I have converse white based this on the premise that, no matter what is being said about technical running footwear, there is no evidence that it really  aint broken, so we will tweak, but no need to fix. The minimalist movement works on the premise that by reducing heel height, i.e. the overall gradient, by maybe 6 mm, it induces a midfoot or even forefoot strike pattern. I have not been able to identify one single piece of credible evidence to support this.. so.. we will stick to our guns. Once more the ether is thick with unsupportable nonsense. pose, chi, toning, barefoot, minimalist& .

Not sure where that came from, certainly not me. I beleive some runners should forefoot strike. for example, if one has less than 10 degrees dorsiflexion, which many runners do, that runner cannot achieve heel srtike. But you know what.. humans are very varied, and lots of runners heel strike and run well and efficiently.There is no converse black problem midfoot striking or forefoot striking in an ASICS shoe.. I recommend it all the time, especially if I think a change in form will help. But not to everyone ."Bartold then discusses that he believes some runners should forefoot strike, and I agree.

If you are running pain free in ASICS 2100 converse high tops series shoes, by all means, keep doing so. Being able to run is what is important after all, and why mess with what's working. However, as Bartold points out, humans are variable, so why should we expect the 12mm lift, heel strike model to work for everyone? This is why I'm so perplexed at his willingness to fight the minimalist movement. If some people are benefiting it, why all of the resistance? Sure, ASICS makes racing flats that are similar to many minimalist shoes, but good luck to the recreational runner who wants to find a pair to try on and doesn't have access to a converse black high tops specialty running store.

How do you know which category you belong to? What you'll find next are instructions on how to determine your arch type based on the "wet footprint test." Once you determine your arch type, you can translate it into a pronation category and choose a shoe from one of three categories: high arch gets cushioning, medium arch gets structure cushioning, low arch gets maximum support. These are basically different words for neutral, stability, and motion control.

Why does the shoe industry feel that shoes with a 12mm (or greater) heel lift are the "gold standard?" If there is no peer-reviewed evidence that these highly-cushioned shoes prevent injury or are more beneficial than zero drop shoes then why is there not more variety out there? If the studies are "still out" on either "minimal" or "maximal" (for lack of a better term) shoes then why isn't there an even representation of both styles on shoe store shelves? It would make sense that since you've said yourself that all runners are different and will therefore require different styles of running shoes then there would be an even representation of both "minimal" and "maximal" shoes in stores.

Let's try this then (questions to follow the colon): 1) What is the average heel lift (defined as the height difference in millimeters converse trainers between the heel and the forefoot) of the top 5 (by quantity) Asics running shoes sold at retail (both online & in stores) in 2010? 2) How many of those top 5 shoes have peer reviewed studies showing their effectiveness at preventing injury or increasing performance? I swear, this whole thing is like a religion discussion where neither side budges because both sides feel they are right. Anyhoo, I don't have a peer reviewed medical journal article to back up what I'm about to write so SB may want to hit that little "x" in the top right corner.