Barefoot shoe benefits — and the drawbacks

Most benefit lists in this category are written by people selling the shoes, which is a problem because the claims vary enormously in how well supported they are. So this page is organized by evidence quality rather than by enthusiasm, and the drawbacks get the same space as the benefits.

The best-supported claim in the field. A review of minimalist-footwear studies found significant increases in foot muscle strength, volume, cross-sectional area and thickness — strength gains across studies spanning roughly 9 to 57 percent, size increases of around 7 to 11 percent. These are ultrasound measurements in controlled studies, not survey responses.

The mechanism is unsurprising: a shoe with arch support and a stiff sole does part of your foot's work. Remove it and the muscles that were being assisted have to do the job. Muscles respond to load.

This one is almost tautological — a wide toe box gives your toes room — but the long-term relevance is evidenced. Research on shoe-wearing patterns found narrow toe boxes worn between ages 20 and 39 associated with higher likelihood of hallux valgus later, and constrictive toe boxes associated with foot pain. Over decades, the shape of the box your toes live in appears to matter.

Removing heel elevation stops the shoe pitching you forward and stops it pushing your foot toward the front of the toe box. Elevated heels have been associated with hallux valgus and plantar calluses in cross-sectional work. This benefit is available from any zero-drop shoe, cushioned or not — you do not need a thin sole for it.

• Better posture. Plausible mechanism, thin controlled evidence. Removing a heel lift does change standing alignment; whether that constitutes "better posture" over time is not established.
• Improved balance. More proprioceptive input from the sole is a real thing, and the children's randomized trials measured balance among their outcomes. For adults the data is not strong enough to promise anything.
• Less knee or back pain. Changing footwear changes loading up the chain, and that could go either way for any given person. The confident claims you see are not supported by controlled evidence.
• "Natural" is automatically better. Humans evolved without concrete, glass or ten-hour standing shifts. "Natural" is a description, not an argument.

The transition is the main one, and it has teeth. In a 2013 MRI study, 10 of 19 runners transitioning into minimal shoes over 10 weeks developed new bone-marrow edema in at least one foot bone, mostly without symptoms. Two were stress fractures. If you are not willing to spend months ramping up, this category is not a good fit for you.

Less protection. A 4 mm sole transmits what a 25 mm sole absorbs. On sharp gravel that is painful, and on a building site it is unacceptable. Thin shoes are also poor insulators, which matters more in January than the product photos suggest.

Shorter shoe life. Less material, thinner outsoles, and in the budget brands, visibly cheaper construction. The resolable options — Softstar, Jim Green — are the long-term answer, at a price. Most durable barefoot shoes.

Limited selection in some categories. Genuinely barefoot dress shoes, certified safety boots and insulated winter boots are all small, expensive markets. If you need one of those specifically, expect to compromise.