a half inch of sole would have made that an extremely unpleasant experience.

So if you enjoyed running in ninja shoes or bare foot more than normal shoes would you not take this risk?

salm wrote:So if you enjoyed running in ninja shoes or bare foot more than normal shoes would you not take this risk?

I don't like running, but I'd rather wear shoes that offer protection against random sharp things.

So you´d sacrifice a certain amount of happiness for slightly increased security.
To each his own, i guess.

If I were the type of person who liked running, getting a tack in my foot would mean I couldn't run for a few weeks.

Zixinus wrote:

General Zod wrote:

Having thin soles is good when you want to feel the ground and Japanese construction workers prefer them for this reason.

Until you step on a nail.

At least that's what I read from some online sources (including Wiki).

That problem can happen with regular shoes too though. With these you can actually pick up a nail (deliberately).

I don't know where in Hungary you live, but where I am, the hawthorn and black locust twigs on the ground make such footwear a no-no. Even a regular running shoe is not always enough to protect your foot, and you will spend a lot of time plucking thorns out of it.

General Zod wrote:If I were the type of person who liked running, getting a tack in my foot would mean I couldn't run for a few weeks.

Hmm... i guess your thumb tacks are larger than ours if they would take you out for weeks.

Zixinus wrote:As for going on hard terrain, the human foot can deal with it quite well if it is used to it. Mine aren't (they aren't used to much exercise at all) but there are people enough into this to go barefoot on pavement (look up "barefootgirls" on deviantart for examples). If your feet' muscles and joints are used to the strain and skin is thick enough, you can walk and run barefoot on pavement. This is partly because barefoot running/walking discourages you from hitting the ground very hard and instead adapt a gait where you more gradually transfer your weight to the ground. You can even handle slightly sharp (for a rock) edges.

Well, yes, up to a point - when I was younger I ran around barefoot a lot, including on concrete and pavement, and your feet do toughen up. I used to even run barefoot on gravel, although not full out.

Even so, when doing wilderness hiking in those years I still wore heavy leather boots with steel shanks and lots of ankle support. And I cut myself on sharp glass fragments more than once, even with soles as tough as rawhide. Shoes were invented for reason.

In college, because I like to wear flip-flops a lot but don't like cold feet, I essentially made my own jikatabis to wear with flip flops when the weather got cold enough. I took an old pair of socks, split them between the big toe and the rest, and sewed up the raw edges. Crude, but it worked.

As an alternative to purchasing jikatabis you might look into having a local knitter make you a pair as essentially they're a variation of socks, then bonding some sort of sole onto the bottom. I sort of know how I would do it myself, in my head, although I have not actually attempted such a construction.

Zixinus wrote:

madd0ct0r wrote:i thought the whole minimilast running thing had been exposed as a scam?

Can you please elaborate? I have been trying to look at the science side of this stuff and so far, and some far it seems to be real. There is small level of research done but the mid- or forefoot-gait that comes from barefoot running seems to be better than heel-strike running (weight is more gradually and even transferred, as seen here).

It is likely that some shoe manufacturers tried to jump on the bandwagon without really changing their products and thus end up being bad shoes in both worlds. But stuff like jikatabis pre-date the barefoot-running movement/fad.

I think the paper I recall was http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 094844.htm
I actually prefer running in boots. blame that on the army school Soles so stiff you can kangaroo with them.

I've found tacks stuck in my shoes before; anything less than a half inch of sole would have made that an extremely unpleasant experience.

On such dangerous terrain only safety-shoes would be good, yes.

I think the paper I recall was http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 094844.htm

The article only targets one specific claim: that barefoot running is somehow inherently safer. They have not really debunked it, merely pointed out that there is no evidence for or against it. They also point out how not simple the whole debate is. I can read the paper itself but I have not yet finished doing that.

The thing is, there is limited research into the topic to being with.
This paper for example shows that people who use minimalist shoes self-report less injuries overall.[/url] But that may be due to those runners doing less intensive running. Or that the minimalist-shoe wearers had a different gait that would have been helpful even if they used regular shoes (maybe).
There is a bunch of such papers relating to minimalist/barefoot running on PublMed. I have not figured out how to read the full paper or whether there is a paywall. I am in particular interested in this.

Just found a study that actually goes against the article madd0ctor pointed: MRI images show that minimalist shoes work the muscles more than reguler. If I am reading the study correctly.

As an alternative to purchasing jikatabis you might look into having a local knitter make you a pair as essentially they're a variation of socks, then bonding some sort of sole onto the bottom. I sort of know how I would do it myself, in my head, although I have not actually attempted such a construction.

The socks I might be able to have made, but an entire jikatabi I don't see.

One workaround would be to do this:

At the risk of a necro, I have ordered a jikatabi (the Tokushei) and have worn it for a few days now. I'll list my experiences below.

But first: I am considering using a file to modify the sole by removing small sections to improve it or doing something to soften the sole. Please write if you have any experience with either.

First, about sizing and Japanese shoe sizes: when you measure the distance from the middle of your heel to the tip of your longest toe (as show here), keep in mind that this is your barefoot size. Jikatabis are meant to be worn barefoot. Putting on socks can give you 0.5-1cm depending on how thick socks you use. It is highly recommended to get seamless socks, the seamed tabis I ordered along were a tad uncomfortable. My size is roughly 26cm this way but with socks I can tell I should have gotten a 26.5 although I may be one of those people that need one size bigger shoes because how wide their feet are. The jikatabi I have is sized 27 (they didn't have 26.5 ones) and I can still fill it out comfortably although I have to push my toes in. I can fill it out also by adding an insole.

Second off, the thickness of the outsole and protection: it is at least as thick as thinner sport shoes. It is also dense rubber, denser and harder than my regular sport shoe (a Kalenji Ekiden 75). I actually tried to step on a standing pointer nail with it (while sitting) and it didn't let the nail trough. It got stuck into the rubber and it didn't allow to penetrate. I clearly felt that I was stepping into something trough the sole. However the sole was still flexible enough to allow me to roll the shoe up like a mattress. The rigidness of the sole seems to be lightening up a bit with use.
The Tukoshei is partially waterproof (I can stand in very shallow puddles without getting my feet wet) but there is still exposed canvas. I have sprayed impregnating spray on the non-rubberized canvas and this was a good decision when I came back having to brush mud off. Anything above the sole is canvas or rubberized canvas, although the Tukoshei does have rubber extending up to the front of the toe-boxes, which is good.

Sensation is also greater than a thicker (but softer-soled) shoes. In general the jikatabi appears to be a lighter version of sneakers and are an improvement on the advantages that lighter shoes have but also gives the disadvantages they bring. It is lighter, thinner and gives significantly more freedom of movement in the toes. This is good when you need to curl up your toes for correct running form (so as to not step on your toes). I can feel that I can bend my foot to a ball more in the jikatabi than in the sneakers.

My disappointment however was in the toe area. I have been doing exercises to treat my flat fleet and those include picking up things (a sock and a pen) with my toes, including a bigtoe-longtoe grip. With the jikatabis on I could barely move my toe and the only thing I could grip was a sheet of paper as that is the only thing I can slip in the toe-gap. Again, compared to regular shoes that restrict toe movement it was still better, but to my other two minimalist shoes I still found it restricting.

I believe the problem with the jikatabi is in the design of the sole. Simply put, it is a flat piece of rubber that cannot expand or contract. When I try to move my toes they are restricted by the fact the whole sole accommodate this by anything else but by moving the whole sole up and down the foot. When curl my toes up I am pulling the shoe-sole forward. When I curve my toes down I am creating an arch with the shoe-sole.

This is clearly a design flaw in jikatabis in general as I see similar soles on other jikatabis. Even on more expensive ones such as the Assaboots ones that are sold in Europe. Kage ones seem to have some minimal improvement by adding an X-shaped space but even that is at the ball, not at the toes where they need to be. I am certain that the many sneakers with the jikatabi-like big-toe pocket also suffer from this problem, though I admit I have not tried those.

The other problem with the jikatabis I feel is that it does not hold the ball of my foot. This is a peculiarity of jikatabi is that you have to push metal clasps (called kohaze) trough string loops. They grab hold of the forefoot well but do not adequately pull the ball section of the foot. I have two "settings" for the clasps. Which setting (which string loop I use) depends on how thick socks I am wearing. With thicker socks I can feel restricted bloodflow. Western-traditional shoe-strings would not help much because those tighten around the front of the boot not the rear. Still, when I lift and bend my foot even slightly forward, I feel as if the ball of my foot is hanging in the air. This may be due that I ordered a slightly too large sized shoe.

Another flaw, one I expected, is that there is no cushioning. There are jikatabi that have cushioning but these does and I can feel it. This is partially good for me because I want to feel when I am stepping too hard and I want to be reminded to switch to a lighter stepping style.

Overall, I have a pair of shoes that give me more freedom of movement and sensation than my sneakers or hiking boots but still give greater protection and rigidity than my more minimalist shoes. I have walked on slippery mud on them and they are good there.

However I am not satisfied with them as-is. I want to modify them by using a file and remove material from the sole. I want to create gaps in-between sports where I move my toes. I want to remove material so to move my toes I don't have to bend the entire sole. I also want to remove excess bits from around the toe area to better allow slipping things in-between the big-toe and long-toe.

I have no idea what effect this would have on the sole as a whole. Would this crack the sole? Would any hole or damage spread? Or would it behave like rigid plastic and the gaps wouldn't cause structural problems. All I can find is that the sole is made out of JRFMA (Japan Rubber Footwear Manufacturers Association) rubber sole.
I am also considering whether softening the sole would help. From what google has thrown at me, this can be done to vulcanized rubber by having it suck in plasticizers.

As long as the rubber is removed carefully (ie a rough file) and you avoid any sharp angles that concentrate stress you should be ok. I'd advise against using plasticizers, you'd probably end up with a sole full of solvent that would stink, degrade the rubber and leave no lasting effect once the soaked up volume has evaporated again. Too hard to get right first time. At least material removal you can take it slow

This a sole of the Tukoshei and I marked with red where I intend to cut:



The triangles at the toe would mean triangular cuts (with a triangle file) that would allow the big toe to move left and right without being restricted by the sole.

Would this work and not cause undue stress?

There are people who've supported the idea of 'barefoot running'. Unfortunately, it's not something you can say is based in solid thought. Vibram Five-Fingers had to settle a class-action suit because they advertised minimalist running as having health benefits.

Of course, as with most all things both medical and anecdotal, minimalist runners swear by it, but the American Podiatric Medical Association has, last I checked, the position that there simply is no credible scientific evidence of the claimed long-term benefits.

Lagmonster wrote:There are people who've supported the idea of 'barefoot running'. Unfortunately, it's not something you can say is based in solid thought. Vibram Five-Fingers had to settle a class-action suit because they advertised minimalist running as having health benefits.

Of course, as with most all things both medical and anecdotal, minimalist runners swear by it, but the American Podiatric Medical Association has, last I checked, the position that there simply is no credible scientific evidence of the claimed long-term benefits.

Yes, I since have changed my position: simply running barefoot will give little to no benefit by itself in terms of safety or injury-prevention. I am also aware of the Vibram lawsuit and they lost it because they made that mistake.

When barefoot running is good is when you actually try to learn how to run with good form. Then the benefit of running barefoot comes: you have much greater sensation of how you move and step and will feel it when you are moving wrong. This can create a good feedback cycle where you are actively teaching yourself to run with good form. However you still need to know how to run with good form in the first place. This works somewhat with minimalist shoes but works best barefoot.

The problem is that I didn't know good form. I just shuffled my legs one after each other and kept landing on my knee. I'm seriously overweight so you can guess what happened: lasting pain in my knee that came whenever I tried to run.

I am reading a barefoot runner's book (he also made an informative website) about what good form is and gives guidance about how to transfer yourself to it. He is very on about "you don't need shoes at all" but he does give useful information (he is at least honest in admitting several things, like that he cycles to work, he has had injuries while barefoot running, etc.). The thing is, I actually know a guy who did athlete mid-distance running and when I told him the form I have learned about, he told he that he was taught the exact same thing: land on the ball of your feet, bend your knees, curl your toes up, etc.

The other thing is that it is actually questionable whether sports shoes help either.

Zixinus wrote: When barefoot running is good is when you actually try to learn how to run with good form. Then the benefit of running barefoot comes: you have much greater sensation of how you move and step and will feel it when you are moving wrong. This can create a good feedback cycle where you are actively teaching yourself to run with good form. However you still need to know how to run with good form in the first place. This works somewhat with minimalist shoes but works best barefoot.

It also works perfectly well with normal running shoes. Every single physical trainer or track coach or athlete or people who just run a lot will tell you that the very very first thing you should think about when starting running as regular exercise is your form. Footwear, speed, distance, and everything else all come second to learning the form. Proper running form is the same regardless of what footwear you are wearing: you want to focus on quick, short strides instead of long, reaching ones and aim to land essentially flat-flooted (you don't want to snap the foot either heel-to-ball OR ball-to-hell, although the latter is somewhat more acceptable), and you don't want to swing your body from side to side OR jump up and down (if viewed from the side, you want your head to be moving in a straight-line along your trajectory, not in a series of little arcs or hops). All of this can be accomplished wearing normal footwear; it just takes some mental training to get used to the movement because it feels so unnatural at first. Trainers typically say when you start you should just use whatever shoes are comfortable on you, before spending money on expensive running/sports shoes. When it comes down to it, you should just choose whatever footwear you are most comfortable running in. For some people that is minimalist, for others it isn't. What's important is that you are distributing your weight evenly and not wearing something that is overly restrictive or mis-shaped for your foot.

Zixinus wrote: The problem is that I didn't know good form. I just shuffled my legs one after each other and kept landing on my knee. I'm seriously overweight so you can guess what happened: lasting pain in my knee that came whenever I tried to run.

Hire a personal trainer. Or go to a class at a gym. If you go to or work at a university, you will have free access to both. Otherwise, it's not hard to find a cheap gym, or even a part-time trainer off of Craigslist or whatever. I'm afraid that you are trying to use the minimalist thing as a short-cut; any exercise, including running, is only beneficial with hard work and psychological dedication. If you really are interested in trying minimalist running, then go for it (I very briefly dabbled in it, myself). I would just advise that you not start making radical decisions about what "school" or "type" of running you are into without first establishing a baseline. It takes a while for your body to ease into patterns of regular or strenuous exercise; hell, look around at running training regimens (like getting into marathon shape, or whatever) and you will often find that the first week, or even first two weeks, of any program don't even involve any running at all - instead, they advise you to practice jogging lightly practicing good running form, before even ATTEMPTING to run a mile (the same is true of weight training programs, many individual sports training routines, etc.).

This is not to say you shouldn't do it, mind you. Practice running with proper form, wearing whatever you are comfortable with, including nothing. If you think it will help you find the form, that's great. I just don't want you to think it is the only option, or somehow a magic, option.

Zixinus wrote: I am reading a barefoot runner's book (he also made an informative website) about what good form is and gives guidance about how to transfer yourself to it.

I recommend this source.

Zixinus wrote: He is very on about "you don't need shoes at all" but he does give useful information (he is at least honest in admitting several things, like that he cycles to work, he has had injuries while barefoot running, etc.). The thing is, I actually know a guy who did athlete mid-distance running and when I told him the form I have learned about, he told he that he was taught the exact same thing: land on the ball of your feet, bend your knees, curl your toes up, etc.

Landing on the ball of your foot is designed to maximize speed. If you want to maximize endurance for long-distance running (i.e. minimize the stress to the ankle), you want to land on midfoot, not the ball. You want your ball and heel to strike almost simultaneously.

Zixinus wrote: The other thing is that it is actually questionable whether sports shoes help either.

Yeah, expensive running shoes are generally just marketing bullshit. I would content that barefoot running and expensive running shoes are extreme ends of the same spectrum, and the best option is somewhere in-between.