Topic
Become a member to post in the forums.
I don't think it's marketing spin. Minimalist is an important classification of footwear that helps consumers decide. When I search for shoes I specifically look for "minimalist" to narrow down my search options. Maybe some shoes are being labeled as minimalist for marketing purposes but aren't minimal at all.
Unlike the high heel, arch support, techy runny shoes, the recent minimalist shoe shift is based entirely in common sense. You of all people should know that.
Actually Justin, not sure why you would consider the shift towards minimalist shoes to be "common sense."
I've said it before and I'll say it again: just because your ancestors walked barefoot, and just because countless indigenous groups do, doesn't mean it's good for YOUR skeleton. Only for those of us who grew up without shoes – and I mean pretty much all the time, not just on the weekends – would "minimalist" shoes be "common sense." If your bones and muscles and ligaments developed while you were wearing shoes, then no, the impact of actually running barefoot is very likely NOT a good idea for you.
That's not at all to say that SOME people do very well in them. I myself love to walk the dog in them, do errands, heck – I even work whole days in my merrell trail gloves sometimes. But I will never run in them, or hike on seriously rocky/rooty terrain. My bones and muscles were just not developed from MY childhood that way and it's an injury waiting to happen.
The large study that followed accomplished runners as they spent an entire year transitioning to barefoot running – then demonstrated bone marrow edema in most of them (the MRI evidence of stress fracture, or stress response) – is what finally tipped my opinion to not recommend it for most people. No, I didn't say ALL…just not a blanket recommendation.
Just remember: we were convinced that leeches and bleeding people cured them of their illnesses – rid them of all the bad humors. We KNEW this because we saw it happen!!!! Drilling holes in people's heads cured them of mental illnesses by releasing the demons! We KNEW it worked because we saw it!!
Anecdotal evidence is the worst and sometimes most misleading of all.
"FWIW, I've still never seen a published scientific study on the virtues of hiking (as opposed to running) in minimalist shoes"
Neither have I, nor have I seen published studies on the benefits of hiking in padded trail runners, nor on the benefits of UL backpacking. Yet personal experience and physiological principles are more than enough evidence for me that UL backpacking IS beneficial when done correctly.
This is incorrect. Like the UL backpacking community, there are definitions for a minimalist shoe, although like Lightweight, UL and SUL definitions, they are not standardized nor official. Most (myself included) consider the drop to be the true measurement of how minimalist a shoe is, meaning that a basketball shoe could be considered minimalist if it were used for hiking. The flatter the shoe, the more mninimalist it is by this definition. If the sole were considered the lone definition, then one could argue that the Vibram sole on the Spyridons and Trek Sports would place it out of minimalist category. Of course there is marketing spin at the manufacturer and distribution level (just like in UL backpacking), but at the community level there are real definitions.
I think minimalist shoes are good for me. I've been walking in zero drop shoes since I was about 10 years old. I started cutting the insoles and midsoles out of vans skateboarding shoes in high school to make them super flexible, this was long before minimalist shoes were every a thing. I'm 21 years old now. My legs will get tired before my feet ever get sore.
I do understand that people who spent decades wearing supportive footwear can't transition to minimalist shoes. I agree that entirely switching over to minimalist shoes after decades of wearing supportive footwear is not common sense. That's why we should start off our children early in minimalist shoes to prevent that problem. But I'm not a foot doctor. I'm going to trust millions of years of evolution before I trust a foot doctor or a running shoe company.
"Yet personal experience and physiological principles are more than enough evidence for me that UL backpacking IS beneficial when done correctly."
The POINT is your experience may be enough for you, but your experience may be totally inapplicable to someone else. But your experience certainly has no weight either by itself, or together with a random collection of others who are "sure" it helped them as a "proven" medical result, since those only mean something when the conclusions are applicable to identifiable GROUPS of people. I think the discussion and the lawsuit they lost was about making blanket medical claims. That is regulated, and for good reason.
"No, I didn't say ALL…just not a blanket recommendation."
Jennifer, I fully agree with this, they are not for everyone. I am by no means a "lobbyist" for these shoes nor do I recommend them for everyone. There does seem to be a belief around here that people who try these shoes are doing so either because of clever marketing or an effort to join some kind of trend or movement. It could not be further from the truth in my case, and I will tell you the reasons why I chose to try the Vibrams, and it had nothing to do with any inner desire to go barefoot. I have never read "Born to Run", nor will I likely ever hike barefoot unless I'm miles from the trailhead and have an unforeseen shoe failure that I cannot repair in the field.
I truly believe that I was at the point of having no choice but to either try a minimalist shoe (meaning minimal drop) or give up hiking, which I have enjoyed immensely for many years. On Nov. 7th of last year, I had a several large bone fragments removed from my knee joint due to traumatic Osteochondritis Dissecans on the end of one of the femoral condyles. The surgery was arthroscopic, but with the largest fragment being more than 2 cm in length and wide enough to require enlargening of the incision to remove it, it was more extensive than most arthroscopic surgeries. Because of the hole left in the knee joint at the end of the femur, there were serious concerns about whether I would be able to go back to work again as a firefighter, much less being able to hike again. Thankfully, I had an outstanding orthopedic surgeon who's been helping me through the healing process as well, as has my physical therapist.
When it came to the point where the doctor told me to start "challenging" the knee, I started doing light hikes, but was again feeling soreness in both knees, as well as excessive forward stress on the "repaired" knee, particularly on the downhill sections. I had gone UL several years ago, which (along with trekking poles) had helped me manage knee soreness in recent years, but now it wasn't enough. My chiropractor suggested that I try changing the way that I walk, using a fore/mid foot strike to spread the stress across the foot. and to start taking mild barefoot walks on flat ground to keep the forward stress off the knee. I figured "What do I have to lose?" I started doing 1 mile barefoot walks in the evenings around the neighborhood with my wife, which helped me not only physically but spiritually as well. But I was not going to hike barefoot, so I started looking at trying a minimalist shoe that would allow me to transfer the stress away from my knees and spread it across my calves, ankles and feet. I wasn't sure how it was going to work out, but I didn't really see any other options.
I was very wary when I went to try the shoes. I don't know if you remember a minimalist shoe thread here on BPL (it was a few months prior to my surgery) when I joined in and expressed interest in trying the Vibrams due to my knee problems. You replied with a heartfelt warning, which I very much appreciated. Your words were running (pun intended) through my head as I was at REI. I also did extensive research into proper form and foot strike, including the physiology behind the form. I started with short hikes only, no more than a mile round trip, keeping in mind that others before me had been lulled into a false sense of well being and injured themselves. My feet and calves were sore after the first hike, but in a "workout" kind of muscular soreness, not the injury type like I had felt before in my knees. They were feeling good again with a days rest, and I started hiking 2-3 days a week, adding distance each week. As I mentioned in a previous post, I am now up to 12 mile day hikes.
As a paramedic, I am fully aware of the dangers of "anecdotal" evidence and self diagnosis. I have also read the stories of those who buy the shoes to try out for running, start feeling good their first time out (they are very comfortable shoes), get on a "runners high", end up running for another 5 miles and injuring themselves as a result. Like any other tool (which is what athletic shoes really are, and not universal in their use), you must use proper form and move into them gradually. It takes a conscious effort over months to keep the proper form and not forcefully plant the heel until it becomes second nature, especially when your job requires you to revert back to more traditional shoes or boots while there. Most people will not change the way they walk unless forced to, as I was. I can very much see the potential for injury with minimalist shoes if not used properly.
This post was not meant to be evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that anyone else should run out and try a pair. This was only meant to be a sharing of my personal experience in my own unique situation. Each person should do their own research and determine if its something they want to try. For me, they've done everything I had hoped that they would for the last 5 months or so, although I am still in "trial" mode and am keeping a close eye on everything that I can. But as of now now, I doubt that I will be going back to traditional running shoes.
Of course, that could all change over the course of a JMT thru-hike……
"The POINT is your experience may be enough for you, but your experience may be totally inapplicable to someone else. But your experience certainly has no weight either by itself, or together with a random collection of others who are "sure" it helped them as a "proven" medical result, since those only mean something when the conclusions are applicable to identifiable GROUPS of people. I think the discussion and the lawsuit they lost was about making blanket medical claims. That is regulated, and for good reason."
The exception is that nowhere did I, nor have I ever, taken my own nor someone else's personal experiences as being a "proven" medical result. Far from it, I strongly recommend that people do their own research (including seeking qualified professional advice) when it comes to medical issues. You cannot rely on someone else's opinion for your medical well-being. You can take their opinions and evaluate them, especially if they have experience in a given area, but in the end you have to take them as just that, an opinion that may or may not be the right thing for you.
While personal testimonies do not constitute proof, they may be enough evidence for me to evaluate something to see if it will fit my need. When I first tried trekking poles, I did so in no small part because many were saying that they reduced downhill pressure on the knees and that it enabled them to hike more efficiently by incorporating the arms. These are medical reasons with valid physiological principles behind them, yet I could find no actual "proof" for these benefits beyond their testimonies. In the end, the only way I could find out was to try them, and I have found that my experiences seem to match those that have had positive experiences with them. Same with UL backpacking and its follower's claims of greater overall hiking comfort, reduced chance of injury, and no reduction in overall safety when done properly. I found that I agree with these statements as well.
Again, personal experiences are not, nor should they be considered proof, especially with regard to medical issues. But I do value others experiences, good and bad, when making decisions that are not always clear cut.
Funny, I've asked just what defines a 'minimalist' shoe and there have been all sorts of posts, but in fact (almost) no answers. Which, in fact, is also an answer. Interesting.
And how many of these people had injuries common to all types of footware?
Running is a sport and requires physical exertion. Stuff happens. Just because a few got hurt doesn't mean it's the shoes fault. You would need to run that by the medical boards with actual evidence first before making such claims no???
How many people's feet healed naturally yet the "medical" devices take credit for??? Oh that's funny we don't know :)
Tom we do exactly agree.
As for my own posts, it's just that this is something I get terribly passionate about, since i see so many people. Patient after patient after patient after patient…and some of these folks are good athletes…who totally buy into some marketing spin they heard somewhere or read on the internet…
I mean, I was at a Fleet Feet running store one day and they were having a Nike Free run – part of the entry fee was a pair of brand new Nike Free shoes for you to race 10k in right now! The flyers included all sorts of claims about fixing your back pain, eliminating achilles soreness, etc. I stood at the checkout line and watched a few hundred runners, wearing their shiny new minimalist shoes to go run 6 miles in right off the bat….and I just shook my head.
I'd like to believe most folks do a great job of sifting through the marketing spin and the evidence and realizing that personal anecdotes are exactly that: personal. Heck, sometimes that's all we have to go on when making very serious clinical judgements! Think case studies published in the literature, or given at presentations….
HOWEVER….I've been doing this long enough now to not really be surprised by anything. But human's and athlete's capabilities of believing all sorts of BS continues to astound me.
Anyway, sorry if I came on a little too strong…..sometimes my enthusiasm gets the better of my decorum.
"How many people's feet healed naturally yet the "medical" devices take credit for?"
Or how many had been using shoes up to that point that were very bad for them, and almost any change would have been an improvement?
But to receive a REAL medical device approval you are required to prove to a high degree of statistical certainty that something like that does not explain the "effect". Kind of the point.
There is a famous behavioral experiment done on pigeons that I love, involving two feeding devices at opposite ends of the cage/coop. Feeding dishes are rigged up to occasionally drop food pellets into the bowls via external controls, and two light are attached above the bowls (there are many variations by lets say red and green). Using the set up you can do lots of different experiments on the birds' perception of the correlation of events. But the one I think is really interesting is that is that under the right conditions if a cage full of pigeons is exposed to a feeding program drops a pellet every so often into a random (left or right) bowl, and shortly before that happen a RANDOM color pattern always lights up above the bowls – red/green or green/red the birds will eventually form a conviction that either the green or the red light indicated which place the food will come out, and will always fly to that color to wait for the food, even though the color of the light is totally unconnected with where the pellet will pop out.
In other words they formed a conviction that there was a connection, when in fact there was none. If I remember correctly "peer-pressure" was an enhancing factor since only one bird would get to the food first, and pigeons are social and have a very strong tendency to do what the other do. It is pretty easy to see how this behavior might have gotten started – a pigeon gets a pellet out of a bowl with a red light and notices that fact. Then the next pellet that one manages to get for himself is also from a bowl with a red light. So he starts hanging out by any bowl that has a red light waiting for a pellet. A this point the bird is incapable of receiving any but positive reinforcement for this behavior. Eventually all the birds start rushing to the red light every time it comes on, in spite of the fact it has nothing to do with where the food will be. Pigeon mythology.
When I am working on technical problems with people, and we are stuck in a rut because we are on the wrong track I will often say "I think this is a pigeon thing." People look at me like I an crazy, and then I have to explain.
This is also a useful illustration how pure experience without some added methodology can lead to incorrect conclusions. Even if you are only a pigeon.
In my opinion…I think the definition is much like the commercial use of the term "ultralight," or "organic," or "healthy!"
We may have our little niche definitions of UL, SUL, and XUL, but I'm pretty sure REI, Osprey, Big Agnes, MHW, etc don't go by those same rules. How many times have we joked about an "ultralight" tent that weighs 5 pounds????
So just because a shoe is classified as "minimalist" doesn't necessarily mean anything to me right off the bat.
Marko, I think you misinterpret the pigeon experiment. In a random series of colors and food drops, every so often the food and the colors will line up. All animals (humans, too) are very good at finding patterns, especially when there are rewards involved. Yes, this can go too far, and random series may be seen as patterns. But the pigeon sees what it "thinks" is a pattern and changes its behavior accordingly. At least the pigeon worked from a sample of multiple colors/feedings.
Meanwhile, people often base their decisions on one single trial. Person has an injury, tries minimalist shoes, the injury gets better–voila! Minimalist shoes must have been the cure! So, people will often generalize from a sample of one. Maybe a different type of non-minimalist shoe would have worked even better, but that "experiment" is never done.
The pigeon, at least, used a sample size of multiple events to make its decisions. I take this as evidence pigeons are smarter than hikers and runners. :)
People should be careful what they ask for.
I don't buy the idea that shoes hurt people or help people. There are a number of reasons why any health problem occurs and looking at one thing exclusively is naive and narrow.
The famous roman orator cicero once saw a mosaic of folks who were praying to the gods on a sinking ship and because of it were saved
Smart guy he was (more than a pigeon) he asked
"But what about those who prayed and drowned???"
On BPL previously there have been quite vocal proponents of things like minimalist shoes, frameless packs, no fleece, etc ….
Typically you hear from folks for whom such has worked out and some are a bit evangalistic about it
Its much less common to hear from those for which it doesnt work out
Of course its possible that nobody drowned of all those who prayed to the gods
;)
Gotta say, this news was frustrating to me. Not because I don't think companies should back up their claims, I certainly do. But simply because "toe-condoms" have continued to be such a joke to many, and now there's this hit to the main company, that I just hope those of us who want minimalist shoes will still have a decent range of market options. As much as it might seem minimalist shoes are everywhere it's still really hard to find winter options and sandal options too. I just hope we continue to have choices for all.
p.s. I define minimalist shoes as those with a foot shaped body (i.e. wiiide toebox), no attempt at "supporting" your foot, zero heel-toe drop, and a sole that allows you to feel the ground contours easily (while preferably protecting you from sharp things).
"Meanwhile, people often base their decisions on one single trial. Person has an injury, tries minimalist shoes, the injury gets better–voila! Minimalist shoes must have been the cure! So, people will often generalize from a sample of one. Maybe a different type of non-minimalist shoe would have worked even better, but that "experiment" is never done."
In general, you are right Scott. The thing is, I haven't seen a single example of what you are speaking of in this thread. No one has claimed a cure, no one has used only a sample of one, no one has said that they are absolutely sure that another shoe would not have done the same thing. For all of the talk of wanting "proof", a great many negative opinions here have been based on assumptions by reading circumstances into posts that not only are not there, but are actually contrary to what was said in the post that they were addressing.
Those that have had a positive experience with minimalist shoes are saying only that, that its working for them where other shoes that they have tried did not. If someone has another shoe for me to try, I'd love to hear about it.
To address some other's posts, there has been no "evangelizing" in this thread, no attempts to convince others that they need to try minimalist shoes, and the term "minimalist" shoe has been defined in numerous posts at least as clearly as the definition of UL and SUL backpacking.
"I mean, I was at a Fleet Feet running store one day and they were having a Nike Free run – part of the entry fee was a pair of brand new Nike Free shoes for you to race 10k in right now! The flyers included all sorts of claims about fixing your back pain, eliminating achilles soreness, etc. I stood at the checkout line and watched a few hundred runners, wearing their shiny new minimalist shoes to go run 6 miles in right off the bat….and I just shook my head"
That is indeed scary Jennifer. I wonder how many of those people were put out of commission by this. I'm almost certain that I would have been. My guess is that while not every one of them was probably injured (the Nike Free at least has some heel to toe drop and cushioning), not too many of them continued using the Free beyond this run. Also, Achilles tendon injures, along with Plantar Fascitis are the two most common problems I hear of with minimalist shoes.
I'm stuck at a computer reading and writing this morning so I'll share my experiences here again…I've always liked this topic.
I started marathon training in 2008 as a change from ultradistance cycling (got burned out training for double centuries and a solo attempt at the Furnace Creek 508).
I ran my first marathon in 2009 (Los Angeles). My entire year of training, and the subsequent year after running L.A. was plagued by knee and IT band issues. I tried every therapy I could find. Rollers, massage, eliminating running altogether, anything. Every time I thought I had it under control I would get a flare up, even on short runs (under 5K). I was a heel striker that wore traditional "support" and "motion control" shoes prescribed by well regarded running coaches and shoes fitting "experts" that analyzed my form. None of it helped.
Somewhere I started reading about barefoot running and how it changes biomechanics. It's immediately apparent. Try heel striking when running barefoot. It automatically forces you to adopt a mid to forefoot strike. Which engages your feet, ankles, achilles tendons, and calf muscles in a much different way. You can immediately feel it. I figured I had nothing to lose. I remember my first barefoot (not barefoot "shoes", but actually barefoot) run. I was stressed and pissed off from a bad situation at work, could't sleep, and was out the door at 11PM. I ran a 5K, barefoot, on asphalt and concrete around my neighborhood. It was the first time I ever ran with a mid to forefoot strike outside of sprinting. It felt weird, very different.
There was zero IT band or knee pain. Granted, my calves and achilles turned into tightened steel cables and I was seriously sore for days.
I tried it again when I felt better. Same results, less soreness.
I bought a pair of XC racing flats. Zero support, hardly any cushioning, zero drop. I learned to run on my mid to forefoot. My mileage slowly increased. I stuck with "minimalist" shoes (what I define as having a low drop and minimal padding) and kept increasing my mileage. I was running marathon distances again. I started running 50Ks. I ran the Grand Canyon Rim to Rim to Rim. I've done single day crossings of Joshua Tree (38 miles) twice, once after biking across the park first. All these events were in low drop, low padding shoes. I weigh 215 pounds….hardly a wispy Kenyan.
In the years since I went minimal, I've only had one running issue: ITB pain on the Rim to Rim to Rim. Which I sort of figure is to be expected when running 42 miles and 20,000 cumulative feet in a day.
I've run barefoot, in VFFs (which I didn't like because sticks get stuck between the toes), the whole New balance Minimus and MT series since their inception, the lighter Inov8s, and a few brands of racing flats.
Today, I don't attribute it to the shoes. I attribute it to changing my running form, which going barefoot and minimal helped facilitate. I find that I can now have the same injury-free running even in more traditional, padded, higher drop shoes (like a Brooks Cascadia 7) because it has to do with my form, not the shoe. But high drop, thickly padded shoes do make it harder to maintain a forefoot strike, at least for me.
I'm a pretty firm believer that much of this discussion actually has more to do with how shoes potentially change your form, for better or worse, than the actual shoe.
Greg, that video could be a before and after of my running form.
In my case, going minimal helped me learn it. But now I can pretty much do it no matter what I'm wearing.
I got interested because I was developing foot problems walking.
I shortened my stride, shifted my impact to more forefoot, and got rid of ITB issues as well as metatarsal head issues.
I did a a few other things as well, so I can't say it was Just form. But Form was a big part of it.
I think Ryan Jordan had it right when he divided such shoes into "Barefoot" and "Minimalist." Barefoot shoes would be VFF, Trail Gloves etc. basically the thinnest and least padded shoes. Minimalist shoes would be the slightly heavier shoes like the Altra Lone Peak, Innov8s etc. they have a bit more padding, and sometimes a bit of a raised heal but they are intended for the same style of running.
Personally I didn't see a huge difference when I switched from low boots to trail shoes and from traditional trail shoes to minimalist trail shoes for hiking. I currently hike in the Altra Lone Peak. Two weeks ago I did a 4 mile hike in the Guadalupes in Merrell Ascend Gloves which are even more minimal and was fine. I did try a pair of Trail Gloves for a training hike but felt with a pack they were too thin.
I think for hiking the zero drop vs. cushioned heel debate is not always relevant. When I'm hiking up a steep trail I tend to forefoot strike regardless of which shoes I'm wearing. And when I'm going downhill I tend to land on my forefoot as well (unless I'm wearing really stiff boots). So in a sense a cushioned heel wouldn't do much for me hiking anyway. The forefoot cushioning on the Altras is basically the same as on a traditional trail shoe. I do like the zero drop for flat sections of trail though.
I should note I didn't change suddenly. I was barefoot a lot growing up and since 2011 I've been wearing relatively minimal shoes pretty much all the time.
"I think for hiking the zero drop vs. cushioned heel debate is not always relevant. When I'm hiking up a steep trail I tend to forefoot strike regardless of which shoes I'm wearing. And when I'm going downhill I tend to land on my forefoot as well (unless I'm wearing really stiff boots). So in a sense a cushioned heel wouldn't do much for me hiking anyway. The forefoot cushioning on the Altras is basically the same as on a traditional trail shoe. I do like the zero drop for flat sections of trail though."
I don't run. I only hike in miniamlist shoes. I usually heel or midfoot strike when walking on flat surfaces. When walking downhill or uphill I forefoot strike.
I don't care that much about form. I wear minimalist shoes so I can feel what I'm stepping on. It prevents injury. When you have that level of proprioception the chances of twisting an ankle are as low as it could possibly be. I've started to twist my ankle in bad ways dozens of times that could have led to a serious injury but because I could feel the ground my feet and legs automatically adjusted to prevent it.
Become a member to post in the forums.
advertisement
Discover under-the-radar ultralight gear from small brands.
© Beartooth Media Group Inc.
Loading...
