Examples of barefoot-style shoes (clockwise from bottom center): Vibram FiveFingers SeeYa; inov-8 Bare-X Lite 135; Vivobarefoot Evo; Adidas AdiPure Adapt; Merrell Road Glove.
WHAT DO WE MEAN when we talk about minimalist shoes?
As minimalist and barefoot running have exploded in popularity the last few years, most manufacturers have introduced models said to be in that category. But one manufacturer’s minimalist model is another manufacturer’s idea of a conventional running shoe. And, of course, different runners have different ideas about what minimalism means. Barefoot devotees apply the term only to barely there models such as the Vibram FiveFingers or Merrell Trail Glove, while runners who are used to 14-ounce trainers with high heels call the Saucony Kinvara a minimalist shoe.
Who’s right? They all are. Remember, minimalism and barefooting are a means to the end of better running form. If you find that a given shoe within the broad brush of minimalism helps you to achieve that goal, then that’s a minimalist shoe for you. Rigid classifications and debates about what is and isn’t a minimalist shoe miss the point of why runners should pay attention to the matter in the first place.
That said, there are certain characteristics that most minimalist shoes share. In this chapter, we’ll look at those characteristics and how they can be combined to produce a few broad categories under the minimalism umbrella. In doing so, we’ll see how minimalism applies to trail shoes. We’ll also examine a question many longtime runners have: If you want to run in a light, low-to-the-ground shoe that encourages getting off your heels, why not just do all your training in racing flats?
Ask 100 people to define the phrase “serious runner,” and you’ll get at least 30 different answers. Some will emphasize speed, others distance. Some will focus on competitive record, others daily dedication. But when considering any one runner, most people would get to their answer not through some theoretical definition, but by the way Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart defined pornography—you know it when you see it.
That thinking is applicable to minimalist shoes—you know one when you see it. So in the following description of shared characteristics among minimalist shoes, I’m working more from the standpoint of “What do shoes most people consider minimalist have in common?” than “For a shoe to be considered minimalist, it must meet these criteria or we’re not going to talk about it.” The former approach not only broadens the types of shoes to consider, but also gets us past arguments about shoe specifics so that we can concentrate on the more important matter of which shoe is right for you.
Here are the key characteristics that most minimalist running shoes have to some degree. Some characteristics will be more important to some runners than others. And some shoes will have more of some characteristics and less of others. That’s good, because it increases the chances of finding one that’s right for where you are in your minimalist adventure.
Low to the ground. Minimalist shoes have less foam or other material between you and the ground than do conventional running shoes. What’s known as a lower “stack height” results in better road feel and encourages your feet to work more naturally. A higher stack height potentially introduces instability, because there’s that much more between your proprioceptive muscles and the ground. Look for heels that are less than around 25 millimeters high and a forefoot height not greater than around 17 millimeters, while bearing in mind these are general guidelines rather than deal-breakers for a given shoe.
Not much difference between heel and forefoot height. The difference between a shoe’s heel height and forefoot height is known as the ramp angle. Research has shown that too great a ramp angle—as found in most conventional running shoes—can lead to overstriding, heel landing in runners who might otherwise be midfoot-strikers, and other undesirable aspects of running form.
Most minimalist models retain a slightly higher heel than forefoot. Even more moderate “transitional” shoes—conventional-looking models that many runners use to experiment with minimalism—can have just a slight ramp angle. The Saucony Kinvara, for example, has a reported 4-millimeter drop from heel to forefoot, while the Brooks PureConnect has a reported 5-millimeter drop. (Note that these are the measurements reported by manufacturers. Measurements in the Runner’s World Shoe Lab often yield different values, such as a 7-millimeter drop for the Kinvara and a 4-millimeter drop for the PureConnect.)
A few shoes, such as most Altras and Merrells, are what are known as “zero-drop,” meaning no difference between heel and forefoot height.
Light weight. As noted in Chapter 4, too much weight on your feet reduces your running economy. Almost by definition, minimalist shoes should be among the lightest models on the market. As a general guideline, think less than 9 ounces for a men’s size 9 and less than 8 ounces for a women’s size 8.
A simple upper. The top part of your shoe should do little more than secure your foot to the bottom of the shoe. Thick overlays and heavily padded tongues add weight without increasing performance.
A wider-than-average toebox. Many conventional running shoes (as well as many racing flats) taper at the front of the shoe. This horribly conceived design inhibits your foot’s natural flexion in the forward arch and constrains your toes’ ability to splay. When arch flexion and toe splaying are allowed, these parts of the foot can better help in propelling you forward. The widest part of most people’s feet is across the heads of the metatarsals (toe bones). A shoe designed to encourage a natural running gait should reflect that.
A lack of gadgetry. Running shoe industry mainstays like dual-density midsoles and plastic devices intended to control pronation are exactly what minimalist runners are trying to run away from. These add-ons not only increase a shoe’s weight but can also inhibit the foot’s natural motion.
Flexibility. A minimalist shoe ideally should be flexible in two ways—from front to back and from side to side. This allows your foot to move naturally through the gait cycle and to adapt instantly to the different ground conditions you encounter on a typical run.
Information on some of these characteristics is relatively easy to find on your own through manufacturers’ Web sites, magazine shoe reviews, and online retailers. (The site RunningWarehouse.com sets the standard for giving stack height and weight for every model it sells.) Other characteristics are harder to judge without seeing and touching the shoe. This can be tricky for many models, as most retailers still lean heavily toward carrying conventional running shoes over a full range of minimalist models.
Also consider that some of the most innovative minimalist shoes, such as Altra, are small companies that have yet to make their way into most stores. In these cases, your best bet is to find a retailer who will work with you on a fair return policy if you decide a shoe won’t work for you once you’ve seen it and tried it on.
Within the broad rubric of minimalism, it’s helpful to think of three main categories: barely there/barefoot-style, moderate minimalists, and transitional/gateway shoes. Here’s more on each of those categories, again with the caveat that these are general groupings more than distinct silos.
Examples of barefoot-style shoes (clockwise from bottom center): Vibram FiveFingers SeeYa; inov-8 Bare-X Lite 135; Vivobarefoot Evo; Adidas AdiPure Adapt; Merrell Road Glove.
These are the minimalist’s minimalists, so to speak. They have the no real midsole to speak of, just an outsole for abrasion resistance, putting your foot no more than 10 millimeters off the ground. They have almost no cushioning. They also have a tiny or nonexistent ramp angle and a wide toebox. The whole idea is to let your foot work as naturally as possible while providing a bit of protection from underfoot items. Examples include the Vibram FiveFingers, Vivobarefoot Evo, and Merrell Road Glove.
Examples of moderate minimalist shoes (left to right): Altra Instinct 1.5; Skechers GoRun; New Balance Minimus Road.
These shoes share many characteristics of the barely there models, including a slight ramp angle, wide forefoot, and, usually, firm midsole. Their stack height is greater than those of the barefoot-style models but noticeably lower than those of conventional running shoes. Most runners new to minimalism will feel like their mechanics are different in these shoes, but because the shoes retain some elements of conventional running shoes, won’t find them to be as abrupt a change as they do the barely there shoes. Examples include the New Balance Minimus Road, Altra Instinct, Nike Free, and Skechers GoRun.
Examples of transitional minimalist shoes (left to right): Saucony Kinvara; Newton Distance; Brooks PureConnect.
These shoes retain many of the features of conventional running shoes, including a relatively high stack height and soft midsole. Their defining feature is a low ramp angle. Many runners use these shoes as their entrée into minimalism—hence the category name—by first adapting to the low ramp angle, then moving closer to the ground in more minimalist models if so inspired. Examples include the Saucony Kinvara, Brooks PureConnect, and Newton Gravitas.
In the 1990s, Ann Trason was one of the top ultramarathoners in the world. She won the storied Western States 100-miler 14 times; the course record she set there in 1994 lasted until 2012.
Trason was sponsored by Nike and appeared in an ad for Nike trail shoes in the mid-’90s. So when I spent a few days with her in 1996, I was surprised that for a long run on the Western States trail we started together, she had on the Nike Air Skylon T/C, an excellent lightweight road shoe of the time. When I asked her why someone in a Nike trail shoe ad was going to do a 44-mile (!) trail run in road shoes, she said, “A good shoe is a good shoe.”
So take it from Trason, not me: A good shoe for running on the roads should also work well on trails. Trason’s comment was especially pertinent in the mid-’90s. Companies were just starting to introduce trail running shoes, most of which were more hiking boot than performance-oriented running shoe. The heavy, sturdy shoes seemed counterintuitive—on trails, wouldn’t you want something that much more flexible, nimble, and low to the ground to help quickly adjust to varying terrain?
Since then, trail running shoes have markedly improved, but it really took the minimalist movement to get trail shoes toward what they should have been from the start. Now you can find the same range of minimalist trail shoes—from barely there to borderline conventional—as you can road shoes. Of course, Trason’s tenet still holds. But if you are interested in minimalist trail shoes, what should you look for?
The first thing to consider is the difference between a road shoe and a trail shoe. The largest difference is usually in the outsole. A trail shoe is going to have a more rugged, aggressive design to better handle the constantly changing surface underfoot.
Before minimalist trail shoes were widely available, I tried some trail runs in road racing flats, on the theory that their light, flexible construction would give me greater agility over roots and rocks. And they did. But the flat, uncontoured outsole of the racing shoes also meant that I felt every root and rock I stepped on. These weren’t the most enjoyable trail runs of my life—if I wasn’t landing on something hard and sharp, I was cherry-picking my way down the trail in more of a prancing than running motion. Some trail shoes have a rock plate, a thin layer of reinforced material directly above the outsole, to allow more cruising and less bruising over tricky terrain.
For similar reasons, trail shoes tend to have more of a protective upper. The reasoning here is that a sturdier wrap across the top of the foot will give greater protection from various rocks and twiggery protruding from the trail and will shelter the side and top of your foot if you roll an ankle while navigating uncertain ground. Reinforced sidewalls are common to help keep trail debris from entering the shoe.
Throw in other features, like a firm midsole to increase stability, and conventional trail running shoes start to outweigh their road-running counterparts by 2 to 3 ounces.
Examples of minimalist trail shoes (clockwise from bottom center): New Balance Minimus Amp; Brooks PureGrit; Merrell Trail Glove; Adidas Adizero XT-10; inov-8 f-lite 230.
These days, one of the worst-performing categories in the running-shoe business is traditional trail shoes, while one of the hottest is minimalist trail shoes. One retailer I spoke with lamented that he couldn’t unload conventional trail shoes even at liquidation prices.
It makes sense that some of the greatest enthusiasm for minimalism has come from trail runners. What better place to get back to more natural running than in the woods or around a lake or atop a mountain ridge? Also, on a soft surface like a bridle path or the floor of a pine forest, a shoe’s lack of cushioning isn’t as noticeable as on asphalt. And as I mentioned above, for many runners, traditional trail shoes harmed rather than helped the more agile, no-two-strides-the-same gait that’s appropriate on many trails.
That said, I can vouch that less isn’t always better on trails. This breakthrough insight stems from some short runs I did in the Maine woods in an early iteration of the Vibram FiveFingers. The experience was much the same as when I ran on the rutted, rooty ground in road flats—at times more of a walk-and-jump motion than something resembling running. Fortunately, there are now plenty of light, flexible, low-to-the-ground shoes with a trail-appropriate outsole.
How minimal to go with a trail shoe depends more on what the trails you run on are like than on the cushioning question that might mostly guide what minimalist road shoe you seek. No matter how adept a trail runner you are, some venues—such as a single-track trail over lots of rocks and roots—are going to get tiresome after a while in some of the more barely there models. There’s a freedom in trail running that can be diminished by having to be aware of every footplant; if you’re running amid great scenery, don’t you want to be able to look around at times? There are enough minimalist trail models available that you should be able to find a happy medium between a close-to-barefoot feel and enough underfoot protection so that you can lose yourself in the run.
In the early years of this century, I found myself gravitating toward doing almost all my running in racing shoes. This wasn’t because I was working from a creedal statement of what shoes are acceptable to run in, and it certainly wasn’t because I was cranking out daily tempo runs. It was simply that, as training shoes kept getting bigger and bigger, the only widely available models that still felt like shoes I wanted to run in were racing shoes.
I wasn’t alone in this solution. Message boards of the time were full of runners sharing advice (and frustrations) on which racing flats worked best as daily trainers. Given where shoes were heading then—toward ever-thicker stack heights and greater ramp angles—saying, “I do all my running in racing shoes” wasn’t as dramatic a pronouncement as it might appear. A lot of racing shoes were also trending up in height and weight. Shoes like the original Saucony Fastwitch and the Fila Racer were more or less what lightweight trainers had been a dozen years before.
Now that there’s a wide variety of minimalist shoes designed for daily running, does training in racing shoes still make sense?
Given what most people are looking for in a minimalist shoe, yes. The average racing flat is responsive and low to the ground, and doesn’t have much of a ramp angle. Consider something like the Asics Hyperspeed, the shoe that Ryan Hall races marathons in. In a men’s size 9, it weighs 7 ounces and has a stack height of 21 millimeters in the heel and 15 millimeters in the forefoot. Now consider the first generation of the New Balance Minimus Road, one of the poster children of mainstream minimalism. In a men’s size 9, it weighs 8 ounces and has a stack height of 19 millimeters in the heel and 14 millimeters in the forefoot. The Hyperspeed is marketed as a racing shoe, the Minimus Road as a daily trainer, but in terms of two of the most important factors minimalists look for in a shoe, there’s not much to distinguish the two models.
Examples of racing flats (clockwise from bottom center): Newton MV2; Mizuno Universe; Asics Hyperspeed; Adidas Adizero Hagio; New Balance 1400.
At the really minimal end of the spectrum, to most people a racing flat like the Mizuno Wave Universe (4 ounces in a men’s size 9, stack height of 19 millimeters in the heel, 14 millimeters in the forefoot) isn’t going to feel that different from something like the Merrell Road Glove (6.9 ounces in a men’s size 9, stack height of 11 millimeters in the heel and forefoot).
A few caveats: One way that manufacturers keep weight down in racing flats is with a blown rubber outsole, which wears out more quickly than a standard outsole. Then again, the Hyperspeed, which has a blown rubber outsole, costs $75, compared with more than $100 for most shoes marketed as minimalist models. If you tend to switch shoes for reasons other than outsole wear, then racing flats can make good financial sense as an everyday option.
Perhaps more important for many minimalists’ purposes, many racing flats are built on a traditional spike last (basically, the mold or skeleton around which the shoe is built). Models made this way tend to taper toward the front of the foot and have a low toebox. This is in contrast to the wide forefoot that’s a key part of the design of many minimalist shoes. (Why racing flats, which are supposedly created to encourage best-possible mechanics, retain a design that inhibits natural foot motion remains a mystery.)
Also, many racing flats have a higher ramp angle than even the gateway minimalist shoes. For example, the Adidas Adios 2, which Patrick Makau wore to set a marathon world record at Berlin in 2011, has a heel-to-toe differential of 9 millimeters, compared with a 4-millimeter drop for the Saucony Kinvara or 5-millimeter drop for the Brooks PureFlow.
Put simply, consider racing shoes as an option when deciding on a minimalist shoe, even if you never intend to compete. As we’ll see in the next section, the best approach is to focus on criteria, not category, when deciding what shoes are best for you.
We’ve just spent several pages looking at various categories of minimalist shoes. That’s good and necessary information, because it’s important to know your options and the thinking that goes into them. But as we saw with racing shoes, sometimes shoes are in a given category more because of a company’s way of looking at the world than because of where they fit in with everything else on the market. When you go to buy a minimalist shoe, your best bet is to look past rigid categories and focus on which characteristics matter most to you.
A personal example: If I had to pick one running shoe from the last 3½ decades as my favorite, it would be the first generation of the Brooks Cheetah. Marketed as a lightweight trainer, it came out in the early 1990s. It was low to the ground and had a minimal ramp angle, a wide forefoot, and, for me, just the right combination of responsiveness and cushioning. So of course in 1996 Brooks nearly doubled the height of the midsole in the next iteration, the Cheetah 2. It was the same shoe in name only. I bought 10 pairs of the originals and mourned the day I retired the last pair.
Remembering what I loved about the Cheetah helps me pick shoes now. If a shoe’s midsole is toward the firm end of things, I know I’ll wish for a little more softness. If the ramp angle and stack height are much greater than in the Cheetah, I know I’ll feel tilted forward and suspended above the ground. If the weight is much more than that of the Cheetah, I know I won’t have that free-floating feeling, especially at the end of long runs or when I’m tired.
It’s not that I have Brooks Cheetah stats lying around that I compare all shoes with. Rather, knowing that the Cheetah was, to date, the best shoe for me ever designed, I can quickly assess how closely other shoes come to its combination of attributes. Whether a particular model is marketed as a lightweight trainer or racing flat or minimalist shoe is irrelevant. Rather, based on knowing what’s most important to me, I try to find a shoe from what’s available that feels like the closest match to my memory of the Cheetah. Sometimes that’s what’s marketed as a minimalist shoe, sometimes it’s what’s marketed as a lightweight trainer, and sometimes it’s what’s marketed as a racing flat.
You should take the same approach when trying to choose from among the broad array of minimalist shoes. Of course, if you’ve always worn conventional running shoes, there will be some differences as you move toward minimalism. Most likely this will have to do with stack height and ramp angle. Still, try to be able to articulate the key features that the running shoes you’ve most liked have shared. Think about things like:
In an ideal world, you’d then be able to go to a running store, tell them your general preferences, and ask them to bring out the five minimalist models that best match these criteria. Then you could try on each one, see which feels best, and go from there. If you take it home and can run in it without problems, proceed. If you get hurt or the shoe seems to get in the way of enjoyable running, cut your losses and start over.
In the likely case that that’s not possible, make use of fellow runners’ experiences via message boards and see what magazine shoe reviews and online running shops say about similar models.
But wait, you might be thinking: How do I know how much or how little of a minimalist shoe to look for? How do I know what minimalist shoe I can safely start running in? And, come to think of it, how should I go about starting to run in whatever minimalist shoe I buy?
Determining how ready your body is to start running in minimalist shoes and how to integrate minimalist shoes into your training program is the subject of the next chapter.