cs I discuss are directional terms

[Labi1995]

The flurry of new “minimalist” running shoes being released onto the market can be hard to keep up with these days. An article in Advertising Age recently reported that “according to SportsOneSource, lightweight products — loosely defined as shoes that weigh 9 oz. or less in a men’s size 9 — accounted for 28% of the running category in the second quarter. Minimalist styles, a subset of lightweight, accounted for 5% of the running category.” In the same article, Katherine Petrecca, collection manager for New Balance’s minimal line, was quoted as saying “Once you’ve made the transition [to a minimal or lightweight product] it’s difficult to go back. What will happen in the more mainstream channels remains to be seen, but in performance and specialty channels, it’s here to stay.” I would tend to agree with her, as I can’t possibly imagine myself ever going back to a more traditional running shoe after having made the switch to more minimal styles.When statistics like these are released, I often ask myself which shoes are included in the various categories – it’s easy enough figure out which shoes weigh less than 9 oz, but which shoes are included in the “minimalist” group? If I had to guess, it’s probably things like the Vibram Fivefingers and Merrell Barefoot shoes, but I can’t be sure from the information provided. Would the New Balance Minimus Trail be included? How about a zero drop shoe that is well cushioned like the Altra Instinct?It’s because of this ambiguity that I don’t like using the term “minimalist” to describe a specific category of shoes. I had a lengthy discussion in the comments section of a recent post about what constitutes a minimalist shoe, and though I have my own personal preferences when it comes to footwear, I repeatedly made the point that I don’t view minimalist as a category, but rather one end of a spectrum. I thought I’d use this post to elaborate a bit on my usage of the word “minimalist.”To state is succinctly, I view a minimalist shoe as one that more closely approximates the barefoot running condition. As such, I view it as a relative term – i.e., one shoe can be more or less minimalist (or minimal?) than another. Yesterday I was teaching my first anatomy lab of the semester, and one of the topics I discuss are directional terms – superior/inferior, medial/lateral, proximal/distal and so on. In anatomy, these terms are typically used to describe the position of one body structure relative to some other body structure. For example, the brain is superior to the heart. I view the term minimalist in a similar way – the Vibram Fivefingers are more minimalist than the Saucony Kinvara. The Sacuony Kinvara is more minimalist than the Asics Nimbus. The Asics Nimbus is more minimalist than the Brooks Beast. The Brooks Beast is more minimalist than a ski boot. Etc., etc., etc…If we view running footwear as a spectrum, on one end you have no shoe at all, or barefoot. In the barefoot condition cushioning and stability are provided by the inherent strength and control of the feet and legs, proprioreception/ground feel are maximized, there is no added weight on the lower extremity, the heel and forefoot are placed at the same level on the ground, the splay of the foot is not restricted when it contacts the ground, and flexibility is limited only by the structural limitations of an individual’s feet. Thus, more minimal shoes will: