i think you need a heel counter. the shoe should have some structure as opposed to being a sock on on a rubber sole. maybe your shoes were too tight??
trackhead have you tried just going barefoot on the track? that should solve your problems.
i think you need a heel counter. the shoe should have some structure as opposed to being a sock on on a rubber sole. maybe your shoes were too tight??
trackhead have you tried just going barefoot on the track? that should solve your problems.
I managed to race up to HM distance in them but found as my form went later in a race I was heel striking quite badly in shoes with no heel! It was taking me a long time to recover from races with my legs pretty beaten up. Never quite got the confidence to run a marathon in them.
Hawkeye wrote:
Trackhead, Why would you even bother with anything other than the h street if it is the ultimate shoe?
I have the 550 and they are great but the toe lining leaves much to be desired. It is very coarse mesh and tends to chew the toes up on the downhills.
traction. The H Streets have a smooth, soft rubber outsole -- the 500 has a spike plate. Same amount of shoe, though.
The H streets are identical to the Harambee spikes minus the spike plate. They are marketed as fashion shoes, but are one of the best running shoes made today.
again, it's an issue of traction.
And the heel counters bug me in general and especially when they don't fit well. That's why I love my H Streets so much.
I run the 205's. Yea, they are a bit more substantial than the 150's but I personally like them better. There is absolutely nothing obtrusive in them, and while they have a lot of cushion comparatively it isin't anything outrageous. I have about 700 miles on mine now but probibly will retire them in a week or so. I've nearly worn a hole in the forefoot. The only problem I've had with them is that for the first week the heel fit oddly but they diden't take long to break in.
E: The H Streets have NO heel counter. WTF are you talking about?
I converted to midfoot running back in Oct2004. That original pair of NB150 lasted over 950miles. After a serious back injury (non-running related!!!) I've returned to running again in NB150s as I just can't seem to heel-strike anymore ;-)
I reckon I will get more miles in them from now on due to better running style. Thankfully I've got quite a few pairs of spare NB150s to keep me going.
When running in minimalist shoes with little heel-cushioning its very important to land on the midfoot close to your GCM (hips). When you're fully supported then the GCM is slightly ahead of the midfoot. Then as the supporting leg extends I mainly lift the trailing ankle high and pull them forwards rapidly with a quick snap of the hamstrings. Though I do tend to toe-off very slightly with quads/calfs too. And so the gait repeats.
I've seen the Puma H streets but prefer the NB150s. I do have a pair of Kayanos for going to the shops :)
To bad these weren't so darn expensive, they look like they'd be a decent replacement for the new balance 150's:
http://www.herseycustomshoe.com/comp.html
(shoes on the bottom of the screen)
Damn, those are nice.
vroooom wrote:
i think you need a heel counter. the shoe should have some structure as opposed to being a sock on on a rubber sole.
Well, only if you're a heel-striker.
even if your not a \"heel-striker\", your heel WILL hit the ground and pronate.
Nope, that isn't always the case.
E wrote:
The H-Street absolutley does not mimic barefoot running, the ride is far too unstable. The RC150s do a considerably better job at this.
Your feet and legs haven't gotten strong enough yet with "just" casual wear, which is why you think they're "unstable". Go run in the Puma's for at least a year and then try to put on the RC150's.
How is the sizing for the H Streets? Will they fit a wide size of average foot?
I wear 10.5 in Adidas training shoes, 11 in Adidas Neptunes, 11 in Nike Shift distance spike, 10 in Salomon training shoes.
Does anyone train in Cubatos? How are those sizing wise?
Where's the cheapest place to find either shoe?
Oops, I meant to ask - Will they fit feet on the wide side of normal.
vroooom wrote:
i think you need a heel counter. the shoe should have some structure as opposed to being a sock on on a rubber sole.
You don't need a heel counter, "stability", or "motion control", no matter what type of feet you have. These features are built into shoes because of the inherent instability of thick midsoles and the adverse effects that follow. All you need is strong, flexible feet and legs and a thin midsole (lower center of gravity).
sorry bingham, but the other guy is right. i don't heel strike. it goes ball, heel, pushoff. the idea is to use your whole foot, that's why it's there dufus.
btw, the heel counter isn't for pronation, just so the shoe has some structure and doesn't feel like a flimsy piece of crap (why not tape rubber soles to your feet?). xc flats and spikes are perfect IMO.
This entire concept seems somewhat stupid.
The only people who can benefit from wearing minimalist shoes are those whose biomechanics are ideal or non-intrusive to the natural running stride and so would not cause injuries needing some sort of motion control.
The concept seems to be that minimalist running is natural. I have heard a sports MD liken this trend to trying eyeball exercises to eliminate the need for glasses, or sleeping out in the woods in the winter naked "because it's natural."
Personally speaking, my biomechanics are very bad. If I ever tried to do all my running barefoot or in racing flats, I would come down with yet another injury. There is no way to change this.
Also, a question to "jaguar": What is wrong the NB 150's? I've worn them for racing and they are a very good shoe.