Recommend a running shoe

Murph_D

First Up wrote: »

The poster with the worn soles said his shoes wore down unevenly. He went on to say there was no way to predict this so he was just going to buy shoes and if they didn't work out, he would buy more.

This flies in the face of both the proven connection between gait and shoe choice and the availability of proper advice.

There is no reason to be that stupid.

What is this proven connection of which you speak? Can you point towards the proof?

First Up

Murph_D wrote:

What is this proven connection of which you speak? Can you point towards the proof?

The internet is awash with scholarly articles about it. Try googling gait analysis.

Or talk to a serious running shoe retailer.

Murph_D

First Up wrote: »

The internet is awash with scholarly articles about it. Try googling gait analysis.

Or talk to a serious running shoe retailer.

Ok. So you don’t know.

MY BAD

First Up wrote: »

The poster with the worn soles said his shoes wore down unevenly.

There is alot more he could be doing to address the issues than getting gait analysis in my opinion. I'd advise anyone in a similar position to look a bit deeper.

First Up

Murph_D wrote:

Ok. So you don’t know.

???
Of course I know but I am not going to regurgitate information that is readily available to anyone who bothers to look for it.

Should I prove to you that the earth isn't flat while I'm at it?

OOnegative

First Up wrote: »

???
Of course I know but I am not going to regurgitate information that is readily available to anyone who bothers to look for it.

Should I prove to you that the earth isn't flat while I'm at it?

No you don’t know, you haven’t a blues clue. Back up what you’ve been spouting on about here the past few days with some facts? You’ve agued but offered zero facts to back your claims up?

You claimed you ran seriously at some stage, again I seriously doubt that fact because you wouldn’t be so aggressive and ignorant to the advice being offered to the OP here?

First Up

Mellow Yellow 26.2 wrote:

There is alot more he could be doing to address the issues than getting gait analysis in my opinion. I'd advise anyone in a similar position to look a bit deeper.

Gait can't be easily changed (if at all) but it can be easily managed by wearing the right shoes.

Murph_D

First Up wrote: »

Gait can't be easily changed (if at all) but it can be easily managed by wearing the right shoes.

So what? There is no evidence that changing gait (or rather ‘correcting’ pronation by wearing support shoes etc) does anything to prevent injury (or increase running economy and thus performance).

Contrary to what you suggest, the internet is not awash with scholarly articles that support the pronation argument. Plenty of marketing articles though, and the shoe companies have been very successful at propogating myths about pronation.

Here’s one useful summary of some of the research:

https://runnersconnect.net/running-gait-analysis-footwear/

Here’s a more thorough overview:

Running Shoe Technology: Good Science or Good Marketing?

First Up

OOnegative wrote:

No you don’t know, you haven’t a blues clue. Back up what you’ve been spouting on about here the past few days with some facts? You’ve agued but offered zero facts to back your claims up?

What have I been spouting on about - that there are shoes designed to cater for different runners and its a good idea to get the right ones for you? Sorry but I'm not here to help you grasp the blindingly obvious.

OOnegative wrote:

You claimed you ran seriously at some stage, again I seriously doubt that fact because you wouldn’t be so aggressive and ignorant to the advice being offered to the OP here?

What is aggressive about calling out people recommending shoes without knowing anything about the person who will wear them?

My running credentials are good but have nothing to do with it.

First Up

Murph_D wrote:

Contrary to what you suggest, the internet is not awash with scholarly articles that support the pronation argument. Plenty of marketing articles though, and the shoe companies have been very successful at propogatinf myths about pronation.

So all shoes are the same and it doesn't matter what you wear? Its all just marketing mumbo jumbo?

Thanks for putting us straight on that.

OOnegative

First Up wrote: »

What have I been spouting on about - that there are shoes designed to cater for different runners and its a good idea to get the right ones for you? Sorry but I'm not here to help you grasp the blindingly obvious.



What is aggressive about calling out people recommending shoes without knowing anything about the person who will wear them?

My running credentials are good but have nothing to do with it.

Oh hes seen the light? Are you a shoe expert? The info the OP has received off genuine runners with a knowledge of shoes here is much better than the scaremongering you’re trying to shove in everyone’s face?

Swashbuckler

First Up wrote:

So all shoes are the same and it doesn't matter what you wear? Its all just marketing mumbo jumbo?

No certainly not all the same, but I think you are seriously over thinking this. Get a pair, see how you go. For your average runner, a comfortable pair (such as the ones recommended in response to the OP) will see you right.

I actually feel for the OP here. A simple question has turned into a right debate.

Swashbuckler

Although that being said it seems like everything outside of training logs is a debate these days.

OOnegative

Swashbuckler wrote: »

Although that being said it seems like everything outside of training logs is a debate these days.

Yeah maybe so, but NONE of us here claim to be experts!!! If I want advice on anything, this forum is my first port of call. Why? Learned runners who don’t force there expertise on anyone but who give HONEST opinions. Great place apart from the recent increase in wands!!!!

First Up

OOnegative wrote:

Oh hes seen the light? Are you a shoe expert? The info the OP has received off genuine runners with a knowledge of shoes here is much better than the scaremongering you’re trying to shove in everyone’s face?

10+ years in a track club, 5 with New York Road Runners and 5 marathons (including one Boston). Does that make me a genuine runner too?

I know a bit about shoes but I don't have much knowledge of the OP so I'm not going to throw names at him. He mentioned trouble with his arches. Did you notice? Did anyone factor that into their suggestions?

Why is suggesting he get expert analysis and advice "scaremongering"?

Swiper the fox

First Up wrote: »

10+ years in a track club, 5 with New York Road Runners and 5 marathons (including one Boston). Does that make me a genuine runner too?

I know a bit about shoes but I don't have much knowledge of the OP so I'm not going to throw names at him. He mentioned trouble with his arches. Did you notice? Did anyone factor that into their suggestions?

Why is suggesting he get expert analysis and advice "scaremongering"?

Needlessly aggressive tone from the beginning, the OP CANNOT go for this gait analysis, he/she wants to go out running now, there are plenty of ‘comfortable’ shoes that will suffice for 99% of runners doing a few miles a couple of times a week,
Get over yourself

First Up

Swiper the fox wrote:

Needlessly aggressive tone from the beginning, the OP CANNOT go for this gait analysis, he/she wants to go out running now, there are plenty of ‘comfortable’ shoes that will suffice for 99% of runners doing a few miles a couple of times a week, Get over yourself

Aw shucks. Did I hurt your feelings?

The OPcan go running whenever they want. S/he asked for suggestions for their next pair and I advised getting assessed before buying. (They can read up on it in the meantime.)

Cue outrage amidst random brand names being tossed in. Not one of you noticed, commented on or factored in the arch problem mentioned. Nor did any of you ask about height, weight, mileage or anything else.

I just hope the OP can differentiate between those who know what they are talking about and those who don't.

KSU

Swashbuckler wrote: »

Although that being said it seems like everything outside of training logs is a debate these days.

Debate is healthy. Opinions being challenged are the only way we can have opinions I mean if we can’t defend our stance do we truly have them in the first place.

Sadly shouting down others opinions without being able to defend are own doesn’t constitute debate in any shape or form and sadly this happens all to frequently (and gets amplified on the internet )

First Up

rizzee wrote: »

Hi, instead of making my own thread if like to post a question here, feel free to delete post or reply through pm.

Currently using Asics GT2000 with over 1200kms put on them including a couple of races and DCM19.

I bought a pair of Sketchers GoRun (not sure exact model) approx 3 months ago but still going between them and Asics on runs (truth be told I want eventually knock these Asics on the head - I've got my use/milage from them and don't want to get injured over a worn shoe) and I'm in the market for a new pair of shoes.

I did like the Asics but the Sketchers are like walking on a cloud compared (surprisingly! Also brings us back to different runners for different folks comfort etc...)

I'm not really in a rush to get a new pair (lots of races coming up cancelled) and I'm in only shirt distances training, but I will be getting more serious into it again & upping milage/following a plan starting end of May for October marathon.

I've been looking at the Nike Next% - very expensive and seem to be solely a race shoe, can anyone shine some light on these? They have been recommended by a physio I go to and I've no issue getting them if it isn't just a marketing ploy for the price...

Regarding the sketchers, well they were very cheap so I might pick up another pair and go between the two as everyday running shoes and use (if I get them) Nike Next% as race shoes.. Or do I need race shoes?! I just want to get PBs in all distance divisions.

800k (especially on road) is about as long as any shoes will last so you are entitled to treat yourself.

I know Skechers mostly as golf and casual shoes. Never wore 'em but their technology seems advanced.

If you are chasing PBs then you can probably justify the investment in shoes for high mileage training and another pair for racing. The "hot" shoe at the moment is the Nike Zoom Vaporfly (worn for the first sub 2 hour marathon) but I'd need a good reason - and a thorough assessment - before splashing out on them or the Next%.

First Up

KSU wrote: »

Debate is healthy. Opinions being challenged are the only way we can have opinions I mean if we can’t defend our stance do we truly have them in the first place.

Sadly shouting down others opinions without being able to defend are own doesn’t constitute debate in any shape or form and sadly this happens all to frequently (and gets amplified on the internet )

The only person being "shouted down" here is me, for having the cheek to suggest that analysis by a running shoe specialist might be more useful than random suggestions from people who know nothing about the person who will wear them.

Good luck OP.

Ceepo

First Up wrote: »

10+ years in a track club, 5 with New York Road Runners and 5 marathons (including one Boston). Does that make me a genuine runner too?

I know a bit about shoes but I don't have much knowledge of the OP so I'm not going to throw names at him. He mentioned trouble with his arches. Did you notice? Did anyone factor that into their suggestions?

Why is suggesting he get expert analysis and advice "scaremongering"?

As you are advocating for in shop gait analysis. I assume you have had it done on one or possible more that one occasion.
Can you take me through the process of it and ho they expert shoe salesman comes to the conclusion what us it right shoe for you...
Do they then recommend only one shoe or do they reccomend different brands

jamule

Gait analysis is the medicinal equivalent to homeopathy.

For anyone interested have a read of Tread Lightly by Larsen/Katovski ,would love to see it updated for studies over the last 10yrs (not that there had been anything to suggest any different conclusions).

For the original poster, if your spending a 100quid on runners , buy 2 different pairs and rotate them.

First Up

Ceepo wrote: »

As you are advocating for in shop gait analysis. I assume you have had it done on one or possible more that one occasion.
Can you take me through the process of it and ho they expert shoe salesman comes to the conclusion what us it right shoe for you...
Do they then recommend only one shoe or do they reccomend different brands

It was suggested I do it when I was starting to do more road running and longer distances. It didn't need much technology - a look at the shoes I'd been wearing showed they were worn down on the outside, which is the result of under pronation (foot rolling outward on landing.) Cushioned shoes are the right choice for that so that's what I wear.

I had it done a couple of times after when getting new shoes. Some analysis in the US was more technical, involving a specialist in-store track that measured pressure on impact but they all showed the same pattern so it isn't going to change.

The shops don't push specific brands.

First Up

jamule wrote:

For the original poster, if your spending a 100quid on runners , buy 2 different pairs and rotate them.

Yes, get a pair for over pronation and a pair for under pronation. You'll be right half the time.

Better still, wear one shoe from each pair and switch feet every second run.

KSU

First Up wrote: »

The only person being "shouted down" here is me, for having the cheek to suggest that analysis by a running shoe specialist might be more useful than random suggestions from people who know nothing about the person who will wear them.

Good luck OP.

This was a more general point being made rather than you specifically.

However in the spirit of debate just some questions which are worth consideration.

Shoe technology has come on leaps and bounds over the last 40 years (by there own account) with these developments has there been any dramatic reduction in injury risk? Given that studies show almost 30% of beginner runners get injured in there first 3 months of running and anecdotally physio's in this country tend to be at there peak in August/September in particular with 1st time marathon runners. Should there not be downward trends in this rate of injury with more accessibility to gait analysis in shops as well as the shoe technology during this period?

Also here is some research which is worth looking into around gait retraining which is an interesting concept that largely gets ignored within runners and hardly gets talked about with footwear being the beginner go to as an easy answer

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4745249/

Ceepo

First Up wrote: »

It was suggested I do it when I was starting to do more road running and longer distances. It didn't need much technology - a look at the shoes I'd been wearing showed they were worn down on the outside, which is the result of under pronation (foot rolling outward on landing.) Cushioned shoes are the right choice for that so that's what I wear.

I had it done a couple of times after when getting new shoes. Some analysis in the US was more technical, involving a specialist in-store track that measured pressure on impact but they all showed the same pattern so it isn't going to change.

The shops don't push specific brands.

So for you, you were a neutral runner. What was the critical factor in deciding to buy the shoes that you purchased on the day, style,colour, fit, flexibility, ?
You say the looked that the wear pattern and there was wear on the outside, do you think that this could be as a result of you landing (supine) on the outside of the shoe as opposed to rolling to the outside?
Did they access for leg length discrepancy, external femoral rotation, internal/external tibial rotation, fallen arch, ankle rocker movement. Do they check for hip drop, hip hike or hip rotation. Do they check for thoracic rotation or lateral flexion.
If they dont check for most the above, then they're not doing gait analysis. They are only offering a service to give themselves
A, a differential advantage over other sports stores to aim at a certain cohort
B, to play catch up with other stores.


I agree with you on recommending a specific brand and model, as everyone will have a personal preference regarding fit flexibility etc.

While the idea of going to a store and getting fitted "for the right shoes for you " sounds good in principle it actually has no bearing on injury prevention.

First Up

Ceepo wrote: »

So for you, you were a neutral runner. What was the critical factor in deciding to buy the shoes that you purchased on the day, style,colour, fit, flexibility, ?
You say the looked that the wear pattern and there was wear on the outside, do you think that this could be as a result of you landing (supine) on the outside of the shoe as opposed to rolling to the outside?
Did they access for leg length discrepancy, external femoral rotation, internal/external tibial rotation, fallen arch, ankle rocker movement. Do they check for hip drop, hip hike or hip rotation. Do they check for thoracic rotation or lateral flexion.
If they dont check for most the above, then they're not doing gait analysis. They are only offering a service to give themselves
A, a differential advantage over other sports stores to aim at a certain cohort
B, to play catch up with other stores.


I agree with you on recommending a specific brand and model, as everyone will have a personal preference regarding fit flexibility etc.

While the idea of going to a store and getting fitted "for the right shoes for you " sounds good in principle it actually has no bearing on injury prevention.

No, I am an under pronator (or supinator) and I wear shoes that best accommodate that.

The shop I frequented in NYC had podiatrists and pedorthists on the staff and could go into it as deeply as anyone wanted. I just wanted the right shoes for the way I run.

I haven't had a shoe related injury for as long as I can remember so maybe we all got it right.

Ceepo

First Up wrote: »

No, I am an under pronator (or supinator) and I wear shoes that best accommodate that.

The shop I frequented in NYC had podiatrists and pedorthists on the staff and could go into it as deeply as anyone wanted. I just wanted the right shoes for the way I run.

I haven't had a shoe related injury for as long as I can remember so maybe we all got it right.

Seems like a good store. But didnt look at any of what I would call gait analysis. Podiatrist look at the feet but as far as I aware they don't look at any other thing that I mentioned..
What would you describe as "shoe related injury"
Do you know of any stores that offer the service either you recieved in NYC with podiatrist on staff in Ireland. Or any store that offer gait analysis to the degree that I mentioned

First Up

I'm not sure what satisfies your definition of gait analysis but there's plenty of specialist running shops providing as much of it as I'd be looking for. The ones I'm familiar with include Run Hub, Run Zone and Amphibian King.

"Shoe related" injuries could be as simple a blisters or more complex like plantar fasciitis or sore arches. I'm sure are others but the right shoes definitely help avoid those ones.

Ceepo

First Up wrote: »

I'm not sure what satisfies your definition of gait analysis but there's plenty of specialist running shops providing as much of it as I'd be looking for. The ones I'm familiar with include Run Hub, Run Zone and Amphibian King.

"Shoe related" injuries could be as simple a blisters or more complex like plantar fasciitis or sore arches. I'm sure are others but the right shoes definitely help avoid those ones.

But I've told you what I consider gait analysis and none of the above mentioned places do that. At best they look at a video of you on a treadmill to look for how you might land and toe off neutral, pronate etc.
They then advise on a type of shoe based on that.
As far as I'm aware they don't take into account things like fore foot landing, heal mid foot sticking, whether you have fallen arches ete. What if you have one fallen arch and over pronate on that side but not the other..
You are defending a flawed process, for reasons I've outlined.
If gait analysis is done as I mentioned then theres great value in it. As movement dysfunction and muscle imbalance can be identified and corrected.
But if you believe there is merit in then happy days.

I would consider thing like planter fasciitis more of an overuse injury.

First Up

If you want to debate the finer details you have my blessing.

The analysis that I have done is along the same lines as these shops offer and has helped ensure I run in suitable shoes.

That's all I wanted it to do and I'd recommend anyone looking for the right shoes to do that instead of asking people in Boards.

Ceepo

First Up wrote: »

If you want to debate the finer details you have my blessing.

The analysis that I have done is along the same lines as these shops offer and has helped ensure I run in suitable shoes.

That's all I wanted it to do and I'd recommend anyone looking for the right shoes to do that instead of asking people in Boards.

I'm not trying to debate the finer details. Just highlight the flaws in gait analysis the we see done in store...
My first post was to advise the op to try on a few pairs to see for themselves, re fit comfort etc.
Obviously they can't in the current lockdown.

Murph_D

First Up wrote: »

If you want to debate the finer details you have my blessing.

The analysis that I have done is along the same lines as these shops offer and has helped ensure I run in suitable shoes.

There’s nothing wrong with the shoes. They are probably just more expensive than the neutral shoes you could otherwise be wearing if you avoided this superficial and discredited marketing ploy. As you said earlier, they don’t recommend specific shoes as a result - but they DO probably recommend a range of specific support shoes from a variety manufacturers. These shoes tend to be more expensive and presumably more profitable for the shop.

For the record, I’ve gone through the process myself in two of the shops you mentioned, about 6 months apart. One recommended a support shoe, the other a neutral. I doubt if my foot landing/takeoff mechanics changed.

Did you have a look at those links I posted? What’s your take on them?

That's all I wanted it to do and I'd recommend anyone looking for the right shoes to do that instead of asking people in Boards.

Guy on internet advises people to avoid internet advice. :rolleyes:

Happy Easter!

First Up

Murph_D wrote:

There’s nothing wrong with the shoes. They are probably just more expensive than the neutral shoes you could otherwise be wearing if you avoided this superficial and discredited marketing ploy. As you said earlier, they don’t recommend specific shoes as a result - but they DO probably recommend a range of specific support shoes from a variety manufacturers. These shoes tend to be more expensive and presumably more profitable for the shop.

All good shoes, as long as they suit the feet they are on.

Murph_D wrote:

For the record, I’ve gone through the process myself in two of the shops you mentioned, about 6 months apart. One recommended a support shoe, the other a neutral. I doubt if my foot landing/takeoff mechanics changed.

I haven't used any of them. The best analysis I had was in Super Runners Shop in NYC and I can't fault the process or the outcome.

Murph_D wrote:

Did you have a look at those links I posted? What’s your take on them?

Not yet.

Murph_D wrote:

Guy on internet advises people to avoid internet advice.

Ironic isn't it?

Casey78

This thread is hilarious.
Carry on.

Ceepo

Casey78 wrote: »

This thread is hilarious.
Carry on.

Why do you think this thread is hilarious.
Genuine question

jamule

Ceepo wrote: »

Why do you think this thread is hilarious.
Genuine question

what's not funny about it. lads getting their knickers in twist trying to explain to a fooking clown why they are a clown. it pointless lads, he is right and thats it, your reasoned and factual debate is not going to win!

Casey78

jamule wrote: »

what's not funny about it. lads getting their knickers in twist trying to explain to a fooking clown why they are a clown. it pointless lads, he is right and thats it, your reasoned and factual debate is not going to win!

I'm finding both sides of the "debate" funny to be fair.

Swashbuckler

What's funny is the OP has 85 posts to read through to find the answer. And if they bother reading, could very well leave thinking they may cause irreversible damage to their hips/legs/feet by taking the huge risk of picking a pair of runners and giving them ago. It really is terrifying to think what could happen.

First Up

Swashbuckler wrote: »

What's funny is the OP has 85 posts to read through to find the answer. And if they bother reading, could very well leave thinking they may cause irreversible damage to their hips/legs/feet by taking the huge risk of picking a pair of runners and giving them ago. It really is terrifying to think what could happen.

He'll find the only answer he needs in #10.

OOnegative

First Up wrote: »

He'll find the only answer he needs in #10.

Yeah, in your blinkered opinion.

First Up

OOnegative wrote: »

Yeah, in your blinkered opinion.

Fair enough.

At last count, the following shoes have been "recommended" by people here:

Nike Presto
Saucony Grid 13
Asics Dynaflyte and Evoride
Nike Pegasus
Saucony Iso 2 and Iso 5
Brooks (any or all I assume)
New Balance Beacon
Hoka Clifton 6

What do you suggest he do - buy them all?

Or should he borrow my blinkers and stick a pin?

Swashbuckler

First Up wrote:

What do you suggest he do - buy them all?

Nah just buy one and see how it goes.... And hope his legs don't fall off.

First Up

Swashbuckler wrote:

Nah just buy one and see how it goes.... And hope his legs don't fall off.

Which one?

KSU

First Up wrote: »

Fair enough.

At last count, the following shoes have been "recommended" by people here:

Nike Presto
Saucony Grid 13
Asics Dynaflyte and Evoride
Nike Pegasus
Saucony Iso 2 and Iso 5
Brooks (any or all I assume)
New Balance Beacon
Hoka Clifton 6

What do you suggest he do - buy them all?

Or should he borrow my blinkers and stick a pin?

Just to elaborate on my Brooks “recommendation” try re read it.

As many others have said (funnily enough seems to be a common trend in the posters with qualifications and a background in sports injuries and biomechanics in this thread) comfort should be the guide and the cross over between Asics and heavier Brooks models (ghost and Ravenna ) in terms of style so more likely to be a similar fit to that OP is currently in.

Aside from that posters are making recommendations (presumably based on there own preferences) much like shops will. The only difference is shops probably have more retail experience with brand differences. There is no science to support from an injury prevention perspective despite some claims made so from that perspective the only advantage to in shop recommendations is they know which brands are similar to match preference,

Best advice the OP can get is look to recommendations coming from people who have transitioned from a similar type of shoe to the OP

First Up

KSU wrote: »

Just to elaborate on my Brooks “recommendation” try re read it.

As many others have said (funnily enough seems to be a common trend in the posters with qualifications and a background in sports injuries and biomechanics in this thread) comfort should be the guide and the cross over between Asics and heavier Brooks models (ghost and Ravenna ) in terms of style so more likely to be a similar fit to that OP is currently in.

Aside from that posters are making recommendations (presumably based on there own preferences) much like shops will. The only difference is shops probably have more retail experience with brand differences. There is no science to support from an injury prevention perspective despite some claims made so from that perspective the only advantage to in shop recommendations is they know which brands are similar to match preference,

Best advice the OP can get is look to recommendations coming from people who have transitioned from a similar type of shoe to the OP

I read what you said about Brooks.

Of course comfort is a guide; the question is how to assess that before you use them. Trying shoes on in a shop will simply help you see if they fit. It won't tell you how comfortable your feet will be in them on a long run. A bit of gait analysis will - and a proper running shoes shop will do that properly.

I'm glad you mentioned some connection to the OP. Most of the suggestions here haven't.

KSU

First Up wrote: »

Trying shoes on in a shop will simply help you see if they fit. It won't tell you how comfortable your feet will be in them on a long run. A bit of gait analysis will - and a proper running shoes shop will do that properly.
.

In your opinion*

Many disagree with you and have explained why and backed it up with numerous links provided as starting point.

Well worth reading into the area of kinesiology If you are interested happy to provide some good reads

First Up

KSU wrote: »

In your opinion*

Many disagree with you and have explained why and backed it up with numerous links provided as starting point.

Well worth reading into the area of kinesiology If you are interested happy to provide some good reads

So there nothing the OP can do, other than qualify in kinesiology, ask people on Boards what they wear, or just take pot luck?

I'll bet he is sorry he asked.

Swashbuckler

First Up wrote:

I'll bet he is sorry he asked.

Thanks to your contribution.

Swiper the fox

First Up wrote: »

So there nothing the OP can do, other than qualify in kinesiology, ask people on Boards what they wear, or just take pot luck?

I'll bet he is sorry he asked.

I bet he is sorry alright, a chap asks for a recommendation for a show to go out running because he absolutely cannot go to a shop and try anything on and some crank on the internet suggests he’ll be doing irreparable damage to himself and should wait for months before he can go to a shop in New York that has a podiatrist on the staff,