What's with the obsession of low drop shoes?

Tows knot heals wrote:

Of course the heel doesn't drop. The toe has a drop. But who cares if you correct the terminology but still have an idiotic argument based on flawed logic?

What are y'all talking about? The "heel-toe offset", the "drop", the "heel drop", "heel to toe drop" for a shoe is listed at just about every website you buy them from. They use different terms, but we all know what they're talking about.

Altra makes their zero-drop their main pitch and trademarked "zero drop". I have some Altras and like them. I also have some Newtons but don't seem to wear them much. I also have some minimus and some more traditional drop shoes.

Different strokes for different folks. Some people have strong preferences for a certain drop. I like mixing them up.

Sasquatch wrote:

What are y'all talking about? The "heel-toe offset", the "drop", the "heel drop", "heel to toe drop" for a shoe is listed at just about every website you buy them from. They use different terms, but we all know what they're talking about.

They are not the same thing.

Heel lift is the distance between the height of your heel in the shoe and the ball of your foot.

Heel to toe drop is a convoluted way to say something similar, which refers to the shoe, not the foot.

It's a fad, same as barefoot, five fingers, compression socks, chia seeds, wheat grass, beet root juice, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,

etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,

etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,

etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,

etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,...

Drophead wrote:

Is this just another marketing fad or are there legitimate reasons to care about the drop magnitude of shoes?

Personally I DGAF what mm drop a shoe has so long as it feels good on my foot but I'm willing to be educated.

People like trendy stuff that injures them.

Saturdayobserver wrote:

Drophead wrote:

Is this just another marketing fad or are there legitimate reasons to care about the drop magnitude of shoes?

Personally I DGAF what mm drop a shoe has so long as it feels good on my foot but I'm willing to be educated.

People like trendy stuff that injures them.

Yeah. Anyone remember the Nike LDV?

anti born to run whiner wrote:

level rider wrote:

It's mostly because our feet don't have drop. They are just flat.

yeah, but our feet also dont have cushioning soles. and our ancestors didnt run on tarmac and concrete, man!

thats the appeal to nature fallacy, man! humans are the smartest animals, we invernt things to make our lives better! but you go on and run bearfoot, man!

Complete Moran

Can anyone provide some studies to explain why heel elevation exists in running shoes? I haven't been able to find any studies that show heel elevation reduces injury or aids in running faster.

Now, just because there aren't any studies(that I've seen) doesn't mean these things aren't true. After all, every top marathoner/ track runner trains and races in shoes with different degrees of heel elevation. But you'd think the shoe companies would do some research instead of just following Nike's lead with the cortez's back in the 70s. It seems to me that Bowerman put heel elevation in the shoes on a whim. Or maybe nike followed Tiger's lead in putting heel elevation in shoes. I remember a story about Lasse Viren having some achilles injury so tiger put heel lifts in his shoes to ease the pain.

In any case, running in "zero drop" or shoes with no heel elevation feels great and when I put on shoes that have heel elevation even the tiniest bit it feels bad to me now....

anti born to run whiner wrote:

But the drop is only one factor. Adios have 10mm but I dont think anyone will feel like they are "clomping" in them. The sole is so thin and the ride so direct that the drop never bothers me in the Adios.

I love the Adios and have had two marathon PRs in them, but I think the 10mm drop is pretty noticeable. I wouldn't say I clomp in them, but they don't feel as fast as really low drop racing flats (which I wear for shorter races).

I'm fine barefoot or with shoes that keep my feet level, but shoes with heel elevation hurt my knees, and I can't run in them.

I run in shoes ranging from zero drop (Altra) to 10 mm drop (Brooks Launch), with most being in the 4-5 mm range. I generally prefer lower drops, but the Launch remains my all-time favorite shoe, so go figure. In any event, I get injured in all of my shoes, so I buy shoes based primarily on fit and don't worry about the drop.

That said, I've read some support that running in a variety of shoes can reduce the chance of injury. It's not exactly a robust finding, as far as I know, but it makes intuitive sense, and it lets me feel justified having too many shoes in my rotation.

http://runblogger.com/2014/03/more-support-for-rotating-shoes-to-reduce-running-injury-risk.html

800 dude wrote:

anti born to run whiner wrote:

But the drop is only one factor. Adios have 10mm but I dont think anyone will feel like they are "clomping" in them. The sole is so thin and the ride so direct that the drop never bothers me in the Adios.

I love the Adios and have had two marathon PRs in them, but I think the 10mm drop is pretty noticeable. I wouldn't say I clomp in them, but they don't feel as fast as really low drop racing flats (which I wear for shorter races).

Yes, it is noticeable for me too. An Adios with 6mm and an indestructable outsole would be a perfecty shoe. Of course it also has to do with letting your body adapt, but in anything lower than a 6mm I have a tendency to never let the heel touch down. If I race a 10k in Saucony Type A my calves definitely take a hit.

No idea as to why the companies started raising heels, but in trying to find something I came across this study that suggested light weight, neutral shoes with a lower (6mm or less) drop are ideal for injury prevention.

Just one study, but some interesting findings it seems. In getting back to running after years off I have played around with a lot of shoes, and I do find the lighter weight, more flexible sole in a neutral, low drop platform are the absolute best for me.

As to those raging on how this is a fad, I just don't see that. There have always been heel/toe differential in shoes, it is just that the customer never saw that number. Now we see it, and we can make decisions on shoes based on that number if we want to. Just like we can decide based on weight or color or midsole material any number of other things that have pretty much always been there.

As someone who runs in minimalist shoes, I would argue that while heel to toe differential is relevant to shoe selection, the importance is overblown. Just as, if not more important, are flexibility, how soft the shoe is, stack height, fit, etc. I think running companies saw heel to toe offset as an easy way to market something quantifiable to make it look like so-called shoe fitting experts in the running specialty market, and the running specialty shoes themselves, have something specific that consumers need.

I don't necessarily think that conventional running shoes are inherently bad or that minimal shoes are inherently preferable, but I think the concept of pronation as indication of shoe type is complete nonsense. And the marketing of heel to toe drop is a way to latch on to some other arbitrary measure to try and legitimize the industry, when there's a lot more at play.

What's the obsession with high drop shoes? Why does everyone have to wear shoes with 4-12mm drop?

Shoes were quite neutral before RW came out with their shoe rankings in the mid 1970's, and set some arbitrary standards for brands to rank higher. One of the criteria was the amount of heel lift, which RW determined to be a good thing. Since then the typical heel lift (toe drop) in running shoes has increased from 1/4 to 3/4 of an inch, i.e. 6 to 18 mm. Ultra marathoners have helped to reduce this a bit but the way too high tendency is still there.

In addition this information is typically not published, convoluted when it is, and combined with other factors like midsoles filled with air, rather meaningless.

The best shoes and lightest running shoes I ever ran with were those of the mid 1970s before the ratings began.

Can you name shoes with 18mm or at least more than 12mm?

I never paid attention to the drop in my Adios, but this makes sense to me now. They feel great to me, and I have raced everything from a 15:29 5k to a 2:30 marathon in them as a masters runner. I think the higher-than-average-for-a-flat-drop is key to me since I am seriously tight from my calves down and have ridiculously flat feet.

I tried to go with lower drop trainers (8mm drop Sauconys) in an effort to force some stretching of my calves and Achilles (and thus help my plantar fasciitis issues), but that actually seemed to exacerbate the problem. So I went back to the Adidas Structure with a 10mm drop. Maybe if I had started out with a lower drop shoe I would have been better off, but my body has adapted to the more traditional drop.

I do still love racing on the track in negligible drop spikes though.

It makes a huge difference. I only run in these:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/6f/12/c9/6f12c9e2768668854957ae2e1ce7b94d.jpg

It's important to remember that a low heal-toe drop doesn't mean little to no cushion. I may be a bad example but I've been running in Kinvaras for years now and they have about a 4 mm drop but quite a bit of cushion. I find the older I get the more I need both the cushion and the flat surface.

I've even had to go to flat soles for my shoes at work because anything with a heal lift gives me achilles issues. (probably from my own neglect with stretching) but this is what works for me now and I feel pretty good all the time.