Back in May, I attended the CrossFit Central East Regional in Ohio, where there was a Reebok EasyTone stand displaying their product. And the CrossFitters, ardent fans of Vibram Five Fingers and other minimalist shoes, responded to these rigged-up kicks by steering clear of the stand. Way clear. In fact, I don’t recall seeing a single person approach it, but I did hear a number of competitors speculating that the EasyTone truck had taken a wrong turn. This attitude pleased me immensely. Why? Because toning shoes are a silly product.

Silly, but one that appeals. The premise: You stand/walk/run atop a built-in unstable surface
(whether it’s a curved one or cushy like mini BOSU balls), and thus
activate more muscles than when shod in regular shoes. An easy-peasy to
lose weight and look better — doesn’t that sound great? And isn’t that what we want? Sure,
but…

The idea that training on unstable surfaces is a good thing is flawed in and of itself — check out “Build Your Balance”
for a glimpse into Eric Cressey’s research on the topic (the gist: unstable-surface training
makes you slower and less powerful) — and aside from that, the
muscle-activation research these shoe companies are producing is flimsy
at best (tiny studies, questionable results).

Reebok isn’t the only hawker of such wares — they’re joined by Avia, Skechers, Easy Spirit and even Curves for Women (wth?!). (There are probably more; if so, I don’t want to know.)

In my happy little world populated by informed experts who dispense solid fitness advice, I’d heard toning
shoes uniformly mocked — by podiatrists, chiropractors, athletes and
fitness industry peers alike, so I genuinely believed (or wanted to believe) that
this trend didn’t have staying power and didn’t impact the market in any
real way.

So when my boyfriend handed me an issue of Bloomberg Businessweek this
morning, flipped open to an article called “As Nike Scoffs, Toning Shoes
Gain Traction,” I felt alarm. (Access the entire issue here — flip to page 24-25.)

Nike has held out on this trend to this point, instead marketing their minimalist shoe, the Nike Free, which makes the small muscles of the feet and lower legs work more by providing less support. And for their trouble, they’re losing footing as the top provider of women’s athletic footwear. (According to the article, Nike slipped 7.2 percentage points, or $412 million, from a year ago. Reebok’s share in the market more than doubled, and Skechers tripled.)

I’m heartened by the sarcastic response of the Nike executive team. Eric Sprunk, vice president for global product and merchandising, was quoted during a meeting with investors as saying, “Wouldn’t it be great if we could make a pair of shoes that made your butt smaller, made my gut look smaller, make your muscles look a little bit bigger, just by putting them on and…walking in them? Nobody can do that. I was just teasing.”

To Nike: Please continue to hold out, and the rest of us will do what we can to kick this trend to the curb. Right? 
______________________________

So, let’s review: Do toning shoes work? No. No. No. No.

“ACE Research Study Finds Toning Shoes Fail to Deliver on Fitness Claims” (ACE)
“A Revolutionary Sneaker, or Overhyped Gimmick?” (USA Today)
“Shoes’ Toning Claims Draw Experts’ Doubts” (CNN)
“Firm Body, No Workout Required?” (New York Times)
“Do Toning Shoes Really Work?” (That’s Fit)
“Toning Shoes No Better Than Sneakers” (FitSugar)
“Finally, Research on Those Popular Toning Shoes!” (FitBottomed Girls)
“Morning Cup of Vomiting in My Mouth: Skechers Shape-Ups” (Tony Gentilcore’s Blog)