Yang 1 Benjamin Yang Professor Babcock Rhetoric and Civic Life 137 (Section 8) November 8, 2016 The Rise of Minimalist Running Shoes Lighter, more flexible, more natural — — the the array of benefits and advantages of wearing minimalist running shoes has led to its tremendous growth in pop ularity among runners over the last several decades. Unlike the traditional cushioned running shoe, which features a twelve to sixteen-millimeter heel-to-drop differential, the typical minimalist running shoe weighs less than eight ounces, lacks a midsole, and has zero heel-to-drop differential, known as “zero drop” (Comana). While no one has formally formall y proven that minimalist shoes reduce the risk of injury, many minimalists do develop better running form, higher cad ence, and a greater ability to disperse impact forces. It It may seem that the idea of “barefoot” running is a relatively new concept, but humans ran essentially barefoot for millenniums before the invention of modern running shoes. The dominant ideology that favored cushioned running shoes in second half of the twentieth century responded the expansion of running as both a competitive and leisure sport. However, with 50 percent of runners incurring injuries annually wearing cushioned running shoes, this issue has made minimalist running shoes more appealing (Rixe 161). From the 1960s to present time, running shoe consumers have shifted from preferring traditional cushioned running shoes to preferring minimalist running shoes through witnessing successful barefoot runners and gained understanding of the positive implications of minimalist running. To respond to the bourgeoning demand for running shoes as running became more commonplace on the roads, in the trails, and on the track, companies began focusing on
Yang 2 redesigning and mass-producing running shoes. In 1960, New Balance released the Trackster, a pair of shoes weighing 11-ounces each and featuring soles with deep ridges to help prevent shin splints (Fuehrer). Considering that shoes specifically designed for running did not widel y exist prior to the Trackster, these were probably the first modern, mass-producing mass-producing running shoes. Shortly after, in 1967, the first running shoe review appeared in Distance in Distance Running News, News, which demonstrated that companies and consumers were becoming more meticulous about the quality and performance of new running shoes (Fuehrer). As a result of a running explosion in the 1970s, the running shoe was further improved, redesigned with more cushioning and motion control. Brooks, an American running company, introduced the Vantage in 1976, which featured an EVA midsole and “varus wedge” said to control pronation (Douglas). pronation (Douglas). This mass-market running shoe emphasized the importance of cushioning, motion, and control in running shoes, leading many people to believe that the more cushion and material in a running shoe, the better the running experience and less susceptible one will be to injury. In the 1980s and 1990s, efforts to add luxury features to running shoes were prominent. For example, the New Balance 990 was released in 1982, retailing at a whopping 100 dollars and showcasing plushness and luxury features (Fuehrer). Later, in 1986 , Adidas released the Micropacer, which featured an electronic pedom eter stitched into the tongue of the shoe (Fuehrer). Although it was a decent attempt to fuse electronics with running shoes, minimalists today can look back and identify the pattern of focusing on excessive, “unnecessary” additions, rather than focusing on the basic, inherent elements of a running shoe. Popular when it was released in 1991, the Reebok Reeb ok Pump included an internal inflation mechanism with air chambers on the upper tongue to allow a customized fit (Fuehrer). Its massive size reflected the general preference for fancy, stylish shoes at the time, and running shoes would have likely continued to
Yang 3 increase in magnitude and luxury lux ury should the growing minimalist movement have lost momentum. Interestingly, the invention of modern cushioned running shoes coincided with the origins of the minimalist movement. In 1960, Abebe Bikila of Ethiopia won the Rome Ro me Olympic Marathon, running completely barefoot, and later went on to break the world record without wearing any shoes (Fuehrer). While this impressive feat might have caught the attention of some spectators, it did not exactly convince anyone at the time that barefoot running should upstage running with cushioned shoes. Likewise, Zola Bu dd of South Africa competed in the Olympics running barefoot and set a 5000-meter 5 000-meter world record in 1984 (Fuehrer). She demonstrated that, once again, running shoes are not necessary and that one can compete exceptionally well, given the training and hard work, without shoes, but she was more of an indirect influence to the shift. From 1993 to 1995, that Tarahumara Indians of northwestern Mexico won the Leadville 100miler in Colorado, wearing only handmade sandals (Douglas). These “supe rhumans” would later inspire Christopher McDougall to write and publish his famous book about barefoot running, but preceding the book ’s ’s release, release, exceedingly few people even knew that the Tarahumara existed. All these twentieth century barefoot runners and their incredible achievements did not directly or immediately change the dominant ideology ideolog y of runners; nonetheless, they all contributed to the gradual progression of the minimalist movement. With the production of the first minimalist running shoes in the early 2000 s, the nascent movement simply needed a catalyst catal yst to bring it into the mainstream. In 2004, the first version of the Nike Free was introduced, marketed as a “training tool” to help strengthen feet (Fuehrer). feet (Fuehrer). As a multinational and reputable footwear manufacturing compan y, Nike’s revolutionary, revolutionary, flexible, and minimally cushioned shoes reached a large, comprehensive audience. Although the Nike
Yang 4 Free targeted mainly non-runners, nevertheless, it stood as an early minimalist model. One year later, Vibram began its FiveFingers shoe series, which was originall y designed for kayaking or other recreational activities, but it increasingly enticed runners (Fuehrer). Con toured to the shape of human feet, flexible, and lacking cushioning, FiveFingers played a pivotal role in connecting the idea of minimalism to barefoot running. However, the main impetus did not come until 2009, when Christopher McDougall published his best-selling book, Born book, Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen. Seen. In his book, McDougall introduced the Tarahumara Indians, an isolated, group of ultrarunners living in the Copper Canyon of Mexico, a group unaffected by modernization. These ultrarunners log high mileages throughout their lives, wearing huarache sandals, shoes with only rubber soles and leather laces and intended only to protect their feet from environmental elements (Davis 778). As a frequentl y injured runner himself, McDougall described how practicing the Tarahu mara’s “barefoot” running techniques helped him overcome his own injuries, and he also criticized modern cushioned shoes (Comana). Despite the lack of formal proof, the impact of Born of Born to Run on Run on its readers, many of whom are runners, was palpable through the skyrocketing in minimalist shoe sales. In particular, Vibram FiveFingers sales tripled annually for several years following the release of the book (Fuehrer). In tandem with increased sales, biomechanics research expanded to scientifically prove the differences between minimalist and traditional running shoes. Daniel Lieberman, a Harvard professor of human evolutionary biology, published his research in the British scientific journal journal Nature in Nature in January 2010, supporting the idea that conventional running shoes alter one’s natural running form, namely forefoot and midfoot strike gaits (Lieberman 531 ). In addition, he found that forefoot and midfoot striking reduces impact forces to approximately 0.6 times one’s bo dy
Yang 5 weight, as opposed to 1.75 times one’s body weight when striking rearfoot (Lieberman 531-532). (Lieberman 531-532). Moreover, in a study done in 2012, Al Daoud and his colleagues examined 52 cross-country runners, 69% of whom primarily used a rearfoot strike and 31% of whom primarily used a forefoot strike (Daoud 1325). 1325). He concluded that “runners “runn ers who habitually rearfoot strike have significantly higher rates of repetitive stress injury than those who mostly forefoot strike” (Daoud 1325). Additionally, a minimalist might argue that elevated heels lead to poor posture and foot and joint pain, a padded outsole weakens foot muscles, and enclosed shoes interfere with ground sensation, weakening the tactile responses from the feet (Comana). Since runners who rely on cushioned running runn ing shoes tend to rearfoot strike, while those who use minimalist running shoes tend to land on their forefoot and midfoot, substantial scientific research contributed to a new dominant ideology that minimalist shoes are more efficient, less harmful, and more natural than cushioned shoes. However, immediately after the release of Born of Born to Run and Run and the sudden increase in minimalist sales, widespread resistance and backlash from maximalists, skeptics, and those with negative experiences transitioning into minimalist shoes began. The first maximalist shoe, The Hoka One One, defined by its oversized midsole, debuted in May 2010 (Douglas). According to Frenchmen Nicholas Mermoud and Jean-Luc Diard, the founders of Hoka One One, maximalist running shoes are based on the concept of oversized design constructs, used in designing full suspension mountain bikes or oversized tennis rackets, and have to do with “copious amounts of cushioning underfoot . . . dynamic midsole foams, and . . . modern profiles and shapes” (Metzler). Like minimalists, maximalists argue for a smoother, softer running experience, but they believe that excessive cushioning is ne cessary to achieve this. Furthermore, skeptics have criticized the ideology behind minimalist running shoes because of conflicting research and the
Yang 6 unsubstantiated, hyperbolic claims of manufacturers. Many running companies claim that their running shoes improve running form and feel, but some have argued that it is one’s conscious running form change, rather than the shoe, that plays a larger role, similar to the placebo effect in medicine. Also, while minimalist shoes have lower heel hei ghts, they still have cushioned midsoles midsoles that don’t completely prevent runners from heel striking, striking, and the loading rate is still present, albeit transferred to another part of the limb (Langer 5). Some studies show that decreased cushioning actually may increase the workload of muscles, therefore increasing energy cost, which shows that there is controversy in research (Lan ger 7). Additionally, there have been complaints of injuries associated with incorporating minimal footwear into running. Most of these injuries were to the metatarsals, and a few were diagnosed as stress fractures or stress reactions, which suggest poor and hasty transitioning from traditional cushioned to minimal running shoes (Davis 780). As a result of the immediate resistance and backlash, companies have been producing more partial minimal shoes in recent years and loo k to continue to improve shoes to provide the benefits of minimalism, yet not put runners at high risks of incurring incurring injuries. Since around 2014, the competition between companies to design the lightest road racing flat on the market has led to the creation of “featherlight” running shoes, wh ich weigh less less than three ounces. (Fuehrer). Although minimalist running shoes aren’t quite as popular as the y were in the early 2010s, 2010s, sales continue to increase by 70 percent or more most months (Douglas). Alta, Nike, and Vibram were three popular running brands that produced early minimalist running shoes, but more established manufacturers, including Brooks, Saucony, New Balance, Asics, and Adidas, and not as established manufacturers, such as Merrell, Terra Plana, and Sketchers, h ave started their own minimalist lines (Langer 1). Today, the outlook for newer, innovative running shoes is bright for
Yang 7 minimalists because the pendulum is likely to not swing ba ck to traditional cushioned running shoes, and minimalist running shoes will still be attractive, at least in the n ear future. As running shoes evolve in the future, manufacturers will try to find stasis and compromise between the light, natural feel of minimalist shoes and the pronation -control, stability, and protection of cushioned shoes. According to Steve Magness, Ma gness, a former assistant coach with the Nike Oregon Project, “the reality is, what people need in a running shoe is probably probably from some crazy combination of foot mechanics and pronation pron ation and muscle activity and structure” (Douglas). (Douglas). One possibility is that shoes manufactured decades from now will comprise of protocells protocells or synthetic material with properties of organic matter, including self-repair (Fuehrer). Over the decades of the running shoe’s evolutionary history, beginning with the first modern cushioned running shoes in 1960 and ending up at today’s minimalist running shoes, the dominant ideology of runners has transformed. While the residual ideology of barefoot, natural running lingered over millenniums from our ancestors and the emergent ideology surfaced as elite barefoot runners proved their successes, minimalist running did not be come widely popular until the release of the book Born book Born to Run. Run. Minimalism has lost some of its momentum in recent years due to backlash and resistance, but minimalist running shoes are likely not to disappear anytime soon. Whether or not researchers and co mpanies will ever find the quintessential running shoe that will fit everyone, just as technology shaped cushioned and minimalist running shoes, newer technology will optimize running shoes in the future as long as the sport of running prevails.
Word Count: 2369
Yang 8 Works Cited Comana, Fabio. "Running Shoe or Minimalist Shoe?" National Shoe?" National Academy of Sports Medicine. Medicine. N.p., 2012. Web. 8 Nov. 2016. . Daoud, Adam I., Gary J. Geissler, Frank Wang, Jason Saretsky, Yahya A. Daoud, and Daniel E. Lieberman. "Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endu rance Runners." Medicine Runners." Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 44.7 Exercise 44.7 (2012): 1325-334. Web. 8 Nov. 2016. Davis, Irene S. "The Re-emergence of the Minimal Running Shoe." Journal Shoe." Journal of Orthopaedic Sports Physics Therapy 44.10 Therapy 44.10 (2014): 775-84. Northwestern 775-84. Northwestern University. University. 24 Aug. 2015. Web. 8 Nov. 2016. . Douglas, Scott. "Deconstructed: The Rise of the Minimalist Running Sho e." Outside Online. Online. Outside Magazine, 2 Apr. 2013. Web. 8 Nov. 2016. . Douglas, Scott. "Minimalism in The Long Run." Runner's Run." Runner's World . Rodale Inc., 13 Mar. 2013. Web. 8 Nov. 2016. . Fuehrer, Dan, and Scott Douglas. "A Brief History of the Running Shoe." Runner's Shoe." Runner's World . Rodale Inc., 12 May 2014. Web. 8 Nov. 2016. . Langer, Paul. "Test Method for Flexibility of Running Shoes." Podiatry Shoes." Podiatry Today 25.9 Today 25.9 (2012): 1-8. American Academy of Podiatric Sports Medicine. Medicine. Sept. 2012. Web. 8 Nov. 2016. .
Yang 9 Lieberman, Daniel E., Madhusudhan Venkadesan, William A. Werbel, Adam I. Daoud, Susan D†™Andrea, Irene S. Davis, Robert Ojiambo Ojiambo Mang†™Eni, and Yannis Pitsiladis. "Foot Strike Patterns and Collision Forces in Habitually Barefoot versus Sho d Runners." Nature 463.7280 Nature 463.7280 (2010): 531-35. Web. 8 Nov. 2016. Metzler, Brian. "Sole Man: 12 Things About Maximalist Shoes." Competitor.com. Competitor.com. N.p., 7 May 2014. Web. 8 Nov. 2016. . Rixe, Jeffrey A., Robert A. Gallo, and Matthew L. Silvis. "The Barefoot Debate." Current Sports Medicine Reports 11.3 Reports 11.3 (2012): 160-65. Web. 8 Nov. 2016.
