Team TJ
I have a shoe opinion question.
I've been running in Newtons for quite some time now. I really like them but for the life of me, I can't break myself of running as a heelstriker. I've been seriously considering going back to a more traditional shoe. I'm a rather slow, big guy so I want something with plenty of cushion.
I have used Brooks and Asics in the past and really liked either. I'm now looking at getting one of these three shoes:
I'd appreciate any constructive feedback you could offer on one of the three listed.
Thanks in advance.....
Running for TJ because he can't.
The first question I have is how did you pick those three shoes as your choices?
Former Bad Ass
My husband loves the Glycerines. It's his racing shoe. They are lighter than other Brooks (like the Ghost) and they are comfy. He uses Brooks because of the toebox width as he cannot wear any other brand without the shoe feeling too tight.
Damaris
Nimbus wear like iron with plenty of protection for your piggies. I ran 4 or 5 training runs of 30 miles or so and a 50mile ultra in the nimbus with no foot problems at all. I use the Nimbus for all my longer training runs. The nimbus I run in right now have just about 450 miles and still going strong with no sign of breaking down except the normal wear on the sole.
Triumph are very comfortable and offer good protection for the feet but have a lighter and faster feel than the Nimbus. The arch fits my feet better than the Nimbus but the bottoms of my feet start hurting anytime I wear these shoes over 15 or so miles These are my go to shoes for 5k's or tempo runs. The triumphs I m using now have 356 mile and are starting to show wear and getting a curve to them and starting to get a broke down feel to them.
I like both shoes and plan on replacing them with the same shoe, the combo of using the nimbus long and the triumph short is working well for me.
Is there a reason why you want to switch from heel striking? As a general rule, I don't think you should mess with your foot strike. The exception would be if you're constantly getting injured. I would stick with the Newtons if they work well for you. Otherwise, those three shoes you listed are in the same class and would compete head-to-head. I would recommend trying them at a LRS and seeing which you like best.
Hip Redux
The only thing is that the Newtons don't have much in the way of heel cushion, because they are intended for folks to land on the lugs in the forefoot.
When I am deciding between shoes, I'll run on the TM in the running store in various pairs until I get it down to two, then I put one on my left and one on my right and run mismatched. It's amazing how an actual head to head comparison helps.
Bingo!
uʍop ǝpᴉsdn sǝʇᴉɹʍ ʇI
I really like my Nimbus. They are very durable and my feet feel great even after 18-20 mile runs. Plus, they are loud and obscenely bright and my kids call them "clown shoes." Bonus!
I have a pair of the Nimbus and love the cushiness. I'm a big girl (50+ lbs to lose) and wear a men's 11 ish.
Don't call me Buttercup!
I am a die-hard Brooks fan, mostly because they're the only brand that I've tried so far that doesn't make my feet hurt. Honestly, it's really all about how they feel when you've got 'em on! Unfortunately, no one can pick shoes for you. Good luck!
Slow and steady wins the.... wait a second! I've been lied to!
Super B****
Whoa, wait -- aren't you the one who was extolling the virtues of Newtons when I said that I tried and hated them?!
(That said... I'm a Brooks/Mizuno fan, so I'd probably try the Glycerine first. I'm not so brand-loyal that I'd stick with it if it didn't work for me, but I'd try that one first.)
chasing the impossible
because i never shut up ... i blog
I've been using the Nimbus nearly since I started running. Well, OK, I started in Nike Shox but that's another story. Once my knees started hurting for the second time, I did some research and bought the Nimbus sometime in the fall of 2008 and have been using them since. I just put 750+ miles on my most recently retired pairs. (I rotate through 3 pairs). There is still a lot of wear left in them and I could probably continue using them for a while at least on my morning jogs. Extremely durable and quite cushy.
From the "for what it's worth" department, I'm a heel striker as are many elite athletes. While you don't want to overstride and come down hard on your heel with a locked knee, a slight heel strike is perfectly acceptable.
Short term goal: 17:59 5K
Mid term goal: 2:54:59 marathon
Long term goal: To say I've been a runner half my life. (I started running at age 45).
I'm not an elite athlete but was a heel striker for 20+ years. When a mid foot landing was in my best interest I had trouble converting it on the street, but was successful on a treadmill 2 years ago. Once I had it figured out my race times somehow got better than the previous 5 years, plus I had less trouble with injuries so I'm not going back.
Drink up moho's!!
As mentioned already, nothing wrong with being a heel striker. The key is injury free running though whatever foot strike works for you. Greg McMillan said that he used to be a midfoot striker and was getting injured. He purposely switch to heel striking and now runs injury free.