Injury Risk in Minimal Shoes

The first reason I typically see put forth as an explanation for why minimalism is dying is that it’s risky to run in minimalist shoes. There have indeed been lots of injury reports from minimalist runners, and I have no doubt that running in a minimalist shoe puts greater stress on the feet and ankles. In that sense I think it’s completely fair to say that minimalist shoes are not a risk-free cure-all for running injuries. Risk of certain types of injuries (e.g., metatarsal stress fractures) likely does go up, at least until the feet adapt to running in less shoe. Some people may never be able to run comfortably in a minimal shoe.

However, it’s also important to recognize that form changes like the shorter stride encouraged by barely-there footwear may be beneficial in reducing stress at places like the knee and hip. It’s all about tradeoffs. Risk of some types of injury might be higher in minimal shoes, risk of other types of injury might be lower. 

The big question is whether risk of injury from running in minimal shoes is greater than risk from running in more traditional running footwear. It appears that it is not. For example, data from an Army study presented at the recent ACSM meeting showed that recruits in minimal shoes were at no greater risk of injury than recruits in more traditional footwear. One could even look at this result as showing that all the cushioning and gadgets in traditional running footwear don’t protect a runner any more than a minimal, stripped-down shoe.

So, is there a risk associated with going minimal? Yes, some parts of the body will experience increased risk of injury, and this risk will likely be elevated if too rapid a transition is made. But, minimal shoes don’t seem to be any riskier than traditional footwear, and they might actually be beneficial if we give credence to reports of people overcoming injury by going minimal (and I see no reason not to believe these people as different shoes apply force to the body in different ways).

Minimalist Shoe Sales Trends

The second argument I see put forth in supporting the “minimalism is dead” meme is that sales of minimal shoes have tanked. Have they really? First off, how we define minimal is important. If by minimal we mean Vibram Fivefingers, I’d agree that sales have dropped off. But, if by minimal we mean something more along the lines of not in the traditional motion control-stability-neutral 12mm drop spectrum, then I question the validity of this analysis. For example, Nike Free shoes are among the best selling, if not the best selling, shoes in the US right now. Granted they are mostly a fashion item, but so are most other running shoes.

In the May 2013 sales report from SportsOneSource we find the following statement: “Sales of Minimal/Barefoot Running Footwear, net of Nike Free, declined by nearly 30 percent and were only 4 percent of all running shoes sold. Sales of Nike Free gained more than one-third.” But, when you look at the accompanying pie chart you find the following:

Minimalist is the biggest wedge there at 19%. I can only assume that Nike Free is included in that wedge which explains its size, but the SOS analysis always removes it from the category in the written analysis on the belief that it is more a fashion shoe than a running shoe. Not sure then what is included in the “lightweight fashion running” category. It’s also worth pointing out that the SOS data includes sales from places like sporting goods stores, department stores, family footwear stores, discount shoe stores, etc. Not necessarily places that runners are shopping.

To get a better picture of how things look specifically in the running market, we can turn to Leisure Trends Group’s monthly reporting data. I went through the last 16 months of run specialty sales reports from LTG and compiled them into the following table – each number represents the percent change in dollar sales in each footwear category at run specialty relative to the same month in the previous year (green means increased dollar sales, red means decreased relative to that month in the previous year; darker colors indicate double-digit change):

(click on the image above for a larger view)

Data on minimal shoe sales were not always reported the same way, and sometimes they were not reported at all, but I think the table gives a good flavor for trends. What you’ll notice is that shoe sales as a whole at specialty retail were pretty lousy this past winter (it was a rough winter for running outdoors compared to last year, at least in my neck of the woods). If anything, minimal did better in terms of relative growth compared to more traditional categories in Dec 2012-Mar 2103, though the total dollar sales of minimal shoes is small relative to the traditional categories (see below). Even looking at April 2013 sales, though minimal as a whole did not do as well as other categories, it seems that the numbers were brought down by reduced sales of minimal trail shoes. Minimal road shoes experienced a 10% increase in sales in April relative to last year. The big thing that sticks out to me here is not that minimal is tanking, it’s that trail shoes and motion control shoe sales are tanking at run specialty.

In terms of relative market share at run specialty, we can look at the LTG data from February 2103 to get an idea of how things break down (Feb was the last time dollar amounts for all categories were reported).

Stability: $20 million (42.6%)

Neutral: $18 million (38.3%)

Minimalist: $4 million (8.5%)

Motion Control: $2 million (4.3%)

Racing: $2 million (4.3%)

Trail: $1 million (2.1%)

So yes, minimal as a category (not sure how it is defined by LTG) is still a small portion of overall market at run specialty. Furthermore, we are not seeing the the level of growth that was seen back in early 2012, which suggests to me not that sales are down so much as that the market for minimal shoes has matured. In fact, the only month where sales were down relative to last year was a month in which sales for all other categories were down equally or even more.

One other interesting data point arrived in my inbox this morning from LTG in the form of an Independent Shoe Store Market Summary. My assumption is that these are generalist stores that sell both running and fashion shoes (much like my local store Joe King’s). For Jan-April 2013, here are the top six running brands at independent shoe stores: New Balance, Brooks, Asics, Saucony, Nike, Merrell. I was surprised to see Merrell there, and the report highlights the fact that “Merrell’s minimalist styles jumped 31% with names like Bare, Crush Glove and Mix Master.”

So what’s the take-home here? If you read the SportsOneSource data then minimal are down big time if you ignore Nike Free and recall the varied retail sources that they pull their sales data from. If you look at Leisure Trends Group data from running specialty stores then it’s clear that growth of minimal as a category has slowed, but has not declined (except for minimal trail which may be a victim of the overall sharp decline in trail shoe sales as a whole). And at independent shoe stores minimal lines like Merrell Barefoot seem to be doing quite well so far in 2013. Unfortunately, shoe sales through the big box, discount, mall, sporting goods, etc. channels are huge compared to sales at specialty running, and have the ability to drive what is developed and pushed on the market, so sales to non-runners may influence what type of shoes are available to runners.

Some final thoughts:

1. I still have no idea how minimal is defined by any of these organizations.

2. You have to consider the data source and the type of consumer represented when trying to interpret trends for the running market.

3. The data from the next few months (Spring-Summer sales) will be telling as to the health of minimalist as a category at specialty running. I’ll share the data as I get it!

The Dollar Sign (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Last week Scott Douglas published an article on Runnersworld.com with the title “Sales of Minimalist Shoes Plummet.” I’ve seen this article referenced a number of places over the past week, and I wanted to add a few comments.

The data that Douglas referenced come from a SportsOneSource 1st Quarter 2013 summary report. According to the report, “SOS collects point of sale data from most of the major U.S. Sporting Goods, Athletic Footwear and Running and Outdoor specialty retailers.” This is an important point since it shows that the data do not necessarily reflect what actual runners are buying, but rather a broader view of sales out of multiple retail channels (presumably including things like big box sporting goods stores and mall shoe stores in addition to running specialty stores). From a business perspective this makes sense – most running shoes that are purchased are probably not actually used for running, and running shoe companies would not be nearly as profitable if they catered only to hard-core runners. So the SOS data are a good indicator of the broader picture of what people are buying, but not necessarily a good indicator of what runners are actually wearing out on the roads.

Regarding running, here is what the report had to say:

“Running, declared dead by the stock market, continues to accelerate.  Sales of Running shoes grew in the high singles for the period.  The conventional categories have rebounded nicely.

Stability improved in the mid-teens, Motion Control more than +25% and Cushioning in the mid singles.  Lightweight, which remains the largest sub category, grew in the low teens.

One casualty of the return to more conventional (but lighter weight) shoes has been the Minimalist/Barefoot trend.  Net of Nike Free, Minimalist/Barefoot declined in the low teens and represented only about 4% of total Running.  It appears this fad is pretty much over.

The core Running brands all had strong sales increases.  Under Armour Running doubled for the year so far. Brooks and Mizuno improved about 40%, Asics about 25% and Saucony in the low teens.

Nike (60% share) Running grew in the high teens.  Adidas and Reebok both declined sharply.  Last year to date, Reebok had 10% market share in Running; this year their share was 3%.”

One might look at these data and conclude that minimalism is dead – when Nike Free is removed (because SOS doesn’t consider them to be a shoe used much by runners), minimalist/barefoot sales represented only 4% of sales in the running shoe market. This is indeed a small number, and the trend is that sales have been decreasing of late.

My question is how the minimalist/barefoot category is defined if Nike Free is included, and that gets to my issue when trying to interpret much of the sales data that is out there. I don’t know what is included in these categories, or how they are defined. If the Nike Free Run 5.0 is included in the minimalist/barefoot category, then the definition must be pretty broad and would have to include competitors like the Saucony Mirage/Kinvara, the entire New Balance Minimus range, all of the Brooks PureProject, etc. Judging by which of my reviews get the most traffic (top 5 reviews so far this year in terms of # of hits are of the Brooks PureCadence, Saucony Kinvara, Skechers GoRun 2, Saucony Virrata, and Brooks PureFlow), shoes like the Kinvara/Mirage and Brooks PureProject are among the most popular out there right now among runners. When I was at Saucony HQ a few months ago they told me the Kinvara is one of their top selling shoes. I’d guess that the PureProject is doing quite well for Brooks too. My guess would be that most of those shoes are in the “lightweight” category that is mentioned in the report, which is where I’d see the Nike Free fitting in (Nike Free is amply cushioned and all but the Free 3.0 are above 4mm drop).

If barefoot/minimalist category consisted of zero drop, minimal cushion shoes like the zero drop NB Minimus, Merrell Barefoot line, and Vibram Fivefingers, then the data make much more sense. Vibram Fivefingers sales seem to have dropped off a cliff, and if my observations at any number of races are any indication, the number of people running regularly in shoes like this has never been very big (even if sales numbers were high). It’s a niche for sure. I view shoes like these as a full time option for some, but as a tool to be used in a mix of footwear for most.

To me, the most important line in the SOS report is the following: “Lightweight, which remains the largest sub category, grew in the low teens.” The lasting impact of the barefoot trend of the past few years will be that it opened up a new category of running shoes that has now eclipsed traditional neutral and stability shoes in total sales (recognizing that defining limits to these categories is a very tricky business since shoes are more on a spectrum now than they are easily divided into neat little categories).

Running shoes have gotten lighter, low drop shoes like the Kinvara and PureProject have done very well, and design elements from barefoot-style shoes have transferred into other categories (e.g., wide toeboxes, zero drop soles in amply cushioned shoes, etc.). The market has shifted toward lighter, simpler shoes, which I think is a very good thing, and variety has increased dramatically, which is even better as it gives each runner more options to choose from when trying to find the perfect match.

When I went to a run specialty store for the first time back in 2007, my options were pretty much limited to a selection of relatively heavy (>10oz) 12mm drop shoes from each manufacturer that fit nicely into either the neutral, stability, or motion control categories. Those days are gone, the market has shifted and science has shown that the old model of fitting shoes wasn’t all that effective. We are now in the midst of trying to figure out how best to fit runners given the variety that now exists.

To give a more honed in view of what runners are buying than what the SOS report reveals, we can take a look at sales data from Leisure Trends Group, which provides reports specifically on sales at run specialty stores (recognizing that even at specialty stores a lot of non-runners are buying the shoes). Let’s take a look at data from February 2013, which is the most recent month for which a complete dollar breakdown by category is provided. Here are sales in dollars by category for running shoes, along with the trend relative to the same month last year:

Stability: 20 million dollars (-7%)

Neutral/Cushion: 18 million dollars (-8%)

Minimalist: 4 million dollars (+2%)

Motion Control: 2 million dollars (-23%)

Race Shoes: 2 million dollars (+7%)

Trail Shoes: 1 million dollars (-25%)

The big losers at run specialty in February were motion control and trail shoes, both of which dropped over 20% relative to Feb 2012. The only categories that increased were minimalist and racing flats. By these numbers minimalist shoes are about 8.5% of sales at run specialty. Still low, but twice the value reported by SOS, and double the sales of motion control. If you add racing flats to minimalist (many minimalist runners purchase racing flats because they tend to have similar design characteristics and are often cheaper), then you have about 13% of the market. Leisure Trends does not appear to break out “lightweight” as a category, and I again don’t know how they define minimalist, so it’s hard to know exactly what is included in these categories. Are the Brooks PureCadence and Saucony Mirage in the “Stability” category? I don’t know.

So what can we conclude from all of this about what runners are putting on their feet? Here’s how I would interpret the data:

1. Barefoot-style shoes like the Vibram Fivefingers and Merrell Barefoot are and will continue to be a very small niche. It’s hard to know from general sales data how much of the recent decline in sales is due to curiosity about toe shoes having died off, and how much is due to the category as a whole dying away. Some will find zero-drop, minimally cushioned shoes to be an answer to their problems, others will try them and have trouble. I value them as casual shoes and training tools, but I prefer shoes with a bit more cushion for most of my running. I think the category will, and should, remain, but will never dominate the market.

2. Lightweight is where it’s at right now. The Nike Frees are killing it in terms of sales, and I would dispute the claim that people aren’t running in them – spend five minutes on any college campus and you will see them on the feet of many of the students running about (I had one student this semester who said she owned like 8 pairs and ran most of her marathon buildup in them). I have several women in my beginner 5K group who are running in them. Yes, they are popular as fashion shoes, but they are decent running shoes as well.

I myself made the jump all the way to barefoot-style shoes, and have migrated back a bit to a sweet-spot that includes light, low-drop shoes with some cushioning. Shoes like the Saucony Kinvara/Mirage and Brooks PureProject are often my first recommendations to runners as they are a good starting point from which people can migrate either upward or downward to find their own sweet spot. My hope is that this category represents the new center of the running shoe spectrum.

3. Motion control shoes are dying away as a shoe choice for runners, but like ultraminimal they have a place for those who have had success in them.

4. Traditional categories are still doing well, and there’s nothing wrong with that. A lot of runners have had long-term success in traditional shoes, and some who have tried more minimal shoes have not found them to be a good fit and have gone back to more traditional models. Top selling shoes are still traditional models like the Brooks Adrenaline, Asics Nimbus, Saucony Guide, etc. I don’t enjoy running in shoes in this mold, but I also don’t see any compelling reason why somebody who has had long-term success in a shoe like this should make a switch.

5. We are blessed by variety. This is the lasting benefit that has come out of the minimalist/barefoot trend. We now have more variety than ever, and the most pressing issue now is how to choose. It remains an exciting time to be a shoe geek!

If you work in running specialty retail, I’d love to hear your thoughts from the trenches – what’s hot right now and where do you see the market going in the future?

The Running Event is the major annual trade show for the specialty running market, and is attended by brands showing off their newest product offerings, and retailers trying to figure out what’s going to be hot in the coming year. Based on the articles, the future of minimalism was a hot topic at the show, and I thought I’d add some of my own commentary on things that were written in the magazine.

Asics’ Simon Bartold on Minimalism and Running Injuries

The first article in the issue was an interview with Simon Bartold, an international research consultant for Asics. Simon and I have had our disagreements in the past, but I also think we tend to agree on many issues regarding the etiology and management of running injuries. His interview is interesting, and there are things I agree with, and things I don’t.

The first question asked of Bartold was “ HOW DO YOU THINK THE WHOLE BAREFOOT/MINIMALIST TREND IS EVOLVING?” His response:

“I actually think it’s dead. I think the big vibe around minimalism and barefoot as it existed 18 months ago has run its course.  We’re starting to see a lot of retailers say, ‘We really can’t sell it. Inventories are stacked up. And we can’t find anything to justify it scientifically.’ So it’s going to go back to where it was – what we called racing flats 10 years ago.

WHAT MINIMALIST PRODUCT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?  Mostly the zero-drop footwear and the whole talk of it as a main running shoe for the bulk of people. That’s the story we’ve been told. We’ve been told that if you go to a zero-drop running shoe then your gait will change and you’ll be running naturally like a caveman. But I think the concept has a fatal flaw and I believe people have seen through it. It’s taken 3 or 4 years but I think that concept is dead in the water.”

I both agree and disagree with what Simon says here. Sales at the barefoot-style end of the minimalist spectrum have indeed died down (particularly toe shoes like Vibram Fivefingers, though even those retain a very passionate niche following), and as with any hot trend things settle into place after an initial burst of popularity (and one must be careful not to equate minimalism with extreme barefoot-style and toe shoes). If he’s talking only about the idea that zero drop or barefoot-style is best for all people being dead, I agree with him, but I think only a small (albeit vocal) minority of people ever espoused that belief.

The reality is that minimalism and zero drop are far from dead – one need only look at the number of zero drop offerings coming out in early 2013 from top 7 brands like Mizuno (Be, Levitas, Cursoris), Brooks (PureDrift), and Saucony (Virrata) to see that zero drop is alive and well (not to mention that New Balance has a large suite of minimal offerings, Nike has the Free line, and adidas just released their own “adipure” natural running line a few months ago – of the big 7, seems that Asics is the only one not joining the minimal party, though they are testing the waters with the Gel-Lyte). Even small and niche companies are getting into the market with minimal spectrum offerings – Altra has developed a strong following and has a suite of new zero drop shoes coming in the next year, and Merrell continues to add zero drop models to their stable of offerings (would they be doing that if their sales had totally tanked?).

Minimalism is not dying, it’s evolving. We are learning through self experimentation – for example, I still like to run in a barefoot-style shoe from time to time, but I prefer a bit of cushion for most of my runs, many of which are in zero drop shoes. We are seeing the pendulum swing back a bit away from extreme minimalism, but more low and zero drop cushioned offerings are on the way. Minimalism may be dead for Asics, but then they never set foot in that market to begin with – it’s hard to evolve a product that you never made a go at.

Regarding Bartold’s comment about minimalism going back to the racing flats of 10 years ago, this is a tired argument that I hear too often and that I disagree with completely. Most so-called minimal shoes out there today are very different than racing flats. Flats tend to be stiff, tight fitting, and sacrifice durability for weight (and, ironically, they are almost never flat) – these are aspects that are specifically designed to support running fast, and Asics makes some very good flats based on what I have heard from other runners. In contrast, minimalist spectrum shoes come in a wide variety of weights (compare the almost 10oz Altra Instinct to the sub 5oz New Balance MT00), have variable amounts of cushioning (Saucony Kinvara vs. Inov-8 Bare-X 180), tend to be very flexible, and typically have a wide forefoot. Let’s please drop the “minimalist shoes are just re-marketed racing flats” line of argument.

I also disagree with Simon’s contention that we can’t find anything to justify minimalism scientifically, especially since he himself talks about different needs for different people (and I agree with him completely on this!). We have learned a lot in the past few years about how different footwear can alter forces applied to our bodies, how form training can be used clinically to treat injuries, and how footwear can influence our form. A barefoot-style shoe will alter force application just as a motion control shoe or custom orthotic will, it’s just a matter of understanding how forces are altered so that appropriate decisions can be made for each individual. None of these options are necessarily inherently bad, they’re just different, and one runner might benefit from a barefoot-style shoe whereas another might benefit from a more structured style of footwear.

I don’t want to come off sounding as if I disagree with everything that Bartold says, because I don’t. In fact I strongly agree with what he says here:

“The biggest problem with us as runners in the western world is we tend to run in the same manner, which means the same loading at each step, and the human body is very bad at adapting to that. This whole concept that you should mix the terrain you run on – some hills, some sand, some grass – and especially the look of the shoe to a less structured one at least a couple runs a week is completely logical from an injury prevention standpoint. Running in the same pair of shoes during the week is not varying the input signal enough. If you’re running on a different terrain or using a lightweight, lower drop, more flexible shoe like the GEL-Lyte for shorter, faster runs during the week, you’re not hitting the same repetitive load all the time. You’re not radically changing the experience, but enough to mix up the input signal in a positive manner.”

I’m an advocate for variation. Vary your shoes, vary your workouts, vary your terrain. Mix up force application and I think you will be better off from an injury prevention standpoint. This might mean a minimal shoe on some days, and a Hoka One One on others. There’s nothing wrong with using shoes that vary widely in their properties if it works for you, no need to be dogmatic about one style or another (and this is why I find it confusing that Bartold speaks so strongly against zero drop and barefoot-style shoes in one response and then openly supports variation in another).

I also agree with this:

“If you want to be active, there are risks involved and you probably will get an injury from time to time. And getting in better shape and doing simple exercises to strengthen your hamstrings and butt muscles will likely pay off better than changing your strike pattern. From a footwear standpoint, it’s very hard for us to build anything that we can say will definitely change injury rates because injury is caused by different things and footwear is a tiny piece of the jigsaw.”

I agree that too much emphasis has been placed on foot strike modification – yes, it can make a difference, but it can also cause problems, and one must be careful in making a change. There are also other things that can be done that might better protect you from injury than playing with your foot strike (strengthening, optimizing stride length, varying footwear and training, etc.). I might argue that footwear is more than a “tiny piece” of the jigsaw puzzle based on my own personal experience with a lot of shoes, but I’ll leave it at that.

Brand Views on Minimalism and the 2013 Shoe Market

The second article is titled “Running Market Retains its Mojo” and focuses more widely on trends in the running retail market. Once again I’ll focus mainly on the discussion of minimalism here, which the article introduces as follows:

“In the aisles the talk was still largely about the evolution of the minimalist trend. Marked by the slowdown with Vibram’s FiveFinger franchise, the market appears to be shifting for 2013 away from targeting purely minimal looks to offering a more generous amount of cushioning and structured options in a lightweight package. Heel-toe drops may fall in the zero to 8mm range, but stack heights (outsole to footbed) are coming closer to the 15 to 25mm range.

Nonetheless, lightweight still rules the day with motion-control shoes certainly not making a comeback. Many of the learnings of minimalism, including lean construction, flexibility as well as theories around natural motion and natural transition through the midfoot, continue to work their way into next year’s models.”

This passage really highlights to me the major positive outcome of the minimalist movement. It’s not so much that we now view ultraminimal shoes with no cushion as a viable option for some (but not all, and probably not even most) runners (don’t get me wrong, this is a good thing), it’s moreso that the trend has pushed the market in a new direction away from the old neutral-stability-motion control paradigm where almost every shoe was 10-12mm drop, looked pretty much the same, and weighed over 10oz.

We are now in a market filled with much more variety, and this is a great thing, but with variety comes complexity in choosing the right shoe, and this is where knowledgeable retailers are critical – science may or may not ever be able to tell us which shoe is ideal for you, and help from a retailer experienced with a variety of shoes is critical.

The article goes on to interview reps from various brands who share their thoughts on minimalism. Here’s a selection:

Ryan reports that Scott Tucker of Pearl Izumi feels barefoot and “super-low-to-the-ground, no-midsole” options are “dying away.” Ryan quotes Tucker:

“What we have been calling minimalism is evolving into something else which doesn’t have a name but which brands like Pearl Izumi are addressing,” said Tucker. ”It’s taking those elements that became popular in minimalism evolving them and making sense of it.”

In other words, we don’t know what to call it, but Pearl Izumi are on it! (I might offer that the term “transitional” shoe has been in use for awhile for this niche) Not exactly a winning marketing message, and I’m not sure what elements they are planning to make sense of since the major tenets of minimalism are pretty straightforward (less drop, less cushion, wider forefoot, greater flexibility, more work done by the runner’s body, etc.).

Next we have Dave Jewell of Zoot, who Ryan reports as believing the following with regard to form:

…although the running industry was due for a “reset” since shoes were becoming over-built over the years, he laments that much of the natural discussion is around the midfoot strike.

“I have an active son so I live and breath cross country,” said Jewell. “I go to practices and the coaches talk about running form – staying relaxed, running proud and not slumping your shoulders. These coaches who have been doing this well before these new shoes arrived never talked about midfoot strike. Running has nothing to do with where your foot lands.”

Running has nothing to do with where your foot lands? Nothing???

Now, I’ll grant that foot strike modification has been overemphasized, but there is plenty of science describing how foot strike can alter force application (Bartold even discusses it in his interview) and foot strike modification can be used as a therapeutic tool for some injuries. Just because his son’s cross country coach doesn’t talk about midfoot strike doesn’t mean that foot strike is not important. In fact, the cross country coach at my college (and he’s been coaching a long, long time as well) just sent one of his runners to me a few weeks ago to talk about his foot strike since he has been chronically injured (tibial stress fractures). Heck, prominent runners have talked about foot strike for over 100 years – Arthur Newton, Bill Bowerman, Joe Henderson, Tom Osler, Jim Fixx, Gordon Pirie, Ryan Hall and many others have all had some strong feelings on the topic (and they don’t all agree). As you might guess, I’m not a fan of black and white thinking along the lines of “Running has nothing to do with where you foot lands.” It can matter quite a lot for some people (such as the runners with anterior compartment syndrome in this study).

Let’s move along to what I thought were the best two responses from shoe manufacturers in the article. First is adidas:

“It’s an exciting time,” said Pete Stolpe, marketing specialist, running, Adidas America. “Because never in the history of the industry has there been more companies with more footwear. The individual runner can truly have a choice and a voice of what they want to put on their foot. If you’re a high arched runner, if you’re a forefoot runner, whatever your running gait is, whatever your distance preference is, there’s never been a time in the industry‘s history where you have more companies where each runner can absolutely choose what they want on their foot. The bottom line benefit is runners win because they have more choices than ever before and they have more of a voice. That’s fantastic for the health of the sport and makes it more inclusive as it’s ever been because there’s something for everybody.”

And then Brooks, who demonstrate here why they are now the leading brand in specialty running – this is as fine a statement of how things should be done as I have seen from any brand thus far:

Brooks Footwear Product Line Manager Carson Caprara said the research will seek
to “clear up” much of the ongoing conflicting information in the marketplace but particularly focus on the individual. For instance, the research will seek to explain why someone with chronic running injuries in the past may have suddenly become injury-free when switching to a minimal shoe. Perhaps even more puzzlingly, it will try to understand why someone else when viewed on a treadmill with the exact same gait alignment gets injured when wearing a minimal shoe.

“I think it may entail shifting the paradigm a little bit in how we look at runners and injuries and how we build shoes and that hopefully long term will resonate and make sense for retailers and runners across the spectrum,” said Caprara. “It will have an element of choice, but also bring a little bit of the science back into the equation about optimal running for each individual. And it’s going to focus less on there being one standardized baseline that everyone has to be aligned in this one way to what is your best alignment as an individual and looking at your optimal motion and your optimal alignment and figuring out how to keep you in that alignment as you run. And that’s very different because now it’s, ‘Let’s put a bunch of people on a treadmill and try to align them on the same plane.’ But for some people, that plane may not work.”

“It’s just a matter of not having one point of view but offering choices for runners and I really think that’s resonating,” said Caprara. “We’re not telling runners you have to run minimal or run core. Run them both. We’re going to build them both for your type of foot and you can make the choice on what you prefer.”

The future is not about minimalism, it’s about choice. With the variety that now exists in the running shoe market we can each individually hone in on our needs and preferences. Some of us will wind up being be minimalists, some of us will be maximalists, and neither is necessarily right or wrong. I mostly write about minimalism here on Runblogger because it’s my personal preference and I review shoes that I like to run in. That being said, I have no problem recommending a more traditional style shoe when asked if it’s appropriate and fits within the preferences of a runner looking for advice. Whether we land on our forefot, midfoot, or heel, we can likely find a shoe that will work pretty well with our chosen or unconscious (for those who could care less about form work) running style. We can also find a shoe that will accommodate the varying widths of our feet and meet our aesthetic requirements. We live in an exciting time as runners when it comes to our footwear options, and the shake-up that minimalism caused is a big part of that.

The challenge going forward is not so much adding more variety to the market (don’t get me wrong, innovation should continue), but rather to figure out how best to match a runner to a shoe among the variety that exists. As the Brooks rep points out, the methods we have been using (trying to control pronation so that we all look the same) have not stood up to scientific testing over the past few years. We need to move on, and we need scientists and retailers to work together to develop new and better protocols – neither in isolation will be able to answer this question in a general way for most people. Scientists need to continue to investigate better practices for matching runners to shoes, and retailers need to help scientists understand the footwear business and what methods will be most successful in a retail setting (e.g., it can’t require a million dollar piece of machinery or a Ph.D. in biomechanics to implement it).

The shoe industry has changed, of that there is no doubt. I ran my first mile in a pair of the original Nike Free 3.0’s back in 2009, and now the Nike Free is the best selling running shoe on the market (even if most who wear it don’t run in it). Times change, as do preferences, but I’m confident that we are moving forward in a positive way, and that the events of the past few years have changed the shoe industry for the better. I’m excited to see what the future will bring!

I highly recommend that you read the articles in SGB Weekly yourself: http://sportsonesourcecloud.com/sgbweekly/SGBW_1251hi.pdf

As always, thoughts are always welcome, leave a comment below!

Here is Matt’s report on Q1 2012 sales:

“Running sales declined in the low singles in Q1 on the weak April.  While Lightweight Running (25% of all Running) grew about 20%, it was more than offset by losses in Stability (-25%) Motion Control (down mid singles) and Cushioning (down high singles). Lightweight Running doubled in the Family channel. Nike Lightweight grew in the mid singles and has 42% share.  Reebok (39% share) leaped more than 40%, but average selling price declined about -15%. Adidas Lightweight grew about 20% with Asics up in the high singles.

Sales of Minimalist/barefoot more than doubled on the quarter and reached 12% of all Running sales. However, Nike has a 65% share in Minimalist, all on the Free platform.  When we back Free out, Minimalist Running is about 4% of all Running shoes sold, about what it represented in 2011. Barefoot/Minimalist still appears at best to be niche business.

Nike Minimalist shoes were up nearly double, all on Free.  Merrell sales also doubled and had a 4.7% share. Asics (5% share) and Brooks (6.4% share) Minimalist grew nearly tenfold. New Balance more than doubled and achieved 6% share.

Back in overall Running, Nike brand sales declined in the low singles but held share at 52.9%. Reebok grew by half and share leapt 400 basis points to 10.4%. Asics declined in the high teens and share dropped 200 basis points to 11.2% Adidas and Under Armour Running sales were flat.”

For comparative purposes, Leisure Trends Group, which publishes data on sales through Running Specialty channels, recently reported data for March 2012. Here is their report, which also shows continued growth in the minimalist category (up %119 from March 2011!) in Running Specialty:

“RetailTRAK™ March 2012 – Running Specialty Retail Sales

The warmest March on record brought continued velocity for specialty running store sales. Compared to March 2011, sales gained 13% to total $90M. Average retail-selling prices slipped 4% to chip away at an 18% unit growth. Closing out the quarter, run specialty brought in $218M or 12% more dollars than the same Q1 last year.

Running shoes, with $61M in sales, jumped 16% over last March. Road running shoes, with $56M, gained 17%. While stability models ($27M, +9%) and Neutral/Cushion models ($26M, +29%) drove sales, Motion Control models slipped another 1% to total a more modest $3M. Trail runners also proved to be popular, up 8% with over $2M in March sales.

Minimalism roared into spring with the category continuing to outpace traditional models. Minimalist Neutral/Cushion road running shoes pulled in $4M, up 119%, compared to $22M (+19%) for traditional Neutral/Cushion models. Minimalist trail runners totaled $900K (+30%) this March compared to $1.2M for traditional models which slipped 4%.”

To give you an idea of the current state of the running shoe market, I wanted to first share some data provide by Leisure Trends on Running Specialty Retail Sales for December 2011. LTG reports that December sales at running specialty stores increased by 13% relative to 2010, sparked in part by the warmer than usual weather and less snow across the US compared to 2010. They go on to break down sales of running shoes by category, with comparisons to sales in December 2010:

Road running shoes, 89% of all shoe dollars sold, pulled in $37M, a 19% increase over December 2010. Neutral/cushion shoes did best within the road running category gaining an impressive 35% to total $17M for the month. Both minimalist ($2.8M, +110%) and traditional ($14M, +26%) models contributed to the gains. Stability shoes also did well bringing in nearly $18M (+10%).

Less snow meant cleaner, drier trails this December and that helped trail running shoes to a 67% dollar increase over last year. The category totaled $1.6M as ARSP rose 6% building on the 58% unit jump. While minimalist models drove the growth ($562K, +658%), traditional trail running shoes ($1M, +17%) saw a boost as well.

Not reported in the quoted text above is the fact that motion control shoes are the only category that saw a decline relative to 2010 (-2%). Of note, largest relative increases were in minimalist road shoes (+110%) and minimalist trail shoes (+658%). If my math is correct, these numbers indicate that minimalist shoes were about 16-17% of the running specialty road shoe market in December, and minimalist shoes were about 36% of the trail shoe market in December (note – I’m not exactly sure what LTG includes in the minimalist category).

For another take, here’s what Matt Powell of SportsOneSource and Princeton Analysis had to say in his 4th quarter 2011 sales report:

“Running remained a strong category even as sales improved about +10% in units and dollars.  Nike Running sales grew in the low singles and took 54% share. Reebok Running doubled and share nearly doubled to 11%.  Asics grew in the low singles as share hit 11.5%. New Balance declined in the mid singles while Adidas grew in the high singles.  Under Armour Running doubled and share hit 1.3%.  The Core Running brands (Saucony, Mizuno and Brooks) all had solid performances.

As we have seen for a while Lightweight is now cannibalizing the traditional Running categories.  Stability declined in the high singles and Cushioning in the low singles.  Lightweight Running grew about 75% and represented 30% of all Running shoes sold for the quarter. In Lightweight Nike has a 45% share, Reebok 32%, and Adidas 5%.

Minimalist Running (a subset of Lightweight) grew more than double for the quarter, and represented about 9% of all Running.  Nike has 71% share of minimal driven by the Free franchise.  Vibram, Merrell, New balance, Asics and Saucony each have about a 5% share.”

It should be noted that the above data are from sales at U.S. Sporting Goods, Athletic Footwear and Outdoor specialty retailers, so not quite the same pool as the Running Specialty data provided by LTG (e.g., I doubt Reebok has that big a market share among running specialty…). The Nike Free Run+ was one of the top 5 selling athletic shoes of any type (including basketball shoes) in Q4, and if my students are any evidence, this does not surprise me at all. Comparing these numbers to those from LTG suggests that minimalist might have a bigger market share in running specialty than it does in other sales outlets.

What to make of all of this this? My take would be that the move to lighter shoes and away from more traditional models is continuing (evidenced by the fact that it now represents 1/3 of the running shoe market). As an aside, I asked Matt Powell on Twitter what constitutes lightweight running, and he indicated that the category includes shoes that weigh under 10 oz. Minimalist, which is a subcategory of lightweight, still represents a relatively small percentage of the running shoe market, but it is continuing to grow. I think what we are seeing is a gradual realignment of the shoe market that has been driven by the minimalist movement. Folks who are not keen on running in shoes like a Vibram Fivefingers or Merrell Barefoot are experimenting with lightweight, transitional options like the Nike Free, Saucony Kinvara, Brooks Pure, and so on. And lightweight trail shoes have been red hot for some time.

It will be interesting to see how things shake out going forward, and whether this trend continues. At the very least, I’m feel pretty confident in saying that what we are seeing is not a fad, and does actually represent the new reality of the running footwear market.