a black and white photo of two people running

Why Running Shoes Are Either Disappearing or Getting Enormous

Walk into any running store and you'll find two completely opposite philosophies sitting on the same shelf. One says strip everything away and let your foot do the work. The other says add as much cushion as physically possible. Both claim the science backs them up.

Max Stephens

6/24/20266 min read

Look at a Vivobarefoot style shoe next to a Hoka style shoe and you'd be surprised they're even the same category of product.

One has a sole about as thick as a yoga mat, zero height difference between heel and toe, and a toe box wide enough to let your toes spread out like they would without shoes on at all. The other has a stack height that puts your foot nearly two inches off the ground, foam dense enough to look like a cloud bolted to a sandal, and a rocker shape designed to roll you forward with almost no effort from your own foot.

Both categories have grown substantially over the past decade. Both have passionate followings who think the other side has it backward. And the honest answer is that neither one has settled the actual scientific question both of them are trying to answer.

What each category is actually solving for

These aren't two versions of the same idea. They're two different answers to the same problem: what should happen to the impact force traveling up your leg every time your foot hits the ground.

Minimalist and barefoot-style shoes, the category Vivobarefoot built an entire brand around, are built on the idea that your foot is already equipped to handle that force if you let it. The design features all point in one direction. Zero drop, meaning no height difference between heel and forefoot. A wide, foot-shaped toe box that lets your toes splay rather than getting pressed together by a tapered shoe. A thin, flexible sole that transmits ground feedback instead of blocking it. The theory is that thick cushioning and rigid structure have spent decades training feet to be weaker and less responsive than they're capable of being, and that removing the shoe's intervention lets the foot's own muscles and tendons do the shock absorption they evolved to do.

Maximalist shoes, with Hoka as the category's defining brand, take the opposite position. Rather than asking the foot to absorb force, they try to absorb it externally with as much cushioning material as the shoe can structurally support. Hoka's stack heights run dramatically higher than a traditional running shoe, often paired with a rocker-shaped sole that reduces how much the foot itself needs to flex and push through a stride. The theory here is that more cushioning means less impact force reaching your joints, period, regardless of how strong or weak your foot muscles happen to be.

Same problem. Opposite proposed solutions. And both have been gaining ground for over a decade.

How we got two opposite trends at once

This split has a specific origin point, and it's worth understanding because it explains why both extremes exist simultaneously instead of one simply winning out.

The minimalist movement traces back largely to research from Harvard biomechanist Daniel Lieberman in the late 2000s, which examined how habitually barefoot populations run differently than shoe-wearing populations, more often landing on the midfoot or forefoot rather than heel-striking. That research, combined with the bestselling book "Born to Run," sparked a genuine cultural moment around the idea that modern running shoes had created problems rather than solved them. Vibram FiveFingers became the most visible product of that moment, and Vivobarefoot built a broader brand around the same underlying philosophy applied beyond running into everyday footwear.

That movement ran into a real problem fairly quickly. Transitioning into minimalist shoes changes loading patterns on the foot and lower leg dramatically, and runners who switched too fast got hurt. One frequently cited statistic puts the injury rate among runners transitioning to minimalist shoes at 86 percent within the first six weeks, though the more useful detail buried in that number is that the injuries were overwhelmingly tied to switching too quickly rather than something inherent to minimalist design itself. Vibram eventually settled a class action lawsuit for 3.75 million dollars over health claims the company couldn't substantiate, which became something of a cautionary tale for the entire category about claiming more certainty than the research actually supported.

Maximalist footwear developed on a mostly separate track. Hoka was founded in 2009 specifically for ultrarunners covering extreme distances on technical mountain terrain, where the priority wasn't biomechanical purity but simply reducing cumulative fatigue and impact over 50 or 100 miles of running. The category grew well beyond ultrarunning once mainstream runners and eventually non-runners discovered that the cushioning felt good for recovery days, long walks, and standing on your feet for hours.

In an interview, Hoka's own product lead was notably direct about the evidence question, stating clearly that there isn't real evidence proving maximalist shoes protect against injury, a caution he attributed partly to wanting to avoid the same overclaiming problem that got Vibram into legal trouble.

So both categories grew out of legitimate insights, both ran ahead of what the research could fully support, and both kept growing anyway because a meaningful number of people found real benefit in each approach.

What the research actually shows

This is where it can get complicated, because the data doesn't cleanly favor either side.

On the minimalist side, there's reasonable evidence for some specific benefits. Studies have found improved running economy and reduced risk of certain knee injuries associated with the altered foot strike pattern minimalist shoes encourage. The wide toe box specifically has support from podiatric research, with the American Podiatric Medical Association noting that adequate toe splay can help with conditions like bunions and hammertoes that develop partly from years in tapered, narrow shoes. Vivobarefoot cites research claiming a 60 percent increase in foot strength after six months of regular wear, though it's worth noting that figure comes from company-funded research rather than an independent peer-reviewed source, which doesn't make it false but does mean it should be weighted accordingly.

The same research base that supports minimalist benefits also documents real risks. Multiple studies on the transition into minimalist footwear found increased rates of Achilles tendon issues, metatarsal stress fractures, and plantar fasciitis, specifically tied to the dramatic change in loading patterns when feet accustomed to cushioned heel striking suddenly switch to forefoot loading without adequate adaptation time.

On the maximalist side, the research is arguably less settled than the category's popularity would suggest. A 2018 study published in the Journal of Athletic Training found something that runs directly against the core assumption behind maximalist design: runners in maximalist shoes showed higher loading rates than runners in neutral shoes, 81.15 body weights per second compared to 60.83. The proposed explanation is that more cushioning under the heel encourages a harder heel strike, since the foot feels protected and the runner subconsciously compensates by landing with more force. That doesn't mean maximalist shoes are dangerous. It does mean the simple logic of "more cushion equals less impact" doesn't hold up cleanly in the data.

What neither category has produced is a large, well-controlled study definitively showing it reduces overall injury rates compared to a standard, moderately cushioned shoe. Both extremes have specific, narrower benefits supported by research. Neither has earned the sweeping claims often made about it in marketing.

Which one is actually better, and for what

The honest answer depends entirely on what you're trying to accomplish, not which side of the debate you find more persuasive.

Minimalist and barefoot-style shoes make the most sense for people specifically working on foot and ankle strength, gait retraining, or general daily wear where the priority is foot health over the long term rather than performance during a single workout. They're a reasonable choice for short, lower-intensity activity, walking, light strength training, daily wear, where the lower impact forces involved make the transition less risky. They're a poor choice for jumping straight into high-mileage running without a gradual adaptation period measured over months.

Maximalist shoes make sense for high-volume runners managing cumulative fatigue, people recovering from injury who need additional cushioning during the healing process, anyone spending long hours on their feet on hard surfaces, and recovery days between harder training sessions. They're a less obvious fit for someone trying to improve running economy, foot strength, or biomechanical efficiency, since the added cushioning and rocker shape can reduce the active work the foot does during each stride.

For most people, the most defensible position sits somewhere in the rotation rather than full commitment to either extreme. A growing number of coaches and physical therapists recommend exactly that: using a more cushioned shoe for higher mileage and recovery days, and incorporating some minimalist or barefoot time, walking, light training, mobility work, to maintain foot strength and proprioception that excessive cushioning can erode over years of use.

The bigger pattern

What's actually happening in the footwear industry isn't really a disagreement about which extreme is correct. It's two different bets on the same underlying uncertainty: how much should a shoe do for your foot, and how much should your foot be left to do for itself.

Neither bet has won decisively, and the research suggests that's unlikely to change soon, because both approaches carry real tradeoffs that show up clearly in the data. Strip too much away too fast and you risk overload injuries. Add too much cushioning and you risk losing strength and altering your mechanics in ways the shoe then has to keep compensating for.

The shoe aisle splitting in two directions at once isn't really a contradiction. It's the industry building different tools for different jobs, sold side by side, with each side's marketing department insisting their tool is the only one anyone needs.

Want articles like this one delivered weekly? Join the newsletter and get a quick recap of everything we cover, straight to your inbox, once a week.