BirthdayShoes.com Vibram Five Fingers Forum
October 31, 2014, 02:11:13 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Tired of seeing ads? Simply become a forum member and login (membership is free!).

nanny-rosy
Poll
Question: What is the weight (per shoe) cutoff for minimalist shoes?
5oz (more than Seeya) - 0 (0%)
6oz (more than KSO) - 1 (14.3%)
7oz (more than Komodosport/Merrell Barefoot Trail Glove) - 4 (57.1%)
8oz (227grams)? (more than Minimus Multisport, Nike Free 3.0, Vivobarefoot Evo/Neo) - 0 (0%)
9oz? (Merrell Embark Glove) - 1 (14.3%)
10oz - 1 (14.3%)
11oz - Traditional Trail shoe territory - 0 (0%)
12oz(0.75lb /340grams)+ ... Saucony Progrid Outlaw weight - 0 (0%)
Total Voters: 7

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: What weight (per shoe) would you consider minimalist now?  (Read 1118 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
acc
Sr. Member
****

Reputation: 7
acc is starting to look familiar.acc is starting to look familiar.
Posts: 440


YOU are the Technology


View Profile WWW
« on: March 09, 2012, 11:14:11 AM »

I am looking back to the offerings by the biggest shoe makers and it seems to me for a "barefoot" shoe, some are just based on marketing rather than barefoot principles. Consider the Vivobarefoot 10oz trail shoes then the New Balance Minimus Trail Zero (4.5oz). On the road, the Zems weigh ~2oz, Merrell Bare Access weighs 5.6oz and the Saucony Hattori which for people with less wide feet is only 4.6oz or so even for the AW (all weather) edition but none of these are trail shoes.

Is it acceptable for something like Vivobarefoot to have 10oz+ shoes for their Trail offerings when Vibram, New Balance, Merrell, Inov-8 have established trail offerings with 7 oz or less? Merrell even has a rockplate+Goretex in theirs...

The most recent study as referenced by Sweat Science and Pete Larson (http://sweatscience.runnersworld.com/2012/02/barefoot-versus-running-shoes-which-is-surprisingly-more-efficient/  , http://www.runblogger.com/2012/03/university-of-colorado-study-determines.html) states that shoe weight is more important than anything. I'm assuming this means the Bare Access should be better than most of the minimalist offerings since it's zero drop but 5.6oz.
Quote
The study shows that if you are already a regular barefoot or minimalist runner and are not a heel-striker (the authors specifically controlled for footstrike to avoid comparing heel striking in shoes to midfoot/forefoot when barefoot), running in a lightweight racing flat will probably not significantly change your economy (of the 12 runners, 8 were more economical in the shoe, 4 were more economical “barefoot,” and when pooled there was no significant difference  economy between when the runners were shod vs. unshod). Thus, if you feel that lightweight shoes are desirable in a race situation, go for it – they might even improve your economy a bit.
...
What happens if we continue to reduce shoe weight – does the relationship remain linear? How do equal weight shoes with cushioned vs. non-cushioned soles compare (e.g., compare the Merrell Road Glove to the Merrell Bare Access).


edit: the shoes in the poll options are just to give you an idea of what that weight is , for example I don't consider Nike Free 3.0 to be minimalist enough due to the heel-toe drop and the stack height
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 02:57:02 PM by acc » Logged

Looking for sale /coupons at VFF/Injinji stores (authorized dealers only) Waiting for 3mm soled leather VFF oxford (not Capri) and KSO EVO.
BirthdayShoes.com Vibram Five Fingers Forum
« on: March 09, 2012, 11:14:11 AM »

 Logged
Go_Blue
Full Member
***

Reputation: 3
Go_Blue is a new face.
Posts: 191


Barefooting it


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2012, 11:38:37 AM »

Personally, I consider anything 7oz or less, with a drop of 5mm or less "minimalist."  The thinner the sole, the better.  The Nike Free, Kinvara and shoes along those lines I consider more of a "reduced running shoe" as there is still a fair amount of material there.  They're really more stripped-down trainers than actual minimal shoes in my opinion.  With more and more zero-drop options coming out, that threshold ought to reflect that minimalist really does mean less.
Logged

d_monic
Jr. Member
**

Reputation: 1
d_monic is a new face.
Posts: 71


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2012, 02:42:45 PM »

I'm no scientist, but I would consider ground feel and heel-to-toe ratio as more important than shoe weight when considering what qualifies as a "minimalist" shoe.
Logged
qcassidy352
Hero Member
*****

Reputation: 8
qcassidy352 is a regular 'round here.qcassidy352 is a regular 'round here.qcassidy352 is a regular 'round here.
Posts: 646


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2012, 03:31:59 PM »

I don't consider there to be a hard cutoff.  It's a continuum.  And a shoe that weighed a little more might be more minimalist than one that weighs less because of other factors (drop, thickness, width, etc.).
Logged

"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."
- Abraham Lincoln
BirthdayShoes.com Vibram Five Fingers Forum
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2012, 03:31:59 PM »

 Logged
Jeepman
Hero Member
*****

Reputation: 10
Jeepman is well known.Jeepman is well known.Jeepman is well known.Jeepman is well known.
Posts: 839



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2012, 09:52:45 AM »

I look for 4mm or less of drop and 7 oz. to 8 oz. for weight. Anything much more than that we are getting into the reduced trainer area.
Logged

Arch support?... We don't need no stinking arch support!
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
anything