Do these shoes actually work?
Do these shoes actually work?
Newton wrote:
Do these shoes actually work?
Do they work as running shoes? People run in them, so I would say yes, they work.
No, you still have to do the work.
As in are they all that they are cracked up to be
Newtons are made for a runner who already is a mid-foot/forefoot runner. If you are a heel striker, running heel to toe, it will definitely take you longer to transition into any of the Newton shoes. All of the shoes are made with lugs directly underneath the ball of the foot to not only add more cushioning where you should be striking, but they also act sortof as an energy-return. So YES, the shoes work and are great if you can take the time to understand your gait and transition into a mid-foot strike. I've got the trainers and racers and I absolutely love them! Expect increased calf and achilles tightness/pain while transitioning and getting used to them, but in time you will definitely notice a faster turnover in your stride
I was actually talking about this today at my job in a running lab. DO NOT GET THEM IF YOU CURRENTLY HEEL STRIKE. They put you too much on your toes and for someone who isn't used to that you will overwork your calves. In addition the lugs on the shoes cushion your feet so much that you loose all the sensory data from the impact which makes it even more difficult for a new forefront striker to tell if they are running correctly. It even wreaks havoc with experiences forefront striker's b/c the negative heel-toe drop actually can cause injury because after landing on the ball of your foot it takes even more flexible calves to let the heel then sink down to the ground like it is supposed to.
"the negative heel-toe drop"
That's just incorrect.
All I know is that I am a forefoot striker and I bought a pair of Newtons once (can't recall which) and they were the worst running shoes I've ever owned. Ran in them only twice before returning them...STAY AWAY FROM THEM...terrible grip, unnatural and awkward ride...even worse on soft surfaces.
I appreciate your opinion that you didn't like the shoes but I'd just like to point something out. "Ran in them only twice"... "STAY AWAY FROM THEM". Solid.
Which part are you saying is incorrect? True not all of their models do but there are some that do (their MV-2 I believe to name one) or were you complaining about the the problems of a negative heel toe drop. If it's the second, let me know and I'll be happy to send you some research done on the matter.
Not really wrote:
Which part are you saying is incorrect? True not all of their models do but there are some that do (their MV-2 I believe to name one) or were you complaining about the the problems of a negative heel toe drop. If it's the second, let me know and I'll be happy to send you some research done on the matter.
None of their models have a "negative heel toe drop."
Well technically not a 'drop', but assuming the heel is point A and the forefoot is point B, then A - B = < 0
Not really wrote:
Which part are you saying is incorrect? True not all of their models do but there are some that do (their MV-2 I believe to name one) or were you complaining about the the problems of a negative heel toe drop. If it's the second, let me know and I'll be happy to send you some research done on the matter.
Please, do send some "research":
running.shoe.dude@gmail.comFitzwell wrote:
Well technically not a 'drop', but assuming the heel is point A and the forefoot is point B, then A - B = < 0
http://www.runningwarehouse.com/descpageMRS-NMV2M2.html
First, "A - B = < 0" doesn't make sense. You meant "A - B < 0."
Second, Running Warehouse isn't the final word on shoe measurements. Shoes of any manufacturer vary from pair to pair. So if you have two Kinvaras and you cut them in half and measured the stack heights, you shouldn't be surprised to find that one has a 3.5mm drop and one has a 4.5mm drop. Perhaps what I should have said was, "Newton doesn't make a negative heel toe drop shoe." As in, they have never designed one, even if some "zero-drop" shoes leave the factory with a -0.6mm drop. (Furthermore, I have no idea how the "compressibility" of the lugs factors into Newton's heel-toe drop designs, and it doesn't sound like Running Warehouse does, either.)
This is probably why Running Warehouse lists the Mirage as having a 5mm drop (designed as a 4mm drop), the Rider 15 as a 13mm drop (designed as 12mm), the Ronin at 10mm (designed as 9mm), the Distance and Distance S as having different drops, the PureConnect, PureGrit, and PureCadence at 5mm while the PureFlow is listed at 4mm, the MR10 as 5mm (designed as 4mm), etc., etc. Additionally, in their explanatory video on stack heights, RW leaves much of their method to the imagination: how many millimeters from each end of the shoe do they take their stack height measurements? Does the person doing the measurements push the caliper down with the exact same force every single time they take a measurement? Do they measure every single shoe, or just one shoe per model? These questions seem important when we're talking about millimeters and tenths of millimeters.
This is why in most cases, in my opinion, you can really only compare the manufacturers' claimed numbers. Factory tolerances are probably not high enough to reasonably expect that the measurements of every production shoe are within tenths of a millimeter of one another. The figures from both the manufacturers and shoe reviewers are ballpark at best and probably shouldn't be taken as gospel. These are running shoes, not jet engine parts.
Interesting comment re: consistency on shoes... I'm on my third pair of Kinvara, second MK2 Kinvara.
The 1st pair of MK2s felt awesome. I bought a new set around 300 miles into these. The lugs were perfectly worn, in a smooth, even pattern - as with the Kinvara MK1.
Just a few miles into the second set of Kinvara MK2s (identical in every way) I noticed the lugs were 'cracking' and wear was generally uneven around the shoe.
Out of interest, I ran intervals in my first set of MK2s last Tues. They felt way better than my second set of MK2s, despite the higher mileage.
The lugs were wearing in such a weird pattern on the 2nd set that no one could run in that way.
Re: Newtons. I've tried 2 pairs of them (not the new racer). Grip on wet concrete was seriously amiss. V. slippery. Found the whole 'energy return' system plain weird, in that it made my feet return at weird angles when running on uneven ground. Also felt major metatarsal pain, in the regions above the lugs. If Newton adopted a conventional tread pattern I'd try them in a flash. I think they've found a solution to a problem that doesn't exist with the lug system.
A few months ago, I purchased a pair of the Newtons with zero drop. While I love how light they are, I have been experiencing some significant pain in what I think is the metataral of my left foot (top of foot about a 1/3 of the way back from the front of my foot). My hunch is that this has something to do with where the lug is placed. It appears to be slightly back from the ball of the foot and the problem is worse if I am running a hilly course -- on the downhill where my feet naturally slide more to the front of the shoe. Is this what you have been experiencing and have you heard any other reports of this problem?
I had been running in Five Fingers, primarily on soft surfaces, for over a year before trying Newtons. One theory I have is that the shoes are slightly too small, but I am thinking now of switching to the new Minimus zeros.
Anything that others have learned would be most helpful.
I'm a forefoot striker. I purchased the Distance S hoping that it would alleviate a heel problem I was having. It did help a lot with the heel problem. I now have the MV2. PRO: Definitely puts you up on your forefoot. Can really feel the bounce on a track versus the Kinvara. Subjectively, I am faster on the track in the Distance S or the MV2 than the Kinvara. Lightweight compared to most regular running shoes. CON: Slippery on damp or wet surface. The MV2 is way slippery on a damp track. Distance S unstable on trails. The distance S forefoot pads pushed too hard in places and hurt my foot. I finally ground the inner pads down a bit to even up the pressure. (This problem may have been due to my old foot injuries, not the shoe.) The insert is NOT removable in either shoe, so runners who routinely modify their inserts hard a harder time adjusting the shoe.
Considering that the MV2 was $125 (Distance S = $165)and the Kinvara was $63 and my new NB 730 was under $60, it's hard to justify the extra cost of the Newton. The Newtons do last a lot longer and they did resolve a pre-existing injury.
I did have some minor calf soreness issues as I transitioned to the Newtons, but I was already a forefoot striker. I'd recommend that anyone switching to Newtons not put them on and go for 12 mile run. You should probably use them on shorter runs a couple of times a week to transition to the new footstrike.
My biggest single complaint with the Newtons is the lack of a removable insert, which prevents me from modifying it. I've never had success with a shoe with a non-removable insert, but that is probably a personal issue.
Some of you talking about shoes sound exactly like the cyclists you make fun of all into gears and buying the most expensive stuff. Newton's? WTF. Or people into barefoot/minimalist running aren't really minimalist since you keep spending crap load of money into minimalist shoes.
If you want lightweight minimalist shoes, just buy racing flats like Piranha or Wave Universe and run in those. It's much better than hyped up "barefoot" or "minimalist" shoes.