Another inane shoe question

[xJimx]

In my quest for new shoes I've been to 2 specialist shops but had conflicting advice.

The first place told me that based on my limited mileage I'd be perfectly fine in a mid level shoe. However the second told me that with anything less than top-of-the-range shoe, given my weight (90kg) & history of back trouble, I'd be risking injury as the cushioning protection would be much less. To be specific, the first said something like a New Balance 759 would be fine; the second said I'd be wise going for the more expensive NB 1080.

Is the second place just giving me sales bullshit or are they correct?

[crapiecorn]

Is the second place just giving me sales bullshit or are they correct?

Sales bs, 90kg is not that heavy.

[runner]

I don´t agree with crapiecorn on this one. I would not recomend less support for someone who weights 90kg. Don´t know if a more expensive shoe automatically means more margin. If price is an issue try to get an old model, or look at different stores.

I´m around 63 kg but don´t do my trainings on race shoes.

[Hiking Fox]

I don't recommend running in supportive shoes.

[skoptic]

Maybe its not necessarily you're weight but your running style that might be more important (if you are 'heavy' on your feet and bang down) I'm tempted to say sales BS... but if it's £30 vs potential back problems .. which is more important?

(I buy last years models at reduced prices usually... and hate the fact that the full on trainers now cost almost £100)

[baldy]

In my quest for new shoes I've been to 2 specialist shops but had conflicting advice.

The first place told me that based on my limited mileage I'd be perfectly fine in a mid level shoe. However the second told me that with anything less than top-of-the-range shoe, given my weight (90kg) & history of back trouble, I'd be risking injury as the cushioning protection would be much less. To be specific, the first said something like a New Balance 759 would be fine; the second said I'd be wise going for the more expensive NB 1080.

Is the second place just giving me sales bullshit or are they correct?

I love New Balance, years ago I had gait analysis done and they recommended I run on 716s. Since then I have always taken my old shoes in and got the new models that match the old 716. Some how I ended up running with a pair of 857 that didn't feel like they had as much cushioning. I ran a marathon on these but as I bulked up afterwards 80kg+ they felt too hard. To replace them I got a pair of 768s which are the most comfortable running shoes I have ever owned. At 100kg now I can still run in them with no problems.

Has anyone worked out how to decipher the New Balance model numbers?

Personally I don't think you or anyone will regret buying shoes with extra cushioning plus you have a valid reason to buy them. The down side of extra cushioning are of course extra weight in the shoe and more expensive. Which it doesn't sound like an issue for you.

What did they say about your running style, do you smash your heel or pronate?

[crapiecorn]

Personally I don't think you or anyone will regret buying shoes with extra cushioning plus you have a valid reason to buy them.

I don't run far as I generally do sprints or a 5k once or twice a week,

You'll probably regret it when you 're sprinting. Sprinting in big cushioned shoes is like running in lose sand.

The only thing that I learned about running shoes is : don't trust anyone, just try it out. If it works it works.

[Rach]

Don't know much about this myself but have had helpful advice in the past when I did more running from the staff at a local running shop,Natterjacks. They do mail order and may be able to give advice via the telephone


http://www.natterjack.co.uk/

[baldy]

Shoes vs Barefoot runners is always a hot topic
Here is a great article that I got a lot out of -> http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/06 ... o-run.html
Despite the bit I quoted below it is a very balanced article, well worth a read.

The argument here is that injury rates were 70% in the 70s and 70% in the 2000s. So, despite shoe technology, which is hugely different, we still get injured just as much. And sure, this is true, and when viewed together with the other evidence about shoes, I think it's a good case.

But just remember that the people who are running in the 2000s are not necessarily the same as those running in the 70s. When I think of running in the 70s, I think of Amby Burfoot - small, wiry, probably ultra-economical (sorry Amby! Thanks for reading!).

When I think of running in 2011, I think of Oprah Winfrey... sorry Oprah. Simply, the people who run marathons today are not the same kind of runner. They are heavier, slower, and probably do less training but then still run the marathon distance. When viewed this way, it's perhaps not surprising that 70% are getting injured. If anything, it suggests that shoes may be helping, because many of the runners of 2011 are walking/jogging/running injury risks!

Maybe we should start a Shoe Vs Barefoot running thread and thrash out the right answer?

[skoptic]

Maybe we should start a Shoe Vs Barefoot running thread and thrash out the right answer?

There is one that was started recently - I admire your confidence that we could thrash out the right answer here on this forum Much opinion and conjecture maybe.... but probably not the right answer

[xJimx]

Thanks for the input guys. I've decided to be a tight bastard & go with the cheaper option 'cos I got some 759s for £50 (rrp is £75). The money saved will pay for my daughter's new ballet outfit