Well, I know which side of the love/hate thing I'm on... I LOVE my Newtons.

Depending on how much a of a discount your club got you, you might try buying the next pair with a military discount.  If I remember correctly, it's almost half off.  You have to email someone on the Newton website to get it (I forgot who) but it is relatively easy to due.  For active duty military, that is, which you are, if I remember correctly.

Anyways, I love my Newtons because they are the only shoe I can run sockless in and not get blisters.  That, and they do promote forefoot strides.  Mostly the sockless thing, though.

This user's post has been ignored.

It's the Army Tri Club, so the discount is quite nice.

If I swam inefficiently, you'd tell me to work on my stroke, wouldn't you? If my "natural" cadence were 50rpm on the bike and I sucked, you'd tell me to work on pedaling at a faster cadence, wouldn't you?

You seem to be saying that form is completely irrelevant to running.

Regardless, I'm running with less pain, and at a faster pace for a given RPE than before. I'll take it.

Edited by DrPete 2009-09-05 11:59 AM

When I changed my running form when I was 44 or 45 I had run injuries on and off for 18 months mostly on for the first 12 months.

Older you are the harder on your body it is to change your running form.

I would have to agree with you here.  I have had to do the same thing in the past to fix certain issues with recurring injuries and to change pace....but :30 in  month?  Seriously?  Were you running one mile?

It was a 10K, and I haven't been training nearly as much as I could/should have been due to a hectic work schedule, so I haven't been doing any targeted run training or anything--just changing my form.

I think that's true for anything... So far, so good for this 32-year old.

This user's post has been ignored.

Edited by PennState 2009-09-05 12:29 PM

I've gone from heel to mid-foot focus just recently and have notice big improvements as well...I actually did it after reading the Training Bible where he suggests not going all the way from heel to toe at risk of injury but shifting focus to get efficient at becoming a mid foot striker. It feels way better to me and I feel better after my runs too. So, I'm with you for DrPete, hopefully I don't come back in a month posting how I'm injured...I don't have newton shoes though. Just regular Brooks Ghost2

I don't wear newton's, but I did change my form to a shorter stride and a mid-foot strike, and my legs have never felt better.  While everyone is different, it's a bit absurd to say anyone who changes their stride is going to get injured.  What about the legions of runners who are already injured and don't change anything?   As the saying goes, if you always do what you always did you'll always get what you always got. 

Let me just state this nice and clear for the umpteen millionth time.

THERE ......... IS ........... ABSOLUTELY ........ NOTHING ........ WRONG ........ WITH .......... BEING ........ A HEEL ......... STRIKER.

Clear enough for everyone??

I wish triathletes would just get away from believing all the bullsh-t they read and hear about.  If it was such a big deal you'd think every single true running coach would be all over it.  If triathletes would actually pay attention and stop looking for the magic pill, they see running coaches all say the same thing - worry about WHERE your foot hits the ground, NOT what part of it hits first.

Word 

I wish my asics game in the color schemes the newtons come in.

seriously, that's the only reason I want them.

So question for Daremo and Pennstate. I am really new to running, so I want to know. Dr. Pete, stated that he is going faster at the same HR zone. Which to me sounds pretty good.  Is this a deal where if someone does change their form like this, they need to go back and kind of re-do a lot of their running base to try to prevent an injury? I assume that is why Pennstate is thinking he is going to get injured, just changing form and running too much too quick. I am curious, just because I am a noob. Daremo, I am hearing what you are saying too, I am simply saying if he is faster this way, regardless of where his foot strikes, what does he need to do to prevent an injury?

This user's post has been ignored.

Agreed that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with heel striking, but I did have an overstriding problem.  I also got the original idea from Friel.

Regardless, I'm not saying that heel striking is horrible for everyone. For me, though, the combination of getting a bit more forward, shortening my stride, and not landing directly on my heel has helped a lot. I had noticed this in my Nikes as well, but they don't have the same cushioning in the forefoot as the Newtons.


Edited by DrPete 2009-09-05 3:17 PM

The "science" on this subject is pretty much garbage on all sides of the debate, so we can throw that out the window up front. Trying to quote evidence in this debate is like finding the latest scientific manuscript on the best religion.

I also totally respect that you have infinitely more tri experience than I do, but I'm still not getting your zeal in saying that whatever way I ran the first time I tried it is the way I should keep running forever. If that's the case, then running is the only sport in the entire world where form and technique don't matter at all, and that just doesn't make sense. It took a good few years for me to develop a nice round pedal stroke, for instance, or to find my best sprinting form on the bike. Go to any tri and it's painfully obvious that not everyone has good technique on the bike. The fact that I can turn a 23mph bike split and smoke guys who can run 2:00 per mile faster than me is evidence that technique matters. Guys mashing on the pedals, turning a slow cadence, not knowing how to shift-- you'd never tell these guys to just keep doing what they're doing, would you? There are a ton of sports where "what comes naturally" won't work, and I'm not seeing why running is an exception.

I've listened to rule #1 the whole time. As for #2, I have LESS pain than I did heel striking--that includes knees and lower back. I have no injuries as a result of the new technique. So I'm listening to my body, and like what I hear.



Edited by DrPete 2009-09-05 3:35 PM

This user's post has been ignored.

Definitely. Rules 1 and 2 are still in full force.

I gave Newtons a fair shake but I can't say they helped or hurt. I had some injuries going in and after a few months I opted for long term rest before I ran in them much. When I started back to running I was in my Brooks shoes and I was running pain free (still am) so I didn't want to mess with a good thing.

One thing I'll say, when I called their customer service number in 2007 with a question, I was put on hold and Danny Abshire (co-founder/designer) got on the phone and spoke with me for about 30 minutes teaching me about his intent with the shoe design and how to get started with them. That level of service alone was enough for me to try them out.



Edited by Bill 2009-09-05 5:05 PM

I used to heel strike for years and was very sucessful.  Coming back at 6 years later, I seemed to get injured over and over.  I tried mid foot striking and my injuries have went down signifigantly.  I can't say its faster because I'm slower these days, but I seem to be less injury prone.

I'm not a big fan of 'Running Natural'.  Why is it every sport we do, or almost anything else we do in life technique has to be taught but not with running?  I do think there is proper form in both mid and heel striking and with many it needs to be taught.

I also don't think either way is better just different.  I call it push running and pull running.  Heel strikers tend to pull through thier stride with a more upright stance, whereas mid footers tend to push as they lean forward more.