Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Cushionism...the Latest Term Made Up by Crybaby Minimalist Shoe Zealots

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Kevin Kirby, Dec 23, 2015.

  1. Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    A new word has been made up by the minimalist shoe zealots who are dis-heartened that their dying fad, a fad which they are still trying to perpetuate with hype and bluster, is gradually fading away into oblivion. This new word "cushionism", and the accompanying article which complains about it from the website of one of the most fanatical believers in "minimalism" in running shoes, Mark Cuccazella, has so many things wrong with it, I don't know where to begin. Do these people ever acknowledge any of the scientific research on running biomechanics and running shoe biomechanics that been published over the last three decades that prove their statements wrong??! No, because they cherry-pick only the articles that match their belief system. What a waste of good electrons!

    Cushionism is a Faulty Belief System

    Definition of Crybaby: 2. a person who complains too much, usually in a whining manner.
  2. Boots n all

    Boots n all Well-Known Member

    "cushionism" sounds as bad as when the twits came up with the new term"Drop" to describe the old term "Heel pitch" :butcher:
  3. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    "Crybaby" is an apt word as it describes exactly how they are behaving! ... they just can not accept that they were wrong. Minimalism failed. The cognitive dissonance that they must be going through must be causing them lots of issues.

    Sales of minimalist running shoes have dropped to less than 3% of the running speciality market
    Interest in barefoot running has fallen to the level that it was before Born to Run was published.

    I recently sent some blog posts from the Natural Running Center to a friend who is a fellow sceptic, but knows nothing about running - we played a game of spot the logical fallacy; the NRC is riddled with them. My friend is now using some of the posts form them in his teaching of critical thinking!

    They simply just make so much stuff up and wish it was true. Podiatry Arena was often called as being anti-barefoot or anti-minimalism. It wasn't; it was anti the nonsensical claims by those who misrepresented, misused, misquoted and misunderstood the research -- now the evidence is in, the systematic benefits of minimalism are just not there. ... which a lot of people were saying all along and were being ridiculed, bullied and sent hate mail over ... guess who is having the last laugh now?

    33% of runners have tried minimalism; there is a reason that so few still continue to do it - the NRC and the fan boys can just not accept that they were wrong with the claims they made (it may have worked for them, but the systematic benefits for all were just not there).
    Go back and look at some older posts on NRC; look at their predictions ... none of them came to fruition. Remember what they said about how Hoka's would be an epic fail? The only epic fail was minimalism and their predictions as Hoka's now massively outsell the entire minimalist category of running shoes at the run specialty level. There is a reason for that and it not the reason that the NRC try to rationalise as being the reason.

    Read their posts where they try to rationalize the decline in minimalism --- full of logical fallacies; they just do not get it; runners have voted with their feet!
    It failed for two reasons:
    1) Runners just did not get the benefits that were alleged and claimed for it
    2) The scientific evidence eventually confirmed (1) that the systematic benefits were just not there

    Read the NRC posts on the Vibram law suit. There is a reason that the only running shoe company sued for injury issues is a minimalist one. Their attempts to rationalize it are also an epic fail. Vibram were accused by the judge of deliberately lieing, so of course they had to settle or they would have lost big time if it went to trial. The NRC?s rationalising of why they settled fails to acknowledge that vibram lied about the science and did so deliberately (that is exactly what they judge accused them of doing).

    Even that post Kevin linked above: "Cushionism is a faulty belief system" ... notice that they provide no support for that claim (they obviously think they do, but pretty much all the claims are easily debunked). All they have done is simply say cushionism is a faulty belief system and just wish it was true (ie the wishful thinking fallacy) ... they just do not get it.

    Of course they quote Robbins et al as "evidence" to support the claims (Dunning-Kruger comes to mind) and then make the claim that "Subsequent studies by other researchers confirmed Robbins?s findings.". Notice how they cite no references, as that is a lie; no subsequent work confirms their findings; they just made that up and wish it was true (the wishful thinking fallacy yet again); they do that a lot as it feeds into their echo chamber and the fan boys lack the critical thinking skills and knowledge of the actual evidence to see that they are making it up.
    (In fact, there is now enough evidence to debunk the Robbins et al hypothesis; I have a blog post coming up soon on that).

    Of course there are runners who are now doing better in minimalist running shoes; but there are more runners who did worse, which is why they went back to what they were familiar with (that is what the sales figures and analysis shows). The scientific evidence is clear on the lack of the systematic benefits. The plural of anecdotes is NOT evidence.

    There is nothing wrong with individuals who want to and succeed with "minimalism"; the problem is the spin and made up claims that it is the best way for every one to run that way that is the problem.

    BTW, I still run once or twice a week in my minimalist shoes to mix it up. I have no problems if any runner wants to do it; just don't spin it and rationalize it with nonsense and BS.

    I have never advocated shod over barefoot or barefoot over shod; nor maximalism over minimalism or minimalism over maximalism; nor heel striking over forefoot/midfoot striking or forefoot/midfoot striking over heel striking.
  4. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    I have to take that back; they have fallen even lower in the latest figures. I have just been reliably informed that they now "barely register" in the sales data.
  5. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    All this reminds me of this from this thread.
    BTW, "faith" based is not "religious faith", but faith in an idea.

    Attached Files:

  6. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    I posted on this a while ago....the only thing I will point out is that the co-author of this article, Bill Katovsky, was someone who, no matter what our views, contributed to the greater discussion on running footwear. I crossed swords with Bill Katovsky a number of times but never met him. He died on Ocober 23rd, which means he was exactly 8 days older than me.. far too young. I do not agree with his views.. but I acknowledge his opinion and contribution.. that is all I will say.

Share This Page