Quick heads up – I was interviewed a few months ago for an article that was recently published in Lower Extremity Review. Titled “The Rise and Fall of Minimalist Running,” the article takes what I feel is a pretty balanced look at what we have learned over the past few years as a result of rise (and fall) in popularity of minimalist running shoes. Here’s an excerpt from the conclusion of the article:
Craig Payne, DipPod, MPH, a retired lecturer in podiatry at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia, and occasional online provocateur on the “Running Research Junkie” blog, agreed.
“It comes down to this: Different running techniques load different tissues differently,” he said. “It’s not a matter of one being better than another; individuals need to work out which suits them best. I suspect that those with a history of knee injury may do better in minimalist shoes than those with a history of ankle or Achilles injuries.”
Joseph Hamill, of the University of Massachusetts, shares this view, with a further caveat.
“Changing to a different type of shoe may ease patellofemoral pain, but it may cause a different injury,” he said. “Nothing in life is free; when you change your footfall pattern, you’re just changing one type of injury for another.”
I pretty much share this exact same viewpoint with regard to shoes and form – different solutions will work for difference people depending on their individual differences in anatomy, strength, mobility, etc.
Read the full article by Cary Groner here.
About Peter Larson
A fair and balanced article. However, the thing that slightly annoys me with this type of discussion is that the shoe, (or lack of), is always iether the cause of, or solution to, running related injuries. Technique never seems to be considered – you can have poor technique even barefoot and good technique in a traditional cushioned shoe.
+1 to Iain Denby’s comment. I’ve found myself injured in both conventional and minimalist running shoes. It’s very easy to substitute “What shoe should I buy?” for the broader question of “How should I run to minimize injuries?”
After readying that, I don’t know why anyone would have any enthusiasm left for running in minimalist shoes!
And, after reading that pronation is very rarely a problem for those who over pronate; that a midsole with 30mm of foam does not reduce injuries un any sense…why would anyone like to run in standard shoes.
I sent you an email asking you to clarify what the take-aways were from the minimalist movement since its demise way back in early 2014 the linked article kinda gets close…but it still falls into rehashing some ingrained assumptions. It is important to separate “minimalism the market product” from how it was actually practiced by people who transitioned over. The first few versions of nike frees had the right idea by presenting the frees as tools in your running kit but not panaceas to all running problems. They also had a nifty two month transition guide on how to start running in the shoes (they never presented them as daily trainers). I have always viewed minimal shoes as tools to assist with my form and my experience coheres closely with the conclusion of article as knee pain/swellin plagued me in traditional trainers then I made the transition but just last year, almost 5 years in nothing but flats and shoes like the minimus road zero, I had sharp calf pain so then I started going for more cushioned zero drop…pain disappeared. I agree with your “different strokes for different folks theory” but I also think we need to acknowledge that footwear needs for individual runners may vacillate over time. I will say returning and beginner runners tend to focus on shoes as it really is about the only aspect of the run you can directly control by making a financial choice. I must say in my experience shoes can be a source of discomfort/injury but generally I see over-training, poor core strength, and bad form as far more problematic( I never thought about the shoes until chronic pain forced me to start changing things this was after competitive running in both HS and College) . I do think your different solutions idea has limits as I imagine it would be hard to find a heel striking 100m-400m runner. Also, I think their is a performance limitation aspect with heavy shoes at all distances which the shoe industry already recognizes with the various types of flats, spikes, etc. available today. One last point and I will step off the soap box “the different strokes for different folks theory”(which almost every runner I know follows by default in the mantra of “do what works for you”) seems to imply their are no testable hypotheses for footwear(I find all the studies on footwear to be woefully inadequate based on sample size as well). Does this mean all that matters is anecdote when it comes to footwear?
Lots of excellent points here.
I think there are definitely testable hypotheses, and a lot of good science has come out in the past few years. But, one problem with testable hypotheses is that studies will typically compare mean responses between groups, but within each group their are usually going to be some individuals who might be outliers. So though we can learn a lot by testing hypotheses about whether, say, a group in one type of shoe tends to get injured more than a group in another type of shoe, it may not tell any given individual what the best choice is for them. It will simply say that on average people did better in shoe A vs. shoe B. That might provide some guidance as to where to start, but some people will likely get injured in each group and might have done better in the other group.
My general feeling is that people should be willing to experiment a bit to find what works best, but just recognize that there may be risks associated with doing too much too soon in a given shoe, particularly if it is very different from what they are used to using. For example we started hearing anecdotes about metatarsal stress fractures in people who went minimal a few years ago. We now have good evidence that minimal shoes can place added stress on the metatarsal bones, and it follows then that if this stress is imposed faster than the bones can remodel then a stress fracture can result. If a slow approach is taken, perhaps the bones remodel and strengthen and no issues arise. Unfortunately the science often lags behind the fad, so some people got injured transitioning too fast into minimal shoes. Might there be a risk with cushy maximal shoes too? Perhaps, but as far as I’m aware the science has not addressed that, and it may take a few years before we start to see any data come out.
Pete,
Thanks for the reply and I agree that studies yield the shoe A vs. Shoe B results. But what I think I am getting at is if “anatomy, strength, mobility, etc.” (lets add most common injury type as well) determine shoe needs then should not studies be controlled for those factors as well? I mean I realize sample sizes are low already but I think it would be interesting if studies controlled groups based on weight, years running, height, performance etc. Of course this is dream world stuff as most studies are limited by time, funding, etc. Lieberman’s stuff worked well with this since the two categories under examination the shod vs. unshod categories were clearly dichotomous categories (barefoot from birth vs. shod groups and yes I realize it is not the polemic people make it out to be). However, with comparing shoes it never has been quite that clear has it? Then of course come all the issues of what is “better” faster but with more injury, slower with less injury, less injury prone over time, works well for heavy runners, works well for lighter runners etc. Other issues haunt these studies as well such as did folks transition properly?, did they accurately report their foot strike style?, Did they have similar relative fitness?, How many years did they have prior running?. Anyway, I am rambling I guess I am just hesitant of shoe research data as it is usually funded by companies in the industry and these factors seem to never be addressed. And as you pointed out science is dependent on the product of the shoe to be created before it can be tested. I think in conclusion I would probably say the exact same thing you would to a true beginner runner, ” try every style of shoe and find out what works best for you”. Now maybe in 10 years a foot scanner will take a quick look at your foot and its applied forces while running and 3-D print a shoe that caters to your immediate needs and then all this discussion of maximal vs. traditional vs. minimal will be seen as silly. I just hope runners continue to have lots of footwear choices.
Pete,
Thanks for the reply and I agree that studies yield the shoe A vs. Shoe B results. But what I think I am getting at is if “anatomy, strength, mobility, etc.” (lets add most common injury type as well) determine shoe needs then should not studies be controlled for those factors as well? I mean I realize sample sizes are low already but I think it would be interesting if studies controlled groups based on weight, years running, height, performance etc. Of course this is dream world stuff as most studies are limited by time, funding, etc. Lieberman’s stuff worked well with this since the two categories under examination the shod vs. unshod categories were clearly dichotomous categories (barefoot from birth vs. shod groups and yes I realize it is not the polemic people make it out to be). However, with comparing shoes it never has been quite that clear has it? Then of course come all the issues of what is “better” faster but with more injury, slower with less injury, less injury prone over time, works well for heavy runners, works well for lighter runners etc. Other issues haunt these studies as well such as did folks transition properly?, did they accurately report their foot strike style?, Did they have similar relative fitness?, How many years did they have prior running?. Anyway, I am rambling I guess I am just hesitant of shoe research data as it is usually funded by companies in the industry and these factors seem to never be addressed. And as you pointed out science is dependent on the product of the shoe to be created before it can be tested. I think in conclusion I would probably say the exact same thing you would to a true beginner runner, ” try every style of shoe and find out what works best for you”. Now maybe in 10 years a foot scanner will take a quick look at your foot and its applied forces while running and 3-D print a shoe that caters to your immediate needs and then all this discussion of maximal vs. traditional vs. minimal will be seen as silly. I just hope runners continue to have lots of footwear choices.
I think your last sentence is the key one – I hope the wide range of options we have now remain as well. Just from the comments on this post you can see there are still people who swear by minimal, and the more minimal end is still my personal preference. There are others who swear by Hokas. Problems arise when people say that one thing is better than another based solely on their own experience.
As for limitations of existing research, I totally agree. I imagine it’s a huge challenge trying to control for all of those variables and maintain necessary sample sizes. A good example is the recent study that showed no significant difference in injury risk between runners transitioning into Nike Pegasus vs. Vibrams. One issue there is that the Vibram transition was likely a big change for that group, whereas the Peg was probably much more similar you what they were used to. In that sense I was actually surprised by the lack of a significant difference. Would be interesting to take a bunch of long-time minimal runners and transition them into the Pegasus and see what happens.
“Might there be a risk with cushy maximal shoes too?”
If you roll your ankle in a pair of these on the trail you will be looking for branch to use as a crutch to get back home.
If you roll an ankle in something like the super-low Merrell trail glove or one of the NB minimus zero drop trail shoes no damage done.
Not only is the stack height of “maxi” shoes quite large but also the width of the sole at the heel adds to the leverage to rolling motion that your foot has to control.
It was definitely a fad, especially the VFFs. But it’s leveling out to become a viable option for many runners. I for one benefited big time with Saucony Kinvaras and NB Minimuses.
Now I’m hearing from running store clerks that the new thing is “Maximalist” running, ie the Hokas. I suspect it will go through its phases, and it will find its market. I think it’s a good thing there are many options to choose from.
Minimalist shoes really helped me. I think most people transitioned to fast and didn’t work on running form.
Not only running form, but on strengthening their leg and foot muscles as well. Too many people were wearing minimalist/semi-minimal shoes a couple of times a week to run a few miles, but spent the rest of their time (not only running but the other 90% of their lives when they weren’t running) wearing the same old overly supportive, overly cushioned shoes they had always worn. People had expectations that were too high too, expecting shoes to fix their running injuries.
And let’s face it, although I enjoy in running in semi-minimal shoes, soft cushioning just feels good, so it’s easy to see how people are gravitating towards maximalist shoes. Eventually they’ll realize those shoes aren’t stopping their injures and they’ll move on to something else…
First, I love lower-drop, lower profile running shoes, and run on my midfoot. That said, I’m grateful the “fad” of “barefoot” running is gone as I had grown quite sick of every new barefoot runner calling himself “Barefoot Steve” and starting his own blog. Furthermore, barefoot running seemed to attract people looking for an identity, which would not just include them running in very vff’s or other minimalist shoes, but adopting other fadish ideologies like kilt wearing, paleo eating, cross-fit, etc. Thankfully, these people are no were to be seen now, their blogs gone or haven’t been updated for a while, and we can all talk about the science and lore of running again.
The title of this article is wrong in my opinion -not sure why they’ve pickon the minimalist section.
‘questions remain about the effects of minimalist footwear on factors such as biomechanics and injury rates’
I would say: questions remain about the effects of all running footwear on factors such as biomechanics and injury rates
As most people have discovered, wearing minimal shoes won’t automatically fix your form. However, it may be easier to develop good habits wearing minimalist footwear. Traditional running shoes, or maximal shoes like Hokas may mask form deficiencies.
I’m still a true believer. I do practically all of my running in racing flats or zero-drop minimalist shoes. As long as I run in a manner that I understand to be correct, I suffer no ill effects. I have found that the calf muscles seem to be able to handle quite well the extra burden placed upon them in these types of shoes.
I think much of the debate comes not from what is good for the runner but from what is good for the shoe companies.
Shoe companies are like car companies. They have to keep changing models, features, and stack heights to keep them selling. One year SUV’s are all the rage, then everyone wants to make a Hybrid car. SUV’s are great if you live somewhere that has rough terrain or you have a horde of small children to cart around, hybrids get great milage. Minimal, maximal shoes are the same thing. Find what fits what you need but remember you need to find it from what is offered.
“Changing to a different type of shoe may ease patellofemoral pain, but it may cause a different injury,” he said. “Nothing in life is free; when you change your footfall pattern, you’re just changing one type of injury for another.”
I just simply can’t agree with this statement. The first part is at least accurate in that change “may” cause a different injury… true of any change that you make but the last part is overly broad and flippant.
For me, running high heel to toe drop traditional shoes was always out of the question. I have heel spurs in both feet and excess time on my feet led to several bouts with PF. The VFF craze showed me shoes that I could walk in to strengthen my feet. I always enjoyed actually walking barefoot but it was rough on the skin. VFFs not only got me walking but soon after got me running.
As a new runner doing Couch 2 5K, I had no choice but to “transition” to minimalism slowly… it was the same transition to running overall. That led me to strengthen everything associated with running along the way… quads, glutes, calves, as well as the muscles, tendons and bones in my feet.
2.5 years later I’ve run nearly 2500 miles – and am currently running 40 – 50 mpw training for my first marathon… I’ve still not had any significant injury. I attribute that to the form that minimalism has taught me and the slow, gradual build up that I did.
Ironically, though nearly ALL of those miles have been in VFFs, I am now faced with transitioning – or at least augmenting – my running to more cushioned shoes.
Typical shorter runs are easiest and feel best in VFFs, but in training for my first marathon, I have reached the limit of how far a single run in VFFs can be for me (at least for now)… so I am working on getting used to a more cushioned, more supportive shoe (specifically the Altra The One 2)… but it will become a part of my running arsenal. I intend to run in VFFs for as long as I can and only use the Altras for the long runs/races.
Taking a tangent away from the minimalism discussion: Craig Payne seems to be in the “all runners will get injured because running is inherently injurious” camp. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting his view.
But are we all really that fragile and poorly-adapted to performing a basic human activity? I would be more inclined to view recurring, chronic injuries as a result of “doing something wrong,” e.g. poor form or posture, TMTS, lack of strength or mobility, etc.
I realize that injuries will happen, to individuals and statistically across populations. I have a hard time accepting that running as an activity inevitably leads to injury.
“Craig Payne seems to be in the “all runners will get injured because running is inherently injurious” camp. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting his view.”
Not remotely close to my view, so yes you are totally misrepresenting it.
Mr. Payne, my apologies, I was confusing your comments with the quotation from Joseph Hamill in the article above.
I hope the New Balance will still produce shoes from their minimus line …MR00, MR10, MT10 …cause they are great…durable, wide enough, are feather light and also have bit of cushioning .
This year I run most in MR00 ( 3 marathons …the best time 3:26 ) and MT10v1 …great for my saturday long trails
MR00 have more than 1k km …and they are like new….appart of cousioning….its not good now for daily runs.
but I am bit sceptic…recently wanted to buy new pair of MR00 and they are not able to find in normal price ..so I ended up buying MR10v2
till the end of year I will buy for any price MR00 cause they are great ….but I hope those minimus line will stay in NB product line
PS …I would welcome and zero drop version of MR00 …but with more cuishiong …like 15-18mm …for long runs 15-30km on asphalt