The body adapts over a lifetime. We should all agree that "Minimal", i.e. barefoot, is only "natural" in the sense that we were born without shoes on. Many of us are in soft shoes/carpeted rooms from infancy, learning to move from other people in the same conditions. This causes specific changes to the structure and function of your body. If you grew up running and doing activities in protective footwear (which we probably did unless we are from a third world country or New Zealand) than additional adaptation took place there.
Trending toward soft, supportive surfaces and footwear typically happens gradually and at a young age when the body is more adaptive. Abruptly going the opposite way - "minimal" - once you've already adapted away from it would be extremely stressful. In many ways soccer mom/non-runner mentioned have the advantage of not having already adapted as much to running in protective footwear.
For many "elite" runners, to abruptly change anything is usually difficult. Without changing anything else, to drastically alter (or remove) their footwear would -initially and perhaps permanently - cause decreased efficiency and performance, and increased injury and organ/joint/soft tissue stress. Theoretically, there's a possibility they could successfully make the "switch" but it would be extremely time consuming and laborious and pose a major setback to their running career. This is one reason why so many experienced "elite" runners won't/don't/can't switch to non-protective footwear.
There are very few athletes, coaches, shoe manufacturers or health professionals, for that matter, with any knowledge to constructively add to this debate. The debate stems from a lack an understanding of biomechanics and biological adaptation. Ignorance reveals itself when ideas are extremely polarized, in this case "minimal" vs. "non-minimal".