In my mind, the shoe or types of shoes get a lot of blame because people will not take responsibility for the problems associated with their biological dysfunctions such as form issues, strength and neuromuscular deficits and poor mobility. For some, I think it is because of ignorance of these issues and for others its the idea of wanting things done easy or the path of least resistance.

Vincent you make a very good point, but stating “they don’t want to take responsibility” is an assumption in some cases. People who are running (not necessarily a novice) with biomechanical/ form issues (which eventually leads to injury) may not even know they are doing it. Personally, when “taking responsibility” for issues I have had, I would go to drs/pt/ podiatrists looking for the answer and they traditionally just look at the symptoms and not the underlying root cause. Finding a healthcare provider who focuses on biomechanics, form, etc. has not been easy, Once you find that person they can put you on the right course to help you solve the real problem. Today I’ve been able to corrections and am much better at “being in touch” and “listen to my body” but I’ve determined if running is something I want to continue to do, for now it’s an evolution and will take time to feel “natural”.

I honestly can’t see myself ever running in a 12mm drop, traditional shoe ever again, and I suspect that there are plenty of folks like me. Once you try less shoe, unless you have a problem, I suspect it’s very unlikely you would go back. That being said, I also don’t run much in ultraminimal stuff these days, but I feel that making the journey into that category was necessary to bring me to where I am now. Give me a simple shoe with a bit of cushion that stays out of the way – like the Saucony A5 or NB RC1600 – and I’m set. And if it’s cheap, all the better.

—-
Pete Larson’s Web Links:
-My book: Tread Lightly: http://ow.ly/bdUO0
-Blog: https://runblogger.com
-Twitter: http://twitter.com/Runblogger
-Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/Runbl…
-Discussion Forum: https://runblogger.com/forum

Good points. The reality is that most running shoes are sold to non-runners at shopping malls and big box stores. These sales make up a huge portion of the profits that companies make. Best to support companies that are truly dedicated to making functional shoes for runners and that focus on the specialty running market.

—-
Pete Larson’s Web Links:
-My book: Tread Lightly: http://ow.ly/bdUO0
-Blog: https://runblogger.com
-Twitter: http://twitter.com/Runblogger
-Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/Runbl…
-Discussion Forum: https://runblogger.com/forum

This.

If there is some sort of backlash or even just a sense of disillusionment in the general/recreational running public about minimalist/natural form/etc. running, I think it might be at least partially linked to how shoe-centric the discourse is (or has become). To paraphrase Michael Jordan, “it’s not (just) about the shoes,” but to read shoe manufacturers’ marketing copy and some blogs (not a criticism of RunBlogger, mind you), you’d think simply switching to a minimalist shoe was some sort of miracle solution to the problems that sometimes plague runners.

I’ve certainly seen a recent increase in runners in my area using what can be described to a degree as minimalist (or at least more flexible, less cushioned) footwear—mostly Nike Frees—but offhand, it seems like many of them still crash on their heels with their knees fully extended in front of the body. The injuries that would eventually result from that combination of inappropriate form and footwear would probably quickly convince anybody dipping their toe into minimalism that the whole “minimalist movement” is just based on trendy junk science.

At least Nike Frees still have a fair bit of cushioning..

You raise good points. People will blame the shoes because they don’t want to take responsibility for ill-advised training errors and poor form. Many novice runners I see run too hard with a slow cadence and heavy, shuffling, stomping gait. It’s just not sustainable. They will hurt themselves eventually regardless of what they’re wearing on their feet.

People are just out of touch with their bodies. “Listen to your body” is a good piece of advice but too many people don’t know how to do that and don’t know what to “listen for”.

The future is a combination of lighter more functional materials both in the uppers, well underway as hardly as shoe has stitches anymore, and midsole outsole. In my runs so far the adidas boost material is the first revolution in midsole in probably decades and I have been running competively for almost 4 decades. Sadly the Boost could be lower drop. The future is also for sure lower or zero drop. For many if not most running super minimal cushion or no cushion on a regular basis is a prescription for injury. I see the future here as cushioned low or zero drop.

It’s still very early days for the minimalist movement. Traditional shoe outlets still dominate running shoe purchases and still predominately stock traditional trainers with the minimalist shoes being sold as expensive, niche product if they are available at all. There is little reason why minimalist products shouldn’t be available at lower costs, it’s just a matter of ramping up production and selling high quantities. Inertial of the big retailers, shoe companies and companies is what is keeping traditional shoes selling.

The science is still in it’s infancy as well. The signs look to favour minimalist shoes for weight, fit and proprioceptive benefits as well as changes in form that they can encourage. Is the science suggesting that a swing back to a middle ground sensible?

I’m hopeful that while the market will seen swings this way and that as different fads come and go, over the years the whole market center of gravity will shift towards lighter, better fitting, more flexible and less instability causing cushioning. We are already seeing this and links article suggests this as well, but seeing a whole market movement isn’t a swing back at all but a swing to more minimalist shoes.

The pendulum is swinging back because of reasons listed above and below, and because so many of the shoe companies have this need to put as much “technology” in their products as possible. You hear it from almost all of them. They very sincerely don’t believe that a running shoe is viable unless it has marketable “technology” somewhere on it.

Amby said it, Bill has said it, Arthur said it, in his definitive manner: We should be in the least amount of shoe we’re comfortable in. There was that one guy who ran 2:2X for years at Boston. In the Beast. So, there’s that. I don’t know any more. I’m much more likely to want to listen to those who have “been there, done that” than marketing executives. Those who began the whole movement are the ones we should be listening to, and not to the guys in lab coats.

There are so many variables when we talk about running and injuries. Yet we tend to focus on shoes because it absolves us of the responsibility, other than making a poor footwear selection.

It just seems to me that in the big picture, in the grand scheme of things, what you have on your feet is going to be the thing that least affects your ability to move linearly from Point A to Point B. Paavo Nurmi had it right:

Mind is everything. Muscle – pieces of rubber. All that I am, I am because of my mind.

The shoes do get a lot of the blame. Biological dysfunctions do play a role for sure. Another factor is that running gets you out in the fresh air, can be a great stress reliever, makes you feel great is really kind of addictive, is highly time effective as exercise that is until…miles get piled on and speed increased with no base, sleep is cut back to run very early in the morning,, race after race, with no recovery, I see it all the time and would venture that just plain overdoing it is the cause of half of all running injuries.