It is time to say: the emperor has no clothes. The New Balance Minimus Zero Trail Shoe, aka MT00, has a few of the characteristics that forefoot-strike enthusiasts have sought, but too many shortcomings to be worth buying.
Most of these deficiencies stem from a misunderstanding of the values that minimalist running represents. Like many converts, I was driven to reflect on my running style by the cogent arguments laid out in Christopher McDougall's Born to Run. Probably his most compelling piece of evidence was the study that showed that the cost of a running shoe was inversely correlated to the incidence of injury among the wearers. To put this simply, the more expensive the shoe, the more injury. Of course there is a selection bias in play among the sample: runners who became injured in the cheep shoes probably resorted to more expensive shoes in an attempt to solve their injuries, but due to something inherent to their bodies or their running styles, they became injured again. This does not expiate the running shoe companies who developed and sold increasingly complex foam shoes on the promise that they would help a beleaguered runner avoid injury. This was demonstrated to be false; no running shoe company could prove otherwise.
The corollary to the bogus claim regarding injury prevention is that runners must replace their shoes every 300 to 500 miles, lest the space age foam protecting the runner's feet compact down until it no longer provides the required support and protection. One of the main draws of a minimalist shoe is that it provides only a strip of rubber underfoot. This has two advantages: first, it allows the muscles in the foot to strengthen, bearing their load in a natural manner, uninhibited by artificial supports that can encourage them to atrophy. Second, a runner can continue to run in the shoe until the rubber has worn through to the point where it no longer protects against rocks and thorns. My pair of New Balance Minimus Trail (the original) endured for 15 months (probably 700 running miles, plus hikes, swims, and CrossFit workouts). This was an extremely well-made shoe. Aside from several small holes where sticks had poked through, the mesh upper was immaculate. The raised, reinforced seems were bulletproof.
The MT00, on the other hand, is thin and effete. The glue connecting the toe to the upper failed after two runs. The gossamer upper inspires no confidence, and feels clammy against a bare foot. The tongue requires careful attention while lacing the shoes to ensure that it does not become doubled-over at the edges. The sole, while receiving an additional layer of rubber in high-wear areas compared to the Minimus Trail, is still insufficient to handle rocky trails. The protection works for gravel trails, but any larger gauge rocks will overwhelm the thin foam and rubber. Ironically, the MT00 is probably best suited to road running, as the smooth surface is fine for the limited protection, and the light weight is more valuable on the road where you will be doing your fastest running.
Despite its most notable advancement, the move to a zero millimeter drop, the MT00 fails on several critical points. The durability and protection are not worthy of a minimalist trail shoe.
Most of these deficiencies stem from a misunderstanding of the values that minimalist running represents. Like many converts, I was driven to reflect on my running style by the cogent arguments laid out in Christopher McDougall's Born to Run. Probably his most compelling piece of evidence was the study that showed that the cost of a running shoe was inversely correlated to the incidence of injury among the wearers. To put this simply, the more expensive the shoe, the more injury. Of course there is a selection bias in play among the sample: runners who became injured in the cheep shoes probably resorted to more expensive shoes in an attempt to solve their injuries, but due to something inherent to their bodies or their running styles, they became injured again. This does not expiate the running shoe companies who developed and sold increasingly complex foam shoes on the promise that they would help a beleaguered runner avoid injury. This was demonstrated to be false; no running shoe company could prove otherwise.
The corollary to the bogus claim regarding injury prevention is that runners must replace their shoes every 300 to 500 miles, lest the space age foam protecting the runner's feet compact down until it no longer provides the required support and protection. One of the main draws of a minimalist shoe is that it provides only a strip of rubber underfoot. This has two advantages: first, it allows the muscles in the foot to strengthen, bearing their load in a natural manner, uninhibited by artificial supports that can encourage them to atrophy. Second, a runner can continue to run in the shoe until the rubber has worn through to the point where it no longer protects against rocks and thorns. My pair of New Balance Minimus Trail (the original) endured for 15 months (probably 700 running miles, plus hikes, swims, and CrossFit workouts). This was an extremely well-made shoe. Aside from several small holes where sticks had poked through, the mesh upper was immaculate. The raised, reinforced seems were bulletproof.
The MT00, on the other hand, is thin and effete. The glue connecting the toe to the upper failed after two runs. The gossamer upper inspires no confidence, and feels clammy against a bare foot. The tongue requires careful attention while lacing the shoes to ensure that it does not become doubled-over at the edges. The sole, while receiving an additional layer of rubber in high-wear areas compared to the Minimus Trail, is still insufficient to handle rocky trails. The protection works for gravel trails, but any larger gauge rocks will overwhelm the thin foam and rubber. Ironically, the MT00 is probably best suited to road running, as the smooth surface is fine for the limited protection, and the light weight is more valuable on the road where you will be doing your fastest running.
Despite its most notable advancement, the move to a zero millimeter drop, the MT00 fails on several critical points. The durability and protection are not worthy of a minimalist trail shoe.
I was recommending this shoe to clients based on the ASSUMPTION, they'd just upgrade the versatile and heavy duty original minimus trails...
ReplyDeleteI made it to a running store last week. Whoa. What is this thing? It's like a space age pool-shoe inspired by the minimus. Total crap.