Does anyone think all the minimalism stuff is going to go completely mainstream?

Running shoes of any kind are the invention of total morons who sell them to an unlimited supply of even dumber morons.

Despite their claims of reducing or preventing injury, they have absolutely no independent confirmation of their effectiveness because they are not regulated by authorities. By comparison, other "injury prevention" devices, like bicycle helmets, must meet strict standards to prove their effectiveness, or they can't be sold. But anything can be sold as a running shoe.

Advertisers confuse people with nonsense like "stability" and "cushioning" and now "heel to toe drop." 99 percent of runners, even elites, confuse pronation/supination with ankle inversion/eversion because of the bogus claims made by shoe manufacturers. Now people who have been made heel-strikers by shoes are hoping other shoes can change them into forefoot strikers, and that it will somehow magically fix all their complex biomechanical problems.

Only a hack athlete pins his hopes on a piece of equipment. Don't expect anything from your shoes, as they are all scams. Unless you're willing to spend several years adapting to barefoot running, the best you can do is find the shoes that are least harmful.

Looking at shoes on runners I see in the streets pretty much everywhere I go leads me to believe that most runners run in pretty conventional shoes. There's no reason to think the top runners would be any different.

But there are exceptions. In the latest Running Times there's an article about Lasse Viren mentioning that he preferred the shoes of the 70s to the ones on the market today and that the shoes currently in his house reflect that preference. An Aussie called Harry Summers runs in Vibrams or in bare feet and has gone under 29:00 for 10,000 meters. What running I can do these days would not be possible at all without shoes like the NB Minimus, Asics Piranha, Mizuno Wave Universe, etc.

Choosing a shoe because someone fast runs in it is one of the worst reasons you can have for your choice. I hope that the future of the running shoe industry is one where they make a variety of model types allowing everyone to get shoes that work for them.

One thing right there is that they don't make those claims. Asics is sponsored by the AMA but that is it. No scientific study over the past 30 years have shown shoes decrease injury. actually the opposite.

They will become a niche market like others. They could theoretically if we all slimed down and learned proper mechanics. Sorry to be harsh here but the obesity epidemic here is one reason why they wont go mainstream .

Minimalism is here to stay because there is now a sizeable market with most manufacturers making at least one minimalist shoe. I have no idea what the elites run in on easy days, but that has no bearing on what non-elites will run in. Not all will want to, or be able to, run in minimalist footwear, but it's hard to argue with less shoe, support, zero-drop, and a wider forefoot for those who can.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Running shoes of any kind are the invention of total morons who sell them to an unlimited supply of even dumber morons.

Despite their claims of reducing or preventing injury, they have absolutely no independent confirmation of their effectiveness because they are not regulated by authorities. By comparison, other "injury prevention" devices, like bicycle helmets, must meet strict standards to prove their effectiveness, or they can't be sold. But anything can be sold as a running shoe.

Running shoes are not safety devices and are not marketed as such. And running shoes are regulated with regards to health claims made by the manufacturer. The FTC came down hard on Sketchers for their claims about the "shape-ups" shoes:

And no major running shoe company is marketing their shoes as preventing injury. Here is a clip from the Brooks website:

"Currently, there is no conclusive evidence demonstrating barefoot/minimalist running reduces injury or that running in running shoes causes injury in every runner. We can only say that runners continue to get injured, and that we have been and will continue to conduct prospective and retrospective research in this area that will enable us to build the best products to keep people running healthy."

As to the OP, minimalism will never completely go mainstream because minimalism does not work for the novice runner. Most people struggle with injuries when they first start running longer distances because they have not developed the strength in their muscles and tendons to mitigate the pounding of their body weight on their lower extremities. Novice runners frequently benefit from a more supportive shoe because it provides some extra support while their muscles and tendons gain the needed strength. After a while, that extra support may no longer be needed and may cause a runner to over compensate by trying to push through the support.

Minimalism may provide some benefits in developing form for those who naturally are built with good biomechanics (good functional arches, no congenital imbalances, etc.), but for those with natural imperfections, it can be difficult if not impossible to have the benefits of minimalism outweigh the injury risk.

The fact of the matter is that shoes do make a difference, but there are no bright lines. Each runner will have different needs as they progress in their running and depending on their biomechanics.

Altras are not a minimalist shoe. They have plenty of cushion. If the owner of the company heard people call his shoe minimalist he would throw fits. Altras have much more cushion than a minimus or Vibram. Almost as much as the standard neutral shoe.

I think it is here to stay for runners as it is effective in multiple parts of training. As for the average Joe is will stay until the new hotness comes along. Advertising convinced America that you need Gatorade to mow your lawn, crossfit really works and has a use, and you are not a success unless you drive a German made car. Just as they convinced them that you need Fivefingers and minimal shoes to walk the mall trying to find that new trendy product.

The term minimalism will go by the wayside soon, but the shoes themselves won't. The lines have been blurred as to what minimalism even is...i.e. the Altra poster listed above...cushioning? heel toe drop, weight, etc...

Soon heel to toe drop and cushioning will be look at the same as shoe color, just another variation we have to choose from.

First this I would like to note is that most shoe manufacturing companies do not make minimalist shoes. The Brooks Pure, Nike Free, Asics G-series, etc are a bit too structured overall to be called truly minimalist. Lighter and more minimal than traditional running shoes, but not truly minimalist (not talking down upon these series, just trying to clarify...New Balance Minimus and Merrel Barefoot lines come the closest)

Vibrams, Stem, Softstar, Altra Adam/Eve (and only those), any hauraches, etc are truly minimalist. However, they are also expensive and difficult to come by and thus will never really be fully integrated into mainstream. (Also, it must be pointed out that none of these companies claim that their shoes will make you have perfect form or claim that they will miraculously make all your injuries go away. Users have anecdotally claimed that. They simply state that their shoes promote such things and often emphasize a slow, easy transition to prevent injuries)

A point that I think is interesting in the "here to stay" argument is something that Alberto Salazar said: He has his athletes go on barefoot runs. (in fact the direct quote is: "we do a lot of barefoot running too)

It's within the last 5 seconds of this video:

http://nxn.runnerspace.com/eprofile.php?event_id=13&do=videos&video_id=77606

Mookie Blaylock wrote:

Just curious since there's been so much emphasis on this, not heel striking, heel to toe drop ratios....pretty much no one in the mainstream running circles gave 2 shits about this stuff until late 2010...do you think this is here to stay?

Quite the contrary, I think we've reached "Peak Minimalism".

I do most of my running is a racing flat but took years to get to where I feel comfortable doing so on longer (10 to 17 miles) runs. The shoe exists in a context of training, recovery, surfaces run on. etc.. The "right" shoe in the wrong context of the athlete's development will produce injury or at least diminished overall performance. This is why coaching is still an art, like a chef mixing ingredients, one of which is the appropriate she for a given athlete on a given day.

I think it has already gone mainstream in the sense that the average weight of running shoes sold has probably gone down an ounce or two over the last few years. Shoe manufacturers are trying to sell more light trainers and emphasizing light weight and flexibility over add-ons like plastic doo-dads in the arch, and have made most uppers lighter.

I would predict a continued emphasis on light weight but with attempts at making shoes cushioned at the same time because that is what is most comfortable to the average shoe buyer. The whole support/pronation vs. neutral/supination and wet bag test stuff is pretty well discredited which I think will hurt the support category.

"Minimalist" is here to stay... just like rocker soles, Reebok Pumps, and Earth Shoes.

I thought Bee Pollen was going mainstream in the early 80s and turn all those slacker 2:30 marathoners into olympians but it fizzled out too.

Shoes don't cause injuries. Running too much or too fast does and it doesn't matter what shoe you are wearing.

Inquiry wrote:

One thing right there is that they don't make those claims. Asics is sponsored by the AMA but that is it. No scientific study over the past 30 years have shown shoes decrease injury. actually the opposite.

They will become a niche market like others. They could theoretically if we all slimed down and learned proper mechanics. Sorry to be harsh here but the obesity epidemic here is one reason why they wont go mainstream .

How slimy would we have to get for it to catch on?

I think it is going to go full circle, eventually fall out of fashion, and then never come back -- once the rash of life long injury problems becomes known from idiots running on pavement with too little protection.

Because we all know that is completely a result of footwear and has nothing to do with genetics or form!

fine point wrote:

I think it is going to go full circle, eventually fall out of fashion, and then never come back -- once the rash of life long injury problems becomes known from idiots running on pavement with too little protection.

Mookie Blaylock wrote:

Also, do most world class athletes do their easy runs in essentially minimalist crap?

Recent twitter question after Kim Smith signed with New Balance.

@Kimsmithnz @newbalance will you run in the Minimus zero at all?

Kim - I prefer the 1080

The whole point of lifestyle products, is that the buyers want to demonstrate their superiority over the masses. If the product goes mainstream, then the buyer will feel their product has become devalued. A recent example is when iPhone users found that Instagram was going to be made available to Android users. It was no longer "their" app and many of them weren't too happy about it.

Well, all but a few holdout companies are making and marketing shoes in this category. When Mizuno caved, it was clear that there was traction.

As someone who runs in this category or quasi-category of shoe (Kinvaras and the Brooks Pure series I don't consider the same class of shoe as, say, the lower-numbered Minimus line (00s and 10s) or Merrells), what may kill these styles of shoe in the near future are people getting into them without taking on the necessary form and body changes that they dictate. That Dicks now carries a wide range of "minimalist" shoes and markets them as such is a timebomb.