Over the last year, I’ve sucessfully transitioned to running exclusively in minimalist shoes. My form has improved, I am slightly faster, and, it seems, less injured. Originally, I only intended running in this kind of shoes a couple of times a week to get a better feel for proper form, but I ended up liking it so much that now I don’t run in regular trainers at all.
Many seasoned minimalists report that feet tend to change over time when running barefoot or in minimal footwear. I’ve always thought that this was more a question of preference for less snug-fitting shoes than changes that happen to the feet per se, but I’m quite surprised to experience that almost all my old shoes are now definitely too small. I used to wear 8.5, but now I rarely find enough room for my feet in anything smaller than a 9. Last year, wore Sidi T2 in EUR 42 for all my long rides as well as an ironman in pretty hot conditions. Both running and cycling shoes that I wore comfortably a year ago are now way too small. When shopping for shoes, I now experience that even 43 (US 9.5) can be a tight fit in some cases.
So, it’s established: running in minimalist shoes makes your feet bigger. But why does this happen? The widening of the forefoot is pretty obvious, but why do feet get longer? Do the arches collapse? Or is something else going on?
Hah. Thought it was just me. I’ve been running in Kinvaras for almost 2 years. I have 2 9.5’s that fit me perfectly when I first bought them. But I also find them fitting a lot tighter than before.
My cycling shoes still fit me well, though. Wear a 43.5 PI tri fly and a 44 sidi.
Don’t know what it is but I have to get some size 10s soon.
The same thing just happened to me, too, just from running in my Kinvara’s. It’s taken a year, but I’ve moved up a half size. Unfortunately, I have 3 nearly new pair of 8.5 women’s Kinvara 2’s that I got on sale that now don’t fit!
I was going to ask this but just in general. I wonder if your feet expand regardless of what shoe over the years of endurance sports.
When I started running 7 years ago, size 11 in a running shoe is what I bought. Now, after triathlon and running, I’m in size 12. I can’t even think cram my foot into an 11.
Dress shoes from years ago do not fit my feet.
I do have calluses all over the place and the padding on my feet is expanded so maybe that’s it. And maybe this is accelerated with minimalist shoes to answer this specific OP question. But I have noticed this just in general regardless of a model of shoe.
I noticed my feet have gotten wider and there is more space between my toes. Had to buy new cycling shoes this year simply because my old ones became too narrow.
It’s because your arch is falling. You need a shoe with support. The top US marathoners all wear standard training shoes with good cushioning. The minimalist movement is marketing to sell shoes just for slower runners. It’s not good for your feet, unless you’ve been running barefoot all your life.
25 years ago when I started running I fit into 9.5s. Now I’m running in 11s. The change has been gradual and didn’t accelerate when I switched to running exclusively in flats. Chalk it up to aging and general abuse to your feet, not the minimalist shoes.
It’s because your arch is falling. You need a shoe with support. The top US marathoners all wear standard training shoes with good cushioning. The minimalist movement is marketing to sell shoes just for slower runners. It’s not good for your feet, unless you’ve been running barefoot all your life.
Well said. It is because your arch is falling and you are this getting a flatter foot. Unless you started flat footed then I’m sure most runners experience this when you switch to shoes with no particular arch support.
I remeber as akid a public service annonement in Hawaii. They warned of the continual wearing of flip flops. There were a ton of flat footed people in HI. I, personally can’t werar them anymore without discomfort. Minimalist running makes me cringe.
I’ll start out by saying that I don’t have an answer as to why your feet appear to be getting longer…it could simply be that you now prefer a shoe that has a little more room in it than in previous years. When I ran my first marathon about 13 years ago, I wore a 10-1/2…now I’m wearing a 12 to 12-1/2 and my arches are just as high when I started running. So I would be quite wary of those who suggest that your arches are falling as the cause of your seemingly longer feet without having seen before/after shots of your arches…especially since running barefoot or in minimalist shoes will strengthen the muscles/tendons in your feet and thus, be more likely to prevent your arches from falling. If your running in minimalist shoes has led to better form, faster speeds and less incidence of injury, I’d hardly say that’s a bad thing and that you need shoes with excessive cushioning and support. To me, that sounds ludicrous.
the general idea is that the more cushioned your shoe, the weaker your feet get. if you were to run purely barefoot, your feet would grow. just a sign of them getting stronger.
there is a google group on minimal barefoot running:
It’s because your arch is falling. You need a shoe with support. The top US marathoners all wear standard training shoes with good cushioning. The minimalist movement is marketing to sell shoes just for slower runners. It’s not good for your feet, unless you’ve been running barefoot all your life.
Well said. It is because your arch is falling and you are this getting a flatter foot. Unless you started flat footed then I’m sure most runners experience this when you switch to shoes with no particular arch support.
I’m not so sure about this. I would believe that feet/arches get strengthened by being used, which normally is the rationale behind training in general.
In case the arch collapses, I cannot really say it’s noticeable yet. (Nothing wrong with flat feet: the majority of people in the world have them. High arches seem to be typical for people of European and Arabic descent.)
A theory: the lengthening of the foot could be a development of the arch’s range of motion – increased flexibility in the foot, so to speak.
One thing that has been a problem for me in the past, is a forefoot varus (first metatarsal too high). This can lead to excessive twisting forces in the ankle/achilles at toe off (often associated with late stage pronation). Since switching to minimalist shoes, I hardly ever feel any soreness in my achilles, which used to be my ever-recurring injury. (I still ride with a varus wedge in the forefoot of my cycling shoes.) I need to look into this some more, but if the first metatarsal has come more in contact with the ground, one could say that I’ve technically gotten more flat footed, but that would be a good thing, I guess.
It’s because your arch is falling. You need a shoe with support. The top US marathoners all wear standard training shoes with good cushioning. The minimalist movement is marketing to sell shoes just for slower runners. It’s not good for your feet, unless you’ve been running barefoot all your life.
Well said. It is because your arch is falling and you are this getting a flatter foot. Unless you started flat footed then I’m sure most runners experience this when you switch to shoes with no particular arch support.
I’m not so sure about this. I would believe that feet/arches get strengthened by being used, which normally is the rationale behind training in general.
In case the arch collapses, I cannot really say it’s noticeable yet. (Nothing wrong with flat feet: the majority of people in the world have them. High arches seem to be typical for people of European and Arabic descent.)
A theory: the lengthening of the foot could be a development of the arch’s range of motion – increased flexibility in the foot, so to speak.
One thing that has been a problem for me in the past, is a forefoot varus (first metatarsal too high). This can lead to excessive twisting forces in the ankle/achilles at toe off (often associated with late stage pronation). Since switching to minimalist shoes, I hardly ever feel any soreness in my achilles, which used to be my ever-recurring injury. (I still ride with a varus wedge in the forefoot of my cycling shoes.) I need to look into this some more, but if the first metatarsal has come more in contact with the ground, one could say that I’ve technically gotten more flat footed, but that would be a good thing, I guess.[/
Well to be fair, i am north European with quite an arch, and my coach told me that I experienced lengthening of my foot as my foot flattend a bit
I grew up in Hawaii too, wearing flip flops 95% of the time (and going barefoot the rest). I’m very flat footed, but as an adult took up running in minimalist footwear (after quite a few years of being a lazy chunker) and my arches actually came up a bit and my shoe size came down a size (not running shoes though).
That’s awsome. I can go barefoot and it’s just that toe grab with flip flops that kills my arch. I sure mis HI. Now that my daughter is old enough to travel we’ll be heading out there next summer.