Why Minimalism Went Flat - Part II

MinFlatII.png



Why Minimalism Went Flat - Part II
Form Vs. Running Shoes
Part Two, by Jim Hixson, CSCS


Minimalism isn’t going away. Too many runners have discovered for the first time what it’s like to run injury-free. They have awakened to the joy of a midfoot strike instead of heels hitting first, something that conventional running shoes with stiff, outsized crash pads pretty much guaranteed. But in the macro sense of things, minimalist runners make up a rather small percentage of all runners. Some estimates put the number around 10 percent, which means that the other 90 percent are still hooked on traditional shoes or are currently in thrall with maximalist footwear.

In part one, “Why Minimalism Went Flat,” I examined the reasons why minimalism has lost its luster, and why the trend towards maximalism has taken a literal foothold among the running shoe companies. Big shoes are in. In a big way. In this second part of the series, I look at the seemingly elusive concept of correct running technique and its relationship to footwear.

Most of the online and Facebook responses to part one were positive, although there was also criticism. Pete Larson, of Runblogger, wrote a rebuttal on his site: “Of course, one can ask, “Minimal, maximal, traditional, who cares? It’s just shoes, and being able to enjoy running is what it’s all about.”

Two assumptions are seemingly present in Pete’s statement: (1) running shoes don’t have an effect on a runner’s biomechanics; and (2) even if shoes did affect biomechanics, a runner’s form has no positive or negative effects on the sheer joy of running.

On the contrary, I would argue that shoes do have a significant effect on running form and form matters, because the way you run is connected to the effects running has on your body and your performance. To continue reading, please visit: http://naturalrunningcenter.com/2015/03/25/form-vs-running-shoes-why-minimalism-flatpart/