On the heels of last week’s news that Vibram is being sued by the Bikila family comes an article in the New York Times titled Forget Barefoot; New Trendsetter, if Not Pacesetter, Is Cushioning (Screenshot above).
Oh how the pendulum swings!
“Maximalist shoes” like the Hoka One One aren’t exactly new, but they have become popular enough to catch the attention of shoe manufacturers. Case in point, the NYT article notes that one of Brooks’ most popular shoes—the Brooks Glycerin—saw sales increase 29% in 2014. Or a little closer to home, Altra has been producing some “maximalist” shoes for awhile now. Check out the Torin or the Olympus, for a couple examples.
What is going on here? Here’s an interesting quote lifted from the NYT article:
Jonathan Beverly, the shoe editor for Runners World, said maximalist shoes like the Hoka incorporated many of the qualities that made minimalism popular, while also mitigating the impact of running on hard surfaces.
“The benefit of the big sole is actually similar to what the minimal movement did; with both types of shoes you have to keep your body and your center of gravity above your feet,” Beverly said. “So you’re running with the same posture as you would if you were barefoot, but with all this cushioning.”
That’s a bold statement. Do maximalist shoes allow you to have your cake and eat it, too?
I’m skeptical (and I’m guessing you are, too), but I also am out of my depth—I don’t run ultras.
Thankfully, I know someone who does. BirthdayShoes’ ultrarunner and reviewer Rob Youngren has been a proponent of keeping a pair of Hokas in his shoe closet for awhile now. For a bit of a refresher, Rob has 50,000+ miles of running under his belt. While he likes minimalist shoes, he sees a purpose and need for a little more something-something underfoot on long runs. The key ingredient to success with beefier shoes is in having the right running form from the start.
Here’s a couple quotes from a 2012 interview with Rob on this site that are on point for this discussion. First, Rob spoke to his concern that unbridled enthusiasm for running with minimalist shoes without the proper form could be disastrous:
I also worry about the whole education side. I don’t think there is near enough education out there available to the general public which is why there are a lot of people getting hurt trying out minimalist shoes. One has only to peruse BirthdayShoes.com’s forums to see that there are a lot of people getting hurt.
It all goes back to form. If your form is bad then running in a “nothing” shoe is going to get you into trouble. At least with a more substantial shoe your poor form might not get you into trouble as quickly. And vice versa if you have good form there is probably not a shoe you couldn’t adjust to. So education is the key.
But where Rob really hits it out of the park is when he speaks to shoes as tools:
Realize that there are situations and conditions where using a more substantial shoe (note: I’m not saying you need a traditional running shoe) is very beneficial, like running on very rough terrain or running much longer distances than you may be currently use to.
There is also the performance aspect to consider. Do you want to compete or do you want to complete? If you don’t mind just participating in long distance races then you can probably get away (for a while at least) with whatever shoe you’re currently wearing.
Now if you really want to maximize your potential you must realize that your handicapping yourself by not using tools that can help you realize that potential. Think about a long trail race, if you don’t have to think about foot placement every step, think how much faster you could be? Or with ample underfoot protection (rock plate, modest midsole stack height) you won’t have to worry so much about what you’re stepping on. All that can add up to a lot of gained time. Much the same applies to longer distances on the roads. At some point your form can break due to fatigue, if you’re in a very minimalist shoe you have to necessarily slow down to avoid injury since minimalist shoes can be almost worthless if your form has eroded. So with a bit more substantial shoe, yes even if your form goes at least you have some underfoot protection to see you through the race.
That’s basically it. Realize shoes are just tools. Pick the right tool for the job!
That seems like sound advice to me. Indeed, the NYT article quoted the inmitable Jay Dicharry saying as much here: “Some people have a road bike, a commuter bike and a mountain bike, and they all have their purpose.”
All of this discussion just reminds me that complexity rules the day when it comes to the human body. What I mean is that it’s foolhardy to expect a product to magically solve your problems—whether that product is a minimalist shoe or a maximalist shoe. The human body is too complex for simple solutions.
But that doesn’t stop a sizable majority of people from jumping on the latest trend, does it? That’s part of human complexity, too—”human nature.”
What’s your take? Any of you shifted your “toolset” to including more maximalist shoes? How has that worked out for you?
Let’s hear your thoughts!
6 replies on “"Forget Barefoot," Meet Maximalist Shoes”
For every action, there is a reaction. I don’t run marathons so I couldn’t say anything to the improvements a thicker sole might bring. Having grown used to minimal shoes, I can’t imagine going back to the thick padding of a Nike or Adidas.
Interfering with the body’s natural movement introduces complexity. The magic of minimalism is that the shoe basically doesn’t do anything, and your body is allowed to be.
This is simple, not complex.
@Marc,
Here’s the thing: minimalist shoes are still shoes. They still impact the system of sensation you get with a bare foot. “Basically doesn’t do anything” is by definition “does something.” That’s a variable that has to be addressed/can’t be washed over.
The devil is in the details.
“Think about a long trail race, if you don’t have to think about foot placement every step, think how much faster you could be? Or with ample underfoot protection (rock plate, modest midsole stack height) you won’t have to worry so much about what you’re stepping on.”
This might protect you from tiny, annoying pebbles, but if you step on a big stone (especially with a thick, rigid sole) you can twist your ankle. No, thanks, I’d rather keep thinking about my foot placement. Or let me rephrase that, if you train enough, you don’t have to think about it anymore, your body does is automatically. Just let your feet handle it, they know better what they’re doing, don’t interfere with stupid executive decisions.
“So with a bit more substantial shoe, yes even if your form goes at least you have some underfoot protection to see you through the race.”
When my form slips, the first thing that cries out is my IT-band, then the knees, then the neck… How can a shoe help me there?
As a matter of fact, my feet are the toughest of all. While the rest of me goes to pieces, my feet keep asking for cool mud puddles to have fun!
But the discussion is still about which shoe is the best one (for what purpose). Minimalist or maximalist.
Barefoot (i.e. no shoes at all) is not passe. But how would you measure that? By sales of minimalist shoes? That’s not barefoot…
Actually I like the article (the NYT one), they keep emphasizing the form. And I like what Lauren Fleshman said, especially the last part: “There is no shoe savior coming for us.” Amen.
I run marathons fine in minimalist shoes (never quite crossed the threshold to pure barefootery…largely because I never quite got over feeling as much as I do going bare).
For me at least, if I can’t feel the ground and my foot placement, my balance gets thrown off so a heftier shoe for me begs for injury.
My PT (who I really only see for the itinerant dry needling session) noted that the worst running injuries (particularly ankle injuries) he’s seen were seen in people wearing hokas. He noted that the higher you are, the sharper the angle your ankle twists and because one can’t feel the ground most readily, there is a higher chance of having an injury.
Granted he kinda wished I could wear a shoe with a bit more padding, he’d opt for continuing the minimal shoes I wear (NB minimus zero) over having to fix me because I had the bright idea of putting an orthodic in to cheat and keep running (which caused secondary pains) when all I really needed to do was just rest.
Bottom line is yes, shoes are tools, but ultimately listen to your body..the tools may be doing nothing but allowing you to keep doing stupid things by giving a false sense of security.
Everyone obviously has some valid points. Do people get injured wearing minimalist shoes? Yes. Why? Bad form or not sufficient transition.
Would those same people be able to run more miles before getting injured in maximalist shoes? Probably. Why? Like everyone has been saying maximalist shoes let you get away with bad form a little easier because they are there to cushion, stabilize, support the foot.
What is better for the person in the long run? Good questions. Comes down to what are your goals?
If someone wants to develop good running form and be able to enjoy running moderate distances at moderate speeds for years and years barefoot (or minimalist shoes) with a long slow transition is probably best because your bare feet will tell you very quickly if your form is not great or you are doing too much too fast.
If someone wants to be able to run a 100 mile trail race in 6 months maximalist shoes are probably the best because the more padding and protection the less energy they waste on exact foot placement.
If someone wants to run a really fast 5k minimalist shoes are probably best – it’s all about light weight and skin protection.
Which one of these people will be running for the most years pain free? Probably the barefoot running.
The thing to remember with maximalist shoes (or all running shoes) is that they are hiding your bad form from you but it will show up as injury eventually – probably as chronic knee, hip, or back pain.
Those are the people I see in my clinic every day – people who have tried to ignore the real problem and cover it up with new shoes, fancy orthotics, knee braces, injections, pain medications, physical therapy, foam roller, etc for years until it just got too bad and they are in constant pain and can’t run. That finally forces them to look for people who can uncover what the real underlying imbalances and problems are and they are forced to start addressing them.
Wouldn’t it just be easier to find those imbalances early on and correct them to prevent the chronic pain problems? Just saying…