Vibram has settled a class-action suit and will now put money in a trust for people who want a refund. They will also stop making claims that their shoes are good for you.
There's a very non-zero chance that if you've run across this, you're a barefoot/minimalist type, so I'm writing this for you, knowing full well you'll be pissed off about this. Of course legal outcomes are not stone-cold scientific evidence, but they should at least inch your dial toward "B.S." and away from "true". (If you think that's an outrageous thing to say: what would you have said had the outcome here been the opposite? "Good, the legal system works"?) But there's just nothing like the evidence in favor of running barefoot that I've heard and read minimalist runners claim.
There IS evidence that Vibrams imitate the form running barefoot pretty well. But, unless that's better for you, who cares? Because there is NOT (much) evidence that running barefoot is any better for you. (Despite the many otherwise evidence-minded types in the tech and rationalist communities who were carried along by this trend, couched as it was in sciencey-sounding claims; that's the most interesting part of this.) I suspect most of our opinions on this, outside of the professional sports science and medicine communities and their respective peer-reviewed journals, are based on our own N=1 experiments. (I'm waiting for the first claims of conspiracy against science from minimalists. Don't be the first one!) Barefoot running is awkward and unpleasant for me personally. If it works for other people, great - although I've been told repeatedly by fanatics that barefoot running is clearly better for everyone, and based on my own N=1, I can disprove that. If it's not clear to you how a single case can be much more disconfirmatory to a theory than it can support a theory, your issue is with science in general, not just footwear.
6.5 (6.4 miles/ 10.3 km)
56 minutes ago