running under the BigSky
I'm a wee nervous about 0 drop shoes, maybe needlessly (maybe not?). I have transitioned to lower drop shoes (4mm) w/ both the PureGrits and the PI N1's. The more I think what I like about these shoes is probably not the drop, but as mentioned above- stack height.
Without any shadow of a doubt, these two new shoes are more nimble than my previous "traditional" trail runners (mostly Montrail)- that were 10-12mm drop and a higher stack height.
I really have to agree w/ fraggle on toebox room- that's the very first thing that will make or break (mostly break I'm finding out) a shoe fitting for me.
2023 goal 2023 miles √
2022 goal- 2022 miles √
2021 goal- 2021 miles √
flashlight and sidewalk
I just don't want to wear big shoes.
Those Altras don't appeal to me because they have a tall stack height...same with the Brooks. Close to the ground, light and nimble. Usually that doesn't come with shoes that have a big heel-toe drop.
**Ask me about streaking**
Don't really look for a certain heel drop and just go by what feels good.
I find it's normally not something too low of a heel drop or clunky though...it does seem like a lot of companies have shaved down some of their stack heights (not too low) in the last few years which is something I appreciate.
Trail Monster
I run in Altras. I am sponsored by Altra. But I don't run in them because of that. I absolutely love the Altras for a number of reasons not related to heel drop. For example, the wider toe box. I haven't had a single blister or messed up toenail since I switched. Example two, women-specific engineering: narrower heel, longer arch, and metatarsal positioning specifically for women's unique foot structure. Reason three, innovative designs, like the removable rock plate in the Superiors.
I just don't want to wear big shoes. Those Altras don't appeal to me because they have a tall stack height...same with the Brooks. Close to the ground, light and nimble. Usually that doesn't come with shoes that have a big heel-toe drop.
You're looking at the wrong ones then. There are the Adam/Eves which have very little cushioning and are low to the ground and light. The Samson/Delilahs are also extremely minimal in the midsole and outsole.
2013 races:
3/17 Shamrock Marathon
4/20 North Coast 24 Hour
7/27 Burning RIver 100M
8/24 Baker 50M
10/5 Oil Creek (distance to be determined)
My Blog
Brands I Heart:
FitFluential
INKnBURN
Altra Zero Drop
I thought the Altras (new Lone Peaks) had a relatively low stack height when I tried them on; not sure what Brooks you tried, but the PureGrits (2's anyways) have a pretty low stack height
I'm pretty happy in my xodus 3.0 - 4mm drop. BUT the reason I got them in the first place was the toebox width as well as rock plate and forefoot shock absorption (not squishy). They reduced the heel but added material in the forefoot - about 3mm more than the Adrenaline ASRs (and other standard shoes) have.
There's occasional days where it feels like my achilles is getting stressed so I'll go back to a regular shoe for a day. (usually Badrock).
I've got Hoka Stinson Evo's, also 4mm drop, but they're really cushy. I've got plenty of toebox space, but the whole shoe seems a bit wider, and I don't feel stable in it - irrespective of how high they sit. I couldn't try the next 1/2 size down because the speed laces weren't long enough for my high volume foot to get into the shoe. The uppers tend to be heavy, which makes them warm, but also hard to snug up around the foot.
The cushiony aspects of the Hokas and to a lesser extent the Badrocks sometimes bother my feet as they go up and down inside the shoe.
The xodus are working out well enough for me that I don't want to have to learn to run in Hokas on some of the terrain I was originally thinking about them for.
I think the ASRs might be a tad wider in the forefoot, but their lack of forefoot protection (and my tender forefeet) is relegating them also-rans. Our trails have just started drying up after winter breakup over the last couple weeks, so really haven't tried the ASRs much.
I tend to like a lower heel drop. My current shoes all have 4mm drop, Saucony peregrine, Saucony Kinvara and La Sportiva Vertical K. I had a pair of La Sportiva Crosslites which are 8mm, that I also really liked. I don't have much experience with higher drop shoes so I can't say for sure if it is the drop I like or just the particular shoes that I have picked. My first trail shoes were Asics Gel Trabuco, with a 12mm drop. I really notice the beefy heels in those and I believe they contributed to my IT Band issues, although it's hard to say for sure if that's true.
Fad or not, I think the lower drop shoes definitely have their place. It's great that there is beginning to be quite a variety of trail shoes available, it seems there is something for everyone regardless of what style works best for you.
I never go higher than 4mm, and my current workhorse, the TrailRoc 235 are zero-drop. And yes it matters, more so on the road than the trail. A few millimeters isn't a big deal on the trail, but having become accustomed to a small differential from heel to toe its definitely noticeable and negative suddenly trying to run in a shoe with a big drop and a higher stack height.
Zero drop isn't a fad. Its the original shoe, and the original running shoe (from the moccasin to the flat) . Shoes were made to protect you from the elements not re-engineer the way the human body moves.
http://www.valleyrunningclub.org/
Thread killer ..
In the 5 mm and lower works best for me . I wear heels at work and try to keep my feet flat as possible the rest of the time to counteract that. I am wearing Hokas now because they work for me . I have the Saucony Xodus but started having trouble with them when they had @200 miles on them . Tried the Altras because of the wide foot but had other issues with them not related to the 0 drop.
I never go higher than 4mm, and my current workhorse, the TrailRoc 235 are zero-drop. And yes it matters, more so on the road than the trail. A few millimeters isn't a big deal on the trail, but having become accustomed to a small differential from heel to toe its definitely noticeable and negative suddenly trying to run in a shoe with a big drop and a higher stack height. Zero drop isn't a fad. Its the original shoe, and the original running shoe (from the moccasin to the flat) . Shoes were made to protect you from the elements not re-engineer the way the human body moves.
I think those TrailRoc 235 or 245 are at the top of my list right now...maybe even the 150's. Any input?
Since I posted a thread a couple of weeks ago I figured that I would comment.
I feel that the "lower drop" shoes have been better for me personally. I have been wearing the NB 101's for a couple of years and really like them. For me, they are perfect. For others, they may not be. I would never push someone to go "barefoot", "zero drop" or even "minimal". I am of the philosophy that I will tell new runners what works for me and let them make their own decisions.
I actually had a conversation yesterday with a LRS employee and he said he thinks the barefoot craze is slowly coming to an end. He said that they have VFF's on their shelves that they can't sell. They have them marked down to $50 for the higher end models (can't remember the name) and he said that they've sold a couple of pairs since the beginning of the year. This is a store that was right at the forefront of the whole thing too. He said that more and more companies like Merrell are focusing on the "lower" drop shoes and getting away from the "zero"
Not sure if it's hype or not. I tried the Brooks Pure flows, but didn't transition to them slowly and ended up with a knot in my calf. I felt it while walking, but not while running. Since then I haven't tried running in shoes with a low heel drop. I believe in just sticking with what works and what feels comfortable. Due to my past experience with the 4mm drop shoe on asphalt, I have stayed away from trying trail shoes with low heel drops.
Since then I was refitted for shoes and was told that I never should have been put in shoes with a low heel drop since my foot isn't flexible enough. According to this person, unless you have roughly 30 degrees, IIRC, of flex in either the ankle joint or your toes, you won't be able to run in low heel drop shoes. Doing so will cause one of your muscles to stay contracted the whole time, according to that person.
Occasional Runner
Personally, from a business perspective, I think the Altra model is doomed. They've built their entire brand on a single concept and they don't offer anything but the "zero drop" style of shoe. The focus is entirely limited. We've all been running long enough to see trends come and go. VFF is a perfect example of that. But Altra has nothing else to offer if their current shoe line falls out of favor, which it almost certainly will at some point.
Shoe companies like NB and Brooks have a line of shoes that can cater to virtually every runner out there. If one type of shoe becomes less popular, they can easily slow production of that style and then shift focus to other shoes in their existing line. Altra doesn't have that ability. When zero drop falls out of favor, they have nothing else to offer and they've built their entire company by saying zero drop is the best concept in shoe design. What can they do? Go against the brand they created and begin marketing shoes that don't support the claim that made them popular? They've put all their eggs in one flimsy basket.
Personally, from a business perspective, I think the Altra model is doomed. They've built their entire brand on a single concept and they don't offer anything but the "zero drop" style of shoe. The focus is entirely limited. We've all been running long enough to see trends come and go. VFF is a perfect example of that. But Altra has nothing else to offer if their current shoe line falls out of favor, which it almost certainly will at some point. Shoe companies like NB and Brooks have a line of shoes that can cater to virtually every runner out there. If one type of shoe becomes less popular, they can easily slow production of that style and then shift focus to other shoes in their existing line. Altra doesn't have that ability. When zero drop falls out of favor, they have nothing else to offer and they've built their entire company by saying zero drop is the best concept in shoe design. What can they do? Go against the brand they created and begin marketing shoes that don't support the claim that made them popular? They've put all their eggs in one flimsy basket.
Maybe. But their shoes work for me and a lot of others so maybe they will just be a small, niche market for a long time to come.
MTA: they could potentially add 'transition' shoes to the line up with a small heel drop. Marketing ploy: buy two pairs to eventually get down to zero drop. Makes sense right?
under a rock
Lace-up, I know you hate Altra personally because you've met the people and run into the dbags all the time, but I think Altra will be fine. I own 4 pair. I bought the Inution the first year they came out. Loved the toe box but not the heel and midfoot. I have two pair of the Eve's for walking the dogs and causal wear that I wear every day. I also have the Superiors that I will only wear on non technical trails because they just don't fit snug enough in the midfoot to keep my foot from twisting or sliding forward inside the shoe. Plus I feel they need to work on the sole for a bit better traction. I know plenty of other people that wear Altras. I think they still have some kinks to work out before they'll have a shoe that will work well for me. I have often thought that it would suit them well to add at least one transition shoe to the mix or an insole that would suit the same purpose.
Hoka seems to be doing fine and they reach a pretty small audience.
For now, I'm sticking with my La Sportiva Crosslites 2.0 because they work best for me as far as comfort, no blisters ever from them, and never any pain in my toes. I do wish they would lower the heel height just a bit. Though the 2.0 at 8mm is an improvement over the original that was 11mm.