Looking for a Nike shoe most similar to the New Balance 900...

Natural biomechanics has nothing to do with midsole heights. How a shoe flexes and bends has everything to do with natural biomechanics. How do I kow this and 'who am I to say?' I do this for a living. So according to whom, the Cologne Institute of Sport for one and most major shoe companies.

Also, I happen to run 100 miles per week in Nike FREE and barefoot so your notion of me running in ankle braces, othotics, and stability shoes is a bit off based. I've also run 3:43 for the 1500m and 2:18 for a Marathon. As a result, I understand the benefits of natural motion from both a scientific and practical standpoint.

The reason for my inital post was to point out that midsole heights between the Elite, Miler, and every other Nike training shoe are the SAME, regardless of perception and measurements of the external footbed.

My friend, YOU should think before you post.

hi skoolr

So since you seem to know quite a bit, what would you suggest for the orig. poster?

My sense is that the Elite was a good recommendation based on the X's and O's of the shoe. However, fit and feel should be considered as well. Doesn't the 900 fit wide? If so, the Elite will fit a lot different - especially through the midfoot since the Elite is built on a last on a last that's part track spike / part 'normal' trainer.

If you're looking for a fit that is wider, the Streak II was a good recommendation since the Streak is built on a Japanese last (wider). However, the Streak is probably more of a minimal shoe than the 900.

Other options:

Skylon - It's more stable than most think because the density of the misdole is more firm and responsive based on the inclusion of solid rubber into the midsole foam. FIRMNESS = STABILITY.

Triax TC - Great shoe but might be a bit soft through the midfoot if you're looking for midfoot support in a lightweight option.

Zoom Marathoner - Built on the same last as the Elite. Again, it's a fairly firm shoe and has a rigid shank through the midfoot.

YOUR BEST BET IS TO TRY ON SEVERAL SHOES AND PICK THE ONE THAT FEELS THE BEST / MOST SIMILAR TO THE 900.

Hope that help.

hi skoolr

help... wrote:

Can anyone help me out in finding a Nike shoe, pereferably a trainer but if you know a flat too thats alright, that is most similar to the New Balance 900?

I may have missed something, but why not buy the New Balance 900?

At any rate, I run in both the NB 900 and the Nike Miler. Like them both. The miler is a bit more cushioned. Careful off road running on the miler, as I've popped the airbag, but Nike replaced it, no questions asked.

I to understand the importance of natural biomechanics, and I have run 3.39 for the 1500m. And yes I will still have to disagree with you, the height of the heel does make a difference in the natural biomechanics. I happen to watch and advice people on a daily basis.

Most people never even think about how important efficiency is while running. The average runner that goes into a shoe store to purchase a pair of trainers

(pegasus,nimbus,kayano,2090,zoom elites...) gets way to much heel cushioning which can never encourage a natural biomechanical efficiency. I have watched numerous poeple run and seen this take place. So I don't have to just believe what I am told from the shoe companies.

The reason for my initial post was to point out that the heel height on the zoom elites is quite high for a lightweight trainer, and also the contrast from the lateral side to the medial side is just a bit to soft.

In fairness, we should note that the free is supportive in the midfoot and the midfoot is build up enough to make the forefoot feel lower than shoes like the Tiger Paw or the H Street.

hi skoolr wrote:

That being said, having a higher heel height would actually alleviate pressure from a runners achilles. The steeper the heel to forefoot differential, the less chance of achilles injury. Hence, heel inserts for runners with chronic achilles tendonitis.

hi skoolr

You might be fast, but this is some of the worst advice I've ever read... Let's shorten all of our achilles and they'll be healthier... Why not run in high heeled dress shoes?

I think that hi skoolr ment a higher heel would help a person who already has an achilles issue. This is true, when having achilles pain, lifting up the heel will help them. However it is only to take strain off the achilles and is not meant for permant use!

Mr. Flats is right, heel heights are bad, THIS IS AN OPINION, so take it for what its worth. That being said, flats I feel, as do many others who have posted on this board, are far superior to the training shoes made today for someone who is looking to run fast. Efficency is very crucial. I have been injured and had mono this past fall and was out for 3 months. I didn't do jack shit during that time. I have been running for a little over a month now and I am finding I am running with the same heart rates and percieved intensities as my prior state of fitness already. In my opinion it is because I am out of my brick trainers and orthotics and am improving my efficeny. I land lighter on the ground and have much greater control of my stride.

I think people like trackhead, LaWoof, Mr. Flats, and others who are trying this flats and minimalistic trainer approach are correct. Just try it and I think that you will notice a difference.

To the poster that said within 4-5 years we will see everyone in flats and the shoes of the 70's on this thread or another I agree.

GS

hi skoolr wrote:

The Elite's heel height is 24mm (measured in the middle of the midsole, not the side). The forefoot is 12mm. These are the same midsole heights as every other Nike training shoe and most Nike competitors.

hi skoolr

hi skoolr:

thank you for your post. i am curious, why are there no training or even racing shoes available with even heel to forefoot ratios? my footstrike is toward the front of the shoe, and i find built up heels an encumbrance, because build up heels do not allow the heel to drop as much after impact -- hence as far as i can tell, they do not allow my natural biomechanical shock absorbtion system to function as well as I'd like.

That wasn't advice, nor am I advocating wearing shoes with the highest heel to forefoot differential. I was simply stating a fact. I prefer to run barefoot...

hi skoolr

Good question. Contrary to popular belief; even heel to forefoot ratios (except 0mm and 0mm) do not mean you'll have natural biomechanics. To understand what I'm saying you really need to look at pressure distribution maps of runners while barefoot, in 'regular' training shoes, and in flats. Unless a shoe flexes and bends like the bare foot, you will not maximize your natural foot strike motion and recruit more remote muscles and tendons within the foot and ankle - regardless of midsole heights and differentials.

A practical example... You could have a racing flat with a 12mm heel midsole height and a 6mm forefoot height - giving you a differential of 6mm. A lot of people might conclude this is closer to barefoot running than most shoes because it would be fairly firm and closer to the ground. However, that is all about minimalism (far different from natural motion) and a pressure distribution map might suggest that you're nowhere near the barefoot state. FREE is a great example to counter this. You have midsole heights of 20mm and 12mm (an 8mm differential), but more importantly, a pressure distribution map indicates that FREE is closer to barefoot than any shoe (flats included) because it flexes and bends like the foot. A barefoot foot strike is more neutral than one with shoes, which is very evident on a pressure distribution map based on the lateral progression of the foot in mid stance. FREE is very similar in this regard. Also, you have a more broad distribution of pressure in both conditions, suggesting that you're incorproating more pieces of the foot puzzle. I'm not suggesting that everyone purchase a pair of FREE's but I am trying to illustrate that midsole heights and heel to forefoot differentials can be misleading.

I completely agree with the above statement that the footwear industry will begin heading in a completely different direction over the coming years. I recently heard someone from Asics say they would take dual density out of their midsoles immediately but they couldn't do it because that's what consumers and retailers demand and expect from them. It's the same for everyone.

The footwear industry has been treating symptoms of foot stike motion for years. The new shift in thinking suggests the industry will be trying to prevent problems before they happen.

hi skoolr

hi skoolr:

thank you for the detailed reply & sorry to trouble you with another question, though perhaps it can be answered merely with a "yes" or "no" : are these pressure distribution patterns, for example in the FREE, similar in both heel and forefoot strikers?

i ask because on video, it appears that my heel only brushes the ground, after impact (in trainers and in flats). so the forefoot seems to be taking the force. i would guess the case would be different in heel strikers. thanks again.

rcb

I put folede up pieces of paper in the heel of my shoes when I had soleus/achilles problem and the pain went right away. I just kept putting less and less paper in it until the injury went away. Just ask any ATC/PT, it's pretty common.

hi skoolr,

Nike's testing was barefoot vs. a normal shoe vs. the Free. While I don't have the equipment or ability to test so, I can tell you that my H Streets are no less restrictive than the Free. I can fold them up and put them in my pocket should I wish to.

Good thread...

trackhead, Do you know how the Asics 15-50 spikeless compares to the H-Street?

Thanks.

Or, for that matter, any spikeless cross-country shoe. Good question Doug. I'm looking for a shoe with a bit more winter protection than the H Street.