Midfoot Minimalists and ChiRunners challenge footwear design conventions
By Ernest Shiwanov
Pioneers often are voices in the wilderness. They are the courageous souls who question the entrenched paradigm despite its heavy presence over the landscape. We have a trove of historical examples to back that up: Copernicus, Earheart, Parks and Dryer. Yes Dryer. As in Danny Dryer, the meditative force behind midfoot running’s antinomian twin, ChiRunning. As he put it, “since 1999, I’ve been a salmon swimming upstream.” The stream he is referring to, of course, is the predominance of runners whose stride is defined by their initial ground contact: the rearfoot strikers.
Although Dryer has been in the thick of the midfoot running groundswell, his contribution to the movement has been as subtle as it has been profound. With the emergence of new footwear companies, as well as changes in the old guard’s product mix, all running products influenced by the minimalist or midfoot running movement have elements of Dryer’s ChiRunning. How do those influences show themselves in today’s minimalist shoe? In order to spot ChiRunning’s inspiration, a basic understanding of the fundamentals of the running gait and some of the ongoing scientific research is helpful.
The running gait, also known as the gait cycle, can be parsed into two parts: the flight or swing phase and the stance phase. The flight phase occurs when the airborne trailing foot is on its way to repeat the ground-contacting stance phase (Figure 1). The stance phase itself has its own subset of phases: the touchdown or landing phase, the midstance phase and the toe-off or propulsive phase. It’s those three midstance phase types that identify a runner’s foot strike. A rearfoot striker would have all three phases in their stance. Whereas midfoot strikers have the latter two: midstance and toe-off. ChiRunners would only have the midstance. For the purpose of this article, only rear and midfoot/ChiRunning techniques will be discussed (Figure 2).
These two apparently subtle differences in the midstance are ground zero for the which-is-better-for-you debate. In one corner, minimalists and ChiRunners alike pin running injuries to the institutional running shoe design and the rearfoot strikers that use them. When he started teaching ChiRunning, Dryer says that 65 percent of all runners were getting injured once per year. “We’ve been duped by [running shoe manufacturer’s] marketing all these years,” he says. This same group often claims, because of their running technique, they are less prone to injury or become injury-free when adopting this stride.
It is easy to see why the midfoot running crowd feels smug about their stance. Studies continue to flow out of academia offering tantalizing but inconclusive support to these claims. A recent study published in the October 2013 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy by D. L. Goss, et al. (“A Comparison of Negative Joint Work and Vertical Ground Reaction Force Loading Rates in Chi Runners and Rearfoot-Striking Runner”), looked at specific parameters for differences between Chi and rearfoot runners. The authors conclude that “Chi running may reduce knee loading and ground reaction force loading rates.” The report’s findings note an increase in rearfoot striker’s knee joint compression, the stress of which was not seen among the ChiRunning group. However, Goss, et al points out, “Future research is necessary to determine whether these changes translate to reduced injury risk.”
Havard’s Daniel Lieberman, et al agrees with Goss’ cautionary tone. “We hypothesize and there is anecdotal evidence that forefoot or midfoot striking can help avoid and/or mitigate repetitive stress injuries, especially stress fractures, plantar fasciitis, and runner’s knee. We emphasize, however, that this hypothesis on injury has yet to be tested and that there have been no direct studies on the efficacy of forefoot strike running or barefoot running on injury.”
Yet for all the outpouring of peer-review investigations and blogosphere noise regarding the efficacy of midfoot running, a study published in 2014 points out the greater efficiency of the rearfoot strike. The subtext for the casual observer might imply rearfoot striking is better. In Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, researchers at the University of León lead by Ana Ogueta-Alday concluded, for sub-elite runners, “habitually rearfoot striking runners are more economical than midfoot strikers. Foot strike pattern affected both contact and flight times, which may explain the differences in running economy.”
Although there was no mention of injury in this paper, the authors conclude “The advocates of ‘barefoot running’ or ‘minimalist running’ speculate about the possible advantages of midfoot strike patterns on running performance. Theoretically, this type of foot strike pattern allows a better stretching of the arch of the foot and better elastic energy storage of tendons, ligaments, and muscles of the lower limbs during the first part of ground contact. However, to our knowledge, there is no scientific evidence of this advantage for running economy or even for running performance. The aforementioned advantages might only appear at very high running speeds, and not in submaximal running.”
As the scientific literature continues to grow on the rearfoot versus midfoot/ChiRunning contest, eventually some conclusions will be drawn. In the meantime, the midfoot shoe design has clearly emerged. Some of the design considerations are the work of Dryer’s collaboration with New Balance on the NB 800 in the mid-2000s. For instance, the midfoot shoe design evolved into an exercise in minimalism. Compared to the traditional running shoe, there tends to be fewer components and/or stripped-down versions of them in the upper, midsole and outsole. Less materials translates to lighter weight, generally more flexibility and a more environmentally friendly product.
The shapes, and therefore, the looks of some of the shoes also have changed. Designs to accurately reflect the foot’s natural silhouette or to enhance kinesthetic feedback are more common. Topo, Altra and ZEM are good examples of less pointed lasts and wider ball widths (the last term for width at the ball of the foot, not to be confused with toe box or toe box height, which is the height of the toe cap). Topo and ZEM also feature bifurcated or split toe designs for those seeking even greater levels of proprioception.
For Dryer, his formula for the perfect shoe is based on time-honored common sense. “The best running shoe for you is the one you can run in with the least possible risk of injury given how you currently run and the longest distance you currently run,” he says.
This is predicated on the best possible fit with no restrictions or alterations to the runner’s gait. Meaning the shoe’s flexibility should conform to the foot’s own, and there should be no medial posting, a common anti-pronation design often seen in traditional running footwear. In other words, you can Chi or midfoot run in just about any footwear.
“I would like to see the industry move to zero drop shoes just like the foot,” adds Dryer. Zero drop meaning the foot sits on a midsole/outsole platform parallel to the ground with no height difference or drop from the heel to the ball of the foot.
Mike Focht, manager of run specialty store Laces in San Diego, Calif., says his Chi and midfoot running customers are in agreement with Dryer on shoe features.
“Typically they ask for a low-profile shoe with a flexible forefoot. Then they select the level of shock absorption,” says Focht. “They are not concerned with the toe shape. To them proprioception is more important.”
Midfoot and ChiRunning are here to stay, and manufactures continue to step up, contributing to the mix. What follows are just a few offerings that hit the mark.
ZEM
As of 2010, the Zone of Endless Motion, or ZEM, has echoed the philosophy heard throughout the minimalist or ChiRunning camps: allow your feet to be as natural as possible. A quick glance at the 2014 line shows ZEM’s commitment to that mantra. All their products have a round or split toe design. Depending on the SKU, the consumer has a choice between either design within that style. Despite the shoe’s light weight, the integrated Tech Band Technology overlays maintain upper dimensional stability and protection without adding the bulk of a seam. Long-lasting, high-quality, compression-resistant Poron insoles are used throughout the range. Regrind Green-Grip outsoles make for lighter footprints on the earth.
Topo Athletic
Georgia Shaw, director of marketing for Topo, calls out two highlights of the company’s line as the best options for Chi or minimal running: the ST and the MT. They feature Topo’s anatomical toe box, a neutral or near-neutral platform (zero or near zero drop), medium thick midsoles, thread and seam free printed uppers and weights in the 5.9 to 8.2 ounce range for a men’s size 9.0. Shaw remarks,” Our goal is for runners to feel completely connected to their footwear so they can remain focused on their movement, posture and breathing, not their shoes.” www.topoathletic.com
SKORA
SKORA is a purpose-built midfoot running brand. “Runners have a need for performance footwear, and it should be as a natural, healthy and simple as possible. The foot and the human body are designed for running, and footwear must respect this,” says David Sypniewski, CEO SKORA Running. So every shoe in SKORA’s range has been created around an anatomical upper and sole unit, zero drop platforms, lightweight components and flexible construction. For Chi or midfoot runners, the only considerations to make with SKORA is how much shock absorption you need to best match your pavement or trail needs. skorarunning.com
Altra
One of the successful young lions in the minimalist movement’s innovation front has shown no signs of slowing. Altra’s One2 has it all: lightweight, impact protection, FootShape’s rounded toe and some new feature/concepts. Co-founder Golden Harper describes it as such: “The One Squared is an ideal shoe for those looking to improve their running technique because it is perfectly weight-balanced from front to back. The One Squared also sports the highest cushion-to-weight ratio of any performance trainer on the market. This shoe really is the epitome of what we are trying to accomplish in a lightweight shoe – it’s super light, fast and responsive, yet has enough cushion to keep the feet happy for just about any distance.” www.altrarunning.com
