by 
Minimalism encompasses a broad range of shoes, from barely there models like the Vibram FiveFingers and Merrel Trail Glove to moderate minimalists like the New Balance Minimus Road and Nike Free to gateway or transitional shoes like the Saucony Kinvara and Brooks PureConnect.
At the beginning of the decade, the barely there shoes were the hottest. Vibram had nudged its way into constituting 2 percent of running-shoe sales; that's a remarkable achievement for a brand that basically had zero percent five years earlier. Solely because of Vibram, the big seven running-shoe companies -- Nike, ASICS, adidas, New Balance, Brooks, Saucony and Mizuno -- saw their traditional 96 percent share of the market slip to 94 percent. Vibram's market share might have gone even higher if it'd been able to keep up with demand. In late 2009 and early 2010, it was frantically adding staff and production facilities, but some stores still couldn't keep FiveFingers in stock. Sales were roughly doubling every year.
That growth trend has stopped. In the first quarter of 2012, according to industry analyst SportsOneSource.com, Vibram sales declined by more than half. That happened for two key reasons.
More From Runner's World
First, there are more choices now within the barefoot-style neighborhood of minimalism. Merrell has created a well-liked line of barely there road and trail shoes, niche brands like Vivo are more widely available and the big players now have this ground covered if they so choose (for example, the adidas adiPure Trainer, which features Vibramesque toe pockets).
Second, the pendulum that swung so quickly from traditional running shoes to the other extreme is now moving back. "I don't know how many people are buying a second or third pair of FiveFingers," says Joe Rubio, a partner in the online running store RunningWarehouse.com and one of the most astute industry watchers around.
Other industry experts agree. "I think we may have reached the end of people's infatuation with them," says Peter Larson, author of the popular minimalist shoe blog Runblogger.com, about the FiveFingers. "The fit is so hard to get right. The toe pockets, you either love those or hate those when you run in them. I think a lot of them are sitting in people's closets." Regardless of its resolution, a spring 2012 proposed class-action lawsuit against Vibram for false advertising claims that the FiveFingers shoe reduces injury and improves posture and foot health certainly symbolized a potential end of the love affair with the less-is-always-better approach.
Larson sees the future growth in the quasi-minimalist area. "I think the no-cushion-at-all Merrell Trail Glove area will be a small part of the market," Larson says. "The majority of people are going to want some amount of cushion under their feet. I think the growth will be from the Kinvara type down to flat cushioned shoes like what Altra is producing."
Rubio says market realities will hasten the pendulum's swing away from the extreme end of minimalism.
"There was an argument after Vibrams got big that the big brands didn't want to do these minimal shoes," he says, with a scoff. "OK, if you're Brooks and you're looking at this whole thing and you've got an Adrenaline that has a three-piece medial post with all the plastic pieces in there . . . you know how expensive it is to make that shoe? Why would you want to make that shoe versus a one-piece midsole/outsole with no added technology? Your cost has got to be 60 percent of a traditional shoe, maybe less."
The result of big brands moving in, Rubio says, will be the death of some smaller ones. "Any big idea that the small brands come up with will migrate to the big brands, who have lots of resources and access to the end consumer," he says. "That makes it very hard for any of the small brands to gain significant traction in the marketplace. You've got a bazillion small companies knocking it out for that final 4, 5 percent of the marketplace. Some of them are going to have to go away."
It's not so much that all the big companies will make shoes to compete toe-to-toe with the niche minimalist brands, but that their minimalist offerings will seem minimal enough to most runners. That is, people who want only the FiveFingers will go looking for the FiveFingers, but people looking for "less shoe" will be much more likely to find the big brands' minimalist offerings, and deny the smaller brands a chance at a sale. That's especially true if you consider Larson's point about growth in minimalism coming in the slightly cushioned segment instead of the barely there models, which tend to be made by the smaller companies. And then there's this: About 70 percent of sales within the minimalist category go to one shoe, the Nike Free, most of which aren't worn for running.
MINIMALISM IN THE MARKETPLACE
If you paid attention only to news stories, you'd be excused for thinking that minimalist shoes are pretty much the only running shoes people have bought the last few years. And yes, minimalist shoes are still hot, with sales increasing by 70 percent or more most months. But here's a reality check: Minimalist shoes account for about 11 percent of the U.S. running-shoe market. Remove the Nike Free from consideration, and sales of the remaining minimalist models constitute about 4 percent of the U.S. market.
"It's similar to hybrid and electric cars," Rubio says. "There's a huge amount of press, and every ad you see touts these technologies, but if you look at the sales figures, it's 2 to 3 percent of the industry."
Rubio's livelihood depends on intimate knowledge of the U.S. running-shoe scene. Ignoring hard data and what most people want simply isn't an option in his line of work. So I asked him what he thought would be the biggest sellers on RunningWarehouse.com in 2015.
"It'll still be traditional trainers," he says. "They make up 80 percent of our sales. In the industry as a whole they're more like 90 percent of sales.
"There are two customers in the processes: the people who sell the shoes and the public. The people selling running shoes to the customer, they need to make business decisions more on what's definitely going to work versus what might work. And the guys who are making the shoes for the dealers are only going to respond by making what's popular. So I don't see minimalism getting any bigger than it is now."
But what about all the press for minimalism? Aren't customers influenced by that? And wouldn't that change what they ask for when shopping for running shoes?
"The people going to brick-and-mortar tend to be the people at the last third of the race, the beginning athlete who needs a lot of guidance," Rubio responds. "They might have heard about this FiveFingers thing and they might buy a pair. And maybe they'll do as recommended and start off walking around or hiking in them, and go, 'Wow, this is a lot of work and kind of painful, versus my [ASICS] Nimbus, which are really comfortable and plush and they look good and I can go out afterward in them.' There's always going to be a place for traditional shoes that are soft and comfortable and look good."
When considering minimalism's share of the overall market, it's helpful to keep in mind where most running shoes are sold. Sixty percent of sales occur in department stores like Nordstrom. Thirty percent are through what the industry calls "big box" -- large chains like Sports Authority or Dick's Sporting Goods. Only 10 percent are through running specialty stores or online outfits like Rubio's.
"The final 10 percent is where a lot of the smaller brands would hope to get shelf space," Rubio says. "No way Nordstrom's brings in a small, unknown but trending brand."
Most running-shoe sales occur elsewhere than what most experienced runners would consider a good place to buy running shoes. Because of this simple market reality, it's hard for knowledgeable industry watchers like Rubio to see minimalist shoes making inroads beyond their current share of about 10 percent of sales. And yet . . .
BEYOND CATEGORY
They're hugely influential," Rubio says of the minimalist shoes it might seem he's just been deriding. "If you look at things that are happening in the auto industry, you're seeing Porsches that get 72 miles per gallon for the fastest production car they've ever made. The same thing's happening in the running industry. You've got these really lightweight minimal shoes that are having a huge influence on how all shoes are made."
That influence is showing in two key aspects of running-shoe construction: weight and ramp angle, or the difference between heel and forefoot height. For example, after the tremendous success of the Kinvara, with its scant 4-millimeter ramp angle, Saucony is lowering the heel-toe differential throughout its line from 12 millimeters to 8 millimeters. Combine that with less weight, and you might find yourself asking, "Is this a conventional shoe? A minimalist model? What?"
"I think the movement toward lighter and faster and more responsive isn't going to end," says Rubio. "It's just going to be a natural part of shoe development. It's similar to the bike industry, where you gotta keep making things lighter every year. Any one bike from year to year might not be significantly different, but over the course of five years you notice a pretty big change in the weight and responsiveness. Every industry goes lighter over time. I'm just surprised it took running this long to get there."
The gains in lightness are coming not only from minimalist-driven consumer demand. They're also driven by improvements in manufacturing processes that would be lowering shoe weight regardless of whether models like the FiveFingers had ever become popular.
"There are so many new materials being created over in Asia that are super lightweight, super strong, super resilient," says Brian Metzler, a former Running Times senior editor who has wear-tested more than 1,000 shoes. "So whatever you need a piece of a shoe to do, whether it's add stretchiness for comfort or add firmness, there are these new materials playing a huge role in the shoe revolution."
New manufacturing processes, like welding instead of stitching, will lead to lighter shoes, Metzler says. Welding ultrathin synthetic overlays instead of sewing heavier ones is one reason why New Balance was able to make a racing flat, the RC5000, weigh in at just 3.2 ounces when it was released in the summer of 2012.
Lighter shoes will also result as companies move from "heavier overlays and various plastics and vinyls that weren't really that conducive to a running shoe, resulting in these 14-to 15-ounce bricks," Metzler says. For example, as Nike developed its Flyknit technology, it found lessons from that process it could carry into its entire running-shoe line. By trying to create a snug, seamless upper -- a development unrelated to minimalism -- Nike found a way for all of its shoes to lose 10 percent of their weight.
As such developments happen, differences among shoes will become more a matter of degree than category. "You'll start to see some of these categories overlapping," says Metzler. "Take racing flats -- now you see a lot of people wearing the modern minimalist shoes, like the New Balance Minimus Road, instead of traditional racing flats."
Rubio sees the lines blurring most in the already ambiguous distinction between basic training shoe and lightweight trainer. "Now you get a [Nike] Pegasus under 10 ounces, so an everyday training shoe starts moving toward what we would have called a lightweight trainer a few years ago," he says. "Something like the New Balance 890, an everyday trainer, not a minimalist shoe, that's significantly lighter -- that's where I think you'll see things going. Brands that aren't doing that are losing sales significantly."
MOVING PAST THE PRONATION PARADIGM
For the last couple of decades, the model for conceiving and designing running shoes has been based largely on pronation control. The thinking has been that what happens to your foot as it hits the ground is what's most important. If your foot rolls in a little between landing and pushing off, you're said to have normal pronation and have been told to go with a "neutral" shoe, sort of the Goldilocks version of running shoes -- not too soft, not too rigid, providing just the right amount of cushioning and stability. If your foot rolls in too much, we've been told, you need a motion-control shoe that will arrest some of the overpronation. And if your foot barely rolls in but instead remains rigid upon landing, you're said to be an underpronator, or supinator, and therefore need a flexible, cushioned shoe to absorb some of the shock that would be dissipated if you had a normal amount of pronation.
The minimalist movement has led an increasing number of people throughout running to question this model. Many runners who were told to wear stiff, heavy, motion-control shoes have felt liberated (and remained injury-free) by moving to barely there shoes that allow their feet to work naturally. Sales in the motion-control category of running shoes have been in decline the last few years, and good riddance to all that, say many running experts.
"One of the things with the traditional line that you'll probably see -- and are already starting to see -- is the dissolution of the pronation-control category," says Larson. "There's never really been evidence supporting those, and in fact there's now research that came out recently showing that those don't work."
Steve Magness, formerly an assistant coach with the Nike Oregon Project and holder of a master's degree in exercise sciences, agrees, noting, "I think in the lab you're seeing more of the thought that [pronation control] probably doesn't work, so let's come up with another theory." Magness likes to point out that the focus on pronation came about at least as much because it could be measured in the lab as because those measurements yielded meaningful data.
"The question is, do you keep using a model that most people think is broken just because it's what we've always done?" asks Larson. "What do we do instead? There you kinda get stuck. That's a huge question right now, and I wish I had the answer."
Indeed, it's difficult to see how the great running insight "We're all an experiment of one" can be matched with modern industry's penchant for flowcharts and categorization. Which company is more likely to get the average consumer's purchase: one whose promotional materials provide quick, easy guidance on navigating its product line, or one that more or less admits "Your guess is as good as ours"? As Magness says, "We know different shoes work for different people based on a couple of different things. But how do we translate that into designing shoes and classifying shoes?"
Consider flat feet, says Larson. Under the pronation-control model, nearly everyone with flat feet has been put in motion-control shoes, because the assumption has been that flat feet are prone to overpronation. As it turns out, "There are different reasons why people can have flat feet," Larson says, "so just putting everyone with a flat foot in one type of shoe doesn't make any sense. We're learning that flat feet when you're standing might not mean anything about what the foot does when you're running."
Magness, a voracious consumer of research, offers another example: "With muscle activity, what they find is some people, if they have a lot of activity in their calves and their calves are really tight before foot-strike, it makes them more economical," he says. "Some people it's the exact opposite. The question is why and what makes people different, and does that mean they need a different shoe? Would someone who relies entirely on reactive elastic response in their calves and Achilles need a really hard shoe that lets that work, where someone who doesn't rely on it, maybe they need a soft shoe to take some of the load?"
The muscle-activity thinking stems from the work of the Canadian biomechanist Benno Nigg, a professor at the University of Calgary. If the conventional paradigm considers running shoes the primary actor, a piece of equipment that gets the body to do what it's "supposed" to do, Nigg represents the opposite end: He believes footwear shouldn't affect footstrike, or even muscle activity, before the foot hits the ground.
Good luck systematizing that in a way that can lead to mass production in Asian factories and helpful guidance in American stores, all at prices runners are accustomed to. And, notes Magness, even if this X-factor could be isolated, it will be hard to keep its value in perspective. "We can measure pronation easily, so that's what everything is based on," he says. "There's going to be this shift of, well, maybe we can measure this other new thing really well, so let's make everything entirely based on that.
"The reality is, what people need in a running shoe is probably from some crazy combination of foot mechanics and pronation and muscle activity and structure," Magness says. "It's hard to tease out all these things and say, 'All right, here's the perfect combination.'"
THE ROAD AHEAD
I fear that I may have been too negative in this attack, but there are times when a pendulum has swung far enough and needs a strong push in the other direction to restore equilibrium."
That's the famous evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in his book Unweaving the Rainbow. Although he was writing about how science gets taught, Dawkins' desire for restoring balance happens in most matters where people have passionate beliefs. A movement bursts on the scene, spearheaded by the most ardent and committed members. People are impressed by the purity of the message and the clear direction it provides on how to act. The newest recruits become some of the strongest proponents. Seemingly overnight, what had been obscure becomes common knowledge, and what the new movement is reacting against is seen as the folly of a less enlightened time.
Over time, however, most people find that the new movement pushed the pendulum too far. Through experimentation and going about their lives, people find what's most useful from the movement's message. What's helpful, they keep; what's not, they begin to ignore. The pendulum starts to move back to the center.
Have the movement's efforts been a waste? Most people would say no -- through the process of the pendulum swing they changed what's considered normal. Vegans get people to reconsider their use of animal products. Environmentalists make recycling mainstream. Back-to-the-landers show suburban homeowners the pleasure of a small garden plot. And, yes, hardcore minimalists get regular runners to reconsider what they run in.
The more extreme end of the minimalist movement was a necessary corrective. Although some runners were, on their own, finding a way around the ever-bigger shoes of the 1990s and early 2000s, most accepted the conventional line that if some cushioning is good, more is better. It took that big push of the pendulum to bring the issue of footwear fundamentals into the mainstream.
But Dawkins' quote applies to both ends of the pendulum's arc. As we've seen, that first pendulum swing is now over, and things are moving back to homeostasis.
It's a new homeostasis, however, one that incorporates the minimalist message of running shoes serving the runner, rather than the other way around.
Excerpted from The Runner's World Complete Guide to Minimalism and Barefoot Running. Scott Douglas is editor of the Runner's World/Running Times Newswire and a former senior editor of Running Times.
Related:
Scott is a veteran running, fitness, and health journalist who has held senior editorial positions at Runner’s World and Running Times. Much of his writing translates sport science research and elite best practices into practical guidance for everyday athletes. He is the author or coauthor of several running books, including Running Is My Therapy, Advanced Marathoning, and Meb for Mortals. Scott has also written about running for Slate, The Atlantic, the Washington Post, and other members of the sedentary media. His lifetime running odometer is past 110,000 miles, but he’s as much in love as ever.
