"....During the heavy fighting that followed, Digby could often be seen calmly strolling about the defences, seemingly oblivious to the constant threat of mortar barrages and sniper fire. Choosing to wear his red beret in place of a helmet and swinging his trademark umbrella as he went, Tatham-Warter, no matter how desperate the situation became, never failed in his ability to remain unconcerned and to encourage those around him. Even old hands like Major Freddie Gough became disheartened when Mark IV Tanks crossed the Bridge and the battle seemed lost, but his gloom lifted instantly when he caught sight of Digby leading a bayonet charge against German infantry who had dared to enter British territory; carrying a pistol in one hand, madly swinging his umbrella about his head with the other, and now sporting a bowler hat on his head - which he had obtained from God knows where - doing his best to look like Charlie Chaplin. On another occasion he used the rolled up umbrella to in-effect disable a German armoured car, simply by thrusting it through an observation slit in the vehicle and incapacitating the driver."

http://www.pegasusarchive.org/arnhem/tatham_warter.htm

Certainly until recent years, officers of the British brigade of guards, killers to a man, were forbidden when in mufti in London to carry in their hands anything other than a hat, a newspaper and an umbrella in public. The umbrella was helpful in hailing taxis. Guards officers out shopping required the shop assistants to carry what they'd bought out to the sidewalk and into the taxi. How the officers handled things when the taxi had reached their homes, I know not.

The Japanese believe their five-toed tabi, socks, shoes and boots, nourish ki energy (ch'í energy to the Chinese), a good thing for, among other capabilities, martial valor. Agreed, such valor is not in short supply in the US military.

I think this has less to do with Company or Battalion runs and more to do with CSMs watching their soldiers show up to the gym in PTs and these particular shoes.

And an addendum to AR 670-1!? Are you kidding? That regulation is a deck of cards held together by duct tape. I think they've given up actually producing a new version of that document. All they do now is pump out ALARACTs like they did for the ACU, the ASU, the Beret change, etc.

gloat all you want, sir...but the bavarian countryside has NOTHING on the riverwalk in columbus, GA.

FML.

1.) From what I read the Captain never stated anything suggesting that these shoes were better than the normal running shoe. He simply stated that these shoes worked better for him. Actually, I'm yet to see anything from the medical community released that would suggest these shoes are detrimental to physical health. The fact that the popularity of these shoes within Infantry Battalions and RECON units has exploded in the last 12 months speaks for itself.

2.) The author never suggested an "all vibram shoe Company run"

3.) Anonymous blogs are not openly questionining commanders. It is simply letting the general public know how ridiculous some of the policies coming out are these days.

-Now that being said, I understand if the Army wants to ban these shoes in formation runs. They do look a little ridiculous, however if an individual wants to PT on his/her own or run a PFT let them wear shoes that work for them.

I attended a sports clinic to have my lactate threshold measured (don‘t let up Gourley, I‘m making a comeback) and was introduced to VFFs. Having now used them for about a year, they have made a measurable difference, although I can see they might not physically be suitable for all to train with, and would agree no prudent leader should mandate them.

However, my sense of it is, this has more to do with fashion over function and everyone conforming toward having “all five toes contained in the same compartment," as opposed to what is or isn't best for preventing injury, which may present this regulation as a bit disingenuous perhaps, especially to young Soldiers who attracted to new technology available to them off the shelf.

Of course, the Army also often has an annoying 'Father Knows Best' attitude and won't allow individual soldiers to use items that work best for them, instead assuming that the soldier is to ignorant to know.

Example: at Basic Training, new trainees are forced to purchase running shoes from an approved list. This is true even if they arrive with their own shoes, if those shoes are not on the approved list.

My wife ran cross country for four years in high school, and reported to Ft Leonard Wood for Basic with the same type of shoes she'd worn, with zero injuries, all four cross country seasons. She was told by the DS that she couldn't use them, because they weren't on the approved list.

I've had other soldiers who did track/cross country in high school tell me of the exact same thing happening to them.

DGHOST,

Other than item 3 on your list, I agree with everything else you said.

The merits of these shoes are a subject of debate. Like yourself, wearing these would exacerbate orthopedic problems for me.

You inject a needed sense of what really happens in the conformist and insular culture of the Infantry Company/Platoon/Squad.

I'm glad the Army stepped in here. I've seen first hand the tyrrany that some misguided NCOs and Officers have wielded at the Rifle Company Level. As an AMEDD officer, I also saw some of the resulting injuries from this "high speed" stupidity. I've seen the miniscus tears, the chronic lower back pain and stress fractures brought on by stupid, overzealous "leaders" on power trips. It's not too much of a stretch imagining some misguided SSG or LT trying to highly encourage (ie. informally mandate) the wear of these shoes. This "one size fits all" approach could have disastrous long term impacts on some soldiers placed in their care.

That said, I think the author has every right to share his concerns - however much I may disagree - on a blog. Lord only knows the bandwith I've consumed criticizing/attacking Peter Schoomaker, George Casey, Richard Preston, the ACU, the ASU, USAREC, the US Army Cadet Command and the Warrior Transition Unit concept on this site!

1LTUSMC - there are a few logical fallacies in your argument.

Popularity in combat arms has nothing to do with effectiveness or how "good" something is. Ruck Runs, "Boots and Utes" runs, pro-mask runs, and even Crossfit have all come under fire in the Army because they, Army-wide, cause unacceptably high injury rates. It's not that they cannot be used effectively, or when thrown into capable hands they can't produce results, it's the fact that a large amount of leaders don't know how to manage personnel or physical fitness correctly and wind up needlessly injuring their subordinates.

Relatedly, a lack of evidence doesn't equate to them not being detrimental to health. In this case, you're probably not ever going to see evidence because they are ultimately about as dangerous as any other shoe. There are not a lot of studies put in with specific shoes because the goal of sports medicine isn't to find the best - it's to find what works best for the individual. To put this in perspective, the last time I picked up shoes that weren't fitted to my feet I wound up not being able to climb stairs within two weeks because running in them was fucking up my ankles and knees. This is "common knowledge" inside sports medicine and physical therapy circles, and doesn't need specific studies to prove or disprove it.

And for the record, his statements are not that subjective. Strictly reading "Anyway, I have had some Five Fingers for over a year, and I love them. They reduce shin splints, work your calves better, toughen your feet, and reduced my five mile run average by five minutes in three months. " implies that the benefits are universal and the improvements (and liking) are personal. That might not have been his intent, but that is how we teach kids to read english. If he intended it to be a subjective statement, he should have qualified it better. It is not entirely unreasonable to expect that a college educated officer (and company commander) should have some ability to say what he means.

Anyways. Back to it. he never suggested an "all company VFF run". He doesn't have to. What are his NCO's going to carry forward? What happens when an Article 15 winds up on his desk because a Soldier was ordered to wear them and refused? The burden of company command is as much about the explicit orders he gives as it is about the orders his subordinates give. All he (or any company commander) would have to do is establish a command climate where you're viewed as "unprofessional" if you don't wear VFF's and he would be implicit in any injuries that occur, or any discipline problems that come out of it. And unfortunately, that's only a short ways away from what he was suggesting when he said "They reduce shin splints, work your calves better, toughen your feet".

Before you say that is outside the realm of possibility, I'll refer back to Ruck Runs, CrossFit, And pro-mask runs as examples of shit that the Army has cracked down on in the last few years because subordinate leaders were carrying it too far - and commanders were encouraging it.

Again, the fact that it works well for some doesn't discard the fact it doesn't work well for all, and the Army in particular has a ton of problems with the fact the people leading PT are not particularly qualified to determine that.

As far as it being anonymous or not - if he cared about being anonymous, he would have left his rank and position out of it. It's just as easy to write this sort of thing from a neutral position without trying to add the weight of being a rifle company commander to his argument. Unfortunately, by attaching his rank and position to it he passes it off as a professional judgement instead of a personal opinion. And it's a very unprofessional professional judgement.

As an officer, you wouldn't (or shouldn't) approve of your subordinates doing the same thing - even if it is anonymous. This is not the place to be airing professional grievances while representing oneself as a professional.

As an aside - I wouldn't have minded if he didn't attach his position. Or if he had qualified his statements better. But he didn't - he flirted dangerously close to a line that reeks of thinking he knows better than his superiors and the sports medicine people that establish the PT guidelines, and that is exactly the attitude that has lead to units in the Army banning squad level PT.

Putting your position and rank into something doesn't lend any credibility or authority it just makes you come across as a pompous ass.

Rife Company Captains have no greater inherent knowledge on the efficacy of five finger shoes than anyone else.

Logically the PT mavens at Benning would be the ones who would be the experts on such things, or at least the ones you would ask the question of. But the reality isn't about what's best to run PT in, it's about CSMs not wanting Soldiers and dumb-ass LTs showing up to formations in various assorted clown shoes.

In response to DGhost's comments...
I'm guessing you must be one of the authors of this idiotic ALARACT.

1) Nowhere did the commander state that he would distro information purporting to be a sports medicine expert, or that he would act in ways consistent with that role. The results of using many, many, many different types of shoes are counterproductive to various body types. So...what's your point? Should we allow people that attend the Army's Physical Fitness School prescribe shoes? You know, those people that often times have zero college, and couldn't tell you the definition of the words anatomy, or physiology, or biomechanics. Are you implying that those writing this recent ALARACT have a sports medicine background? Is sports medicine even mentioned in the message? Are health concerns mentioned?

2) If you want to know what happens when a CO pushes dangerous fitness advice...just go look at the entire Army. Our self-righteous, toxic leadership has been pushing running for decades. All that does is cause injury after injury. And please, do not apply this "just because it works for part of the formation...." nonsense. If you take that to its logical conclusion then you must admit that PT should be an individual responsibility with individual programs. Are you willing to bless off on that? And talk about discrimination, how about all this needless running we do? Is that not discriminatory? Does that not unfairly hinder those that can hump 80lbs of crap but can't hold a 7 or 8 minute pace throughout a unit run? Some will push themselves until they get injuries...and that's different than what we have now, in what fashion?

3) Maybe you should go ask GEN Dempsey and the SMA about this. Did they not open the floor for feedback? Did they not open the floor to discussion about the beret? Did thousands upon thousands of Soldiers not voice their displeasure with the beret? Are you ready to administer UCMJ action against all of them? Do you not think that Co Cdrs hold sensing sessions? What do you think takes place during those sessions? Do you think policy is questioned? Any leader not capable of dealing with some criticism of his/her policies is not worthy of being in that leadership position.

4) The standard for shoes is not grounded in anything but a desire for some raggedy ass old bastards that don't do PT any longer to have formations that look as homogenous as possible.
Don't kid yourself into believing anything else. Uniformity does not equate to discipline, technical competence, or any type of warrior ethos. It is a sad, dated, and pathetic excuse for those that have stayed too long in order to exercise their bloated rank in order to pacify their bloated egos.

It's attitudes and comments like yours that drive people from the Army. Many thousands of Soldiers played the game and stayed in lock step with your precious regulations. Those regulations and policies and ways of doing business failed them. Their leaders (you, probably) failed them. So, they turned to buying their own kit, rather than using much of the garbage the Army issues. They turned to Crossfit and similar programs, rather than that pathetic excuse for a conditioning protocol in the APFT or APRT. They turned to five fingers and other ways to achieve the desired ends: fighting and winning in combat, as well as surviving and coming back home alive. And your heartache with this is what, exactly?

Our Soldiers have done good work. Many of them have adapted, changed, overcome, survived, and won on the battlefield. And people like you are worried because the "image" of five fingers doesn't fit your notion of a pretty formation. It's time for people like you to leave. We don't need to culminate these wars only to push away all the warriors with tiresome, needless, toxic crap like this ALARACT. We need to seize the initiative that thousands of Soldiers have taken and build a better force. If that entails allowing funky looking shoes then so be it.

Charles, I call bullcrap on the idea that someone who can hump 80 pounds of gear at a decent pace can't run. All good ruckers can run and good runners can learn to ruck. The problem isn't with emphasizing running, it's the crappy way we run that's the problem.

1) I'm am an Infantry Officer with a background in Kinesiology (sports medicine). The benefits of the VFFs are widely debated.

See link for additional information: http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/

Lastly, this is a terrible move for the Army. The SOF community is advancing its physical training regimen (see 75th Ranger RGT Ranger Athlete Warrior (RAW) Program). The Big Army needs to get re-focus its energy.

And, DGHOST: "It's not that they cannot be used effectively, or when thrown into capable hands they can't produce results, it's the fact that a large amount of leaders don't know how to manage personnel or physical fitness correctly and wind up needlessly injuring their subordinates."

This is true for all Training techniques. Running 5 times a week without deviation in boots with a Ruck and Pro-mask is not the solution. This causes greater risk for injury. VFFs are not sole cause of injury.

If anything, we should educate our junior leaders in the advancement of minimalist running techniques through the Master Fitness Program, not eliminate them. Crossfit used to be taboo, and now it's widely accepted.

If you can find it online, there was a very good piece (largely pro) about minimalist running on Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel between nine and 12 months ago. What I found most interesting, and hope I'm recalling this correctly, was that most of the running shoes that have evolved from the original Nike's some 40 years ago have not been rooted in any kind of peer-reviewed science or testing. Their designs have been based upon athlete feedback according to one of the Nike R&D guy interviewed for the Real Sports piece. On the other hand, the minimalist running approach is seeing increasing scientific research to back it up, though the results are hardly definitive at this stage. The Harvard heel strike site is a good place to start: http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/.

These are the same sorts of numbskulls who ensured that we ran in combat boots in Ranger School back in the day, and in all seriousness, my achilles tendons have been problematic ever since.

One should train in the same shoes they will compete or test in FG42. I once found too many buy whatever looks cool or gets them by, as opposed to what their feet, posture, and ultimately their performance would benefit from. I doubt that has changed. . .perhaps a bit more emphasis on why VFFs might not be uniformly wise, as opposed to, "if we ain't looking good. . .we're looking bad" is in order?

However, with everything on the Army's agenda right now, it does sound like much ado about nothing, and is probably better left-up to local commands?

I remember that too. We ran in our boots throughout, from boot camp through the rest of my service. But that was a long time ago. I don't know when, or why, the switch to athletic shoes occurred. Still doesn't make sense to me. If the combat boot is good enough to fight in, then it has to be good enough to run in. WTF?

lousy boots as I recall. . .we always had lousy boots. It was determined that boots ultimately, over prolonged time, weren't good for the feet or spine to run in on hard surface.

On a parallel, we learned that shaving in the Arctic was best done in the afternoon or early evening as opposed to the cold early morning, but kept that close hold. After all, we wanted everyone looking uniformly smooth, since some have peach fuzz and others look like Black Beard when they wake-up. . .ya know, I'm on a roll here: I remember my 1stSgt lamenting about the introduction of the M-60 replacing the BAR, he just couldn't fathom any reason for it since it worked good for him on the Canal (the funny gunny told me the BAR broke firing pins constantly).

I run Bataan in boots and a ruck... but it's a horrible training idea.

But for the record, most Army units still ruck, in boots.

we don't do it uphill both ways 30 miles anymore. too soft for that.

or equivalent. Do long runs in good running gear and you'll never want to do them in Army PT gear again.

"Bottom line is that our Army, from my tiny foxhole, seems more and more concerned with protocol/appearances/perceptions/saving face than with results. Just my two cents."

Which is ironic considering some of the obese soldiers I've seen wearing $120+ shoes with all the bells and whistles, but at least all 5 toes are in a single compartment.

RCC,

It's not about you! Please drop the martyr complex. Your Compamy might be the most squared away outfit in the Army. However, all units are not. Some are commanded by martinets. Others by sadists. Still others allow their junior NCOs to run wild out of fear, incompetence or indifference.

You have to extrapolate and balance the implications of a decision across the entire force. Just because YOU wouldn't do something, doesn't mean that it won't happen in other units.

As a trained Patient Admin. Officer (thank God I never had that actual position) who also spent 2 years as an LT in a light infantry battalion, I have seen/processed the MEBs and MMRBs of soldiers whose injuries were proximally caused by first and second line supervisor stupidity/sadism/mental illness. I filled out the Line of Duty's that got them into medical hold. In many cases, we owed those soldiers better. DGhost and I know what can happen. Again, it's not about you!

... it's also not about those poor, put-upon, abused (and mostly mythical) soldiers that IRR and DGHOST are referring to.

"Some units are commanded by stupid assholes; therefore, we should ban a certain type of running shoe that may cause injury if used improperly or by the wrong individual." <-- This argument is a non sequitur.

If the goal is to prevent injury from abusive leadership climate, then write a policy like this: "There has been some controversy about wearing VFF shoes in PT uniform. The new rule is as follows: VFFs are authorized, but cannot be made mandatory for all. As with every other kind of shoe or boot, break them in according to recommended guidelines in order to prevent injury."

But instead it is written like this: "AHHHH!! I'm scared of new things!!!! VFF shoes are banned!!" And it is cloaked in the guise of "professional appearance" ... when the uniformity of running shoes is actually one of the most loosely enforced uniform regs there is. You know what promotes a professional appearance? Not being fat. Running shoes that work best for an individual--minimalist or otherwise--can help with that.

Because he has seen shitty NCOs and Officers cause injuries; TLs/SL can't be trusted to run PT and therefore PLs/PSGs are also not capable of reviewing & supervising their TL/SLs PT plans. 1SGs and COs must also therefore be assumed to be incompetent bc they failed to issue correct guidance and/or supervise the guidance's implementation. BN PT everyday w/ admin medical officers supervision! Or we can allow cdrs and NCOs to use their best judgement and their supervisors can mentor/coach/teach/develop/correct them when they start getting a little too frisky.

The bottom line is this policy is based on appearance or else the CSMs would have banned all minimalists shoes(new balance and merrill have shoes with just as little padding but with no toe separation. If the intent was to ban shoes/VFF with inadequite padding, why not ban the minimalist shoes also?

Where's all this evidence that cushioning/motion control shoes prevent injuries?

Fair enough.

So... if they want to be concerned with results, what should they do? Let individual Soldiers do whatever they want and dress however they want? Let your subordinate leaders have free reign to implement policy as they see fit?

This is not a new argument - just about every time the Army implements a policy people bitch about how stupid it is, how it favors form over function, etc etc. The reality is that while your house may be in order, you're not the problem that the Army is concerned about.

It's the company 1SG that makes his fallouts run 5 miles after the post run without wondering why they fell out (or perhaps wondering if any of them need to see a medic first). It's the company commander that does weekly 10 mile runs, or perhaps more than once a week if he does PT with your platoon that day. It's the SSG that puts half his squad on profile because he's having them ruck run all the time, or pushes one of his Soldiers to heat stroke because they are doing a pro-mask run in high humidity and high temperatures. It's the battalion commander that does battalion level profile PT - and doesn't allow people to do individualized PT that helps their recovery or is tailored to their injuries. It's the platoon, company, and battalion command that got so lax in enforcing policies that a squad murdered just how many civilians in Afghanistan?

As they say, "this is why we can't have anything nice". For every commander that is doing the right thing, there are two that are doing the absolute wrong thing and are gambling with their Soldiers lives and well being as a result.

This is not a new argument. Some of it is common sense or has tangible evidence, some of it doesn't. Either way, it's not your decision to make and it's not what you should be paying attention to.The powers that be have their reasons, right or wrong, and that is their prerogative. They are the ones looking at the big picture, not you. And uniformity is the primary way that the Army enforces discipline.

Just because it works for *you* doesn't mean that it works across an entire formation or across the entire organization. If the Army embraced fads, then Soldiers would have been on the Atkins diet 10 years ago and probably be on the Paleo diet right now and doing Crossfit from basic training. Unfortunately, CrossFit is off the table because it has been attributed to a spike of injuries from people who were not physically fit enough to sustain it and the fad diets didn't have near enough evidence to support them. In this case, the fad of shoes with no support is an excessively dangerous one when applied to a population as diverse as the military, and anecdotal evidence supporting it doesn't cut it.

It's not the way the Army works, and as a commander I would expect that you know that (and understand the reasons why). As one of my Sergeants Major told us quite a few years back - if you want to join the long hair and baseball hat club, go SF and quit complaining about it. Otherwise suck it up and drive on because this is the Army.

Actually the first release (approx. 13 Jun) banned all minimalist shoes...this release (27 Jun) is an apparent backtrack on the first. Let's hope there is another release that backtracks it even further. The meat of the first release is below:

THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO CLARIFY THE ACCESSORIES GUIDELINES SEEN IN PARAGRAPGH 14-3 OF AR 670-1. COMMANDERS MAY AUTHORIZE THE WEAR OF COMMERCIAL RUNNING SHOES WITH THE PFU OR IPFU. COMMERICAL RUNNING SHOES DO NOT INCLUDE MININALMIST SHOES, LIGHT WEIGHT TRACK/ROAD RACING FLATS, RACING SPIKES, TOE SHOES, OR SHOES THAT SIMULATE BAREFOOT RUNNING. COMMANDERS AND LEADERS AT ALL LEVELS WILL COMPLY WITH AR 670-1, PARAGRAPH 14-3.

Reminds me of my days as a lieutenant in the 82nd. CIF was issuing the black fleece jackets, but they weren't allowed to be worn in an Army uniform--so I wore them as a civilian jacket.

We also had a BDE CSM who forebade the use of Camelbaks on, well, soldiers' backs. Some of the soldiers I met who grew up in the pre-9/11 days (under the same BDE CSM) groaned that they were forced to carry their Camelbaks in their left hand so they could salute with their right hand.

Agreed if you're deliberately wearing ACUs just to travel (why?). But there are plenty of occasions when people leave the office to fly directly to a TDY location. Also, Army posts generally require SMs to show up in uniform.

The Marines and Navy probably TDY immediately following their duty day, but they manage to change into a proper uniform. (IE Their version of a Class A or B). I was just pointing out the apparent carpice in our uniform policies.

From what I remember, one reason why the yellow tinted lenses were banned was due to insurgents having IEDs in that color, essentually they saw Soldiers wearing the lenses and figured out that that they could make IEDs blend in or much more difficult to see.

On a different note, this thread remindes me of how long it took to get Army leadership to accept the fact that Camelbacks are a good idea. Lots of senior officers/NCOs never had to use them when they were young, so obviously it was a bad policy to let others use them despite the benefits.

You were responding to a post that was largely aimed at someone else. My original post, which you didn't respond to, was pointed at you.

That's cool though, because it was sort of about you. Mostly tangentially, but sort of kind of I guess.

I suppose those subtle distinctions are rather easy to misinterpret.

No, but I have seen a Soldier facing NJP because, essentially, he was suffering kidney failure and couldn't "meet the standards". Or the (multiple) Soldiers that were brought up on NJP because they failed to meet the unrealistic standards of their team/squad leaders. Or the guy who was brought up on NJP because his squad leader wanted him to pay for non-regulation gear out of pocket and the Soldier said no.

"Uniformity" is as much about leadership and discipline as it is about looking pretty in formation, and unofficial standards (like, say, pressing and starching your uniforms to appear "professional") are every bit as dangerous as official orders. Squashing those unofficial standards is every bit as big of a deal as having clearly defined standards in the first place.

Somewhat related, 3BCT/4ID was doing mandatory platoon (or higher) level PT back in 2009 because of problems with low level leaders that are grossly incompetent and essentially negligent in their duty. These problems are not new, nor are they particularly isolated.