Asics Going Minimalist with the Gel Lyte33 and Gel Fuji Racer?

Yesterday I wrote a post on the current state of the running shoe market. One of the things that is clear from sales data is that the “lightweight” shoe category is growing rapidly, and is starting to eat away at the traditional neutral-stability-motion control categories.  Thus, it comes as no surprise that Asics, who have been slow to embrace the minimalist trend, are now releasing a lightweight (8.6 oz in men’s 9), 6mm drop running shoe called the Asics Gel Lyte33 (see photo below from Running Warehouse).

Asics Gel Lyte33

I suspect it’s doubtful that you will see the word minimalist paired with the Gel Lyte33 (just as Brooks avoided the term in association with its Pure series), and in a post introducing the shoe, the Running Warehouse blog writes that “According to Asics, this shoe was built on a platform with a 6mm heel-to-toe drop in order to reduce weight, not to encourage a midfoot strike.”

My take? Low drop, lightweight shoes like the Brooks Pure series and Saucony Kinvara/Mirage have done so well that Asics couldn’t help but jump into the market. It’s good business. In fact, as I wrote yesterday, the Nike Free Run+ is one of the top 5 selling athletic shoes of any kind in the US right now – that might explain the rather striking similarity in sole appearance between the Gel Lyte33 and the Free (see below):

Asics Gel Lyte33 Sole (left) and Nike Free Run+ Sole (right)

In addition to providing Asics’ rationale for lowering the heel of this shoe, the RW blog post also contained a rather amusing description of Asics F.A.S.T. technology (a reader pointed this out to me yesterday). The acronym stands for Featherweight Asics Speed Technology. And just what is this technology? According to the RW blog post it includes “removal of the heel counter and the aforementioned lower offset.” In the only other place on-line that I could find information about this shoe, Feet Elite provides the following description of F.A.S.T. technology in the Lyte33 (I have no idea if this is material provided by Asics, or text written by Feet Elite – note that it should read that the shoe lowers the heel by 6mm, not raises it):

“The Asics GEL-Lyte33 shoes are built for speed. They employ several of Asics Speed Technologies, including: F.A.S.T. Drop, F.A.S.T. Sole, F.A.S.T. Heel, and F.A.S.T. Ride. The Drop raises the heel 6mm to encourage a midfoot or forefoot stride for faster running while the Sole provides a minimal outsole material positioned in high abrasive areas. The Heel employs a lightweight construction to comfortably hug the foot and minimize structural weight, while the Ride increases responsiveness and enhances the ride from contact to toe-off.”

So, new technology now consists of the removal of old technology, or the absence of technology. Lose the heel counter, lose outsole material, lose 4-6mm of material under the heel, etc. Interesting. I suppose it’s hard to enthusiastically promote features of a shoe that represent removal of things found on most of your other shoes, but calling their absence “technology” is a bit much. It would seem that a simpler and more forthright marketing approach would be to simply say that different runners like different things, and this shoe provides options for those who want a more stripped down (minimalist) shoe.

The Gel Lyte33 is not the only low drop, lightweight shoe on the way from Asics. They are responding to the popularity of the lightweight category amongst trail runners by releasing the Gel-Fuji Racer, and 8.7 oz trail shoe with a rock plate and a 6mm offset. For more details on the Gel Fuji-Racer, check out this blog post about the Fuji Racer over at Running Warehouse.

Anyway, nitpicking aside, it’s good to see another company adding more diverse footwear options to the market, even if they were slow to arrive and appear to be fumbling a bit with their marketing approach. If the Gel Lyte33 feels anything like the Nike Free, I’m sure this shoe will do well, and positive sales will continue the diversification of the running shoe market that is currently underway.

---

---

The State of the Running Shoe Market: December 2011 Running Specialty Sales Data from Leisure Trends

In addition to being interested in the science of running form and footwear, I also have a bit of an interest in the business side of things – can probably thank my father for that. Thus, I like following the market information provide by sources like SportsOneSource (Matt Powell’s updates are fantastic), Leisure Trends, and Running Insight.

To give you an idea of the current state of the running shoe market, I wanted to first share some data provide by Leisure Trends on Running Specialty Retail Sales for December 2011. LTG reports that December sales at running specialty stores increased by 13% relative to 2010, sparked in part by the warmer than usual weather and less snow across the US compared to 2010. They go on to break down sales of running shoes by category, with comparisons to sales in December 2010:

Road running shoes, 89% of all shoe dollars sold, pulled in $37M, a 19% increase over December 2010. Neutral/cushion shoes did best within the road running category gaining an impressive 35% to total $17M for the month. Both minimalist ($2.8M, +110%) and traditional ($14M, +26%) models contributed to the gains. Stability shoes also did well bringing in nearly $18M (+10%).

Less snow meant cleaner, drier trails this December and that helped trail running shoes to a 67% dollar increase over last year. The category totaled $1.6M as ARSP rose 6% building on the 58% unit jump. While minimalist models drove the growth ($562K, +658%), traditional trail running shoes ($1M, +17%) saw a boost as well.

Not reported in the quoted text above is the fact that motion control shoes are the only category that saw a decline relative to 2010 (-2%). Of note, largest relative increases were in minimalist road shoes (+110%) and minimalist trail shoes (+658%). If my math is correct, these numbers indicate that minimalist shoes were about 16-17% of the running specialty road shoe market in December, and minimalist shoes were about 36% of the trail shoe market in December (note – I’m not exactly sure what LTG includes in the minimalist category).

For another take, here’s what Matt Powell of SportsOneSource and Princeton Analysis had to say in his 4th quarter 2011 sales report:

“Running remained a strong category even as sales improved about +10% in units and dollars.  Nike Running sales grew in the low singles and took 54% share. Reebok Running doubled and share nearly doubled to 11%.  Asics grew in the low singles as share hit 11.5%. New Balance declined in the mid singles while Adidas grew in the high singles.  Under Armour Running doubled and share hit 1.3%.  The Core Running brands (Saucony, Mizuno and Brooks) all had solid performances.

As we have seen for a while Lightweight is now cannibalizing the traditional Running categories.  Stability declined in the high singles and Cushioning in the low singles.  Lightweight Running grew about 75% and represented 30% of all Running shoes sold for the quarter. In Lightweight Nike has a 45% share, Reebok 32%, and Adidas 5%.

Minimalist Running (a subset of Lightweight) grew more than double for the quarter, and represented about 9% of all Running.  Nike has 71% share of minimal driven by the Free franchise.  Vibram, Merrell, New balance, Asics and Saucony each have about a 5% share.”

It should be noted that the above data are from sales at U.S. Sporting Goods, Athletic Footwear and Outdoor specialty retailers, so not quite the same pool as the Running Specialty data provided by LTG (e.g., I doubt Reebok has that big a market share among running specialty…). The Nike Free Run+ was one of the top 5 selling athletic shoes of any type (including basketball shoes) in Q4, and if my students are any evidence, this does not surprise me at all. Comparing these numbers to those from LTG suggests that minimalist might have a bigger market share in running specialty than it does in other sales outlets.

What to make of all of this this? My take would be that the move to lighter shoes and away from more traditional models is continuing (evidenced by the fact that it now represents 1/3 of the running shoe market). As an aside, I asked Matt Powell on Twitter what constitutes lightweight running, and he indicated that the category includes shoes that weigh under 10 oz. Minimalist, which is a subcategory of lightweight, still represents a relatively small percentage of the running shoe market, but it is continuing to grow. I think what we are seeing is a gradual realignment of the shoe market that has been driven by the minimalist movement. Folks who are not keen on running in shoes like a Vibram Fivefingers or Merrell Barefoot are experimenting with lightweight, transitional options like the Nike Free, Saucony Kinvara, Brooks Pure, and so on. And lightweight trail shoes have been red hot for some time.

It will be interesting to see how things shake out going forward, and whether this trend continues. At the very least, I’m feel pretty confident in saying that what we are seeing is not a fad, and does actually represent the new reality of the running footwear market.

---

---

Vivobarefoot’s “Barefoot is Best” Campaign: Another Example of Marketing Twisting Science

A few weeks ago a study was released out of Daniel Lieberman’s lab at Harvard (to give due credit, the lead author was Adam Daoud) showing that forefoot strikers on the Harvard Cross Country team suffered half as many injuries as heel strikers. I’m not going to get into the details of the study here as that is not the point of this blog entry (if you want to read about it, check out Alex Hutchinson’s nice summary on Sweat Science). Rather, I’d like to respond to the marketing response to the study by shoe manufacturer Vivobarefoot.

Shortly after the study was released, Vivobarefoot put up a blog entry on their website stating that the Harvard study “proves” that “barefoot is best.” Here’s how they put it:

“While VIVOBAREFOOT has been a believer in “Barefoot is Best” since 2003, there is now scientific proof. Harvard Professor Daniel Lieberman has released his latest ground breaking research: Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: a retrospective study. The research shows runners with a rearfoot strike have almost twice the rate of injury than those who forefoot strike, a characteristic found in skilled barefoot runners.”

Accompanying the blog entry was the following graphic:

Last week I got an email from Vivobarefoot asking if they could use some of my footage from the NYC Barefoot Run for a piece they are putting together. I responded that I was fine with that as anything I put on YouTube is free and open to public use and sharing, but cautioned that their interpretation of the Harvard study was incorrect. I’m writing this post in part to make my feelings clear that if indeed my video shows up in a marketing piece that misrepresents the results of a study, I want my position on the subject to be known.

Now, I understand the link Vivobarefoot is trying to make here, but I also feel that intellectual honesty needs to come into play. The Harvard study did not look at barefoot running in any way! It looked at college cross country runners wearing shoes and running in their typical form. It did not look at recreational runners who are considering changing form from a heel strike to a forefoot strike, which is what most people running in a Vivobarefoot shoe would be attempting to do. These are very different situations, and the types of injuries likely to be experience by these different populations might be quite different. What’s more, Vivobarefoot sells shoes, they don’t make their money off of barefoot running.

Maybe it’s just the scientist in me that gets irked whenever anybody claims that a scientific study “proves” something. I’ve laid into other shoe companies for disingenuous marketing (e.g., most recently Brooks), and feel it’s important to hold a similar standard for any company making such claims. And I’ll add that I’m actually regular wearer of Vivobarefoot shoes, as is my 6 year old daughter – I like their products and have worn Vivobarefoot Aquas to work more than any other shoe over the past year. But, the shoes can stand for themselves without this sort of marketing approach.

I’ll also add that the Harvard study was a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate about form and footwear, but it needs to be interpreted and applied within the limits of the specific question that it sought to address. That question was whether shod habitual forefoot strikers on a college cross country team exhibit more or fewer injuries than shod heel strikers. Let’s not extend our application of the results too far beyond that.

Given that this is political season and I live in New Hampshire, I’ll end by saying that when Vivobarefoot claims that the Harvard study proves that barefoot is best, I respond by saying that despite my own fairly strong minimalist leanings, I cannot approve this message.

---

---

Podcast: Mark Cucuzzella on Trail Runner Nation

My good friend and fellow natural running advocate Dr. Mark Cucuzzella was recently interviewed on a podcast over at Trail Runner Nation. Mark covers a great deal of ground in the hour-long interview, but perhaps the most important point that he makes is that despite all of the sound and fury of the great footwear debate, we should never forget that running is good for us and should be fun, no matter what you put on your feet. That being said, I do like Mark’s 2-week challenge – wear flat shoes that allow ground feel for two weeks and see if you like it. I, for one, can’t imagine ever going back.

To give it a listen, head on over to Mark’s interview at Trail Runner Nation.

---

---

New Balance 730 Preview: A Minimalist Running Shoe that Has Flown in Under the Radar!

A few weeks ago I got an email from a reader asking if I had seen or tried the New Balance 730 (thanks for the heads up Robert!). He indicated that it was for sale at Finish Line, and that it felt very low drop and had a super wide toebox. Needless to say I was intrigued, and in looking at the photos on the Finish Line website the shoe appeared to be built on the Minimus last. As far as I can tell, There has been zero fanfare associated with the release of this shoe, and it would appear that it’s not a shoe targeted to the specialty running market. Instead, you can find it for sale on-line at places like Finish Line, Sports Authority, and Backcountry.com.

Being the running shoe sucker that I am, I couldn’t resist ordering a pair (~$70 with a $10 off coupon ain’t bad for a pair of shoes these days…), and they arrived today. I have not run in them, but I wanted to put up a quick preview post as this looks to be a pretty promising option in the wide-forefoot, transitional shoe category.

First, I can confirm that this shoe is indeed on the Minimus last – fit is very similar to both the New Balance MT110 and the Minimus Road (maybe even a tad wider in the forefoot than the latter). (Update: For those needing an even roomier fit in what is already a roomy shoe, the New Balance 730 is also now available in 2E width at Shoes.com - you can get 10% of shoe purchases at Shoes.com by using this link) It even has the <=> logo printed inside. It weighs in at 7.2 oz in my size 10, which is a full ounce less than the Minimus Road, and it seems like it may be a bit more flexible than that shoe. There is no plastic heel counter, which I love, and the material lining the ankle is very soft – feels like the same stuff lining the interior of the Minimus Road and MT110. There is no insole, and the shoe is clearly intended to be wearable without socks (I intend to put it to the test soon). There is also no noticeable arch support built into the shoe. The outer layer of material on the upper is similar to that found on the Minimus Trail MT10.

Perhaps the biggest surprise came when I put the shoe on my feet. I had heard from fellow blogger Zak Branigan that the shoe is listed as 4mm drop, but I’ll be darned if it doesn’t feel pretty flat. I pulled out the calipers, and after several repeat measurements I pretty consistently get 16mm heel, 13mm forefoot – 3mm drop, but it sure feels like less. The sole is also pretty firm – no mushiness here, which could be good or bad depending on your preference.

I’ll leave it at that for now, and post again after a few runs. This looks to be a pretty promising shoe, and ticks off a number of key minimalist check boxes (low drop, wide forefoot, no arch, no heel counter…). I’ll also add that my friends Thomas over at Believe in the Run and Zak at Average Guy Hits the Road have purchased this shoe, and will be sharing their thoughts in the near future as well.

Stay tuned, and if you’re as impatient as I am when a shoe like this hits the market, you can check out the New Balance 730 for yourself at Finish Line. They are also available for sale at Amazon.com.

Update: The New Balance 730 is also now available at Shoes.com (including 2E width), and using this link you can get 10% of shoe purchases at that site as well

Below is a coupon code for $10 off at Finish Line:

Finally, here are additional color options available for men (top two) and women (bottom two):

---

---