Another boner:
"Impact has been associated with stress related injuries to the tibia. By changing the strike pattern, the impact is potentially removed from the lower leg, but those impact forces are likely moved to the foot as a result. In fact, foot stress fractures have been related to increased loads.
While midfoot or forefoot striking reduces the impact forces at the knee, it concurrently increases the demand on the ankle muscles. If the logic is that reducing load in 1 structure will decrease injury, then increasing load in another structure should increase risk of injury. It is yet to be determined if either of these is true."
This person has no concept of whether loading can happen in a functionally correct manner. It's as if all loading is bad. But as Lieberman and others have shown, our legs and feet have in fact evolved to run well, to absorb impact and return energy through elastic recoil. Injuries to barefoot runners happen in transition, when the atrophied muscles, ligaments, tendons and bones that have evolved to absorb impact are not yet sufficiently strong. The knee, on the other hand, was never made to absorb the direct impact forces involved in heel striking while running. Just isn't so.
Another thing with these studies, since minimalist shoes and barefoot are often synonymous, one isn't even sure if they're talking about (habitual) barefoot runners when they say shit like "only 40%-50% of individuals who run barefoot adopt a midfoot or forefoot strike pattern." Could be some rinky dink study where they asked a bunch of recreational runners in college to put on toe shoes while running on a treadmill for 30 minutes.
Like Sid said, it's just useless drivel. People get published in minor online publications and sites by contradicting each other.