Sometimes I wonder if letsrun is a depository for all the almost-coherent things that those chimps trying to type up Shakespeare's life work spew out. This post is so full of half-baked ideas, logical fallacies, and willful ignorance that I have trouble believing it's anything other than mindless chimp blabber.
1. If you're a forefoot stiker, then why do you have a beefy shoe with a raised heel to begin with? The whole idea behind the thick heel is for heel-strike cushioning, which you don't need, so get rid of it. All it's doing is artificially shortening your achilles which will make you more prone to calf/achilles injuries when you DO switch into spikes/flats for races. Plus, when you run in a shoe with a flatter heel, your achilles is able to lengthen further and provide you with more power during your pushoff phase. Furthermore, stress fractures in your back??? If you get stress fractures in your back it's going to be because of some other pre-existing, degenerative condition, not because of a tiny difference in footwear cushioning. And like I was saying, as a forefoot striker, you don't use the heel cushioning anyways. There are a number of flats with forefoot cushioning comparable to that of most trainers. Hell, the Green Silence (by Brooks) is cushier than most traditional training shoes.
2. "...few if any credible research articles..." Two things: Just because you haven't bothered to look for them doesn't mean they don't exist. I've spent hours googling them and reading them - they're out there, you're just lazy. Second thing: The burden of proof is on the shoe advocates. It may seem like shoes are the norm and anything else that goes against the shoe status quo should need to prove itself, but the modern running shoe as we know it has only been around for a few dozen years - and guess what? There's no scientific evidence to support the idea that it's an improvement over the REAL status quo that's been in place far longer than the 70's - barefoot/extremely minimalist footwear. High heeled cushion shoes came onto the scene without a shred of scientific evidence suggesting they help, and haven't done much since to prove that they do. Since you're so critical of the supposed lack of scientific studies supporting minimalism, I suppose you have a wealth of peer-reviewed studies supporting cushion and motion control shoes? I've looked and haven't found them. I look forward to reading them.
3. RE: slow runners doing it because they think it will help them get faster... so what? What's your point? Are you just resorting to ad hominem attacks? Yes, of course people are always looking for ways to improve. Your logic is absurd. Slow people do it, so it's bad. Is that about the gist of it? If you want to argue against the people who are looking for an easy quick fix who want to get faster without putting the work in, argue against that mindset, not the venues they use to try to get that quick fix... especially since far more people view stability/motion control shoes in the same "this will fix my injury problems no problem" light - believe me, I've seen it nearly every day for the last year working in a running store. People come in and blame their (insert any body part from the hips down) pain on their shoes, and expect a new pair to fix it without having to do any other work. The quick-fix attitude many people have towards shoes does not discredit shoes outright, nor does the same attitude towards minimalism discredit IT outright. It just means those people are dumb and lazy.
4. "...cult like attitude... not as good as they think." Again, two things. Thing One: Again, your logic is atrocious. You think that a group of people really like something, so it's most likely not that great, which is dumb enough on it's own, but then you just leave it there! You leave it at "probably not as good as they think" and don't bother to research it yourself to find out if your probability statement is correct. The basis for your entire opinion seems to be that some slow people do it, and that it has a cult-like following, therefor it's rubbish. Again, will you please discuss the pros/cons of minimalism itself instead of the pros/cons of the attitudes of the people who support. Thing Two: Shoes have a cult-like following as well. It's just a much bigger cult. But the proponents of shoes are oftentimes even more dogmatic than the minimalists. Working in a running store in a Portland (a running-centric, liberal, progressive city that has taken to the minimalist movement quite strongly) most of the people who come in wearing Vibrams or looking for a transitional pair of flats tend to come in with a "yeah the arguments for it make pretty good sense, so I figured I'd try it out". I've encountered very few dogmatic minimalists (hell, I can't even think of a single one), but the stubborn dogmatism of the "traditional" running shoe crowd is on display every day.
5. Another variant on the "slow people do it, so it's probably wrong" argument? Sheesh, how many ways can you rephrase that? It's completely irrelevant if you're faster in "clunkers" than someone else is barefoot. Completely. If someone beat you barefoot would you suddenly acknowledge that minimalism is the way to go? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. Exactly as ridiculous as dismissing it because some slow people do it. What matters is if YOU'RE faster in minimalist footwear than in your "clunkers". Given that studies have demonstrated that there is something like a 5% increase in oxygen consumption for every 10oz on your feet, and that flats allow you to get more power out of your calves, I would bet that you WOULD be faster in flats. At the end of the 90's didn't we all realize that training with ankle weights just f***s with your form and doesn't provide any tangible benefit? Heavy shoes do the same thing.
In summary, you provided no real arguments against the concept of running barefoot/in minimalist shoes, and only attacked people that did so by making baseless assumptions and using vague generalities and useless stereotypes. It doesn't appear that you've put in any effort whatsoever to research or think about this subject for yourself, and I seriously question your ability for independent, rational thought.