1. Barefoot running is different and no shoe perfectly replicates the barefoot condition. Running barefoot, particularly on a hard surface, increases the likelihood that a runner will adapt a midfoot or forefoot strike. Running barefoot will also generally result in an increased stride rate and decreased stride length.

2. Running in a shoe with no cushioning will simulate some aspects of barefoot running, but will not necessarily simulate the barefoot condition perfectly. This might in part be due to the ability of any type of sole, even one with no cushioning, to reduce friction between the foot and the ground and thus reduce plantar skin abrasion.

3. Running in a “minimal” shoe with a moderate amount of cushioning is unlikely to alter form very much, particularly foot strike. In other words, if cushioning is present, a heel striking runner is unlikely to move to a midfoot or forefoot strike.

A new study was just published on-line in the journal PLOS One that adds additional support to some of what I have written above (full text available here). Here’s the Abstract:

Comparison of Minimalist Footwear Strategies for Simulating Barefoot Running: A Randomized Crossover Study

Karsten Hollander, Andreas Argubi-Wollesen, Rüdiger Reer, Astrid Zech

Published: May 26, 2015, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125880

Abstract

Possible benefits of barefoot running have been widely discussed in recent years. Uncertainty exists about which footwear strategy adequately simulates barefoot running kinematics. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of athletic footwear with different minimalist strategies on running kinematics. Thirty-five distance runners (22 males, 13 females, 27.9 ± 6.2 years, 179.2 ± 8.4 cm, 73.4 ± 12.1 kg, 24.9 ± 10.9 km.week^-1) performed a treadmill protocol at three running velocities (2.22, 2.78 and 3.33 m.s^-1) using four footwear conditions: barefoot, uncushioned minimalist shoes, cushioned minimalist shoes, and standard running shoes. 3D kinematic analysis was performed to determine ankle and knee angles at initial foot-ground contact, rate of rear-foot strikes, stride frequency and step length. Ankle angle at foot strike, step length and stride frequency were significantly influenced by footwear conditions (p<0.001) at all running velocities. Posthoc pairwise comparisons showed significant differences (p<0.001) between running barefoot and all shod situations as well as between the uncushioned minimalistic shoe and both cushioned shoe conditions. The rate of rear-foot strikes was lowest during barefoot running (58.6% at 3.33 m.s^-1), followed by running with uncushioned minimalist shoes (62.9%), cushioned minimalist (88.6%) and standard shoes (94.3%). Aside from showing the influence of shod conditions on running kinematics, this study helps to elucidate differences between footwear marked as minimalist shoes and their ability to mimic barefoot running adequately. These findings have implications on the use of footwear applied in future research debating the topic of barefoot or minimalist shoe running.

Methods

In a nutshell, the study authors recruited 35 runners and had them run trials at 3 speeds (12:04 min/mile, 9:38 min/mile, 8:03 min/mile if I did the math correctly) in each of four different footwear conditions. The footwear conditions (see image at top of post) were barefoot, shoe with no cushion (Leguano), shoe with moderate cushion (Nike Free 3.0), and standard running shoe (Asics 2160). They recorded the following biomechanical variables during each trial: ankle angle at footstrike, knee angle at footstrike, stride frequency, step length, frequency of rear-foot strikes.

Results

Barefoot running was significantly different from all other footwear conditions (including the shoe with zero cushion) for three of the five variables measured. When barefoot, runners exhibited reduced ankle dorsiflexion at contact (flatter foot strike), increased stride frequency, and reduced step length. Barefoot runners still exhibited a heel strike about 60% of the time, which was similar to the zero-cushion shoe condition. In cushioned shoes, heel striking was observed about 90% of the time.

When subjects ran in the shoe with zero cushion (Leguano) they exhibited reduced ankle dorsiflexion at contact, increased stride frequency, reduced step length, and lower frequency of heel striking relative to both cushioned shoe conditions.

The cushioned minimal shoe (Nike Free 3.0) differed from the standard shoe (Asics 2160) in that the runners exhibited increased stride rate and reduced step length. Ankle angle and frequency of heel striking did not differ between the two cushioned shoes.

Knee angle at foot strike did not differ between any of the footwear conditions (barefoot included).

Commentary

The results of this study suggest a gradation of effect of running footwear on form. None of the shoes mimicked the barefoot condition perfectly, even the minimal shoe with no cushion. When barefoot, the runners had the smallest amount of ankle dorsiflexion, a higher cadence, and a shorter stride. The zero cushion shoe yielded similar results to barefoot for foot strike, and had intermediate values for ankle angle. Stride rate decreased incrementally from the zero cushion shoe to the standard shoe, and step length increased incrementally from the zero cushion to the standard shoe.

This study by Bonacci et al. found a similar reduction in stride length and increase in stride rate in the Nike Free relative to a traditionally cushioned shoe, so it does appear that a moderately cushioned shoe may induce some amount of form change in the direction of barefoot running. That being said, retention of a heel striking gait in such shoes can lead to increases in impact forces over traditional footwear.  Although the importance of impact forces to injury risk remains a source of debate, it seems prudent to suggest that care should be taken when migrating toward shoes with moderate cushion.

One of the disadvantages of this study is that it looked at immediate change in runners who were not familiar with running in minimal footwear, so we can’t know for sure if changes from the standard shoe might become more apparent with time and additional adaptation to such shoes.

In my own research I have found that barefoot runners on asphalt are more likely to midfoot or forefoot strike compared to runners in the minimally cushioned Vibram Fivefingers. Combined with results from the study discussed here (and others), these findings support my belief that barefoot running is different from running in any kind of shoe, and that although a zero or minimally cushioned shoe can alter form in the direction of barefoot running, it may never perfectly simulate what happens when you take your shoes off. At the same time, running in a minimal shoe is different than running in a more traditional shoe, but it might take removal of most or all of the cushioning to elicit major changes in running form (at least in the short term).

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.

Yesterday I wrote a post on how to avoid chafing while running. One of the anti-chafe products that I recommended is called Hike-Goo, and after I wrote the post I emailed my contact (Vito) to let him know that I had finally managed to try it.

Vito responded by informing me that although the product can work for chafing, it’s primarily intended for use on the feet to help prevent blistering inside shoes/boots. I responded that I almost never get blisters on my toes anymore since I have moved to shoes with more accommodating toeboxes.

Guess what?

Less than 24 hours after claiming that I never get blisters on my feet anymore, I now have a giant blister on the inside of the second toe on my right foot.

The cause of the blister was a 16 mile run this morning in the New Balance Fresh Foam 980. The 980 is a bit of an enigma, and I’ll have more to say about it soon (Update 7/15/2014: you can now read my full New Balance Fresh Foam 980 review here), but one of the things that I don’t like about it is that it has a pronounced taper at the tip of the toebox. It’s not a terribly narrow shoe across the forefoot, but the front of the shoe tapers too abruptly to a point (see photo below), and the upper has minimal give/stretch (I even went a half size up to create some extra space).

The abrupt taper on the inner side pushes my big toe into contact with the second toe, and I started feeling discomfort about halfway through the run today. By 10 miles I knew that a blister had formed (I ran 8 in them earlier this week without trouble, but it was a hot day and I wonder if sweat helped reduce friction between my toes?). When I took off my shoes at the end of the run to inspect the damage I found a blister that ran almost the entire length of my second toe. It reminded me why I no longer run long in shoes with pointy toeboxes. (note: I think my right foot is a tad wider than the left, and my blister issues have always been on that side).

New Balance Fresh Foam 980 (left) and Salomon Sense Pro (right). Note the pointier toebox on the Fresh Foam.

What’s interesting about this is that the Fresh Foam does not feel particularly tight. I run comfortably in shoes that are much snugger without issue – the Salomon Sense Pro in the photo above being a good example. But where the Salomon succeeds and the Fresh Foam fails is that the former has a more squared-off toebox that allows more room for my big to to spread out medially. The Fresh Foam just scrunches the toes together.

Unfortunately, pointy toeboxes seem to be a trend with some recent New Balance shoes. I recently purchased the New Balance MT00v2 and wound up returning them because they had a similarly tapered toebox. Nate got ahold of a pair of the NB MT110v2 and told me that it’s a great shoe hobbled by a lousy fit. I’d love to see the Fresh Foam on the Mimimus last since there are things I really like about the shoe (the 16 miles today were great but for the blister), but the fit is going to limit their use to shorter stuff from here out (with copious application of lubricant on my toes). And they probably won’t remain in the rotation once I get a review up.

If there is one tenet of minimalism that I strongly support it’s that the toes should be allowed space to splay and spread out inside the toebox of a shoe. If nothing else, this helps prevent blistering since squeezing the toes together can cause friction due to skin-skin rubbing. Shoes with pointy, tapered toeboxes are not fun to run in over long distances, and regardless of where you stand on minimalism, I think most people will agree on that.

I planted myself behind a bush about a quarter-mile from the starting line, and wound up getting slow-motion video (300 frames/sec) of 169 barefoot runners, and 42 runners wearing Vibram Fivefingers shoes (other footwear were represented as well, but sample sizes were small). My goal was to compare foot strike patterns between these two groups, as well as to compare patterns to those observed in other studies published on recreational runners wearing typical cushioned shoes.

I didn’t really do much with the video for a few years. I’d had some students analyze some of it for a senior research project, but the data needed some work if it was going to be publishable. Last Spring I met Martyn Shorten, head of the Runner’s World Shoe Lab, and we were chatting about our mutual interest in filming road races to look at form. When I told him about the NYC dataset he urged me to publish it, and put me in touch with Daniel Lieberman and Irene Davis. They were organizing a special edition of the Journal of Sport and Health Science on the topic of barefoot and minimalist running. They encouraged me to analyze and submit the data for publication – it was the push I needed, and I got it done.

The article I wrote was just published on-line – you can read the full text here. Here are the key points (note – midfoot strike means simultaneous contact of the heel and base of the fifth metatarsal):

1. For barefoot runners: 59.2% were forefoot strikers, 20.1% were midfoot strikers, and 20.7% were rearfoot strikers.

2. For minimally shod runners: 33.3% were forefoot strikers, 19.1% were midfoot strikers, and 47.6% were rearfoot strikers. Yes, almost 50% of the runners wearing Vibram Fivefingers contacted first on the heel.

3. The foot strike distributions were significantly different between the two groups.

4. Foot strike distributions for both groups differed from previously reported distributions in shod road runners (where ~90% of runners tend to heel strike).

What does all of this mean? Here’s my take on the significance of these results:

1. Barefoot runners are less likely to heel strike on asphalt than both minimally and traditionally shod runners. That being said, some barefoot runners (about 1 in 5) do continue to contact initially on the heel. This could be due to a lack of experience with barefoot running for some subjects observed. Anecdotally, my experience is that some people will immediately switch to a forefoot strike when you take their shoes off, others do not. Research suggests that for some people foot strike may change with experience. It could also be the case that a mild heel strike as typically exhibited by the barefoot runners is not a problem on a hard surface.

2. It is not easy to quantify and I did not attempt to do so in the paper, but the heel strikes observed in barefoot and minimally shod runners were typically not characterized by the extreme dorsiflexion you sometimes see in traditionally shod runners. For example, you don’t tend to see this type of pattern:

I’ve previously written about the fact that not all heel strikes are the same – we are beginning to realize that there is a lot of variation in how forces are applied even with the category we refer to as a “heel strike.”

3. The minimal shoe pattern differed from the barefoot pattern. Why? First, it’s possible that the Vibram runners were less experienced and thus opted to wear shoes rather than run barefoot in this “barefoot” race. Thus, they may not have had as much time to adapt their form. Second, the Vibram shoes may have provided enough cushion to make a heel strike on asphalt comfortable. Third, it may be that some factor other than a lack of cushioning is responsible for the reduced frequency of heel striking in barefoot runners. For example, a shoe sole also provides resistance to abrasion/friction with the ground. Removing that sole may require modifications of form to prevent damage to the plantar skin that are not required even when wearing a very minimal shoe.

What I’ve come to realize over the past several years is that determination of foot strike is multifactorial – I don’t think there is one right answer that applies to all conditions (and we now have evidence that some habitually barefoot humans heel strike a lot). The specific foot strike adopted by a given runner likely depends on some mix of footwear, running surface, running speed, running experience, etc. If you want to maximize the likelihood of observing a forefoot strike, I think you look at an experienced runner who is A) barefoot, B) has previous experience running barefoot, C) is running at a relatively fast pace, and D) is running on a hard surface like and asphalt road. That doesn’t mean that all runners under those conditions will forefoot strike, but I think the combo is most likely to encourage a form change from what we typically see in conventionally shod runners.

I elaborate on these points in a lot more detail in the actual paper, which you can read here. If you have any questions/thoughts, feel free to leave a comment.

Nike has officially released the new 2014 Nike Free models: Free 5.0 v2, Free 4.0 v4, and Free 3.0 v6. In this post I’ll run down the major features of each of the new shoes.

Nike Free 5.0

The Free 5.0 has traditionally been the best selling of the Free shoes (all are very popular) and retains a traditional style upper.

The big change comes to the sole where we see a new hexagonal siping pattern instead of the squares that have long characterized the Free line.

The 5.0 also has a more rounded heel which I think will be an improvement over the previous version ((I’m not a fan of flared heels). Per Jeff Dengate’s article, the Free 5.0 v2 weighs in at ~8oz and is 8mm drop (similar to previous versions). MSRP for the 5.0 is $100 – given my affinity for the Free shoes, I’ll likely pick up a pair of these for a review when they are available.

Nike Free 4.0 v4

I’ve never run in any of the iterations of the Free 4.0 shoes (Update: I have now posted a full review of the Nike Free 4.0 Flyknit). I tried on the v3 at a Nike store and the forefoot seemed to be a bit low in volume (top to bottom) for my foot. The 4.0 v4 moves from a traditional upper to a new Flyknit upper, but it retains a tongue and traditional lacing. I’ve not tried a Flyknit upper shoe yet, and this one looks intriguing.

The 4.0 also sports the new hexagonal sole pattern and a more rounded heel:

Jeff Dengate indicated that this has been his favorite among the new Frees, and he reports that it weighs in at 7.7oz and has a 6mm drop. MSRP is $120 (Flyknit shoes are expensive).

Nike Free 3.0 v6

While I’m game to try the new 5.0 and 4.0, I’m afraid Nike may have ruined the 3.0 for me. This is sad as it has traditionally been my favorite in the Free line (here’s my review of the Free 3.0 v5). First off, they have replaced the traditional upper with a tongueless Flyknit upper.

This is reminiscent of the Nike Free Flyknit that they released last year. I tried the Free Flyknit on at a Nike Outlet a few months ago (they were on a steep discount) and found them to be incredibly tight fitting, almost uncomfortably so. The reason being I think is that instead of a tongue and more traditional lacing, they rely on the tight fit of the Flyknit weave to hold the foot on top of the sole platform. It felt almost like a tight compression sock on top of a shoe sole. In his report on the Frees, Jeff Dengate reports that the new Free 3.0 v6 also has a rather tight fit, and this may kill the 3.0 for me.

The upper of the Free 3.0 v6 is disappointing since the 4mm drop sole looks great and has the most rounded heel of the 3 shoes in the collection (looks like Nike ID currently only allows mix/match between the new 4.0 and 5.0):

The other big issue with the 3.0 v6 is price – the v5 had an MSRP of $110, and v6 jumps to $140. That’s a pretty steep price for a shoe like this.

In addition to the images, Nike also released the following video to accompany the release – lots of nice slow-mo images of forefoot strikes:

The 2014 Nike Free shoes are now available at Zappos and Nike.com. Outside of the US they can be purchased at Wiggle.co.uk.

The question of whether minimalist running shoes reduce or increase injury risk has been debated extensively over the past 3-4 years. Much of this debate has been based largely on anecdotal reports from runners and therapists: many runners have reported resolution of long-term injuries by moving into more minimal shoes, and many therapists claim that they have seen upticks in the number of patients reporting injuries resulting from moving to more minimal footwear.

I believe that anecdotes can provide valuable information, and in this case I  do believe that individuals making these claims are speaking the truth. I believe that people have overcome injury by going minimal, and I also believe that others have gotten injured as a result (I have seen both sides in my own client population). But, what we have largely lacked to date are published studies investigating injury risk associated with footwear along the spectrum from maximal to minimal.

One such study was just published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, and at first look it might seem to shoot down the claims of minimalist aficionados. The study, authored by Michael Ryan and colleagues, is titled “Examining injury risk and pain perception in runners using minimalist footwear.” I’m quite sure it will be the source of considerable debate, so I thought I’d give my take on the results.

Study Methods

The study employed a prospective, randomized controlled design (not blinded, tough to do that with shoes!), which gives it more weight than other injury studies that have been done to date on this topic (many of which are survey-based). The authors recruited participants with a minimum of 5 years of running experience to participate, and all had to be capable of tolerating a 20-40 km/week training load (in other words, these were experienced runners). A key point is that individuals who already use minimalist footwear were excluded. So, moving into minimal shoes was a change from the norm for those in the experimental groups. Thus, they were essentially studying transition injuries.

Ultimately 103 (99 completed the study) runners were randomized into one of 3 footwear groups: traditionally cushioned Nike Pegasus, mildly cushioned and highly flexible Nike Free 3.0v2, and minimally cushioned Vibram Fivefingers Bikila. Here’s how they describe the training program that each group followed:

“Following a 1-week break-in period to their assigned footwear, participants began a 12-week run training programme developed by the authors targeting a 10 km run held in Vancouver, British Columbia in November, 2011. The programme followed a gradual increase in total running minutes from 160 min the first week to a peak of 215 min in week 10 before a 2-week taper. Participants did not always run in their assigned footwear, rather had a gradual increase in exposure as a percentage of their total weekly running time starting at 10 min (19% of volume) in week 1 to 115 min (58%) in week 12. If a participant felt that repeated use of a shoe was significantly contributing to pain anywhere in the lower extremity, they were given the option of withdrawing from the study.

The programme incorporated three to four run workouts a week, with a longer group run on the weekend and interval training during the middle of the week. The 2–3-weekday workouts were based on time, while the long run on the weekend was based on distance, in order to accommodate different training paces but ensuring adequate preparation for the 10 km event…it was estimated that the weekly volume started at approximately 15 km and increased to 30–40 km at the peak of the programme.”

The study authors tracked injury events (an injury was an incident that caused 3 consecutive missed runs) and pain with running at several points during the 12-week duration of the experiment.

Study Results

A total of 23 injuries were reported by the 99 runners over the 12-week training period (injury incidence = 23.2%). Injury results among groups were distributed as follows: 4/32 (13%) in the Nike Pegasus got injured, 12/32 (38%) in the Nike Free 3.0v2 got injured, 7/35 (20%) in the VFF Bikila group got injured. Injury risk was significantly higher in the Nike Free group compared to both the Vibram and Nike Pegasus groups. Risk of injury was not not significantly different between the Vibram and Nike Pegasus groups.

Results for pain during running were mostly non-significant, with only calf/shin pain in full minimalist runners being significantly higher.

Based on a statistical analysis of the results, the authors conclude “Based on injury event data, there is a higher likelihood of experiencing an injury with minimalist footwear, particularly with the partial minimalist condition.” (I disagree a bit with this phrasing since injury risk was not elevated in the Vibram group)

Commentary

1. The first point I’ll address is sample size. People are going to complain that sample sizes here are too small, particularly the number of people injured in each group. I’ll address this by saying that studies like this are time consuming, expensive, and not easy to carry out. So, we have to work with what we have. That being said, I do think the small samples prevented identification of some possible significant differences between groups (e.g., the Pegasus group was over 70% female, whereas the Free and VFF groups were closer to 50-50 male-female). Would the higher injury rate (20% vs. 13%) in the Vibram group have represented a significant difference if larger samples had been employed? Maybe, but we again have to work with the data in front of us. We use statistics for a reason, and the stats here say no difference in risk between the two groups.

For one example, if we wanted to ignore statistics and play the trend game with the data, we’d find that the Nike Free group had least pain in the shin/calf (is 4mm drop protective for the calf/shin vs. 12mm and 0mm???), but had the most pain in the knees (plausible case for lack of form change interacting with less cushion?). But, we can’t do this because the stats say the differences are not significant.

2. The injury rate in the Nike Free 3.0 group was indeed fairly high, and risk of injury was significantly higher than in the other two shoes. However, in the Kaplan-Meier plot (Figure 2 in the paper) as well as in the tables presented in the supplementary data, risk of injury in the Vibram Fivefingers was not significantly different from the Pegasus (for example, confidence interval for absolute risk reduction in VFF compared to Pegasus overlaps zero, confidence interval for relative risk in VFF relative to Pegasus overlaps 100% or 1 – statisticians, correct me if I’m wrong on my interpretation!).

So in reality, this study shows that transitioning to running in a full minimal shoe isn’t any more risky (or better) when it comes to injuries than continuing to run in a traditional shoe like the Pegasus. It’s moving to a cushioned but more minimal shoe like the Nike Free 3.0 that poses increased risk, and the authors suspect this may be due to the fact that the moderate amount of cushion in the Free isn’t enough to encourage form modification, and isn’t enough to protect runners who continue to run as they did in a heavily cushioned shoe like the Pegasus. Makes sense to me (and interesting personally since the Free 3.0 was my gateway-shoe to minimalism!).

3. The authors don’t talk much about pain, mainly because most differences observed were not significant (I think the sample-size effect comes into play here). The only significant difference observed was that runners in the full minimal Vibram Fivefingers reported greater pain in the calf/shin. My guess is that this was mostly calf pain (they don’t specify), as a period of initial calf pain is almost universally experienced by those transitioning into minimal shoes (myself included). The study authors explain this as follows:

“It is noteworthy that runners in full minimalist footwear condition reported greater calf and shin pain throughout the 12-week period. This finding was not unexpected given the likelihood that some of the runners in the full minimalist footwear condition adopted a forefoot strike pattern that could have resulted in greater (and unaccustomed) loading of the Achilles tendon and triceps surae musculature secondary to a larger ankle dorsiflexion moment immediately following touchdown. The greater heel height in the partial minimalist footwear likely mitigated this loading on the shank.”

I had bad calf pain when I started running in VFFs back in 2009. It was transient delayed onset muscle soreness that diminished and eventually went away after I adapted to running in the shoes (much as starting to lift at a gym can cause bad muscle pain for a period of time). It would be helpful to know if this calf pain was muscle soreness or something else, but I suspect this is something that would lessen over time.

4. I dread seeing headlines touting this study as the nail in the coffin for minimalism. You could just as easily turn it around and say that this study supports the notion that wearing a highly cushioned shoe provides no injury protective benefit over a shoe with virtually no cushion at all.

I also reject the notion that a study like this can say much about any entire class of shoes. The Nike Free 3.0 fared poorly, I don’t doubt the data. Though it is a personal favorite shoe, the Free 3.0 is fairly narrow, extremely flexible, and does not provide a lot of medial support (I moved my wife out of them because she tended to cave in the medial side of the sole). Is the Free 3.0 representative of all minimal shoes? Not at all. Just as I would not say the Pegasus is representative of all traditional shoes, or the Vibrams are representative of all fully minimal shoes (I get forefoot pain in Vibrams for example, but not in other ultraminimal shoes – something to do with the toe pockets I think).

If anything, this study shoots down claims that:

a) Minimal shoes are a panacea for running injuries. They aren’t. They can cause injuries for some, and for others they might just be the solution to a long-term injury. We’re all different, and it’s all about what works best on an individual level.

b) Barefoot-style shoes are too risky and running in them will get you injured. The results here actually suggest that transitioning into barefoot-style shoes is not as risky as some suggest (particularly those with an anti-minimal bias). I’d add the caveat that the transition should be gradual, much like the one employed in this study. But runners who transitioned from traditional shoes to Vibrams in this study were at no greater risk of suffering an injury than individuals who continued to run in a more traditional-style shoe. This is why I consider this study a Christmas present or Vibram – it gives them a prospective study in a high profile journal to cite that shows that their shoes are not any more likely to cause an injury than more typical running footwear. In fact, they are apparently safer than the Nike Free, which is one of the top selling shoes in the United States!

Update 12/25: I forgot about it when I first wrote this post, but I should point out with regard to the above statements that this is now the second study to find no difference in injury risk between minimalist shoe wearers and those in traditional shoes – I wrote about the other here (based on an abstract from the ACSM meeting).

5. It’s worth emphasizing again that this was a transition study. The Nike Free and Vibrams were novel conditions for all of these runners, and the Pegasus was presumably more similar to what they were used to. So, the study can only really assess injury risk when transitioning into minimal shoes. We really need longer term studies of how people fare in different shoes, and studies looking at how different shoes might be used to help with  (or if they are contraindicated for) specific injury types (this study did not break down injury types as diagnoses were not available). For example, I’d love to see a study on whether moving to a Vibram-style shoe helps with knee pain, or whether wearing a Hoka style shoe helps with foot pain. We need to confirm or refute the anecdotes in cases like these.

At the end of the day, what I think this study shows once again is that there are myriad options out there to choose from, and no one end of the shoe spectrum is inherently better or worse than any other. These results would not stop me from recommending a minimal shoe where I think it’s warranted, and they don’t support claims that minimal shoes are a cure-all. I sent a client home yesterday with the suggestion that he try a pair of Hokas, I myself prefer more minimal stuff. Different strokes for different folks, embrace variety and find what works for you.

For more on this study, view articles by Blaise Dubois and Craig Payne.

While it’s tempting to credit my good health and running success to my choice of footwear, I’d be naïve if I did so. The truth is that I didn’t get injured in two years of running prior to going minimal, and my race success is more likely due to the fact that I was becoming a more experienced runner and I was training harder. Beyond the effect of reduced weight, my shoe choices probably had very little to do with my personal racing achievements.

As a shoe reviewer, I now run in all kinds of shoes. I run in everything from ultraminimal, barefoot-style shoes to 8mm drop cushioned trainers (I still avoid more traditional 10-12mm drop trainers). The specific mix varies depending on which reviews I’m working on at any given time. Lately, however, I’ve been running a lot in ultralight racing flats (Mizuno Universe 5 and Asics Blazing Fast), and a few days ago I went for a five mile run in the Merrell Vapor Gloves (one of the most minimal shoes I’ve run in). Spending a few weeks running mostly in very minimal shoes has reminded me why I continue to do so: it’s fun!

I don’t continue to run in minimal shoes because I think they keep me healthier or make me faster than when I run in traditional shoes, I run in them because I enjoy running in them. I like feeling the ground under my feet. I feel stronger when I run without supportive footwear. And I love the feeling of freedom afforded by a pair of shoes that weighs under 5-6 oz. While I certainly see a role for using shoes as tools to mange injuries or for specific race purposes, my personal choice is driven entirely by comfort and enjoyment, and that’s good enough for me.

How about you? If you run minimal, what’s your main reason for doing so?

As a recent convert to Vibram Five Fingers and numerous racing flats (it’s been two years since I ditched my traditional stability shoes), I had been longing for just “a little more shoe” between me and the road. It has been ridiculously wet all summer in the Carolinas and so I have had to shift many runs back to the pavement owing to the trail conditions – hence, I wanted to treat myself to a bit more cushioning in a zero-drop shoe.

I chose the Altra “The One,” a newly released neutral performance trainer by the strong new contender to “The Big Seven” shoe companies.

Altra markets this shoe as being able to “handle any run on any occasion,” from track repeats to the marathon to a leisurely recovery run.

Sizing and first impressions

I had some initial issues with sizing – most of my running shoes are 12.5 US, yet this one felt a bit short on the 3 little toes in this size and overly roomy in a size 13 US. I recommend you research the fit for yourself in Shoefitr if you mail order this shoe, it can fit slightly tricky. Also, it tends to fit somewhat smaller than the “Instinct”. I settled for the 12.5 as the toe box was roomy enough for me and I felt more comfortable being “in touch” with the shoe. Altra customer service was courteous and quick in handling the exchange and did not charge for shipping. (Editor’s note from Pete: I just purchased The One myself and opted to go a half size up from what I wear in the Instinct 1.5)

The first no-sock run in the Altra in the rain confirmed what we already knew from Kermit The Frog: “It’s not easy being green”- I emerged from the shoes with bright green feet- the color washed off easily enough and did not irritate my skin, so this was really more of an amusement. Indeed, the shoes broke in very easily, I ended up running a 10K race in “The One” after an easy initial 3 mile recovery session. I appreciated the extra cushioning on the hilly road course (running downhill was pain-free when compared to my Vibrams), but was less impressed by how heavily soaked the shoes got in the pouring rain. The quick dry mesh on the upper and drainage holes in the soles were heavily challenged by these conditions.

Construction

I am very impressed by how Altra manages to give the runner a roomy feel in the forefoot without compromising control and while allowing anchoring of the big toe. I attribute this both to the comparatively low toebox and the “contour footbed” insole that molds to your toes and provides good grounding.

The heel fit is medium wide and the upper is not too bulky – the asymmetrical lacing gives you plenty of options for a more personal fit. The laces themselves are freakishly long, so I just cut and burnished the ends to prevent the threads from coming apart.

The mesh upper breathes well and feels durable. After 2 months and 150 miles in the shoes, there is no sign of tearing or excessive stretching of the material. Running without socks has given me no blisters or hot spots.

Similarly, while the blown rubber sole is starting to show a wear pattern (see below), I am confident that I will get at least 500 miles out of this pair. The sole provides decent traction even on wet roads and handles gravel and non-technical trails very well. Overall, I am very impressed with the build quality of this shoe – great workmanship and all materials used seem to be of a superior grade with an organic feel to them.

The shoes weigh in at around 8.5 ounces for my size and the stack height of 18mm provides a sound compromise in terms of ground feel, flexibility and cushioning.

Conclusion

I am very happy that I’ve been able to add a new shoe to my rotation for long runs and easy recovery runs. While it is not “The One” for me as I will continue to race in the likes of the New Balance Minimus Zeros (MR00) and do all my track work in Vibrams, this green performance shoe has filled an important void as a comfortable and reliable road trainer and I give kudos to Altra for real innovation and added value in today’s running shoe market.

The Altra The One is available for purchase at Running Warehouse, Zappos, and Amazon.com (20% off right now at Amazon with code NEWFALL2). Altra can also be shipped to locations outside the US if purchased from Optimal Run or Take it On the Run.

First, the MT10v1 had that forefoot band that impinged on my foot on one side and had to be severed (the band, not my foot). The MT00 sole delaminated after minimal mileage and I had read numerous reports of the upper tearing. The MT20 v1 was a total disaster in terms of durability – reports of upper tearing were rampant. The MT110 sole was so distinctly slanted from lateral to medial that it caused me to develop a case of posterior tibial tendonitis. The MR10 v2 was a nice looking shoe but the fit or the upper was incredibly baggy around the midfoot – I haven’t run in it enough to write a meaningful review. The upper of the MRC5000 started to develop small, superficial tears near the arch after minimal mileage. I injured my toe running in the MO80, though I can’t necessarily blame that one on the shoe. The MR00 and MRC1600 both worked pretty well for me, but I long for the days of the MT101, which was one of my favorite all around running shoes a few years ago.

One New Balance shoe that I did like a lot was the 730. It was simple – wide toebox and firm, low drop sole, no frills. And it was cheap. That latter characteristic is something I really appreciated in a world where shoe prices seem to be going through the roof.

Earlier this summer Running Warehouse sent me a pair of the 730 v2 to test out for a review (these were review samples and thus free of charge). It’s taken me a long time to write this review because I’m really conflicted about this shoe.

In most respects, the 730 v2 is very much like the original 730. It fits great on my foot – snug through the heel and midfoot, with a very wide toebox (it’s on the Minimus last, and even comes in 2E if you want maximum roominess). It has an integrated footbed (no insole) and no arch support, both of which are characteristics that minimalist runners will appreciate (Amazon reviewers, not so much). It’s comfortable enough to wear sockless, and works great as a casual shoe.

The sole of the 730 v2 is firm, and though Running Warehouse lists stack height as 19mm heel – 13 mm forefoot, it feels far flatter than 6mm drop to me. Given the firm sole, ground feel is very good. The sole is also amply covered by rubber, and I’m seeing very little sole wear after extensive casual use and about 35 miles of running.

For New Balance minimal shoe fans, I could perhaps best describe the experience of running in the 730 as very similar to the MR10 v2 or a maybe a road version of the MT110 – lots to like if you prefer wide shoes with thin, firm soles.

The thing I like most about the NB 730 v2 is the price. Though MSRP is $75, it can be purchased for under $60, making it that elusive “minimal shoe at a minimal price.” I so badly want to call this shoe a best buy or a great deal, but I have one big reservation.

So what’s the problem? Once again, it’s the durability bugaboo. You might say that one should not expect a low-priced shoe to be durable, but this one comes so close and the area where I see durability issues could so easily be fixed (and no shoe should develop issues after only 35 miles of running).

My problem with the 730 v2 has to do with the upper. When I first took the shoes out of the box I was immediately worried about the upper material – it had that cheap feel that some of the new synthetic meshes used in shoe uppers tend to have. I was concerned about possible tearing with repeated wear. Now, my shoes have not torn in a way that makes them non-functional, nor would most people even notice the issues on my pair. But, I’ve been hyper-vigilant given my initial concerns, and I’m seeing a few problem spots.

First, there are small tears developing on the medial forefoot, just above where the upper meets the shoe on both sides. In the top image below, it appears right above one of the flex grooves in the sole. In the lower image it’s a bit harder to see and is located a bit further back toward the arch:

Neither of those tears compromise shoe function in any way, but they scare me since what starts as a small tear might become something more. And I’ve only run 35 miles in these. It’s quite possible that the mini-tears might not progress at all, but I thought it prudent to mention the issue in a review.

The other problem spot is on the left outer forefoot, and appears to be a location where the upper puckers/flexes during toe-off. It’s only on one side though.

In an attempt to determine if others have reported tearing issues, I combed through the reviews on Amazon and Zappos and didn’t see a lot of mentions of the problem. Most people who did not like the shoes complained about the lack of support and the thin, firm sole (do your research people, the shoe is intended to be like that!). A few people did mention upper tearing or the shoe falling apart, but it was by no means widespread (but a lot of the reviewers on those sites are probably not running in the shoes).

New Balance has come so close to producing a great shoe at a low price, and simply using a more durable upper mesh would make this a top recommendation for minimalists. I’m just not sure I can recommend it strongly without knowledge of how the upper issues will progress (if you have used these and can report either way, please do so in the comments!).

I’d conclude that this is a case of buyer beware. The 730 v2 is not a huge investment, and if you buy them and they fall apart with minimal mileage I’m sure the retailer or New Balance would exchange you a new pair if you contact customer service, thus further reducing risk. It’s also possible that my issues are unique to my stride or that the upper will hold up just fine with continued use (i.e., the small tears are just a cosmetic issue). I do wish New Balance would invest more time in quality control and durability of their minimal models, I’ve had too many hiccups with their shoes and it’s for that reason that I totally passed on the Hi-Rez (which would normally be a shoe I’d like to try). I love the fact that they support the minimal-leaning consumer, I just need to know the product being produced is going to hold up over the long-term.

The New Balance 730 v2 is available for purchase at Running Warehouse.

Today, Runningshoes.com posted a video preview of a new addition to the Pearl Izumi E-Motion line, the EM Road N0 (see below). The N0 is a zero drop shoe, and looks very much like a racing flat – my kind of shoe!

For more 2014 shoe previews, visit the Runningshoes.com YouTube channel.

Earlier this year Mizuno released two zero-drop running shoes, the Cursoris and the Levitas. I published a guest review of the two shoes by my friend Frederic, and based on his comments I was really intrigued by the Cursoris and had to try it for myself. I’m glad that I did as I would rank it among the best shoes I have run in this year! (Disclosure: these shoes were provided free-of-charge for review purposes by a Mizuno rep with a lot of tattoos)

Basic Specs

The Mizuno Cursoris weighs in at just over 7oz in my size 10. It’s a zero drop shoe with a stack height of 18mm heel, 18mm forefoot. Though I have gone up to a 10.5 in many shoes, the Cursoris is roomy in even a size 10 on my feet, so they may even run a bit big.

Upper Construction and Fit

Simply stated, the fit of the Mizuno Cursoris is near perfect on my average width foot. It’s snug through the heel and midfoot (there is mild arch support), and opens up into an ample toebox. I’d go so far as to say that this is one of the best fitting shoes that I own – supremely comfortable. The toebox in particular really shines – the upper in the region of the forefoot is composed of a stretchy, open mesh that breathes incredibly well. It’s so open that debris can get in the shoe if you go off-road, but I’ll take that trade-off for a cool ride in the summer. I wish more shoes would take this approach with breathability – the closest comparison I can think of is the old Newton Distance.

The rest of the upper is very simple – no heel counter, smooth interior finish suitable for sockless running, and a removable insole (unfinished below). The upper hugs the foot well without being overly structured or obtrusive. I really can’t say enough positive things about it – I’d rank it up there alongside the Nike Free 3.0 v5 in terms of upper design.

Sole

When it comes to shoe soles, I like different feels for different purposes. For form work I like minimal cushion. For speed I like a firm, responsive sole. For casual and long running I prefer a softer sole. The Cursoris definitely fits in the latter category. I’ve seen the sole feel of the Mizuno Cursoris described as like running on a padded gym floor. This is a pretty accurate description – it feels soft yet the stack height is such that it’s not pillowy. For me it’s a near perfect shoe for long, easy runs or recovery runs. It’s also incredibly comfortable for just wearing out and about. This is a bit of a departure from other zero drop shoes which tend to be fairly firm (e.g., the Merrell Bare Access, Altra Instinct, New Balance MR00, etc.). If you want a zero drop shoe with a soft sole, the Cursoris should be among the top shoes on your list to try (along with the Saucony Virrata and Altra Torin).

Given that the sole is soft, I would not classify the Cursoris as being a responsive shoe. It’s not a shoe I would reach for to race a 5K on the road.

On concern I’ve heard about the Cursoris has to do with sole durability. the sole has rubber in all of the right spots – heel (the orange heel patch is rubber, not EVA), across the forefoot, and up through the big toe. However, some have had issues with the exposed areas of EVA breaking down quickly. I have noticed that abrasion of the EVA in the forefoot area tends to form little “tabs” in the forefoot that you can pick off. However, with 50 miles on my pair the wear is nothing I’m overly concerned about (see photo below). If you tend to chew up the forefoot on your shoes you may want to consider this before purchasing this shoe.

Conclusions

I’ve run about 50 miles in the Mizuno Cursoris and have put in several double-digit mileage runs. I have had nothing but positive experiences with this shoe, and among zero drop cushioned shoes it’s one of my top picks. In fact, if I had to keep only two shoes in this category it would probably be the Cursoris and the Saucony Virrata. I think that highly of it!

The Mizuno Cursoris can be purchased at Running Warehouse (some colors currently on clearance at a great price) and Zappos (some on clearance here as well). Outside the US they can be purchased at Sportsshoes.com.

Topo Athletic RT – The Topo Running Shoe

Topo Athletic RR – The Topo Racing Shoe With BOA Laces

 Topo Athletic RX – The Topo Running Shoe

I wrote an article a few months back pointing out that the split-toe design has been used many times before, and I’m still not sure that I’m crazy about the split-toe aesthetic (Fivefingers were weird enough to be cool, not sure if these shoes have that going for them). I personally am not a big fan of BOA lacing systems, particularly given the added cost when a shoe incorporates BOA, so I’d pass on the Topo RR shoe. If I could get over the split-toe, the RT looks like a decent shoe. It’ll be interesting to see how they sell.

How about you, do you see success in the future for Topo shoes, or has the toe-pocket design run its course?

If you’ve already tried one of these shoes, leave a comment and let us know what you think!

Finally, if you’re itching to get a pair, it looks like City Sports has first rights to sell Topo.