It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I'm into the minamalist training shoes and saw these for £20:
Has anyone used them? Thoughts?
I have a pair, they are heavy and a bit too cushioned for me. I wear them to walk the dog now, you get what you pay for!!!
The ad says they're 220 grams; is that heavy for a training shoe?
Nike Free are 9.3 ounces (taken from a US website) which is 263 grams (size 10), so they're lighter than those.
I've just ordered a pair; £20 is worth a punt.
Traditionally, top-of-the-range shoes had more technology (complex midsoles, multiple density outsoles, gels and foams, Scotchlite 3M, thermoplastic arch-supports, etc) and this was used to justify the cost. The entry-level model would have a single-density midsole, carbon rubber outsole and no Grid, Web, Gel, Abzorb, Adiprene +, etc, etc.
With minimal shoes, companies are selling a product very similar to their old entry-level models, but they are now £80-100, rather than the £40-50 they were in the old range.
As there is not very much to these shoes and little design, bar a wider forefoot and minimal heel-toe drop, why are people willing to pay these prices? Seems like the companies have re-branded their old cheapos into top-of-the-lines!
These look like many other shoes with no features - and at a price that I would say makes sense.
Thanks, discount; that was interesting to read. Given that I try to run 'pose style'; forefoot strike, quick cadence, etc - these could be just the ticket. I use the More Miles fell shoe for really 'greasy' fell races and think they're great for the money.
I have no problems with mine, but I know people who've had their feet shredded with the Mudclaw (similar grip to the More Miles fell shoe but at least double the price).
I'll report back when I get 'em.
I've done 11 miles in these More Mile running shoes; that's one speed session and one recovery run; and my first impression of these shoes are that they're great. They fit well, they're comfortable, they're light, and they're great if you're into the 'natural running' thing.
They're my new most favourate running shoe (and I own several pairs) at the mo.
Bought a pair last week to use as a recovery shoe after doing the lakeland 50. Wouldn't like to run in them because I need a Structured shoe but as a recovery shoe they are great!
How's the sizing ?
No problems with sizing; I take a size 11, ordered a size 11 and they fit lovely.
I've done about 40 miles in these shoes and I love them. Very light, nice wide toe area that allows my foot to move naturally; no problems at all.
Wide at the toes! handy. I take an Asics 8 1/2 but they are a bit narrow in the toebox.
New shoes usually feel like an upgrade if they fit decently, when they cost a packet I get tempted to use them when they're basically past it.
The guy who wrote Born to Run reckons there's a study which shows that there's less chance of getting injuries from older running shoes. From memory (he reckons) there's some kind of biometric device in humans which means when we land, we want something firm. It was discovered from gymnasts that they land harder if the mat is soft; it's like the body needs to feel the firmness to be stable.
So with too much cushioning, we unconsciously strike the ground harder while we run. He says that the cushioning only protects us from pain - not impact. He gives the example that if we wrap an egg in rubber and hit it with a hammer, the egg isn't coming out alive.
Anyway, the study he cites shows there's a statistically higher chance of injuries with new running shoes; due to us hitting the ground harder; and as they wear and bed-in, we run better and therefore succumb to less injuries.
But there's controversy and debate with regards the minamalist running shoe school of thought. It seems to work for me though.
I did my long run (17 miles) at the weekend wearing these and had no problems. I must've clocked up about 60 miles in them now. Maybe more; my mileage record keeping isn't great.
The guy who wrote 'Born to Run' can be trusted no more than any marketing exec with something to sell. It is his business and his living to propagate the idea that shoes are bad, just as it is Nike's to perpetuate that they are good.
The rubbish about the egg is disingenuous - hitting it with a hammer will break it, but wrapping it in rubber and dropping it from 15 feet won't. What does that tell us? I don't know, but I have a scientific background and have still yet to see any of these studies that are worth the paper they are written on. Every one of them has a glaring error that a layperson should be able to see/understand striaght away.
The nervous system has feedback mechanisms and we do need to feel the ground in order to know when to tense certain muscles, move joints, etc. But this information is abused so often by people with an agenda - for example, if running shoes had infinite cushioning, it would be like running through deep jam. But they don't, so his point is redundant - your shoes are designed to offer cushioning to the point that your weight (and gravity) requires - you won't compress a shoe as much as someone who has greater mass, so you reach a point of 'stability' whereby you can push-off again.
Put simply, cushioning slows the rate at which we meet resistance, but we still hit that point of resistance eventually. This bullshit report he mentions, suggests that your foot is always sinking into th cushioning. Not true. He/They are bullshitters. They all are!
I agree, Discount - which is why I pointed out that it wasn't 'my information'. It's a bit like religion in a way. You can go to one source of information and learn some stuff, and then you can go to an alternative source of information and read alternative and conflicting information.
So what's best? Experience is best. I know in the mid-eighties that I ran quite happily using the equipment supplied to me by the army and that was in boots and plimsoles. Some of the lads had injuries - but mostly we were fine; no problems.
I have a memory of running for the first time in plimsoles where I did try to heel strike - it's quite vivid - and I distinctly remember having to change the way I ran, thinking "Is this okay?" After a few runs it was normal.
I'm a club runner and a fan of minamalist running, but I know other guys who do all the barefoot stuff and suffer with all the usual problems (ITBS and plantar faciatis). I also know guys who heel strike and don't seem to have any problems with it despite racking up some decent mileage.
Alternative points of view are always good. I dislike the posts when someone new asks about what shoes to buy and the stock answer is to 'go to a running shop and get gait analysed', because I also know this in itself is not the answer.
Good running form, sensible training, a sensible race schedule, rest; these things (I reckon) are the real important things; not what we wear on our feet.
You might be showing your age with the plimsoles - I was issued Hi-Tec Silver Shadow (but used my own, as I am one of those who have always heel-struck in support shoes without issue). I now mix heel-striking (distance/road) and midfoot off-road/short runs) as my whim takes me.
I agree with you that experience is best when it comes to choosing kit whereas advice from someone who stands to make/lose money out of what you 'need' is perhaps the worst advice of all!
I did the Roman Trail last weekend in these shoes; that's 16 miles; total mileage must be around the 150 mile mark; maybe more? My record keeping is naff. Doing 20 miles in them tommorow morning.
No problems at all; not a bad pair of shoes for £20.
I thought £20 was a bit steep, so I got a pair of Aldi natural running shoes. So far I've only walked in them, but they seem quite a bit better than the last Aldi shoes I got.
I'm tempted by the Moremiles trail shoes though.
£20 a bit steep? I thought I was tight!