Whatever happened to the whole "born to run" thing, which surveyed a lot of evidence that running shoes - recent inventions - cause injuries almost universally, that you're better off with totally minimal shoes if not no shoes at all.
Overengineered shoes in general are not as popular: if you look at something like thruhikers on the AT or PCT, a lot of them opt for a wide-toebox, neutral heal drop trail runner over an overly built up and heavy hiking boot. I've seen thruhikers do whole sections in Crocs.
So perhaps "minimal" wasn't the right thing to focus on. But the design of the shoes have def. changed.
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot-style-...
As others have said, people are different. There might well be a subset of runners for whom a barefoot/minimal style is best, but AFAICT it's a minority at best, so "generally found to be untrue" is a pretty good summary.
There is also a claim which I’m not so familiar with which is that bare foot runners think their feet will become more “taught and spring like”, ,not really familiar with that idea.
What I’m interested in, and the article doesn’t discuss is the injury rate between runners who run barefoot and without shoes. I haven’t any studies which say I’m more likely to be injured when going barefoot.
I think the real reason more people wear shoes is that there is seems to be something taboo about going shoeless. As a bare foot runner I feel judged for taking off the shoes and going for a run.
Edit: To the point about people who tried barefoot shoes and were injured, that’s probably because just running without shoes on with the same technique for 10 weeks isn’t an advisable way to run without shoes. It’s quite a different exercise.
Can you cite any studies at all on the subject, even showing the converse? It's not clear why the entire burden of proof should be on one side.
> As a bare foot runner I feel judged for taking off the shoes and going for a run.
I've only been running a bit over four years, and I've seen plenty of judging from both sides. Personally, I have something that works for me, even through New England winters when barefoot simply isn't an option. If somebody half my age and half my annual mileage wants to look down their nose at me because I wear pretty standard shoes, all I can do is laugh.
And it's not because of ad dollars - you don't see them wearing hats or gloves just because some company would pay for that.
...in which case it's definitely illegal under IAAF rules.
BTW, even the dreaded "heel strike" isn't as bad as many seem to think. In the article I cited in another comment here, they actually found that heel striking is more energy-efficient. Other studies I've seen have suggested that heel striking is more often a symptom of another problem than a problem itself. It might or might not be ideal, but among dozens of other mechanical issues people can have - e.g. overstriding, pronation/supination - it's only one part of the picture and IMO is often a distraction from any given runner's real issues.
> It is thought that shoes may have been used long before this, but because the materials used were highly perishable, it is difficult to find evidence of the earliest footwear.[8] By studying the bones of the smaller toes (as opposed to the big toe), it was observed that their thickness decreased approximately 40,000 to 26,000 years ago. This led archaeologists to deduce that wearing shoes resulted in less bone growth, resulting in shorter, thinner toes.[9]
It is believed to be one of the oldest hunting techniques, and so would indicate that humans are in fact meant to run long distances. According to Wikepedia, the runner runs for "about two to five hours over 25 to 35 km (16 to 22 mi)".