For about two months now, I’ve been running with less shoe around my feet. I’ve been alternating between two zero-drop shoes: the New Balance MR00 (which we’ll call the Minimus); and the MV2 (“M V Squared”), a performance shoe by Newton. The time has come to review both.

The original pic for this article had a big bloody “vs.” in the middle, and lots of fire and explosions. But it wouldn’t be fair to declare a winner. After all, I’m not comparing apples to apples in this post; as I said before, the MR00 is a cushioned minimalist-style shoe, and the MV2 is for road-racing. I’m comparing apples to very, very apple-like oranges.

Anyway, on to the categories!

Fit

Minimus: This slipper is long and loose. It works for my feet, but a narrow-footed runner would probably find it baggy.

MV2: The ‘Squared is tight, but it has such a soft, light upper that it doesn’t squeeze or pinch. It just feels like a race-day shoe.

Feel

Minimus: This shoe makes me feel like an overweight ninja. It’s so light that I can really get a good cadence going, and so thin on the bottom that I feel every bump in the road (in a mostly good way).

MV2: The feel of the forefoot lugs creeped me out at first. It was like having a couple balls of yarn under my forefeet. But now that I’m used to it, the extra cushioning feels a lot more protective than the Minimus.

Function

Minimus: I wouldn’t recommend this shoe to anyone who isn’t ready to run minimal. Try to trudge or land on your heel and you’ll discover that there’s no soft padding to protect you. The low profile is excellent for weightlifting, however. It works for the run to and from the gym, and everything in between.

MV2: While the MV2 is inherently less stable than the MV2, it was my go-to for each week’s long run. I found its design far more protective than the Minimus.

Bottom Line: Wide-footed runners will find something to love in each of these shoes. For the true minimalist experience, I highly recommend the Minimus. For a go-fast shoe with a little extra protection, try the MV2.

Those following the debate over minimalism have no doubt already heard about the class action lawsuit filed against Vibram. Valerie Bezdek, a Florida resident, is trying to sue the company over claims that barefoot-style running has health benefits. She’s citing the large percentage of people who, ignoring Vibram’s instructions, run in Five Fingers improperly and get injured.

In other words:

Now, I have a vacuum. The box it came in claims that it “removes embedded dirt and minimizes scatter on carpet.” And it does—if I first plug it in. But what if I didn’t plug it in? What if I disregarded the vacuum’s instructions and rolled it around my apartment with the power set to “off”? It sure wouldn’t remove any embedded dirt.

What if I could prove that the majority of people didn’t use the Wind Tunnel properly? Should I sue Hoover?

It’s easy to scoff at the comparison. Everyone knows electricity is required to power a vacuum, right? But I have a hard time believing that Ms. Bezdek didn’t know that barefoot-style running comes with some dangers. The Vibram site is peppered with warnings, disclaimers, instructions, and more warnings. Any good retailer would have explained to her that these shoes require major changes in running form, and that adjusting is neither a quick nor an easy process.

Working for such a retailer, I’m not surprised by this lawsuit. I’ve had to dash the hopes of many, many customers. I’ve had to explain to them that minimalist-style shoes are not magic. That they merely promote healthy form. And I’ve seen customers’ eyes glaze over when I try to disabuse them of their fantasies. People want to believe that merely buying a new product will solve all their running problems. They want to believe this so strongly that they won’t listen when I suggest otherwise. It’s little wonder that they react poorly when the product fails to live up to their expectations.

That’s why I’m not surprised that Ms. Bezdek would resort to a lawsuit. When an American doesn’t get what she wants, suing is usually the next step. What I find disturbing is how far her case has gotten.

In the clamour raised by the barefoot running community– and its opponents– hard facts are few and far between. That’s why I found this article, written by a local running shoe specialist, so refreshing.

Bull manages a running shoe store– we can’t overlook that. He has a financial stake in the debate over minimalism. Perhaps that’s why the tone of his polemic is, well, so polemical. If one can read with a critical eye, however, he offers several well-reasoned refutations for minimalist arguments.

For example, Abebe Bikila, posterboy of the barefoot running movement, is world famous for running the Olympic marathon barefoot; what most people don’t know is that running barefoot was an accident, and he later performed better while wearing shoes.

Another oft-cited argument is that when running fever hit America in the 70′s, most runners ran just fine in shoes without built-up heels and medial posts. But this fails to take into account that the typical runner today is less biomechanically efficient (i.e. fatter) than back then. This argument is not, as Bull says, “comparing apples to apples.”

Well, they finally broke me. I bought a pair of Five Fingers. Bikilas, more specifically:

On my feet.

With all the talk about barefoot running, I wanted to experience these monkey feet for myself. I never intended to run in them, for reasons that I’ll explain shortly. I wanted to wear them for walking, especially at work; they do, after all, nicely distill the comfort of being barefoot (and who, given the choice, wouldn’t go to work barefoot?).

As for running in them… don’t believe the hype. Moon-eyed runners come into our store all the time looking for Five Fingers and Nike Frees, aggrandizing them as a panacea for every kind of injury and physical shortcoming. Five Fingers represent a fundamental shift in the running paradigm, and people mistake this alternative running style for an inherently better one.

If we peel back the layers of optimism, however, we see two major arguments that are put forth by the barefoot community. They are that

1. Humans evolved to walk on the balls of their feet and
2. Shoe technology is actually injuring people

The first argument has some merit. If you ever sprint barefoot, you’ll probably find yourself lifting up onto the balls of your feet. Running “on your toes” like this means a faster turnover and, well, feels natural. So if humans evolved to do this, shouldn’t our technology accommodate it? Perhaps, but this a flawed argument. This implies that evolution is meaningful and therefore “right” when, from a scientific point of view, evolution is largely random and the human body is imperfect. Technology is meant to pick up where nature left off. While the human foot may indeed be a magnificent feat (haha) of engineering, it won’t offer the shock absorption, rebound, or balance of modern running shoe technology.

The second argument is an excellent example of why you can’t trust statistical studies from people who are trying to sell you something. As a precursor to their Nike Free line, Nike released studies done on running injuries. The idea was to prove that high-tech running shoes actually caused injuries. The evidence, however, was highly anecdotal and the experiment lacked controls. One study confirmed that runners in the most expensive shoes were more likely to be injured; but then, aren’t people with poor biomechanics more likely to buy expensive shoes? Are the more expensive technologies the unreliable ones? The bottom line is that none of these experiments established a causal relationship between running tech and injuries.

I don’t mean to disparage minimalist running shoes. After all, you can see them on my feet above. I just want to help others understand what these things are and are not. They are extremely comfortable, and a viable alternative. They are not a miracle cure.