Thanks for the response Pete.  I’ve been looking at the Kinvara as a starter minimalist shoe.  Love the blog by the way, keep up the good work!

Here is my simple question to all of you:  please provide me, if you can, with the physical characteristics that demarcate the transition between a “minimalist running shoe” and a “traditional running shoe”.

In other words:

1.  What shoe weight is the maximum allowable at a men’s size 10 shoe to still be considered a “minimalist shoe”?

2.   What midsole thickness at the metatarsal heads is the maximum allowable at a men’s size 10 shoe to still be considered a “minimalist shoe”?

3.  What midsole thickness at the rearfoot is the maximum allowable at a men’s size 10 shoe to still be considered a “minimalist shoe”?

4.  What heel-height differential (i.e. difference between rearfoot midsole thickness and metatarsal head midsole thickness) is the maximum allowable in a men’s size 10 shoe to still be considered a “minimalist shoe”?

Or, alternatively, does the shoe manufacturer simpy need to say “this is a minimalist shoe”, regardless of the physical characteristics of the shoe, and you all will then believe what the shoe manufacturer tells you:  the shoe must be a “minimalist shoe” because they told me it is “minimalist”?

Cheers,

Kevin

Pete:

As scientists, we do tend to classify or categorize items within the groups that we are studying so we can discuss them more intelligently, more precisely and with a minimum of ambiguity. We do this to avoid confusion and to improve the level of understanding of the subject being studied.

All I am asking here is for you, or someone else who is more knowledgeable than me on what constitutes a “minimalist shoe”, to give me an approximate number value to shoe weight, heel thickness, forefoot thickness, and heel height differential that you believe best reflects the category of shoes that are now known as “minimalist shoes”. Yes, we all know that some shoes are more “minimal” than others within the category of running shoes known as “minimalist shoes”. I am more interested in how heavy and thick and heel-elevated you would allow a shoe to be before it became one of those “overbuilt and heavy shoes that until very recently have populated the shelves at most shoe stores”, that you have spoken of on numerous occasions on RunBlogger.

Certainly, as a scientist and someone who has an advanced degree in one of the biological sciences, you can understand how important the taxonomic classification scheme of Carl Linnaeus of 1735 was to the development of the science of biology. Therefore, someone with your level of interest in “minimalist shoes” and background in the classification of other groups of biological items, should be able to provide me with a definition of what you exactly mean when you say a shoe item is within the category of running shoes known as “minimalist shoes”.

In other words, I want a definition I can lecture about and discuss with some scientific precision. Subjective “feelings” such as “I know a minimal shoe when I see one” just aren’t sufficient when we are trying to understand the biomechanical effect of these shoes on the human foot and lower extremity during running.

Cheers,

Kevin

RH:

Your vagueness is acceptable as long as you and others don’t want to be scientific about the study of running shoes. As for me, I prefer being precise and scientific when I discuss the biomechanics and structure of running shoes.  

Cheers,

Kevin

Hi Kevin,

You obviously haven’t been reading this blog, or searching this blog for answers as Pete’s already written an entry on the topic of what he uses as guide to what might be viewed as a minimialist shoe:

https://runblogger.com/2010…

This is pretty useful guide.  I’d personally like see some metrics drawn up that we’d could review shoes by, the minimalist category like all categories of shoes is open to marketting abuse/opportunitism, so having a set of metrics that indepedent reviews can use a guide would be good.

Personally I don’t care specifically about a shoe being in any “minimalist” category.  What I want it is it supports my personal gait properly rather than interfere with it – if you are mid-foot/forefoot striker like myself that the best shoes are zero drop, anything more is at best a redudent chunk of weight and instability to carry around with you, at worse it interefers with your natual gait and feels horrible to run in.

There are shoes that are marketed as minimialist that don’t work for me, ones that are not marketd as minimalist that do work for me.  Over the last few months I’ve been running in happly plimsoles and light weight hybrid walking shoe/sandles as well as trail running shoes, none of which were marketed as minimialist but I bought and use them as they tick the boxes as shoes that don’t interfer with my running gait.   All the shoes are light weigth, low drop, nice wide fitting and very flexible so likely satisify Pete’s metrics for minimialist.

A couple of years back when I came back to running after a twenty five year break I dug out my old cross country shoes I used to wear at school.  All of these shoes are light, flexible, modest heel drop but I could even get them on my feet anymore, not that my length of foot has changed, but it’s width possible has, or also just as likely I just crammed my feet in the shoes as was just a kid and didn’t know any better.  This old shoes would tick a number of Pete’s boxes for a “minimialist” shoe, but would be an epic fail on the toe box.  I’d guess most racing flats of old were also fail in this respect.

So I think one has to put the ability to run comfortably with a mid-foot/forefoot strike as my own personal yard stick of a good running shoe.  A shoe that is marketed as “minimalist” is probably more likely to answer my needs compared to traidtional shoes from, but I’m naturally cynical of marketting so it’s facts about shoe that I try to dig down and find.

Robert

This sounds a bit
like Wittgenstein’s challenge to come up with a rigorous definition of the word
“game”. Every possible characteristic you can come up with has
exceptions, so no single list of characteristics will include everything we
would call a game. I presume that, likewise, no single list of specs of a
minimal shoe will suffice.

The best possible (yet fallible) definition will probably look like the
sort of definitions that are used in clinical standards and include stuff
like  “if at least five of the eight
symptoms are present, including either symptom A or B…”  

I think I leave that to a panel of experts.

Just for the contrast, what I found yesterday about Asics:

“This year, Asics also added the Plus 3 feature to some of its best shoes. The Plus 3 feature is an additional 3 millimeters of height on the models designed for female runners. Take note that the added height only applied to the women’s shoes. This is one of the special considerations that Asics makes especially for women. The aim of the added height is to ease the tension felt by the achilles. The bestselling Asics running shoes all came out with added height this year. This includes the Asics Gel Kayano 16 and the Asics Gel Nimbus 12.”

Well, my feet have a strong preference for Asics shoes but I will definitelly continue in my transition to make Hyperspeed 4 my principal running shoe rather than get a pair of ones mentioned above…

Personally, I am barefoot for everything except running, but have been slowly transitioning, currently in Brooks Silence on roads and Trail Gloves on trail.  Really, really looking forward to Brooks Pure line.

Can any of you who enjoy and encourage running in “minimalist running shoes” give me a good definition of what the term “minimalist running shoe” means.

In other words, how would you want Webster’s dictionary to define “minimalist running shoe”?

Cheers,

Kevin

As a frequent visitor of this blog you’re not irritating me at all. On the contrary, I would love to hear someone that “lectures nationally on…running shoes” provide input to the studies I referenced above.

Leaving running aside, I am also interested in how you reconcile your approach with shoes to the fact that humans have been barefoot or minimally shod until only a handful of generations ago and millions of people continue to go barefoot with no adverse health problems. I understand the need to treat people that go to you for help. However, I do not see the need to put the average human in a shoe with arch support, toe spring, a stiff last, an unnaturally narrow toe box, or a raised heel in early childhood or if they do not exhibit any foot pain or problems (again, see studies referenced above). I would like to hear your rebuttal and, again, would not find it irritating in the least.

Thanks,
Aaron

Kevin,

Like many of the others here have said, I don’t feel a particularly strong need to put any kind of strict bounds on what we call a minimalist shoe. Shoes are simply too variable in too many ways. Personally, I look for shoes that are less than 10 oz in men’s size 10, and have a heel-forefoot differential less than about 8mm, though my personal preference for most of my running is a differential of 5mm or less. Others have different criteria that they view as most important. I view minimalist shoes as a spectrum rather than a category per se. Shoes like the Vibram Fivefingers or Huarache sandals would be the extreme end of that spectrum toward minimalist, and I simply refer to them as barefoot-style, being well aware that there is a big difference between Vibrams and full barefoot.

As Robert said, when studying shoes scientifically, it’s far better to vary one component of the many that can be altered and look at the effects, than to just look at a “minimalist shoe,” which could be any number of widely divergent things.

Minimalist will also mean different things to different people depending on which type of shoe they are moving from (i.e., their starting point). In general though, it’s simple movement away from what we think are the overbuilt and heavy shoes that until very recently have populated the shelves at most shoe stores.

Pete