The case for minimalist footwear

Regularly on the 'Runners' messageboard on www.weightlossresources.co.uk I'll see people ask what trainers they should get and see a flurry of responses that they MUST get suitable shoes from a specialist shop. That to do so is the first rule of running.

well, in a somewhat disjointed manner here's my take and experience on that subject.

When I first started running in 2006 I was quickly advised to get some trainers suitable for my running style, and that I should get these from a proper running shop rather than a general sports shop.


The basis of this advice was that we each needed one of three types of shoe: neutral cushioned; stability or motion control. If we didn't get the right shoe we'd get injured. It was inevitable. If we didn't have enough cushioning then the impact would wreck our knees and if we were in the 80% of runners who apparently 'over pronated' and we didn't get some stability or motion control shoes we were heading for a world of injury.


Since then a host of new shoe technologies have been launched and gait analysis testing has been introduced at most of the ever increasing number of specialist running shops and this, its claimed, will ensure the right shoe is advised for the individual.


If it doesn't then there's also the option of custom made orthotics from a podiatrist to fully correct the various failings of your gait.


I never thought to question any of this but I now regard it as, for the most part, utter bollocks. It just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Just for starters:


We have many millions of years of evolution during which time a principal reason for our survival and dominance has been the ability to run for long distances. How does that square with the notion of 80% of us over pronating and so courting debilitating injury?


Cushioned running shoes have only been available since Nike launched them in the early 1970s, and stability shoes since the 80s. How is it that generations of runners seemed to survive with minimalist running shoes prior to then?


Why is it that running shoes need to be heavily cushioned and have stability functions yet people can safely run several miles in a game of football, hockey or rugby without either benefit?


If we're generally put into the right shoes why are so many runners injured each year with shin splints, runner's knee, plantar fasciaitis, ITBS etc? In fact, if the shoes are a great help why haven't the numbers of lower leg injuries decreased since their introduction, and why have some ailments actually increased during this time?


I digress, but in the last couple of years an alternative view has been presented:


In the early 70s Nike came up with the master stroke of introducing a cushioned, raised heel running shoe claiming it would increase speed and protect from injury. They created a market and a product that fulfilled it in one go.


The trouble was that this raised heel, cushioned shoe interfered with proprioception and encouraged un-natural heel striking and resultant injury. In other words it created another new market: for the stability and motion control shoe full of gadgets to partially correct the problems that the shoes themselves caused in the first place.


Then came gait analysis. Another marketing master stroke. Put a treadmill, camera and laptop into the growing numbers of specialist shops that have come into existence on the back of the specialist shoe marketing message, give the owners a brief guide and let them loose. Not only do runners now get a 'scientific' shoe but its prescribed by 'scientific' method. However, the method is flawed in two ways: firstly the training of staff is sketchy and second the start point for gait analysis is a pair of heavily cushioned 'neutral' shoes.


That's a really important point. Put 100 runners on a treadmill barefoot and you'll see their natural gait with 99/100 naturally landing on the fore/midfoot. However, put the same 100 on the treadmill in cushioned shoes and 80% will heel strike...


In recent years the very same shoe companies have been launching minimalist unstructured shoes designed to mimic barefoot running whilst at the same time continuing to claim the need for cushioned and/or stability. They want their cake and to eat it.


Returning to where this entry started, what's my experience been?


Well, despite being pain free I did as I was advised and went to a specialist shop. Having looked at me stood in bare feet the sales assistant decided I needed stability shoes and, having watched me jog 4/5 metres across the car park, confirmed I had the right shoes. Kerching!


It seemed a good job I'd got them as within a couple of weeks I was getting shin pain...so I went to a different specialist shop, where the assistant told me that the stability shoes were obviously insufficient so I should try motion control shoes. As for the previous shop, he watched me jog a few yards and decreed that they were what I needed. Kerching!


They didn't feel right though, really unnatural, and over the next couple of weeks the shin pain was getting worse. So I went to a third specialist shop. This time they didn't bother seeing me run a few paces but instead just looked at me stood up and decided it was back to stability shoes. Kerching!


That shin pain just wouldn't go away though and I couldn't run more than twice a week for very short runs over the next couple of months so I went to see a podiatrist who advertised regularly in Runners World. He looked at me stood up barefoot and then got me to run on a treadmill in my stability shoes before taking moulds of my feet as he confidently said I needed custom orthotics in addition to stability shoes. It seemed a rushed experience, particularly as it was costing me over £250. Kerching! Kerching! Kerching!


For several months I ran with the orthotics and stability shoes but still struggled to get above 2 runs a week due to lower leg pain.


So, having moved in the intervening period, I went to a different podiatrist. This was a different experience. He thought the orthotics I'd been made looked 'very crude' but didn't suggest I replaced them or even carried on. His advice was to cut back on running lengths and concentrate on strengthening and stretching lower leg muscles.


Partial success. During this time I had my first experience of gait analysis and was 'prescribed' heavy end stability shoes. Kerching! I was still missing runs with injury though. A few months later a similar experience at another running shop though this time it was lighter stability shoes that the analysis apparently revealed. Kerching! With the third visit it was back to highly stable stability shoes. Kerching!


Roll forward to early 2009 when I returned to running after a couple of months off with lower leg pain (funny how my specific shoes hadn't prevented that). I tried a third podiatrist who tried to get me to spend £400 on some highly durable custom orthotics but we settled on a £300 pair. Kerching! Kerching! Kerching!


Several months on and they'd cracked near the base and I'd again had a month off with lower leg pain.


In June I went on a Chi running course where I was videoed. When I watched the video I was shocked at how I severely heel struck, with the foot fully dorsiflexed, and was told that this would cause alot of lower leg problems.


So, I went to a non-specialist shop and bought a pair of neutral shoes and started running in them. At the same time I made an effort to increase leg turnover to shorten the stride and reduce the heel striking.


I'd done everything wrong and according to the podiatrist, the shoe companies' marketing claims and running shop specialists I should have got terrible shin splints. Instead the pain completely disappeared and hasn't come back since.

In other words, whilst the 'counter-interpretation' seems to be far more credible when I think about it, its my own experience that confirms it for me.


Ultimately I consider the whole 'correct shoes for your gait' to be a complete con. Its worth many millions of dollars to the footwear manufacturers each year, publications like Runners World rely on the advertising of the manufacturers and retailers and the retailers themselves (for the most part) would soon go out of business were they not portrayed as specialist purveyors of specialist products. They all have a very strong interest in promoting the shoe manufacturers marketing messages.

To some extent its a self maintaining con too. The overly cushioned, wedge heeled shoes cause an unnatural gait...which can cause injury...which is partially controlled by features in the shoes. Moreover, the presence of a constantly evolving series of patented technologies in the shoes undoubtedly appeals to the gadget loving generation as does the feeling that shoe science can somehow make us better runners - we're very receptive to the warped messages and that's why we don't question the received wisdom from our peers.

The only exceptions I'd make are for the tiny minority of people who genuinely do have a problematic gait for whom custom made orthotics (from a credible podiatrist rather than those that have jumped on the bandwagon) is definitely the correct answer.