Newton Shoes Study: More Efficient

Great. Get me a Cervelo and some compression socks and I'll be ready to fit right in over at Slowtwitch.

and 9 out of 9 had a higher injury risk

Once it is peer reviewed with full methods then it is worth looking at. Even then it may be worthless.

It is not a well designed study. The sample size is too small and were the results significant because they don't look to be? Who were these athletes? Had they been training in the Newton shoes? If Newton shoes were their regular training shoe then the results would be meaningless because a more likely explanation of the results would be specific adaption.

Newton is going the route of Spira and losing tremendous amounts of credibility within the running community.

That is funny.........

I'm not familiar with the shoes, but damn they are expensive. 175 for a pair of trainers?!

I volunteered at a local tri recently. It's hilarious to see the back-of-the-packers shuffling along at 10+ minutes a mile in their big dollar Newtons. Not much fore-foot running going on there.

I'm not going to waste my time reading such nonsense, but hopefully the study looked at the long term effects of running in Newtons...a lot of runners now dealing with chronic achilles injuries and metatarsal stress fractures. (Allegedly)

So, in reading more, they are trying to promote mid-forefoot running instead of heel striking. They actually recommend you change your gait. I've never seen a company do that before.

anyone ever use these shoes? How do they compare to other brands you've used?

i wonder if all the subjects had the same amount of pronation. Initially I am thinking that only improvements will show in very economical runners with moderate to high arches. If they all had flat arches I think the newtons would make them work harder and less efficiently because they naturally pronate more..

Ur lower legs will be destroyed if you.plan on running 60+ mpw on them. Achilles, soleus, shin, everything...goodbye

So, in reading more, they are trying to promote mid-forefoot running instead of heel striking. They actually recommend you change your gait. I've never seen a company do that before.

Me neither. Nike Free might be what comes closest, in recent years, as another shoe manufacturer approach which purports to meaningfully change the way you run.

Of course some runners advocate similar footstrike technique. The usual rec, and the one which makes sense to me in theory and practice, is to move toward less shoe and less technology, not more. Aka "minimalism". Even if Newtons give similar benefits (and I'm skeptical), flats are much cheaper. And available from multiple sources, so if Adidas discontinues Adizero PR, I can run in Mizuno Wave Universe or Asics Piranha or whatever brand XC flats or a variety of other light, simple, low-heeled shoes.

wet blanket wrote:

i wonder if all the subjects had the same amount of pronation. Initially I am thinking that only improvements will show in very economical runners with moderate to high arches. If they all had flat arches I think the newtons would make them work harder and less efficiently because they naturally pronate more..

I agree with this and think that often the minimalism/forefoot striking argument often ignores peoples foot types. I was watching the chicago half video and noticed that a lot of the pronators were also heel strikers.

I don't think I've ever seen a pronator or someone with flat run on their midfoot/forefoot.

...Conducted by Katja Schumacher...

Could it be possible that a sponsored athlete would begin testing with a conclusion in mind?

http://www.newtonrunning.com/community/athletes/4-the-athletes/14-katja-schumacher

Since overpronation is mostly a function of the arch, would it not stand to reason that if a person who does not bear as much weight on the arch they will then not overpronate as much as someone who does?

Look at it this way. If a person forefoot strikes and bears little weight on their mid-foot/arch, the arch can't flex as much and thus their overpronation will be minimized.

So I would argue that you see fewer overpronators in forefoot strikers, not because forefoot strikers are necessarily neutral runners, but because forefoot striking actually puts runners in a more neutral gait. This is just my hypothesis though.

While I do have a pair of Newtons (did not pay for them) I am not 100% sold on them. I feel that, as a forefoot striker, I can accomplish the same effect Newton espouses, with just about any shoe. And I don't need 'actuator lugs' to land on my forefoot.

mighty porn stache wrote:

So, in reading more, they are trying to promote mid-forefoot running instead of heel striking. They actually recommend you change your gait. I've never seen a company do that before.

anyone ever use these shoes? How do they compare to other brands you've used?

Bought them about a month ago and I fell in love with them. I already land mid-foot but never used to, took over a year to train myself to do so. With the newtons they simply have you land midfoot without having to even think about it. IMO they feel great for me I rotate 3-4 different pairs of trainers anyway and use these on my longer runs so adverse effects of say utilzeing them for 60 mpw are not or have not become to me yet. I go about 70-80 mpw and maybe 20-30% of it are in the newtons, if they were cheaper I'd have more of them. and I wear the newton racers since they arent too light, but simply a light trainer.

I have seen undergraduates produce better studies than this one.

Lactate levels? HR? Please. How about measuring O2 uptake?

This will never get past a peer review.

you start you argument by stating things as facts that simply are untrue. So you "stand to reason", and your "look at it this way", and your "thus" are all based on an incorrect opening sentence.

The problem with people like you is you think you understand something and pass yourself off as an expert. Save it for your dinner parties.