is the minimalist shoe movement dead?

Then wtf did humans do before shoes? Ran around with broken and throbbing feet everywhere? There is no animal on earth who needs special protective clothing to do its main mode of locomotion. We are no different.

And don't tell me they didn't run, every bone that has been analyzed reveals that prehistoric humans had greater bone adaptation to long distance running than college D1 cross country athletes, so they likely ran over 80 miles a week. Every week. Barefoot.

Can you run run 80 miles a week barefoot? No, but not because it is above the threshold for what humans can handle, its because you've had chronically deconditioned and atrophied feet for 20+ years of your life by wrapping them in a giant cushion and then sitting for most of the day anyway. That is really tough to overcome.

Now is it faster in a race to run with shoes? Yes obviously. But the same way its good to train at altitude but not race at altitude, its also good to train in a minimalist shoe and race in whatever shoe. Would you tell someone that training at altitude is stupid because the science shows it makes them slower?

I tried to explain that in my post #33. Most people have a sedentary lifestyle and to recommend a minimal/barefoot running to such a person is just unethical. That may no the case for you.

Second, cushioned shoes are just better. They have more protection for any surface and because of more cushion, the regeneration time after a run is lower. You can do more training you can run more miles/week.

Third, the impact with running is still high and more than enough even with cushioned shoes. Thats the reason why professional runners can 'only' train for about 600-700h/year. Other kind of endurcance sports, like swimming, cycling have 1000-1200h/year (Haugen et al. ,2022). Why should any decent runner increase the impact on the body by unsing minimal shoes if the impact is already high and more than enough with running anyway? That makes no sense.

I guess i made my points clear now.

That's not support, though. That's just you stating your opinion.

We would agree that more cushioning is only better to a certain extent, correct? Surely you don't think that running on pillows would be optimal. So then there must be an optimal amount of cushioning to firmness that would depend on a variety of factors for each runner and that's what the debate is. You can't make a blanket statement that more cushion is always better.

It's funny that people who run on the road can be "minimalists" or not and be into cushioned shoes and the case is closed according to them. But many or most people do run some or a majority of the time on trails: dirt, gravel, grass, sand, pea gravel, chips, etc, they are getting cushioning or varying degrees of cushioning off road. So, where does the argument go then? Dirt trails and grass provides cushioning-like landing/push off in comparison to the asphalt.

Personally, on the trails, I like running in minimalist-like shoes, with same basic protection from rocks underneath. Because the shoe is low profile and being prone to going over on my ankles a stacked shoe on the gnarly trails is asking for a faceplant.

The benefits of some usage of barefoot striding, minimal-ish shoes +/- here and there just takes a little common sense to realize that some strength is being built there....why the division?

It is kind of like religion, politics etc., people take sides and there is no discussion after that. This is ridiculous.

I m the more om the minimalist side.

Personally for me it has worked well. I used to suffer shin splints that were destroying me, to the point I couldn't run more than 30 miles per week or I couldn't walk. I was in this loop for a couple of years.

More minimalist shoes (not really minimalist, just 4_6 mm drop, wide enough, 15mm foam, little support and much flexibility) allowed me to change my gait and form, which made shin splints disappear for good. Plus I live the sensations of this type of running -the feeling on your body of the terrain, just feeling it and adapting to it. Don't run on concrete or roads though

However, I don't get why, some people have made of using minimalist shoes (or the other way around) an identity or something.

They -we- don't recognise that minimalist running has trade offs - for instance, I used to have chronically tight calves as they work X10 times more. I traded crazy shin splints for moderate chronically tight calves (fast forward, a lot of strength training has erased this problem). Or simply not work for some people. It MUST be universally good and it DOES work for EVerybody -or so they (we?) claim. It sorts of remember me of people who have a favourite training system and they let it be part of their identity -it is universally good and It you don't do it or follow it, you are probably a moron.

You sound like McDougall in Born to Run. Which is basically a work of fiction, might I add.

It is ludicrous to claim to make that humans never had pain or injuries prior to shoes. McDougall also does this constantly in his book. He also, like you, uses misplaced animal metaphors. For example, 'Do wolves ice their knees?' he asks in one section.

I bolded your most ridiculous statement, btw.

The debate is if minimalist shoe movement is dead or not.

With minimal i mean really minimal, a shoe with just a small protection (rubber sole and not even a midsole) on the foot, like e.g. Vibrams 5 fingers.

I also talked about a responsive midsole/foam.

On one side there is the cushion material and on the other side there is the weight of the shoe. For each 100-g increase in shoe mass results a ~1% increase in oxygen consumption. On the other side there is a cost for cushioning. So there must be an optimal sweetspot between cushioning and weight of the shoe. With todays techology this sweetspot seems to be around 200-250g single shoe mass, depending on foot size and weight of a runner.

Correct. But people are replying to you stating that "At least it should be dead."
As you can see, many disagree with you, and it is definitely not dead.

What is considered “minimalist?” This thread has people talking about heel to toe drop and stack height interchangeably. Does the Kinvara count? 4mm drop but 24-28 stack height. What about the Atreyu shoe? 6mm drop but lower stack.

Pure minimal are shoes like Xero, Merrill Trail glove, Vibram, Softstars.

Some racing flats, especially Japanese inspired ones, qualify as pure minimal. (early Piranhas, Mizuno Wave Universe).

I've run years of high mileage (a couple of 5,000 mile years were my peak) in pure minimal shoes, on a mix of all surfaces.

I was a fairly competitive, (nothing special, but not a jogger) local road runner for a decade (26-36 yo) as a pure minimalist runner. (8k mid 26, 55 min 10 mile, 1:14 half).

Currently I run 50 mpw in Xeros, but now 100% on trails. Softer surfaces help make barefoot-style more comfortable, especially as you age.

Right on. The Born to Run book is BS in my opinion. Probably the worst book ever written about running. I think McDougall got a lot of people injured with that barefoot logic.

I've used the New Balance Trail Minimus for years now. I run 1-2 times a week easy in them, and do barefoot cooldowns when I can. All my other miles are in "normal" shoes. I had shin stress reactions every year in college, but my healthiest bouts of training these days are when I'm mixing in minimal running. I did build up to 100% in the trail minimus, but that took 2 years. Now I sprinkle it in for continued benefits to my longer-leg strength and power. Plus, like other posters have said, feeling the ground, especially in trails, is quite fun.

Have you tried the Freedom from Saucony? PWR PB foam is super bouncy (believe this is the same foam that is in the endorphin speed and pro) and a 4mm drop.

Have you tried the Freedom from Saucony? PWR PB foam is super bouncy (believe this is the same foam that is in the endorphin speed and pro) and a 4mm drop. It's very a lightweight trainer that can get up to speed as well.

It's boom is over. But there's now a stable market for minimalist shoes. Vivobarefoot is a successful company at the higher end. They make running, hiking, and casual shoes. Just looking around, I've seen more people wearing Vivos over the past couple years.

I personally like my Merrell Vapor Gloves -- their models have improved over time.

Not to derail this thread, but this 100%. Among other iffy statements (dozens of them) the book claims Nike has the blood of thousands of people on its hands. How, you might ask? Their running shoes injure them, and they become obese, and they die.

But of course there is no proof running shoes increase or decrease injuries. But there is some proof certain Nikes actually decrease injuries compared to certain other stability shoes. Anyway, no ill will toward the the Harvard-educated journalist, but the fervency with which his baseless claims are pushed by those in the ‘running know’ does confuse me.

I always thought the "barefoot" movement went too far, but I started running in the late 1960s so I got used to fairly light shoes. I like shoes that are 7-8 oz and feel close to the ground, and have been dismayed that they've become hard to find in the era of carbon plates and high stack cushioning. I keep hoping the pendulum will swing back.

There is research. In the 80's Steve Robbins who was an internist at McGill University did a lot of research on the relationship between running shoes and running injuries. He found that the more sophisticated and expensive the running shoe the more likely the user was to be injured. At the time he wrote that your best chance of avoiding running injuries was to be in a shoe that cost $40 US or less. With inflation that's probably a hair under $100 now.

At the time Nike had been donating money to McGill. Their reaction to Robbins' work was to threaten McGill with dropping their funding unless they either shut Robbins up or fired him. McGill did neither and I don't know if Nike followed up on the threat or not.

So true. To me, the main thing that minimalism and subsequent maximalism showed was that the status quo in running shoe design had stagnated and was suffering from a serious lack of R&D. A plastic stiffener in the midfoot and ho-hum foam and rubber had been around for decades. Pure minimalism and pure maximalism (early Hokas) were a godsend for a minority of runners who had been underperforming due to what mainstream running shoe design necessarily lacked. Taking design principles from each and innovating further has resulted in a boon for a significant proportion of runners today.