...at what point is a shoe no
...at what point is a shoe no longer minimal? I'm so glad you asked. Have you checked out our just released
Run Free 2010 Minimalist Footwear Review & Buyer's Guide yet? 1,084 reads as of now! Oh man! All of those shoes are considered minimal. (Just so happens that one of my future tasks and wishes is to bring in the biggest names in minimal running and minimal footwear to set a minimalist shoe standard, one by which all running shoe companies conform to. Yes, I'm nuts, and yes, I have high hopes.) When a shoe contains anything that alters the biomechanics of an individual--motion control, padding, elevated heels, arch support--your typical traditional running shoe (TRS), a.k.a., boat anchors, that is when a shoe is no longer minimal.
You can't really run forefoot in boat anchors, the heel rise just makes it too much work. You (well maybe not you) most certainly can...as long as you have the training. Look at the big name elite runners nowadays, many of them are wearing TRS. Their wages come from hocking those products. They are professionals and have been trained to run with a mid/forefoot plant. (I won't qualify that statement by saying "Most or All of them either.") Many of the famed Kenyans can also run with a mid/forefoot plant because (typically) they grew up without shoes and instinctively ran with a mid/forefoot plant; no matter what you put on them, they are going to continue to run with a mid/forefoot plant. It's ingrained in them. Many barefoot runners who go back and forth between minimalist shoes and reduced running shoes (RRS) and TRS claim they can keep their mid/forefoot plant as well. (I cannot. I suck as a shod runner.) For most of the rest of us, your typical run-of-the-mill, average Joe runner, a boat anchor (TRS) is going to mess with our mechanics and force us to strike with our heel first...and yes, I do believe that most of us are average Joe runners.
Most minimal shoes even still think that "more is more". I can't agree that "most" minimalist shoes are made with "more is more" thinking. That is a very broad statement.
Vibram put a thicker more rigid sole in their KSO treks. They were responding to market demand by minimalist trail runners, trail runners who knew they would lose ground feedback yet gain a layer of traction. Don't forget though, Vibram has a huge and growing line of VFFs to please many different audiences, and every one of those shoes is still condsidered minimal in comparison to today's boat anchors. Not only that, they kept their original versions to satisfy the rest of us (Classic, Sprints, KSOs). We're not naming shoes "skin layers" or "liners," we're calling them minimalist, because that's what they are, minimal.
Zems includes a padded insole now (they aren't really in on all our barefoot running ways, but the shoe is designed to simulate being barefoot, and last I checked I don't have any padded insoles on my feet). The ZEMS that are on the market today were not intended for barefoot running; but hearing our pleas, they are now in the process of designing one for running. Don't forget too that the insole is removable, and I'm sure the new running versions will be too.
Oh well, I suppose as long as they call them minimal runners I don't care what they wear. Just as long as they don't try to tell me that there are barefoot shoes and shoe companies. I couldn't agree with you more, Danjo. You are a bright guy, and I appreciate your take on things.