Minimalist Running Shoes
Minimalist Running Shoes
Even before the 1970′s shoes used by the athletes were not labeled with the name minimalist running shoes. It was not until after the entrance of the cushioned shoes when researchers, sports physicians, and consumers began wondering if all that cushion was really necessary. Given the avalanche of shoes, sometimes wrongly called minimalist running shoes, the discussion should now be what are the qualities of this type of running shoe and what features do they have that make them different from your ordinary running shoes.
The main characteristics of minimalist running shoes that needs to be met in order to be named such is:
1. Anatomical correctness.
The shoe should not have to support the arch and the difference in height between the heel and forefoot should be very small, possibly none. You must also have enough space for fingers, so that once we land on the forefoot, they can expand and find a physical barrier that prevents it. The anatomical correctness of the minimalist running shoes is very important and must be considered.
2. Flexibility.
The foot movements performed during different phases of takeoff and landing, so if the shoe has little flexibility, such movements would be restricted or not would be made freely.
3. Freeback to the ground, sole-midsole.
Next to the anatomical shape formed by two fundamental properties that must be met for a shoe to enter the front door of minimalism. The sole is made of a material is to allow proper communication between the sense organs of the foot and the ground, limiting its width to a few millimeters. In the event that there should be midsole made of a low density material and as such the sole should have a width to the millimeter – another good feature of the minimalist running shoes.
4. Lightweight
This feature continues to be less important than the rest, because if the shoe has too much weight can interfere with proper running technique as well as causing a premature fatigue in the muscles involved in movement. Sometimes even the boundary between the technical aspects of minimalist running shoes and non minimalist shoes can appear very thin, however there is a huge noted difference on the impact of the runner’s feet between the two types of running shoes. Below we will describe, in passing, the structural characteristics of some models, under the minimalist label found on the market today.
Structural differences of different minimalist running shoes.
New Balance Minimus Road Minimalist Running Shoes
New Balance minimalist running shoes breaks into the market with three models being used for a mixture of asphalt and street shoe with cushioning shoe. Nothing more to see the shoe, the width of the midsole puts us on notice. With so prominent a midsole is difficult to apply this minimalist shoe last name, as it is almost impossible for us to feel the ground, despite the density with which it is produced is low. If information comes to the feet, it will be masked. Its not meet expectations last being close to the front, so the space is reserved for small fingers. Inevitably have to use a higher number than usual even though the shoe will be well long. Another negative point is the difference in height between the heel and forefoot. Neither is zero or approaches (4mm). Your weight is not the most remarkable (250g) and placed at the catalog, include within the category of shoe competition. Some racers are using them as transitional minimalist running shoes.
Vivobarefoot Neo Terra Plana Minimalist Running Shoes
Terra Plana has been stepping up and already has 4 specific models for brokers in the market, plus a whole line dedicated to Barefoot. The first thing you notice when you get the Neo is how comfortable they are and this has much to do with the fact of not having support for the arch and toe room of the most spacious. I’ve used them without socks and have not had any gall, the ending is very careful.
In this case we can not talk midsole, as Terra Plana eliminate it completely, as the difference in height between the heel and forefoot. The few millimeters of soil are enough to protect the feet of stone, glass and almost any sharp object on the other hand let the communication between the field and our body is correct. A priori the weight I did not like, he considered excessive, but balance in hand and comparing it with FiveFingers Classic is a difference of only 30 grams. In this has much to do to use the right size for the length of my foot, as in the FiveFingers I have to use one size for having “finger Greek.” With Neo Vivobarefoot we can say that this is a true minimalist shoe.
Saucony Hattori Minimalist Running Shoes
Although these shoes I have not had in my hands or I have my shoes, I can get some information from images without making big mistakes. A glance shows that the width of the midsole is average, ie not excessive, as in a conventional cushioned shoe, or minimal or nonexistent as in a pure minimalist shoe. This type of slipper, minimalist mix of competition and usually comes with Eva midsole made of low density with which the feedback from the field should not be all bad. Also, do not include any damping system. Is to highlight the zero or near zero difference between the heel and forefoot. It is noted that Saucony has done its homework and eliminates one of the things that bothers barefoot runners-minimalist. The last seems to keep one of the basic principles of the anatomy of the foot, that is correct width for the toe area, but nevertheless appears to support the arch. Here I miss the power calzármelas, no doubt alienate all doubts.
The evaluation of this shoe is remarkable the low durability that it presupposes a sole almost nonexistent, and the layer that faces the same wasting is EVA midsole material not noted for their resistance to abrasion . This, without being a technical characteristic produces a large structural difference between mixed racing footwear and minimalist running shoes.
