Forums > Running 101 > Best type of running shoe for you
Here is some good basic info on picking the right kind of running shoe. Especially for newbie runners.
Best type of shoe for you
Listen. Yeah, it's gonna hurt some. That's the marathon business. But here's the thing. When it starts to get intense, that's not time to panic. This is what you wanted to happen. It means that all the training, all the miles, all the wakeups, all the cold, all the wet, all the sleep-deprived days and all the shit you've done to yourself over the last 6 plus months is finally about to pay off. It means you've put yourself where you wanted to be. You've given yourself an opportunity that very few will ever have. You've given yourself a chance. Now finish it.
Stability shoes are best for those with a neutral foot (normal arch) and an efficient running gait. These shoes are a little more flexible to allow the normal pronation of the foot. Runners in this category tend to be heel strikers so cushioning is usually added to absorb some of this shock."
Thanks for posting this, Mark, but I think the above (from the article) is not accurate.
If we don’t try we’ll never know. At least I can find out how good I can be. I can have an answer at the end of the days, and have a hell of a good time with the process. -Desi Davila
Here is some good basic info on picking the right kind of running shoe. Especially for newbie runners. Best type of shoe for you
All due respect, which part of this site do you think qualifies us to follow their recommendations? "Beauty" tab or the sub-title "speed of life"? If www.quickfix.com says "buy the most expensive shoes in the first store you walk in", would that be good enough of a recommendation to suggest to "newbie" runners? So your thread had been read more than 100 times; how many "newbies" actually followed these recommendations?
Irresponsible, if you ask me.
Nader is correct: if you are neutral and efficient, why would you need "stability"? Doesn't make sense, does it? Good suggestion? I'd say garbage.
lace 'em up!
Now, I don't know if it really matters for kids, espcially kids that already run around a lot and have virtually no extra weight like my son, but I was surprized when the sales guy said, "we like to put young runners in stability shoes to prevent problems down the road."
Is there any truth to this? Or is that the only decent running shoes made for kids still wearing youth sizes lean more towards stability?
Head in the Clouds
Last weekend I took my 11 year old son to a reputable running store (it's the store that won the best running store in America) to get him a decent pair of shoes to run in. Now, I don't know if it really matters for kids, espcially kids that already run around a lot and have virtually no extra weight like my son, but I was surprized when the sales guy said, "we like to put young runners in stability shoes to prevent problems down the road." Is there any truth to this? Or is that the only decent running shoes made for kids still wearing youth sizes lean more towards stability?
No. They like to put kids in stability shoes because they make more money off of them and build a dependence that ensures future sales of the most expensive shoes. My 9-year-old wants o run and I'm going with lightweight, neutral trainers of some kind and let the kiddo run naturally. Don't correct something that's not there. Wow, what silliness.
Set the gear shift for the high gear of your soul, You've got to run like an antelope out of control
Tom:
I'm sure you've seen some baby announcement card has newly born baby's foot print. They don't have any arch. Arch "develops" as the baby starts to walk around. You put baby's (or young developing feet) into a cast and don't let them function properly, they'll never develop arch. Whenever I see parents let little kids (here I'm talking about 3, 4, 5 years old) wear unbendable (if there's such a word...) shoe just because they have some sort of noticable brand name on it, I shake my head...
Like the old saying; "If the car run, don't fix it." Putting 11-year-old's feet into stability shoes of today (more like cast) "to prevent problems down the road" is like saying; "Make sure your kid is not going to have a car accident by not letting them drive at all." Well, actually probably worse because the approach is complete opposite. It's called tampering.
Or look at it tis way: Majority of stability shoes=cost about $120. Most so-called minimalist shoes (i.e. light weight flxible racing flats)=cost about $60~80. Which one do you think the shoe store would like to sell?
I don't want to bring up the debate about barefoot running--there had been plenty of it and I've been in the middle of heated (nasty) name-calling just a few weeks ago and I don't want to deal with it again. I just spoke with a guy who wrote one of the first public article about minimalist shoes ("Marathon & Beyond" about 9 years ago) who (jokingly) claims his article triggered Nike to come up with Free (M&B told him that, after the article came out, Nike R&D VP bought a dozen copies then a year or so later, Free came out); we've been talking about this for years. Arthur Lydiard had been talking about this for decades (I have a small clip of "The Runner" article about him calling majority of running related injuries "American shoe diseases"). It makes perfect sense to me.
I'm not a barefoot runner (my hat's off to people like Ed or Jason). I wear shoes when I run. But I try to look at shoes that let my feet function most--in other words, as my old mentor used to say, I try to "talk to my feet". Now if I wear something "wrong", my feet will tell me that it's restricting them. Most people tend to like to listen to shoe sales people then their own feet. Or some cheap "quick-fix" article. I mean, think about it; low arch (or flat foot) and then wear motion control shoes? The shape of the arch is the only gauge to decide shoes? What kind of sound suggestion to newbies is that? I'm coming from coach/teacher background. All we try to do is to "teach people how to fish" so they can go on and do it on their own. All these "quick-fix" or "speed answer" or "XXX for dummies" is throw some quick generalizations to satisfy their immediate needs (give them a fish). And what good would it do in a long run? God gave us a brain to be used. Think first to see if it makes sense (I'm not telling you that you don't, Tom); when you read one of these quick-fix article, think and ask yourself "Are they really in a position to tell us what to do and how to do it?" Seriously, I'd rather check Runner's World website and see who says what then listen to what "Life's 123" has to say about running. I'm sorry, but that website looks to me like "most commonly accepted misinformation in every field" than "sound recommendation".
All due respect, which part of this site do you think qualifies us to follow their recommendations? "Beauty" tab or the sub-title "speed of life"? If www.quickfix.com says "buy the most expensive shoes in the first store you walk in", would that be good enough of a recommendation to suggest to "newbie" runners? So your thread had been read more than 100 times; how many "newbies" actually followed these recommendations? Irresponsible, if you ask me. Nader is correct: if you are neutral and efficient, why would you need "stability"? Doesn't make sense, does it? Good suggestion? I'd say garbage.
Nobby, I admire your passion (as well as your extreme generosity) on these boards, but I think you were a bit harsh with Mark.
Slight threadjack...
Was it Naperville Running Company?
LOVE that place! Can't wait for the new location to open up. They will have an indoor running track for testing shoes!
Tom: I'm sure you've seen some baby announcement card has newly born baby's foot print. They don't have any arch. Arch "develops" as the baby starts to walk around. You put baby's (or young developing feet) into a cast and don't let them function properly, they'll never develop arch. Whenever I see parents let little kids (here I'm talking about 3, 4, 5 years old) wear unbendable (if there's such a word...) shoe just because they have some sort of noticable brand name on it, I shake my head... Like the old saying; "If the car run, don't fix it." Putting 11-year-old's feet into stability shoes of today (more like cast) "to prevent problems down the road" is like saying; "Make sure your kid is not going to have a car accident by not letting them drive at all." Well, actually probably worse because the approach is complete opposite. It's called tampering. Or look at it tis way: Majority of stability shoes=cost about $120. Most so-called minimalist shoes (i.e. light weight flxible racing flats)=cost about $60~80. Which one do you think the shoe store would like to sell? I don't want to bring up the debate about barefoot running--there had been plenty of it and I've been in the middle of heated (nasty) name-calling just a few weeks ago and I don't want to deal with it again. I just spoke with a guy who wrote one of the first public article about minimalist shoes ("Marathon & Beyond" about 9 years ago) who (jokingly) claims his article triggered Nike to come up with Free (M&B told him that, after the article came out, Nike R&D VP bought a dozen copies then a year or so later, Free came out); we've been talking about this for years. Arthur Lydiard had been talking about this for decades (I have a small clip of "The Runner" article about him calling majority of running related injuries "American shoe diseases"). It makes perfect sense to me. I'm not a barefoot runner (my hat's off to people like Ed or Jason). I wear shoes when I run. But I try to look at shoes that let my feet function most--in other words, as my old mentor used to say, I try to "talk to my feet". Now if I wear something "wrong", my feet will tell me that it's restricting them. Most people tend to like to listen to shoe sales people then their own feet. Or some cheap "quick-fix" article. I mean, think about it; low arch (or flat foot) and then wear motion control shoes? The shape of the arch is the only gauge to decide shoes? What kind of sound suggestion to newbies is that? I'm coming from coach/teacher background. All we try to do is to "teach people how to fish" so they can go on and do it on their own. All these "quick-fix" or "speed answer" or "XXX for dummies" is throw some quick generalizations to satisfy their immediate needs (give them a fish). And what good would it do in a long run? God gave us a brain to be used. Think first to see if it makes sense (I'm not telling you that you don't, Tom); when you read one of these quick-fix article, think and ask yourself "Are they really in a position to tell us what to do and how to do it?" Seriously, I'd rather check Runner's World website and see who says what then listen to what "Life's 123" has to say about running. I'm sorry, but that website looks to me like "most commonly accepted misinformation in every field" than "sound recommendation".
Thanks for the thorough reply. It's sad, but when I first started having calf issues, I had numerous PT's tell me "get better shoes." Well, that didn't fix anything. All it did was result in me paying more for shoes, and shoes I would have never considered buying in the past. I always did just fine with the cheaper nike pegasus.
But, back to my son's shoes. I will say that even though these New Balance shoes we bought him lean towards a stablity model, there's not muchstablity to them. I can easily twist the shoe, and they feel lighter than my racing flats. Still, he'll outgrow them before he wears them out.
Slight threadjack... Was it Naperville Running Company? LOVE that place! Can't wait for the new location to open up. They will have an indoor running track for testing shoes!
Yes, it was Naperville Running Company. I love that store too. This little incident will not prevent me from buying from them in the future. I just wish it wasn't a 45 minute drive for me.
LOL! I thought so!
When you mentioned voted best running store in America I checked your location and saw where you were.
I saw they got that award in their email blast they send periodically.
They are about 45 minutes for me too. I'm in Yorkville, IL but so worth the drive!
Resident of Pennsyltucky
There's no right answer on shoes for everyone. We're all different.
I DO have to wear a stability shoe. I weigh 195 pounds. When I tried lighter shoes I shredded the crap out of them and had much more residual soreness. What good is it spending 60-75% for a pair when you wear them out twice as fast? Doesn't make $$$ sense.
Let experience be your guide. Try all types and stick with what works. Hope that the Gel MC doesn't evolve into the Kayano 15 and make you have to look again.
Firstly, the kid's stability shoes that we sell do not cost more than the kid's neutral shoes. In fact, our average kid's stability shoe costs less than our kid's neutral shoe. There is a fairly limited selection in performance based kid's running shoes and we try to carry as many of them as we can. Even in adult shoes, there is not a huge discrepancy in the pricing gap of stability and neutral shoes that are made with similar technology. In fact, the spread is $0 to $10. Taking it a step further, the highest price shoes on the running market are actually neutral shoes.
Secondly, we never work with a customer with the goal of selling the more expensive shoes. I personally guarantee that. If you come in our store for the first time, we will bring out both our lower end and higher end shoes as part of the fitting process. We then rely on the customer's feedback and video analysis to determine which shoe seems to be working better - regardless of price. Every one of our new employees, during their 80 hours of training, is clearly instructed that just because a shoe costs more doesn't mean it's going to work better for a customer. We need to put our customers in the shoe that works best for them - regardless of price (unless they request that we only try shoes in a certain price range, we can certainly work within those restrictions).
Thirdly, and most importantly, the reason we tend to put many kids in stability shoes is because we've asked many podiatrists their opinion on this subject and the majority feel this is the best way to go. Not all kids need stability shoes, but this is the age at which they are developing their foot structure and musculature and if they need support they should get it. If the child's foot is properly supported during the developmental period, they seem to have a better chance at having a healthier foot shape. As a young runner, I had a fairly flat foot. We had pictures of me running and you clearly see my heel rolling in so much it almost hit the ground. We had inserts made and I wore them for several years and gradually phased them out. I now have a healthy foot, good arch and have spent most of the last 30 years injury free. I'm a sample of one, so this is not a valid study, but it does seem to match up with what the docs have told us. I see the exact same foot issues with my 11 year old son. So we have him wearing inserts and stability shoes and I've already seen significant improvement in his arch structure and mechanics. He doesn't run much, but when he does, I want to make sure we're doing the right thing for his feet.
On a side note: There is a big debate raging regarding barefoot running and minimizing footwear. I believe barefoot running can be a great addition to a runner's training program. This may seem to contradict what I'm saying above. But it really doesn't. Regular running shoes, used for your regular running on regular surfaces are what most people need most of the time. But doing some running barefoot or in minimal shoes on grass or soft surfaces is a great way to strengthen your foot and hopefully reduce injury. Doing so, over a period of time, may help your foot structure and allow you to wear less structured shoes. But the body needs to be "retrained" and this MUST be done very gradually. You will read about people who switched to running barefoot and all of their problems went away. I also saw a guy make a blindfolded half court shot at a basketball game the other day. These are the exceptions to the rule - and they get the most airtime, because they are great stories - but that doesn't mean it will work for everyone.
I'd like to add that I've seen many PT's over the years for some calf issues, and nearly all of them stated your problem is you need a stabilty shoe. Well, I tried that and it didn't help. I then found a good chiropractor (who knows you Kris) that is also an avid marathoner/ultra-marathoner, and has competed in many IMs. Well, the first thing he suggesed for me was neutral shoes. I guess my point is, everyone has an opinion on this, and we have to do what works for us. But, I value the opinion of a 50 year old male, whose involved in the sport, and whose career is based on helping injured athletes and in particular runners.
As for my son, I'm not too worried about his shoes right now. He's only 11 and if he runs more than 10 miles/week, I'd be suprised. I just didn't want him running in shoes from Target. Moreover, he'll outgrow them before they can do any kind of damage, and every chance he gets he takes them off and runs barefoot. He thinks he's part hobbit.
Tom
Hi Kris!
Just wanted to say thank you for all you and your staff do.
I can vouch for the fact that I have never felt pressured to buy the most expensive shoe in the store.
When trying on shoes your staff brings out, at least for me, at least 6 or 8 different brands/models and I'm the one who decides what fits and feels the best.
Glad to see you here at RunningAhead and hope you contribute more to these types of discussion.
Can't wait to check out the new location!
© 2012 RunningAHEAD.com. All rights reserved. | Privacy