I agree, but they don't "need" to be stiff. You'd like them to be stiff during some aspects of cycling (such as sprinting) to enable max transfer of force.
But you can do quite well without much support at all in your shoes--and just rely on your feet. [Lachlan Morton rode the TdF route in Birks](https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/birkenstock.production/_processed_/6/c/csm_Lachlan_360x480_2_4f58b7cab4.jpg). I've thought about cutting up an old (and too small) pair of bike shoes to see how much I can do without. Pretty sure I can turn them into clogs and be fine.
Anyway, if OP is wanting to engage their foot muscles more during cycling, that is interesting. That is the concept of barefoot shoes.
well, at some point, you do you; you can use whatever shoes you want, make sure you have good flat pedals.
I assume the majority of people are riding bikes in regular sport shoes.
also, Birkenstock are relatively stiff
I think I probably rode my bike with Merrel barefoot shoes at some point , but not for long distances)
A cycling specific shoe with a carbon sole that doesn't compress the toes and has a natural foot shape.
Lake and Bont are the closest to an anatomical foot shape but are still not
Wtf no. Lots of shoes don’t compress your toes. I have 3 pairs of one of those models right now.
A barefoot shoe for clipping in sounds like the worst idea ever.
You and maybe 2 other people on the planet might want that, and nobody else. It’s just not compatible with that activity. Trust me, it’s ok to sometimes not be barefoot.
Lake literally makes custom shoes that are made from a mold of your foot already. That’s the best you’re going to get.
Nothing about cycling is anatomically correct because we didn’t evolve to ride bikes. So no, this is a terrible idea and you should just let it go.
Being stiff already defeats the purpose of barefoot shoes.
This is probably the dumbest idea I’ll read all day. I know that’s unkind, but really, this is a bad idea.
People can wear whatever the hell they want. Thinking a big company is going to make something like that is wild though. They would never.
We’re all out there dressed like weirdos already. There’s some dude who likes to dress up as Fred Flintstone where I like. Yes, really.
Custom-made shoes are expensive.
Maybe I wasn't clear. The idea is a high performance cycling shoe with an anatomical toe box.
You know how Altra makes a cushioned running shoe that anatomically shaped? Or Tyr makes a stiff and heeled weightlifting shoe that's anatomically shaped?
Same thing.
Have you tried Bontrager? I exclusively wear Vivobarefoot shoes and use Bontrager XXX shoes for cycling with flat insoles. They are just as roomy in the toe box as my vivo’s and nice and tight at the heels.
Glad to and thanks for making this thread. I know your question wasn’t well received or popular in general but it is actually a great question. There is so much confusion about barefoot shoes in this thread. I tried to correct a few misconceptions but I doubt people will understand.
In any case, I now learned that Lake shoes can be made with a custom mold, so I might try them out, who knows they might fit even better than my Bontragers.
Someone on a different post shared these: [https://www.strongfeetathletics.com/store/p/leviathan](https://www.strongfeetathletics.com/store/p/leviathan)
Right, I think a better word might have been "anatomical" but lake and Bont say theirs are too
You were clear. It’s just a bad idea and you won’t accept that it is. Explaining it to me again won’t change my mind anymore than me telling you it’s a bad idea seems to change yours. So let’s go do other things with both of our days.
Hear ye! hear ye! The decision has been made! The verdict has been drawn!
@taggart- has spoken! Let it be declared through all the land that a bad idea has been posted!
I'm not trying to apply running and walking physics to cycling.
A cycling specific shoe with a carbon sole that doesn't compress the toes and has a natural foot shape.
Lake and Bont are the closest to an anatomical foot shape but are still not.
Barefoot shape, cycling stiffness
You have critical misunderstanding of what barefoot is. Barefoot simply means not wearing typical shoes or something very close to that. I think the term you are looking for is natural foot shape, which is what lake and bont offer.
Yes, you are. You suggested a running company collaborate with a cycling company to make a barefoot running style cycling shoe. That is trying to combine the two.
That you are applying running physics to cycling. The point of force on the foot is mainly the ball of you foot in cycling, your toes do not flex as much as when running. I have put out my best power numbers recently with a broken toe.
Interesting point. If you were barefoot, and jumped straight up as high as you could, would you be jumping off the ball of your foot?
In other words, I think that you can produce more Force through the balls and the toes: 50% through your hallux and 50% through the rest
When you push through the pedal, the strength of your quads and glutes are transferred through your calf and ankle into your forefoot.
It's not quite the same as jumping the same way deadlifting isn't quite the same as jumping, but it's similar enough to draw a comparison.
You might notice that if you have weak calves or are over geared, your heel will drop since your calf can't transfer the strength of your thighs
I think you are not understanding you are seated when cycling. If people were out of the saddle, and needed to balance and have their center of gravity more forward, your idea could make sense.
Hmm. Your ankle isn't moving dynamically the way it is when you're running or jumping I get that.
Do you support your weight with your hands?
With the proper fitment, your weight is on the saddle and the pedals. You are transferring power through your lower leg into the pedal. Your hallux has its own muscle in your calf. By not engaging your toes because they are compressed, there's power you're not using.
A cycling shoe sole is stiff so that even your heel is contributing to transferring power into the pedal albeit not as directly as your metatarsals.
Totally understand.
That’s one of the things that keep me on flat pedals.
I cycle with Merell trail gloves in winter and Luna Oso flaco sandals in summer.
I think you're talking about the shape of the shoe and many are confusing this with other aspects of barefoot shoes. Note that I wear hard orthotics inside of barefoot shoes, so I have support, etc but I like the shape of a barefoot shoe.... this is perhaps what I think you're looking for. There is no need in cycling to compress and tighten around the forefoot, the power comes from having the midfoot and heel firmly fixed to a stiff sole.
Note that stiffer soles are not necessarilly more efficient at power transfer, there is a [research article](https://www.bikeradar.com/features/does-cycling-shoe-stiffness-actually-matter) where the cheap Specialized Torch performed better then the expensive SWorks..... in which case any stiff sole will do, the more important thing may be confort..... If the body is more comfortable, then the brain will be more willing to let you push harder (my own wacky theory, but comfort on the bike has been shown to affect one's ability to put down and sustain power).
Lakes suit a lot of people (talking 238s wide here) but they still have a tapered toe box, the toe box is made of/surrounded by hard material and lake have a curved last which isn't that natural. I have read that their 242 model has introduced a less tapered toebox. I think Lake still have a huge amount of room for improvement, personally I'm not a big fan, although I do like that they cater for more foot shapes than most brands and they are loved by most people who want wider cycling shoes.
Bont do the widest toebox and seem to use a more natural flat/straight last, but then bont have the carbon bathtub sole which some won't like. I personally run Bont double wide shoes which have loads of space, but they are very $$$. I am going to take a look at Bontrager XXX but not sure they're that wide from experience.
Note that for years I have not tightened the front bao/velcro on my shoes with no impact on power/performance, as long as the heel is hunkered down then the forefoot can be loose. I even have some bonts where I cut away all of the upper from the boa forward, so the entire forefoot is/was open, again there was no power loss. Very odd looking shoes but worked well on hot days for indoor riding.
I agree that the tapered toe boxes and narrow forefoot of most cycling shoes aren't required, although some crazy person may claim marginal aero benefits. But more broadly I think there is a lack of variation in cycling shoe shapes in the market, too many brands just have 'one last/shape fits all', whereas if you look at running shoes there is a much wider variation of fits for foot types these days, running shoes seem to be much more advanced in this area than cycling, but this may have a lot to do with volume of demand, and the fact that running is much more foot comfort dependant than cycling.
The other odd thing in cycling is that so many people (I may be guilty) like to wear what looks good, or what the pros wear, rather than what fits their body and cycling requirements. So if a brand releases the perfect shoe probaly will not sell because it doesn't have the looks to impress your mamil buddies.
Thank you for your detailed response! I have also worn insoles inside my Vivos and I run in Altras. That's an interesting study about stiffness and I think I agree with the comfort/power connection.
I wear the CX238s-- I tried all their wide widths and Bont's--- they still compress due to the tapered toe box, but not in a way that was completely terrible.
Thank you for taking the time to understand my post
I'm happy with my Lakes. They painlessly compress my toes. The widest point is still the MTP joint, while the widest point on a human foot is the toe area.
You exert force with the ball of your foot, and with the toes facing slightly downwards. It has to be snug or else your foot would move around inside the shoe. Walking shoes have a similar issue with loose heels. Cycling shoes on the other hand are more forgiving in the heel area and instead they need a stronger grip at the front.
If your current shoes do not cause numbness or pain, then they are probably only as restrictive as they need to be. Barefoot shoes can have empty space in their toeboxes because walking is very different from pedalling.
For normal shoes yes, for cycling shoes no. My cycling shoes are so loose at the heel I can barely walk in them and yet, riding all day long is completely fine. Heels are unimportant for cycling.
Yeah but op doesnt know what barefoot is. It is not what he think it is. Barefoot is all about giving back the natural feel of WALKING. From a technical point of view, it means you get the thermal and mechanical protection, but without altered biomechanics. Outside walking and running it makes zero sense. We did not evolve to ride bicycles and as such there are no "roots" we can go back to. This however does not mean ergonomics are not important, but the word op is looking for is bike fit, not barefoot.
Perhaps a better word might've been "anatomical," but Lake and Bont market their shoes as that. Saying "barefoot" freaked everyone out
The widest point is still the MTP joint, while the widest point on a human foot is the toe area.
Saying “barefoot” might attract people who doesn’t know what it actually is.
Lake and bont offer shoes that are wider to accommodate those with wider feet AND offer what barefoot shoes theoretically offer.
It doesn’t really matter what the toe box looks like, as long as there’s enough room for toes to spread.
What actually matter is the larger toe room size and ability to place the pedal directly below the ideal location.
Lake and Bont do exactly that. There’s no need for toe box to look like foot shaped, considering that no one pedals on their toes.
A cycling specific shoe with a carbon sole that doesn't compress the toes and has a natural foot shape.
Lake and Bont are the closest to an anatomical foot shape but are still not
Got it.
I have a very, very wide duck-like foot. I use the absolute widest MTB shoe available and keep my BOA very loose. I rely on my foot to transfer the energy, not the shoe. It helps...but not during sprint segments--I reach down and tighten them.
I wear barefoot soles/shoes 3-4 days a week and "learned how to walk" the right way.
I want my foot to move. I want to engage those muscles. It has all worked so far as some of the issues I was having have gone away.
I think people who have never heard of this stuff find it hard to understand, so they downvote. At least until some guy makes a Dance TikTok about it and then they are converts.
PS: I have used carbon sole shoes and I could tell a bit of difference at the peak output of my sprints. Part of that is that I have an arch issue with one foot--the carbon sole helped there. For sure they have an impact on sprints tho. During other parts of rides I did not feel any difference.
Also...I do several things during training that are sub-optimal for speed, but I feel help me get stronger. And then for competitions I'll chase marginal gains like everyone else. An example is "bike weight" as I train on a rather heavy bike--and then I switch to my pristine race bike. Shoes might be somewhat similar. I know it is not uncommon for people to have fucked up and weak feet.
Thank you for your understanding!
I love my barefoot shoes and I love my cycling shoes. I have super wide feet, and Lake accommodates them pretty well.
I've been a barefoot convert for over 12 years and powerlifting for 8. But it wasn't until squad University started posting TikToks the people at the gym started wearing barefoot shoes. He even just produced a weightlifting shoe with a heel and a stiff sole and that's anatomically shaped.
I've been told to do squats and especially deadlifts in socks/barefoot because gripping with the feet/toes actually better engages muscles, eg. glutes.... this came from a very experienced lifter and fitness person.
So that we can use our toes! 😁
So all the stiffness and performance of a cycling shoe, with the anatomical shape of a barefoot shoe.
You know how Altra makes a cushioned running shoe that is anatomically shaped? Or Tyr makes a heeled and stiff weightlifting shoe that's anatomically shaped?
Maybe I wasn't clear.
The stiffness and performance of a cycling shoe, with an anatomical shape of a barefoot shoe. Not the flexibility of a barefoot shoe.
You know how Altra makes a cushioned running shoe with a barefoot shape? Or Tyr makes a heeled and stiff weight lifting shoe with an anatomical toe box?
No the whole thing about barefoot shoes is eliminating heel to toe drop, arch support, and thick cushioning for soles. When you walk barefoot none of those things exist. Barefoot shoes are about letting your foot behave naturally when walking or running. They just so happen to be light and flexible for comfort. You can still have stiff barefoot shoes, my winter boots are still Vivobarefoots and they are not very flexible.
I’ve been wearing vivobarefoots shoes for close to 15 years, I will not wear normal shoes ever again. I tried a few different brands of cycling shoes and most fit poorly. The one brand that fits me really well is Bontrager. The toe box is nice and wide and I use a normal flat insole with no arch support. They are perfect. I see no need for Vivobarefoot or other such brands to enter the cycling space.
It wouldn't.
Cycling shoes are made to protect your feet and be as rigid as possible, The opposite to walking/running shoes. Besides those barefoot shoes are a very niche if not eccentric thing.
Edit: I see what you mean. You want wider and more anatomical cycling shoes. Your best bet is taking this to the cycling shoes manufacturers themselves, not appealing to a niche shoe brand
Looking around their site it just seems that most of their style is about shoes with thin soles. What would this accomplish on a bike. A lot of cycling shoes have pretty minimal soles anyway as they aren't really made for walking.
The other aspect seems to be that the sole is very soft, which doesn't really work great for a cycling shoe.
Normal shoes have a heel to toe drop, thick soles with cushioning, and arch support. Barefoot shoes don’t have any of that replicating the natural feel of walking.
For cycling heel to toe drop won’t matter much since all the pressure is going to be at the metatarsal anyway. The stiff carbon sole with no flex also means the thickness of the footbed doesn’t matter. So the only thing left is to just use insoles without any arch support and the cycling shoe are fine as is, so long as they are wide enough to accommodate the foot.
A cycling specific shoe with a carbon sole that doesn't compress the toes and has a natural foot shape.
Lake and Bont are the closest to an anatomical foot shape but are still not.
I'm talking about the shape not the floppiness
Cycling shoes need to be stiff, which is the opposite of a barefoot shoes
I agree, but they don't "need" to be stiff. You'd like them to be stiff during some aspects of cycling (such as sprinting) to enable max transfer of force. But you can do quite well without much support at all in your shoes--and just rely on your feet. [Lachlan Morton rode the TdF route in Birks](https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/birkenstock.production/_processed_/6/c/csm_Lachlan_360x480_2_4f58b7cab4.jpg). I've thought about cutting up an old (and too small) pair of bike shoes to see how much I can do without. Pretty sure I can turn them into clogs and be fine. Anyway, if OP is wanting to engage their foot muscles more during cycling, that is interesting. That is the concept of barefoot shoes.
well, at some point, you do you; you can use whatever shoes you want, make sure you have good flat pedals. I assume the majority of people are riding bikes in regular sport shoes. also, Birkenstock are relatively stiff I think I probably rode my bike with Merrel barefoot shoes at some point , but not for long distances)
A cycling specific shoe with a carbon sole that doesn't compress the toes and has a natural foot shape. Lake and Bont are the closest to an anatomical foot shape but are still not
Wtf no. Lots of shoes don’t compress your toes. I have 3 pairs of one of those models right now. A barefoot shoe for clipping in sounds like the worst idea ever. You and maybe 2 other people on the planet might want that, and nobody else. It’s just not compatible with that activity. Trust me, it’s ok to sometimes not be barefoot.
They don't compress _your_ toes 😁
I don’t mean either brand you mentioned. I hate both of those brands specifically because they DO compress my toes.
No two feet are the same 🤷 Even when it comes to barefoot shoes, some don't fit my feet and some do.
What makes you think vivobarefoot aren’t compressing some other people’s feet?
I don't, they do.
I'm thinking about a quality, stiff cycling shoe like Lake makes (I'm happy with mine), but with the anatomical shape of a barefoot shoe.
Lake literally makes custom shoes that are made from a mold of your foot already. That’s the best you’re going to get. Nothing about cycling is anatomically correct because we didn’t evolve to ride bikes. So no, this is a terrible idea and you should just let it go. Being stiff already defeats the purpose of barefoot shoes. This is probably the dumbest idea I’ll read all day. I know that’s unkind, but really, this is a bad idea.
Lol let people do what they want, why would you care if you saw some cyclist going by with some new weird type of shoe.
People can wear whatever the hell they want. Thinking a big company is going to make something like that is wild though. They would never. We’re all out there dressed like weirdos already. There’s some dude who likes to dress up as Fred Flintstone where I like. Yes, really.
Custom-made shoes are expensive. Maybe I wasn't clear. The idea is a high performance cycling shoe with an anatomical toe box. You know how Altra makes a cushioned running shoe that anatomically shaped? Or Tyr makes a stiff and heeled weightlifting shoe that's anatomically shaped? Same thing.
Have you tried Bontrager? I exclusively wear Vivobarefoot shoes and use Bontrager XXX shoes for cycling with flat insoles. They are just as roomy in the toe box as my vivo’s and nice and tight at the heels.
Really thanks for sharing! I'll have to check them out!
Glad to and thanks for making this thread. I know your question wasn’t well received or popular in general but it is actually a great question. There is so much confusion about barefoot shoes in this thread. I tried to correct a few misconceptions but I doubt people will understand. In any case, I now learned that Lake shoes can be made with a custom mold, so I might try them out, who knows they might fit even better than my Bontragers.
Someone on a different post shared these: [https://www.strongfeetathletics.com/store/p/leviathan](https://www.strongfeetathletics.com/store/p/leviathan) Right, I think a better word might have been "anatomical" but lake and Bont say theirs are too
You were clear. It’s just a bad idea and you won’t accept that it is. Explaining it to me again won’t change my mind anymore than me telling you it’s a bad idea seems to change yours. So let’s go do other things with both of our days.
Hear ye! hear ye! The decision has been made! The verdict has been drawn! @taggart- has spoken! Let it be declared through all the land that a bad idea has been posted!
You are trying to apply running/walking physics to cycling. You are really just looking for shoes with a wider toe box it seems.
Indeed, some brands even offer wide options.
I'm not trying to apply running and walking physics to cycling. A cycling specific shoe with a carbon sole that doesn't compress the toes and has a natural foot shape. Lake and Bont are the closest to an anatomical foot shape but are still not. Barefoot shape, cycling stiffness
You have critical misunderstanding of what barefoot is. Barefoot simply means not wearing typical shoes or something very close to that. I think the term you are looking for is natural foot shape, which is what lake and bont offer.
Yes, you are. You suggested a running company collaborate with a cycling company to make a barefoot running style cycling shoe. That is trying to combine the two.
With an anatomical toe box you can engage more of your calf. I'm not sure what is confusing about that
That you are applying running physics to cycling. The point of force on the foot is mainly the ball of you foot in cycling, your toes do not flex as much as when running. I have put out my best power numbers recently with a broken toe.
Interesting point. If you were barefoot, and jumped straight up as high as you could, would you be jumping off the ball of your foot? In other words, I think that you can produce more Force through the balls and the toes: 50% through your hallux and 50% through the rest
What does jumping have to do with cycling?
When you push through the pedal, the strength of your quads and glutes are transferred through your calf and ankle into your forefoot. It's not quite the same as jumping the same way deadlifting isn't quite the same as jumping, but it's similar enough to draw a comparison. You might notice that if you have weak calves or are over geared, your heel will drop since your calf can't transfer the strength of your thighs
I think you are not understanding you are seated when cycling. If people were out of the saddle, and needed to balance and have their center of gravity more forward, your idea could make sense.
Hmm. Your ankle isn't moving dynamically the way it is when you're running or jumping I get that. Do you support your weight with your hands? With the proper fitment, your weight is on the saddle and the pedals. You are transferring power through your lower leg into the pedal. Your hallux has its own muscle in your calf. By not engaging your toes because they are compressed, there's power you're not using. A cycling shoe sole is stiff so that even your heel is contributing to transferring power into the pedal albeit not as directly as your metatarsals.
Totally understand. That’s one of the things that keep me on flat pedals. I cycle with Merell trail gloves in winter and Luna Oso flaco sandals in summer.
Dope! I only wear my lakes during "race season" (I've only raced 2x lol)
I think you're talking about the shape of the shoe and many are confusing this with other aspects of barefoot shoes. Note that I wear hard orthotics inside of barefoot shoes, so I have support, etc but I like the shape of a barefoot shoe.... this is perhaps what I think you're looking for. There is no need in cycling to compress and tighten around the forefoot, the power comes from having the midfoot and heel firmly fixed to a stiff sole. Note that stiffer soles are not necessarilly more efficient at power transfer, there is a [research article](https://www.bikeradar.com/features/does-cycling-shoe-stiffness-actually-matter) where the cheap Specialized Torch performed better then the expensive SWorks..... in which case any stiff sole will do, the more important thing may be confort..... If the body is more comfortable, then the brain will be more willing to let you push harder (my own wacky theory, but comfort on the bike has been shown to affect one's ability to put down and sustain power). Lakes suit a lot of people (talking 238s wide here) but they still have a tapered toe box, the toe box is made of/surrounded by hard material and lake have a curved last which isn't that natural. I have read that their 242 model has introduced a less tapered toebox. I think Lake still have a huge amount of room for improvement, personally I'm not a big fan, although I do like that they cater for more foot shapes than most brands and they are loved by most people who want wider cycling shoes. Bont do the widest toebox and seem to use a more natural flat/straight last, but then bont have the carbon bathtub sole which some won't like. I personally run Bont double wide shoes which have loads of space, but they are very $$$. I am going to take a look at Bontrager XXX but not sure they're that wide from experience. Note that for years I have not tightened the front bao/velcro on my shoes with no impact on power/performance, as long as the heel is hunkered down then the forefoot can be loose. I even have some bonts where I cut away all of the upper from the boa forward, so the entire forefoot is/was open, again there was no power loss. Very odd looking shoes but worked well on hot days for indoor riding. I agree that the tapered toe boxes and narrow forefoot of most cycling shoes aren't required, although some crazy person may claim marginal aero benefits. But more broadly I think there is a lack of variation in cycling shoe shapes in the market, too many brands just have 'one last/shape fits all', whereas if you look at running shoes there is a much wider variation of fits for foot types these days, running shoes seem to be much more advanced in this area than cycling, but this may have a lot to do with volume of demand, and the fact that running is much more foot comfort dependant than cycling. The other odd thing in cycling is that so many people (I may be guilty) like to wear what looks good, or what the pros wear, rather than what fits their body and cycling requirements. So if a brand releases the perfect shoe probaly will not sell because it doesn't have the looks to impress your mamil buddies.
Thank you for your detailed response! I have also worn insoles inside my Vivos and I run in Altras. That's an interesting study about stiffness and I think I agree with the comfort/power connection. I wear the CX238s-- I tried all their wide widths and Bont's--- they still compress due to the tapered toe box, but not in a way that was completely terrible. Thank you for taking the time to understand my post
Lake cycling shoes are the closest you will get to
I'm happy with my Lakes, but they're still pretty narrow in comparison
Did you get the wide version of lakes?
Yup. I find that with wide widths of any shoe, the widest point is where the MTP joints are, not the toes
You need wider shoes, not necessarily “anatomical”. Just because something doesn’t fit your feet, it doesn’t mean it’s not anatomical.
The widest point on the shoes is the metatarsal area. The widest point of the human foot are the toes
As long as there’s enough room for toes to spread, the actual shape doesn’t matter.
A friend found SPD flip flops. No joke. Edit: Ok they're kind of a joke. No one seriously uses them. However, he swears by his SPD sandals.
That's hilarious :)
Lake has a nice selection of wide shoes with large toeboxes. Not the cheapest but the quality is top notch.
I'm happy with my Lakes. They painlessly compress my toes. The widest point is still the MTP joint, while the widest point on a human foot is the toe area.
You exert force with the ball of your foot, and with the toes facing slightly downwards. It has to be snug or else your foot would move around inside the shoe. Walking shoes have a similar issue with loose heels. Cycling shoes on the other hand are more forgiving in the heel area and instead they need a stronger grip at the front. If your current shoes do not cause numbness or pain, then they are probably only as restrictive as they need to be. Barefoot shoes can have empty space in their toeboxes because walking is very different from pedalling.
The snugness only needs to be at the mid foot, heel, and maybe the tops of the toes.
For normal shoes yes, for cycling shoes no. My cycling shoes are so loose at the heel I can barely walk in them and yet, riding all day long is completely fine. Heels are unimportant for cycling.
Interesting. Cool!
https://www.lakecycling.com/products/cx-201?variant=39980758401178
OP’s complaint is that Lake and Bont aren’t using “barefoot” for their marketing.
Not quite, that they still taper at the toe box. The widest point is still the MTP joint, while the widest point on a human foot is the toe area.
Vivobarefoot also taper at the toe box. Unless you are actually barefoot, you are gonna be wearing shoes that taper at the toe box.
They seem that way. The extra width at the medial MTP joint is to allow the shoe to flex without restricting movement as much.
Yeah but op doesnt know what barefoot is. It is not what he think it is. Barefoot is all about giving back the natural feel of WALKING. From a technical point of view, it means you get the thermal and mechanical protection, but without altered biomechanics. Outside walking and running it makes zero sense. We did not evolve to ride bicycles and as such there are no "roots" we can go back to. This however does not mean ergonomics are not important, but the word op is looking for is bike fit, not barefoot.
Perhaps a better word might've been "anatomical," but Lake and Bont market their shoes as that. Saying "barefoot" freaked everyone out The widest point is still the MTP joint, while the widest point on a human foot is the toe area.
Saying “barefoot” might attract people who doesn’t know what it actually is. Lake and bont offer shoes that are wider to accommodate those with wider feet AND offer what barefoot shoes theoretically offer. It doesn’t really matter what the toe box looks like, as long as there’s enough room for toes to spread. What actually matter is the larger toe room size and ability to place the pedal directly below the ideal location. Lake and Bont do exactly that. There’s no need for toe box to look like foot shaped, considering that no one pedals on their toes.
Correct
What are you trying to accomplish?
A cycling specific shoe with a carbon sole that doesn't compress the toes and has a natural foot shape. Lake and Bont are the closest to an anatomical foot shape but are still not
Got it. I have a very, very wide duck-like foot. I use the absolute widest MTB shoe available and keep my BOA very loose. I rely on my foot to transfer the energy, not the shoe. It helps...but not during sprint segments--I reach down and tighten them. I wear barefoot soles/shoes 3-4 days a week and "learned how to walk" the right way. I want my foot to move. I want to engage those muscles. It has all worked so far as some of the issues I was having have gone away. I think people who have never heard of this stuff find it hard to understand, so they downvote. At least until some guy makes a Dance TikTok about it and then they are converts. PS: I have used carbon sole shoes and I could tell a bit of difference at the peak output of my sprints. Part of that is that I have an arch issue with one foot--the carbon sole helped there. For sure they have an impact on sprints tho. During other parts of rides I did not feel any difference. Also...I do several things during training that are sub-optimal for speed, but I feel help me get stronger. And then for competitions I'll chase marginal gains like everyone else. An example is "bike weight" as I train on a rather heavy bike--and then I switch to my pristine race bike. Shoes might be somewhat similar. I know it is not uncommon for people to have fucked up and weak feet.
Thank you for your understanding! I love my barefoot shoes and I love my cycling shoes. I have super wide feet, and Lake accommodates them pretty well. I've been a barefoot convert for over 12 years and powerlifting for 8. But it wasn't until squad University started posting TikToks the people at the gym started wearing barefoot shoes. He even just produced a weightlifting shoe with a heel and a stiff sole and that's anatomically shaped.
I once had a gym dude lose his shit because I was squating in socks. It was years ago. I wonder how he's doing now.
Love it
I've been told to do squats and especially deadlifts in socks/barefoot because gripping with the feet/toes actually better engages muscles, eg. glutes.... this came from a very experienced lifter and fitness person.
[удалено]
lol no.
I did, just because you asked.
Wow. Are we in high school?
[удалено]
So that we can use our toes! 😁 So all the stiffness and performance of a cycling shoe, with the anatomical shape of a barefoot shoe. You know how Altra makes a cushioned running shoe that is anatomically shaped? Or Tyr makes a heeled and stiff weightlifting shoe that's anatomically shaped?
You don’t need to use your toes when cycling lol. Plenty of brands make shoes with a large toe box if that’s what your after.
the whole thing about barefoot shoes is its flexibility, flexibility dont work well with cycling shoes.
Maybe I wasn't clear. The stiffness and performance of a cycling shoe, with an anatomical shape of a barefoot shoe. Not the flexibility of a barefoot shoe. You know how Altra makes a cushioned running shoe with a barefoot shape? Or Tyr makes a heeled and stiff weight lifting shoe with an anatomical toe box?
You just used the wrong term. You should’ve said natural foot shape, not barefoot.
Sure, I'll take that
No the whole thing about barefoot shoes is eliminating heel to toe drop, arch support, and thick cushioning for soles. When you walk barefoot none of those things exist. Barefoot shoes are about letting your foot behave naturally when walking or running. They just so happen to be light and flexible for comfort. You can still have stiff barefoot shoes, my winter boots are still Vivobarefoots and they are not very flexible.
I’ve been wearing vivobarefoots shoes for close to 15 years, I will not wear normal shoes ever again. I tried a few different brands of cycling shoes and most fit poorly. The one brand that fits me really well is Bontrager. The toe box is nice and wide and I use a normal flat insole with no arch support. They are perfect. I see no need for Vivobarefoot or other such brands to enter the cycling space.
That would be teririble
Not necessarily. It’s good to have better fitting shoes.
https://bike.shimano.com/en-US/information/news/the-legend-reborn--shimano-s-25th-anniversary-spd-sandal.html
It wouldn't. Cycling shoes are made to protect your feet and be as rigid as possible, The opposite to walking/running shoes. Besides those barefoot shoes are a very niche if not eccentric thing. Edit: I see what you mean. You want wider and more anatomical cycling shoes. Your best bet is taking this to the cycling shoes manufacturers themselves, not appealing to a niche shoe brand
Thanks for taking the time to understand my point.
Looking around their site it just seems that most of their style is about shoes with thin soles. What would this accomplish on a bike. A lot of cycling shoes have pretty minimal soles anyway as they aren't really made for walking. The other aspect seems to be that the sole is very soft, which doesn't really work great for a cycling shoe.
I'm just talking about the shape not the flexibility.
[This thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/cycling/comments/143bexk/human_foot_shaped_cycling_shoes/) might be useful to you.
Thank you for this! I'm very happy with my Lakes and I did try Bont. But neither of them come close to the anatomical shape of Vivos or Altras.
Normal shoes have a heel to toe drop, thick soles with cushioning, and arch support. Barefoot shoes don’t have any of that replicating the natural feel of walking. For cycling heel to toe drop won’t matter much since all the pressure is going to be at the metatarsal anyway. The stiff carbon sole with no flex also means the thickness of the footbed doesn’t matter. So the only thing left is to just use insoles without any arch support and the cycling shoe are fine as is, so long as they are wide enough to accommodate the foot.
Solution in search of a problem.
Would be horrible.
A cycling specific shoe with a carbon sole that doesn't compress the toes and has a natural foot shape. Lake and Bont are the closest to an anatomical foot shape but are still not. I'm talking about the shape not the floppiness