NEWTON RUNNING SHOES

sjc wrote:

if you knew anything about the overall running population you would realize that 80-90% of people heel strike whether its joe jogger with an 80 minute 10k pr or your local hero who runs 30 minutes. there are exceptions but it is a rather small amount of the population. so if you were a shoe company why would you want to make a shoe that will not sell because it does not work for a MAJORITY of the running population? despite a company's claims that they have the runners interests at heart, when it comes down to it they still have to be able to sell product. since an overwhelming majority of the market heel strikes they cater to them.......pretty simple.

A study of elite runners conducted by Dr. Peter Cavanaugh (biomechanics expert and professor at Penn State) found that 60% land on the forefoot, 30% on the midfoot, and 10% on the heel.

You're right that the vast majority of runners heelstrike, but I'd argue that that's simply because of their shoes encourage them to. Landing on your heel while running is never good from a shock absorption/biomechanics point of view.

The latest pair of Nike Katana racers that I tried on last week had a similar technology; stiffening extensions that ran from midfoot to toes. I think that this idea of stiffening the forefoot ala' a sprinting spikes's footplate may be one of the latest fads.

i'll agree that the elite running population are primarily midfoot/forefoot strikers. but they only make up a small portion of the overall population and shoe companies realize this. take a look at almost any major marathon nowadays as a good example. of the 20,000+ entrants only about 10% of finishers will average 7 minute pace (3 hours) or better. so you've got an extremely large amount of people out there who are basically jogging by letsrun standards and nearly every single one of them heel strikes. all these studies take into account elite runners not the overall population. i'm not saying that the major companies are right for making literally every single shoe with heel strikers in mind, but just that they are catering to the masses because they can make more money.

however i don't think a shoe can really change a person's mechanics too much unless you are talking about putting them into something super minimalist like the h street. i watch people run on the treadmill every day and 99 times out of 100 there will be no difference in a person's point of impact, heel midfoot or forefoot, between lets say a brooks adrenaline and a nike streak xc. the speed of running will change the mechanics more often than the actual shoe will.

shoe fetish wrote: unlike you, i do run fast and i do run a fair bit of mileage.

Hey, I may be relatively old and relatively slow, but no twice a week jogger. Have run consistently in the 80s and up to 100+ miles a week, which I only mention since you seem to care.

if you are so blessed to not need a shoe to "support your biomechanics" why not try going barefoot? or are you so studiously pushing the limits of mediocrity that injuries are never a factor?

Thanks for the gratuitous knock, and if injury is the mark of legitimacy you'll be pleased to hear I've currently got some plantar fasciitis. Heh, I guess it also explains why FW considers the always-injured Ritz the better runner than Ryan Hall...

I've enjoyed the little barefoot running I've done, and would love to do a lot more if soft safe grass or dirt were convenient. Sadly, that's not the local specialty here in Brooklyn. I go as minimal as trial and error says I can get away with, usually road flats. If I lived within half a mile of Prospect Park I'd probably wear XC flats a lot more.

Anyhow, none of your attacking me and my mediocre running has done much to dispel the obvious truth that in fact there are and always have been shoes out there that forefoot and midfoot strikers, fast and slow, have been able to run in. Newton didn't invent the first shoe which accommodates a forefoot strike, nor the first shoe which claims to mimic barefoot running, though they do seem to be the first to charge nearly two hundred bucks for one.

If you find they're worth it and work better for you than anything else, we'll want to read all about it. But I'm more mystified than ever about your enthusiasm: if you dig running barefoot, why would you even want as much shoe as these Newtons seem to be? Why not a more minimal XC flat or retro shoe or or a low-heeled road flat like Air Streak Vapor IV?

Do you like barefoot running and full-fledged trainers, but nothing in between? What do you hope these Newtons will do for you, that no other shoe has been able to?

Has anybody received their Newtons yet? They were supposed to start shipping last Wednesday.

If so, are they as sweet as their price tag would suggest? My metatarsals need loving.

Saw a couple of guys at Country Music running in the Newton's, but one of them must have been placed in the wrong shoe because his over-pronation in the shoes was killing my trained eye. Shoes definitely do stand out, but can anyone with insight on the product explain what technology corrects over-pronation? I just have a feeling this guy was an over-pronator and was placed in a neutral shoe.

As a runner that can now afford this kind of thing (in my 40's and doing well), I would want to be persuaded that this shoe is materially different or better than than the Brooks Glycerin 5 that I use to run 30-35 miles a week. I run high on my feet and am a forefoot striker (used to be fast and competitive) - but make no pretense about running now for any other reason than for enjoyment and fitness. The Brooks thing works fine for me now - I don't get running injuries as a rule and am not going to get them running 30 miles a week for fun in any event - any reason to think there is incremental value to the Newton shoe? I ask this both as a personal question and an inquiry into their marketing strategy - I would think they have to persuade guys like me to get any volumes.

I almost bought a pair of these shoes because they were light and had good forefoot cushioning. Those are the two things I mainly look for in shoes. But then I stumbled across the Loco Banditos. Slightly lighter, great forefoot cushioning and incredibly cheap (like 1/3rd the price). I picked up a pair at a race and love them.

I'll skip the Newtons now unless the price comes way down

I don't know of any stores carrying Newtons. I think they're staying out of specialty retail for a while. So you basically have to order them to try them out or be lucky enough to be at an event where they are on display. I like the concept but I'm hesitant to order them just yet. It's not just the price issue.

Tell me more about these Loco Banditos. Do they fit true to size?

Here's the website with the Banditos

http://www.locorunning.com/prodinfo.php?prod=loco-bandito&cat=2

Basically they pitch them as racing flats but at 9.x ounces, they're what trainers used to be back in the 80s. One thing they mentioned specifically was the good forefoot cushioning and on that I agree.

One thing -- I actually bought half a size larger than I usually do. Normally I'm 10.5 in almost all shoes and even that is a bit larger (I could probably fit into 10.0 in some cases) but with the Banditos, 11.0 seemed better.

Actually judging by the website, these are closer to 3/5 the price of the Newtons not 1/3 but at the race where I bought them they had a special $39.99 price so it was more like 1/4 the price!

Anyway, the website says they have a full moneyback guarantee so I guess you can return them if you don't like them. Not sure though, I'm not associated with these guys so caveat emptor. I just love these shoes for training.

I also found that I had to go up a half size in Banditos compared to normal. They are my current fave trainer (replacing the wonderful but discontinued Mizuno Wave Aero).

Another opinion on the Banditos: I liked them pretty well, and definitely the right price especially at a race or through their "club loco".

But when I tried them for fairly long MP runs last fall, the forefoot cushioning seemed to give out before the end of the run. They were OK for long slow runs and shorter faster runs, but during a cooldown jog after warmup + 10 @ MP, felt like rocks on my feet. They had 100-150 miles on 'em.

I'd agree, worth a try especially at around $40. I found I like Fila's Corsa Sette (Corsa Otto these days) better by a wide enough margin that they functionally replace the Bandito for me. Lighter but IME better cushioning.

Your insight into the Banditos is much appreciated. I will have to check them out.

Anybody else have anything to say about the Newtons? Yes I know they are expensive. How do they perform?

I certainly don't NEED anything to MAKE me run on my forefoot. I just need to protect my mets.

I would suggest that you try on a pair of racing flats at some point. Shoe companies have been producing shoes for the top 10% of the population(midfoot/forefoot strikers) for quite some time now; and certainly at less than a buck sixty.

Frankie Forefoot wrote:

I don't know of any stores carrying Newtons. I think they're staying out of specialty retail for a while. So you basically have to order them to try them out or be lucky enough to be at an event where they are on display. I like the concept but I'm hesitant to order them just yet. It's not just the price issue.

Tell me more about these Loco Banditos. Do they fit true to size?

I got Banditos, the price was good, and I was fairly satisfied. However, as someone else here said, Banditos are basically what most serious trainers used to be many years ago. They look and feel very old-school--a leather and fabric top attached to a slab of rubber. I thought Loco could have put more thought into the design. If you want an everyday training flat with support, I would recommend the Asics Gel Hyper-Speed or the Saucony Fastwitch.

of course no store will carry this shoe because of one simple reason.......it won't sell. it is 10 dollars more than the most expensive shoe out right now (kinsei $165) and will only work for maybe 5% of runners tops.

congrats to newton though, they just made a shoe that *might* work for 5% of the running population and will sell to even less.

There are New Balance trainers on the market that are more expensive, I think there's even one that's $200.

What shop are you with. They told me they were not going to sell them to retail stores.