What weight (per shoe) would you consider minimalist now?

[acc]

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.

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

[Go_Blue]

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.

[d_monic]

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.

[qcassidy352]

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.).

[Jeepman]

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.