Barefoot Shoes: Are Minimalist Shoes Really Better for Your Feet?

7 September 2026

Barefoot Shoes: Are Minimalist Shoes Really Better for Your Feet?

An evidence-based look at barefoot shoes, foot strength, injury risk, running and gym training

Walk into a gym today and you are increasingly likely to see people training in extremely flat, thin-soled shoes. Online, an entire footwear industry has developed around the concept of the “barefoot shoe”, with brands promoting wide toe boxes, flexible soles, zero heel-to-toe drop and minimal cushioning.

The argument is appealing.

Humans evolved without thick cushioned shoes. Our feet contain muscles, joints, ligaments and sensory receptors designed to interact with the ground.

Therefore, shouldn't allowing the foot to function more naturally make it stronger and healthier?

There is actually some good science behind parts of this argument.

Research suggests that regularly wearing minimalist footwear can increase foot muscle strength and, in some circumstances, muscle size (Ridge et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2016; Peters-Dickie et al., 2025).

But this is where an important distinction needs to be made.

Evidence that minimalist shoes can strengthen the foot is not the same as evidence that minimalist shoes prevent injuries, cure foot problems or are universally better than conventional footwear.

In fact, minimalist footwear changes where forces are absorbed by the body. Some loads may decrease while others increase.

Understanding this redistribution of load provides a much more useful way of looking at barefoot shoes.

What is actually meant by a “barefoot shoe”?

The terminology can be confusing.

Barefoot shoes, minimalist shoes, zero-drop shoes, wide-toe-box shoes and flexible shoes are frequently discussed as though they are interchangeable.

They are not.

Researchers have developed a formal definition of minimalist footwear. Esculier et al. (2015) described a minimalist shoe as footwear that interferes minimally with natural foot movement because of:

high flexibility;
low weight;
low stack height;
low heel-to-toe drop; and
absence of motion-control and stability devices.

They subsequently developed the Minimalist Index, which scores shoes according to these characteristics.

This distinction is important.

A shoe can have a zero heel-to-toe drop while still containing substantial cushioning.

Another shoe might have an extremely wide toe box while having a relatively conventional midsole.

A third might be extremely thin and flexible.

These shoes may affect the body differently.

Therefore, rather than simply asking whether a shoe is “barefoot”, it is more useful to consider its individual characteristics.

What does “zero drop” mean?

Heel-to-toe drop describes the difference in height between the heel and forefoot inside the shoe.

For example:

10 mm drop: heel sits approximately 10 mm higher than the forefoot.

5 mm drop: smaller elevation.

0 mm drop: heel and forefoot sit at approximately the same level.

Zero drop does not necessarily mean zero cushioning.

This is clinically important because reducing heel elevation changes ankle mechanics and potentially increases the mechanical demand placed upon the calf–Achilles complex.

Interestingly, a large randomized trial involving 553 recreational runners compared cushioned running shoes with 0, 6 and 10 mm heel-to-toe drops.
Overall injury risk was not significantly different between the three groups (Malisoux et al., 2016).

Therefore, simply reducing heel-to-toe drop cannot currently be claimed to prevent running injuries.

Do barefoot shoes strengthen your feet?

This is probably the barefoot movement's strongest scientific argument.

And the answer appears to be:

Yes, they can.

Ridge et al. (2019) randomly assigned 57 runners to one of three groups:

walking progressively in minimalist shoes;
performing specific foot-strengthening exercises; or
continuing normally as controls.

After eight weeks, both the minimalist-shoe group and foot-exercise group demonstrated significant increases in foot muscle size and strength.

Perhaps most interestingly, walking in minimalist footwear produced improvements comparable with performing specific strengthening exercises.

MRI studies provide further support.

Chen et al. (2016) followed runners undergoing a six-month transition to minimalist footwear and demonstrated increases in both foot and lower-leg muscle volume compared with runners continuing in conventional shoes.

More recently, Peters-Dickie et al. (2025) published a systematic review and meta-analysis examining foot-core exercises and minimalist footwear.

Twenty-eight trials involving 1,399 participants were included.

The overall evidence suggested that minimalist footwear can improve aspects of foot strength, including strength of toes 2–5.

However, there is an important qualification.

The authors rated the certainty of much of the evidence as low to very low, largely because of limited study numbers, methodological differences and risk of bias.

Therefore, the most defensible conclusion is:

Minimalist footwear can provide a training stimulus to the muscles of the foot and probably increases foot strength over time.

That is quite different from claiming that everyone needs minimalist footwear.

Do conventional shoes make your feet weak?

This claim requires considerably more caution.

If minimalist footwear increases muscular demand, it is reasonable to hypothesise that highly structured footwear might require less muscular activity from certain structures.

But that does not prove that conventional footwear produces clinically significant pathological weakness.

The human foot continues to function inside conventional footwear.

Walking, running, climbing stairs and exercising still require muscular activity.

At present, it is therefore more scientifically accurate to say:

Minimalist footwear may increase the strengthening stimulus provided to the foot.

rather than:

Conventional shoes weaken your feet.

The second statement goes considerably beyond what the research has established.

Stronger feet do not automatically mean fewer injuries

This is one of the most important distinctions in the entire barefoot discussion.

Suppose minimalist footwear increases intrinsic foot muscle strength by 15%, 20% or even 30%.

That demonstrates a physiological adaptation.

It does not automatically demonstrate:

fewer running injuries;
less plantar fasciitis;
fewer stress fractures;
less Achilles tendinopathy;
improved athletic performance; or
better long-term foot health.

Those questions require separate clinical studies.

This distinction between a surrogate outcome such as muscle strength and a clinical outcome such as injury incidence is extremely important when interpreting footwear research.

Minimalist shoes don't remove forces – they redistribute them

Perhaps the most useful way to understand footwear is through load distribution.

When we walk, run or jump, forces generated between the ground and body must be managed by our tissues.

Changing footwear does not make these forces disappear.

Instead, it can change:

where the load occurs;
how quickly it occurs;
which joints move;
which muscles contribute;
and which tissues absorb and return energy.

This explains an apparent contradiction in barefoot research.

Minimalist running can reduce certain biomechanical loads around the knee while simultaneously increasing loads elsewhere.

What happens at the knee?

Barefoot and minimalist running often produce several characteristic biomechanical changes.

A systematic review by Perkins, Hanney and Rothschild (2014) found moderate evidence that barefoot running, compared with conventional shod running, is associated with changes including:

shorter stride length;
increased cadence;
reduced ground-contact time;
reduced knee extension moments;
reduced knee power absorption;
increased knee flexion at initial contact; and
altered ankle position at ground contact.

Sinclair (2014) examined 30 recreational runners and compared conventional running shoes with barefoot and barefoot-inspired footwear.

The barefoot/minimalist conditions produced reductions in several measures associated with patellofemoral loading.

At first glance, this appears to provide a strong argument for barefoot footwear.

But something else happened simultaneously.

The load moves toward the ankle and Achilles tendon

In the same study, Achilles tendon forces increased when participants ran barefoot or in barefoot-inspired footwear compared with conventional running shoes (Sinclair, 2014).

This is an extremely important concept.

A runner might reduce certain mechanical demands around the knee while increasing demands around the:

Achilles tendon;
calf musculature;
ankle;
forefoot; and
metatarsals.

Therefore:

Minimalist shoes do not necessarily reduce loading. They change the loading strategy.

This helps explain why one runner may report that minimalist shoes improved knee symptoms while another develops calf, Achilles or forefoot symptoms after transitioning.

Both experiences are mechanically plausible.

Loading isn't necessarily bad

This also requires clarification.

It would be incorrect to conclude:

More Achilles loading = minimalist shoes damage the Achilles tendon.

Human tissues require mechanical loading.

Bone becomes stronger in response to appropriate mechanical stress.

Tendons adapt to loading.

Muscles become stronger when challenged.

The problem occurs when the load being applied repeatedly exceeds the tissue's current capacity to tolerate and recover from that load.

This gives us a useful equation:

LOAD + RECOVERY + ADAPTATION = INCREASED CAPACITY

But:

TOO MUCH LOAD + INSUFFICIENT ADAPTATION = INJURY RISK

This is particularly important when someone has spent decades wearing conventional shoes and suddenly changes footwear.

Your gait may adapt faster than your tissues

Someone can change their walking or running pattern almost immediately.

Their nervous system can modify movement quickly.

But tendons, bones and muscles require time to remodel.

This creates a potentially dangerous situation during rapid transition.

A runner may feel comfortable in minimalist shoes before all of the tissues experiencing the new loading pattern have fully adapted.

One particularly interesting study demonstrated this using MRI.

What happened when runners changed to Vibram FiveFingers?

Ridge et al. (2013) studied 36 experienced recreational runners.

Seventeen continued running in their conventional footwear.

Nineteen underwent a 10-week transition into Vibram FiveFingers minimalist shoes.

MRI scans of the feet were performed before and after the intervention.

Following the transition, 10 of the 19 runners in the Vibram group demonstrated increased bone-marrow oedema in at least one foot bone, significantly more than in the control group.

Bone-marrow oedema on MRI can represent increased skeletal stress.

Importantly, this study does not prove that Vibram FiveFingers cause stress fractures.

But it provides compelling evidence that changing to highly minimalist footwear can significantly alter the stress being experienced by the bones of the foot.

The authors specifically recommended a slow transition.

What happens to pressure underneath the forefoot?

Bergstra et al. (2015) investigated plantar pressure while healthy female runners ran in minimalist and conventional shoes.

Minimalist footwear increased peak pressures beneath several forefoot regions.

Peak pressure increased by approximately:

13.5% under the medial forefoot;
37.5% under the central forefoot; and
37.9% under the lateral forefoot.

Interestingly, these increases occurred without a meaningful change in landing strategy.

The researchers therefore cautioned that increased forefoot pressure could be relevant to metatarsal stress injuries when runners transition to minimalist footwear.

Again, this doesn't mean minimalist shoes inherently injure metatarsals.

It means the mechanical environment has changed.

But aren't humans designed to run barefoot?

This is one of the most persuasive arguments used in favour of barefoot running.

And from an evolutionary perspective, there is obviously truth within it.

Humans existed for an extraordinarily long time before modern running shoes appeared.

Lieberman et al. (2010) famously compared habitually barefoot and habitually shod runners.

Habitually barefoot endurance runners were more likely to land on the forefoot or midfoot, although some still heel-struck.

Habitually shod runners were more likely to rearfoot strike.

Barefoot forefoot-striking runners also generated different collision-force patterns compared with shod rearfoot-striking runners.

The study was extremely influential and helped drive the modern barefoot-running movement.

But there is a crucial distinction between:

describing how humans can run without modern shoes

and

demonstrating that barefoot running produces fewer injuries.

The first has been demonstrated.

The second has not.

“Natural” does not automatically mean medically superior

Evolutionary arguments are useful for understanding human anatomy.

But evolution does not provide a medical prescription.

Humans evolved without:

prescription glasses;
dental braces;
artificial joint replacements;
modern mattresses;
bicycles;
synthetic running tracks.

Yet we do not reject these technologies simply because they are evolutionarily novel.

The relevant clinical question is therefore not:

“What did our ancestors wear?”

It is:

“What mechanical environment is appropriate for this person's anatomy, tissues, activities and current capacity?”

That is a much more useful question.

Does heel striking cause injuries?

Another idea closely associated with the barefoot movement is that heel striking is inherently incorrect.

The argument often goes:

Modern shoes allow heel striking → heel striking produces impact → impact causes injuries.

The reality is considerably more complicated.

Foot-strike pattern certainly changes biomechanics.

But no high-quality evidence has established that every runner should convert from rearfoot striking to forefoot striking to prevent injury.

Changing to a forefoot strike also transfers more work toward the ankle and calf.

Therefore, changing someone's foot strike may simply exchange one loading pattern for another.

Foot strike should be considered a biomechanical variable rather than a universal measure of good or bad running technique.

Do barefoot shoes prevent running injuries?

At present:

There is insufficient evidence to say that they do.

The systematic review by Perkins et al. (2014) concluded that the literature did not provide sufficiently high-quality evidence to draw definitive conclusions regarding the risks or benefits of barefoot, minimalist or conventionally shod running.

Warne and Gruber (2017) subsequently examined studies involving transitions to minimalist footwear.

Across the studies they reviewed, injury incidence during minimalist-footwear transition was approximately 17.9 injuries per 100 participants, compared with 13.4 per 100 in matched conventional-shoe participants.

The difference was not statistically significant.

In other words, minimalist footwear was neither convincingly safer nor convincingly more dangerous overall.

This remains a key limitation of many barefoot claims.

Biomechanical differences are repeatedly demonstrated.

Clinical superiority is not.

Does zero-drop footwear reduce injuries?

Again, not convincingly.

Malisoux et al. (2016) randomly assigned 553 runners to cushioned shoes with:

0 mm drop;
6 mm drop; or
10 mm drop.

Overall injury risk did not significantly differ between the three groups.

Interestingly, subgroup analysis suggested that lower-drop shoes behaved differently in occasional versus regular runners.

This reinforces another important concept:

The effect of footwear may depend as much upon the person wearing the shoe as the shoe itself.

What about running economy?

Here the evidence becomes interesting again.

Running economy describes the metabolic energy required to maintain a particular running speed.
Lower energy expenditure at the same speed generally represents better running economy.

A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis by Xu, Wang and Wen found that both barefoot and minimalist running could produce small improvements in running economy compared with traditional shod running.

However, footwear characteristics associated with better running economy also included increased longitudinal bending stiffness and cushioning.

This is extremely important because it demonstrates why the minimalist-versus-cushioned debate is becoming outdated.

Modern high-performance running shoes frequently use:

substantial cushioning;
highly compliant foams;
high stack heights; and
increased longitudinal stiffness.

Yet these shoes can produce excellent running economy.

Therefore, there is clearly more than one mechanical pathway to efficient running.

Minimalism is not synonymous with efficiency.

The wide toe box deserves its own discussion

One of the most common things people say after changing to barefoot shoes is:

“My feet finally have room.”

This may be completely valid.

But it may have relatively little to do with the shoe being minimalist.

It may simply mean that their previous shoes were too narrow.

A wide anatomical toe box potentially allows greater space for:

toe movement;
forefoot expansion;
comfortable accommodation of foot shape.

But toe-box width and cushioning are independent variables.
There is no biomechanical requirement for a wide shoe to also have an extremely thin sole.

It is perfectly possible to manufacture a shoe with:

wide toe box + cushioning

or:

wide toe box + zero drop + cushioning

or:

wide toe box + conventional heel drop.

Therefore, if someone finds barefoot shoes more comfortable because their toes are no longer compressed, the correct conclusion may simply be:

They needed a wider shoe.

It does not necessarily follow that they also needed less cushioning.

Are barefoot shoes better for the gym?

This is perhaps the question I am asked most frequently.

My answer is:

They can be very good gym shoes – but not because barefoot footwear is universally superior.

The answer depends on what you are doing in the gym.

Barefoot shoes for deadlifting

When deadlifting, a stable interface between the foot and ground is desirable.

Standing on a thick, highly compliant running midsole introduces material that can deform under load.

A thin, firm shoe places the foot closer to the ground and provides a relatively stable platform.

This is mechanically sensible.

However, it does not follow that purchasing a specialist barefoot shoe will automatically increase strength.

A conventional flat, firm training shoe can provide many of the same characteristics.

For deadlifting, therefore, minimalist footwear is a reasonable option, not a physiological requirement.

What about squatting?

Squatting demonstrates perfectly why no single footwear philosophy works for every exercise.

A barefoot shoe generally provides:

thin sole + zero/low drop + high flexibility.

A traditional Olympic weightlifting shoe provides almost the opposite:

rigid sole + elevated heel + substantial stability.

Yet weightlifting shoes exist for sound biomechanical reasons.

Heel elevation can reduce the ankle dorsiflexion requirement necessary to achieve certain squat positions and may allow some lifters to squat deeper or maintain a more upright trunk.

A person with excellent ankle mobility may squat comfortably in flat shoes.

Someone with restricted ankle dorsiflexion may find an elevated heel considerably more effective.

Therefore:

The best squat shoe is not necessarily the shoe that interferes least with the foot. It is the shoe that facilitates the mechanics required by that lifter.

What about ordinary resistance training?

For exercises such as:

bench press;
seated resistance machines;
biceps curls;
cable exercises;
many upper-body exercises;

whether the shoe has a 3 mm sole or 30 mm sole is unlikely to meaningfully affect the training stimulus.

There is simply no convincing evidence that wearing barefoot shoes during general resistance training produces superior whole-body strength or muscle development.

Their main potential advantage is providing the feet themselves with a greater sensory and muscular stimulus.

HYROX, CrossFit and functional training are different

This is where I would become considerably more cautious about recommending extremely minimalist footwear.

Consider what happens during a mixed training session:

running → sled push → sled pull → burpees → lunges → rowing → jumping → squatting.

This is very different from performing five sets of deadlifts.

The shoe now needs to manage:

repeated impact;
propulsion;
braking;
jumping;
running;
lateral movement;
heavy loading.

A thin, flat shoe may provide excellent stability during lifting.

But minimal cushioning may provide little advantage during repeated impact activity.

Therefore, a shoe designed for mixed functional training often represents a compromise between:

ground stability and impact management.

That is why the best shoe for deadlifting is not necessarily the best shoe for a 5 km run.

And the best running shoe is not necessarily the best shoe for heavy squats.

What about proprioception and “feeling the ground”?

This is another attractive argument.

The plantar surface of the foot contains large numbers of sensory receptors.

Placing less material between the foot and ground changes the sensory information reaching the nervous system.

Someone wearing an extremely thin shoe can obviously feel the ground more clearly than someone standing on a thick foam midsole.

But another important distinction is required.

More sensory feedback does not automatically equal fewer injuries.

It is biologically plausible that minimalist footwear influences proprioception and balance.

But the downstream clinical claim that this necessarily prevents injuries remains much less certain.

Again we encounter the same problem:

plausible mechanism ≠ proven clinical outcome.

Should people with flat feet wear barefoot shoes?

This question cannot be answered simply from arch shape.

Having a low arch does not automatically mean someone needs supportive shoes.

Equally, having a low arch does not automatically mean someone should abandon support and strengthen their feet in minimalist footwear.

The important questions are:

Is the foot painful?
Is the deformity flexible or rigid?
Is there tendon pathology?
Is function impaired?
What activity is being performed?
What footwear is currently comfortable?
Is an orthotic currently successfully controlling symptoms?

A healthy asymptomatic low-arched foot is very different from a painful foot with significant posterior tibial tendon dysfunction, for example.

Treatment should address pathology and function rather than simply the appearance of the arch.

What about orthotics?

Barefoot philosophy sometimes portrays orthotics as devices that prevent the foot from functioning naturally.

This is an oversimplification of what orthoses actually do.

A foot orthosis can be used to alter:

plantar pressure;
centre of pressure;
joint moments;
tissue loading;
movement timing.

An orthosis does not necessarily “hold up” the foot.

It changes the mechanical environment in which the foot operates.

This brings us back to the central principle of this article.

Footwear and orthoses are load-management tools.

If someone is pain-free, active and functioning extremely well in an orthosis, there is no scientific rule requiring that person to abandon it simply because unsupported movement is considered more natural.

Who might benefit from minimalist shoes?

Minimalist shoes may be a reasonable option for a healthy person who:

has no significant foot or ankle symptoms;
enjoys the sensation of minimalist footwear;
wants to increase the muscular stimulus to the feet;
wants a wide toe box;
prefers a stable surface during certain gym exercises;
understands that adaptation takes time; and
introduces the footwear progressively.

For such a person, minimalist footwear can effectively become another form of foot conditioning.

Importantly, however, similar strengthening effects can also be achieved through targeted foot exercises (Ridge et al., 2019).

You don't necessarily need to replace every shoe you own to strengthen your feet.

Who should be more cautious?

Greater caution is sensible in someone with current or previous:

metatarsal stress injury;
unexplained forefoot pain;
Achilles tendon symptoms;
significant calf tightness;
painful hallux rigidus;
symptomatic plantar heel pain;
substantial structural deformity;
impaired protective sensation;
significant balance impairment; or
a condition currently being successfully managed using specific footwear or orthoses.

This does not mean minimalist shoes are permanently prohibited for every person with these conditions.

It means the decision should be made according to tissue capacity and pathology rather than footwear ideology.

Transitioning is probably more important than most people realise

Imagine someone who currently takes 10,000 steps every day.

That is approximately:

70,000 steps each week.

If that person immediately replaces conventional shoes with extremely thin zero-drop shoes, they haven't simply “changed shoes”.

They have changed the loading characteristics of tens of thousands of repetitive loading cycles.

Add running and gym training and the difference becomes even greater.

Warne and Gruber (2017) systematically reviewed minimalist-footwear transition studies and found considerable variation between transition protocols.

Importantly, there is no single scientifically validated transition schedule that can guarantee injury prevention.

This means rules such as:

“transition completely in six weeks”

or:

“increase barefoot running exactly 10% each week”

should not be presented as established scientific facts.

The more defensible principle is:

Increase exposure progressively and respond to symptoms.

Don't confuse adaptation discomfort with pain that must be ignored

When people change footwear, some muscular fatigue can occur because tissues are being loaded differently.

But the idea that significant pain is simply evidence that weak feet are “waking up” can be dangerous.

Pain is not proof that adaptation is occurring correctly.

Persistent:

focal bone pain;
worsening Achilles pain;
forefoot pain;
swelling;
limping; or
progressive symptoms

should not simply be pushed through in the belief that the foot needs to become stronger.

The MRI findings reported by Ridge et al. (2013) are particularly relevant here.

Bone stress can develop before a runner has suffered an obvious stress fracture.

What the barefoot movement gets right

There are several important ideas from the barefoot movement that deserve credit.

1. Feet are trainable

The muscles of the foot respond to loading just like other muscles.

2. Footwear changes biomechanics

Shoes are not mechanically neutral.

3. Toe-box width matters

Shoes should accommodate the foot rather than unnecessarily compress it.

4. Excessive footwear structure is not automatically necessary

Not every person requires motion-control footwear or orthoses.

5. Minimalist footwear can provide a useful strengthening stimulus

This is increasingly supported by controlled studies and systematic-review evidence.

6. Healthy people can function extremely well with little footwear

Human anatomy is obviously capable of doing so.

These are worthwhile contributions to the footwear discussion.

Where barefoot marketing goes too far

The science becomes much weaker when those observations are extended into statements such as:

“Modern shoes cause weak feet.”

Not adequately established.

“Barefoot shoes prevent running injuries.”

Not established.

“Heel striking is bad.”

Not established.

“Everyone should wear zero-drop shoes.”

Not supported.

“Arch support prevents your arch from functioning.”

Far too simplistic.

“Barefoot shoes restore natural biomechanics.”

Biomechanics certainly change, but “natural” does not automatically mean clinically superior.

“More ground feel improves proprioception and therefore prevents injuries.”

The first part is plausible; the clinical conclusion has not been adequately demonstrated.

“Humans evolved barefoot, therefore barefoot shoes are healthiest.”

This is an evolutionary argument, not clinical evidence.

The evidence at a glance

ClaimEvidence verdictMinimalist shoes can strengthen foot muscles | Supported, although evidence certainty is limited
Minimalist shoes can increase foot muscle size | Some supportive evidence
Conventional shoes make feet pathologically weak | Not established
Barefoot shoes prevent injuries | Not established
Minimalist running changes biomechanics | Strongly supported
Minimalist/barefoot running can reduce some knee loads | Supported biomechanically
Minimalist running can increase Achilles loading | Supported biomechanically
Minimalist shoes can increase forefoot pressure | Supported
Rapid transition can increase bone stress | Supported
Forefoot striking is inherently safer | Not established
Zero-drop shoes prevent injuries | Not established
Minimalist running may improve running economy | Possible small benefit
Barefoot shoes are superior for all gym exercises | Not supported
Flat firm footwear can be useful for lifting | Mechanically reasonable
Everyone should transition to barefoot shoes | Not supported

So, are barefoot shoes good for your feet?

For a healthy person:

They certainly can be.

Minimalist footwear provides a legitimate method of increasing the muscular demand placed upon the foot.

For some people it is comfortable, enjoyable and entirely appropriate.

But that does not make it inherently healthier than every other form of footwear.

And it certainly does not mean that cushioning or support is inherently harmful.

Should I wear barefoot shoes at the gym?

A simple way to think about it is:

Heavy deadlifting

Reasonable choice.

A thin, firm sole provides a stable base.

Squatting

Depends on the person.

Excellent ankle mobility may make flat shoes comfortable. Limited ankle dorsiflexion may make an elevated weightlifting shoe preferable.

General resistance training

Perfectly acceptable but probably not necessary.

Treadmill running

Requires adaptation.

The loading demands are very different from simply lifting weights.

Jumping, HIIT, CrossFit or HYROX-style training

More complicated.

The workout contains both stability-demanding strength exercises and repetitive impact activities. Extremely minimalist footwear is not automatically the best compromise.

Everyday walking

Potentially useful as progressive foot conditioning in healthy individuals.

The most important question isn't “Does this shoe have support?”

For decades footwear was often discussed according to how much “support” it provided.

The barefoot movement moved to the opposite extreme:

support = bad

natural movement = good.

Neither framework is particularly satisfactory.

A more useful way to think about shoes is:

Footwear is a load-management tool.

Different shoes alter the mechanical environment experienced by the body.

A minimalist shoe may increase:

foot-muscle demand;
sensory feedback;
Achilles loading;
calf demand;
forefoot pressure.

At the same time it may decrease certain loads elsewhere, including some measures of knee loading.

A highly cushioned running shoe changes those relationships again.

A weightlifting shoe deliberately changes ankle mechanics.

An orthotic deliberately redistributes loading.

None of these interventions is inherently good or bad.

They are tools.

The bottom line

The barefoot movement has contributed something valuable to our understanding of footwear.

It reminded us that the human foot is not simply a passive structure requiring support.

The foot is an adaptable biological structure containing muscles, tendons, joints and sensory systems that respond to the demands placed upon them.

There is increasingly convincing evidence that minimalist footwear can provide a strengthening stimulus to the foot.

But this does not establish that conventional footwear causes weakness, that barefoot shoes prevent injury or that everyone should transition to them.

Minimalist footwear also increases mechanical demands on certain structures, particularly around the calf, Achilles tendon and forefoot. Transitioning too quickly can expose tissues to loads for which they are not yet prepared.

The question therefore should not be:

“Are barefoot shoes better?”

A better question is:

“Better for whom, for what activity, and for what purpose?”

For a healthy person who enjoys them, minimalist shoes can be an excellent footwear option and a useful way of conditioning the feet.

For someone performing heavy lifting, their flat and stable construction may be useful.

For running and high-impact exercise, adaptation and individual tissue capacity become much more important.

And for someone with an existing foot or lower-limb problem, footwear should be selected according to the condition being treated rather than according to a philosophy about what humans are “supposed” to wear.

There is no universally perfect shoe.

There is only a shoe whose characteristics are more or less appropriate for the person, the activity and the tissues we are trying to load.

Book An Appointment

Disclaimer: The word "treatment" in this article refers to the care and management of a patient’s health to prevent, cure, or improve a condition. Treatment results vary and do not necessarily indicate a cure. This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice.

About the Author

Mark B. Reyneker, BTech (Podiatry), MSc (Palaeontology) is a podiatrist and Founder & Clinical Director of Family Podiatry Centre, with more than 25 years of clinical experience across South Africa, Malaysia and Singapore. His clinical interests include foot and lower-limb pain, gait and biomechanics, sports-related foot conditions, orthotic therapy and footwear.

Alongside his clinical practice, Mark conducts research into human gait and foot biomechanics. His MSc research at the University of the Witwatersrand investigated human propulsion and the structural properties of the metatarsals. He is also the inventor of A Foot Orthotic, an orthotic technology developed through an international patent family.

References

Bergstra, S.A., Kluitenberg, B., Dekker, R., Bredeweg, S.W., Postema, K., van den Heuvel, E.R., Hijmans, J.M. and Sobhani, S. (2015) ‘Running with a minimalist shoe increases plantar pressure in the forefoot region of healthy female runners’, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18(4), pp. 463–468. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2014.06.007.
Original article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25024135/
Chen, T.L.-W., Sze, L.K.Y., Davis, I.S. and Cheung, R.T.H. (2016) ‘Effects of training in minimalist shoes on the intrinsic and extrinsic foot muscle volume’, Clinical Biomechanics, 36, pp. 8–13. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.05.010.
Original article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.05.010/
Esculier, J.-F., Dubois, B., Dionne, C.E., Leblond, J. and Roy, J.-S. (2015) ‘A consensus definition and rating scale for minimalist shoes’, Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 8, 42. doi:10.1186/s13047-015-0094-5.
Original open-access article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13047-015-0094-5/
Lieberman, D.E., Venkadesan, M., Werbel, W.A., Daoud, A.I., D’Andrea, S., Davis, I.S., Mang’eni, R.O. and Pitsiladis, Y. (2010) ‘Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners’, Nature, 463, pp. 531–535. doi:10.1038/nature08723.
Original article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20111000/
Malisoux, L., Chambon, N., Urhausen, A. and Theisen, D. (2016) ‘Influence of the heel-to-toe drop of standard cushioned running shoes on injury risk in leisure-time runners: a randomized controlled trial with 6-month follow-up’, American Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(11), pp. 2933–2940. doi:10.1177/0363546516654690.
Original article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27501833/
Perkins, K.P., Hanney, W.J. and Rothschild, C.E. (2014) ‘The risks and benefits of running barefoot or in minimalist shoes: a systematic review’, Sports Health, 6(6), pp. 475–480. doi:10.1177/1941738114546846.
Original open-access article: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4212355/
Peters-Dickie, J.-L., Detrembleur, C., Guallar-Bouloc, M., Rastelli, M., Lobet, S., Hidalgo, B. and Deschamps, K. (2025) ‘The effects of foot core exercises and minimalist footwear on foot muscle sizes, foot strength, and biomechanics: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, Clinical Biomechanics, 122, 106417. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2024.106417.
Original article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39709752/
Ridge, S.T., Johnson, A.W., Mitchell, U.H., Hunter, I., Robinson, E., Rich, B.S.E. and Brown, S.D. (2013) ‘Foot bone marrow edema after a 10-wk transition to minimalist running shoes’, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 45(7), pp. 1363–1368. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182874769.
Original article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23439417/
Ridge, S.T., Olsen, M.T., Bruening, D.A., Jurgensmeier, K., Griffin, D., Davis, I.S. and Johnson, A.W. (2019) ‘Walking in minimalist shoes is effective for strengthening foot muscles’, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 51(1), pp. 104–113. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001751.
Original article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30113521/
Sinclair, J. (2014) ‘Effects of barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear on knee and ankle loading during running’, Clinical Biomechanics, 29(4), pp. 395–399. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.02.004.
Original article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24636307/
Warne, J.P. and Gruber, A.H. (2017) ‘Transitioning to minimal footwear: a systematic review of methods and future clinical recommendations’, Sports Medicine - Open, 3, 33. doi:10.1186/s40798-017-0096-x.
Original open-access article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40798-017-0096-x
Xu, L., Wang, Y. and Wen, X. (2025) ‘The role of footwear in improving running economy: a systematic review with meta-analysis of controlled trials’, Scientific Reports, 15, 3963. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-88271-2.
Original open-access article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-88271-2