Talk to me about Newton's and running styles

I first tried Newton's at a convention at the St Louis marathon in 2008, just ran around the convention center.

We will just say that I walked out with them and have never ran in another shoe since.

I say try them. If the shop has a treadmill or doesn't mind you going around the block for a run, try them. Your calves might not be used to the style yet, but if you buy them, take about 2 weeks of just 2-4 mile light runs until you get used to the style. They are pricey, but for me they are worth every penny.

^ agreed....

i had same scenario....went to a local store...a runner kid came up after i wanted zoot he was maybe 16-17 yr old.  and just showed me the newts.  i race and run in them ever since and have 2 pairs + some brooks.

1 thing to point out however.  try to run in them for training and racing.  they feel a little different opposed to other shoes due to the cushoning....

also if you want to run sockless try them out....my racing newtons leave me with some blisters, my newton trainers have no stiching inside and are perfect...

I own a pair and think they're a very well made shoe.  However, to me, they're not worth half the money they sell for.  I can get a pair of Saucony or Brooks, both of which I like better for almost 50% the cost.  They've made no changes in my running style, but the "lug" on the sole tends to get annoying after a while. 

I think they've benefited from the triathletes gadget obsessed mindset.  It's just a running shoe, and like every other shoe out there might work for some and not others. 

Why no socks? I go without socks on the bike, but it takes only a couple extra seconds in T2. I've had issues in races where I've trained sockless, and gotten the tongue in a new spot ahd whammo! Blisters.

I've been training in the Saucony Grid sinister, but I'm itching to try the K-swiss Blade (Non race version), and I need new shoes anyway...

John

From what I've heard about them, you either love them or hate them. It's very individualized, much more than other shoes I've seen. Plus, they are $$$.

John

as a side issue -  you say your local running store is nice and that is great BUT don't they have someone who does running analysis.  Reputable, knowledgeable running stores should look at your feet and watch how you run to take this into account when recommending and fitting a running shoe.

But I digress   Back to Newtons.  They have been marketed to "change your running style and make you faster".  Well ignoring that they are designed to get you to land mid to forefoot rather than heel striker and for most people that would eventually result in a more efficient way of running and so faster. 
For this reason if you end up trying them, break them in gently with short runs as you could end up with calf soreness.
I decided to try them and had no soreness or need to " break them in" (although I did go through this anyway to an extent) which I attribute to the fact that I already run on my mid foot - so it was just like another shoe for me.
Having said that I LOVE them - they are light, comfortable and airy and I trained and raced my recent IM in them.  I like the bright colours too!

 BUT don't they have someone who does running analysis. 

Yes

Good!  They should be able to tell you then what your "running style" is.  It's just one of those things that is nice to know (as most of us are on a quest for running efficiency ...translating into speed eventually) and may answer your initial question about Newtons.

http://shop.pearlizumi.com/product.php?mode=view&product_id=149... />
I use these sockless and they are awesome.

i run sockless in zoots with no issue

Newton's are great and I swear by them for my runs.  That being said, the construction isn't as sturdy as some and they are expensive.  If you are not a fore-to-midfoot striker and you start running in the Newtons you will become very aware of it as your heel will start to really hurt.  I also would never run in the Newtons sockless.  From my experience with them the construction just doesn't lend itself to that, although I can't run sockless in any shoe so what do I know 

Edited by jjcnbg 2010-09-04 5:37 AM

I have to caution everyone about throwing your faith into a running store shoe salesperson's analysis of your running style.  I am a mid-foot striker upon casual analysis and subsequently ended up in Newtons (which I did enjoy and did seem to suit my running style).  

However I started to have a niggling feeling of something not quite right in the ball of my foot (I am training for the Chicago Marathon and have taken my run mileage up significantly).  My podiatrist took a video from the back, and it turns out that I have a weird "collapse" as I am pushing off which is accentuated in the Newtons.  I am a neutral runner who has no business in a neutral shoe...not something a kid in a running store can detect.  

So my point is this:  just because someone watches you and says you are this or that kind of runner, it doesn't mean that a shoe supposedly "suited" to your "style" is good for you.  I think there is a tendency out there to say, well I am this sort of runner so I want this sort of shoe.  Bunk.  Just because you were told you are a neutral runner or a pronator or whatever doesn't mean your problems will be solved by wearing a shoe for that style.  

Just from a pure quality standpoint, I had about 150 miles on my first pair and they started to rip (both shoes) where the reinforced toe strip ended (on the side of the toe box).  The LRS took them back and gave me a new pair.  In fairness, it wasn't a failure they had seen before, but I thought a shoe that cost 150 or more should last a bit longer.  I was in the Lady Isaac Trainers BTW.  Also running sockless was a non starter...too many seams, especially down there in that toe box region.  They are the coolest looking shoe I have ever seen.  Just be careful with them...I did everything right with them (slow ramp up of mileage, etc) and if I had hung onto them out of stubbornness I would probably be injured right now.  

Good luck.  When you do start wearing new shoes, be vigilant for new aches and pains.  If I were OP, I would definitely widen my criteria for new shoes beyond "sockless."  Let us know what you decide.

As some others have said, newtons are a love/hate shoe. I tried them at the beginning of last season - going from heal striking to forefoot running, and was told the shoes would help that. Great in theory, but I quickly developed PF and was out for the entire season, and it took 9 months to get back to normal running again.

Newtons are the perfect shoe for people who naturally land on their midfoot. they can also work if you are willing to build up your mileage painstakingly slowly in order to avoid injury and allow your body to adapt to the shoe and different running style, if you do not naturally run that way. Many people find their calves/feet are very sore when they first start in the shoes. Know that some soreness is normal, but do NOT as in my case, let it get to debilitating muscle soreness, because that means something is on the way to injury (arch of my foot in my case).

This is just a guess but I would say ~90% of running stores don't have knowledgeable/experienced people in biomechanics/physiology to adequately do a gait analysis. Not even to guess. After all, looking at someone walk/run on a treadmill with the naked eye for a few seconds/minutes won't produce enough information to give good advice. The other 10% that might have the experience/knowledge, but I doubt have the equipment available to provide adequate advice again, just by looking at you walk/run a few seconds/minutes.


To my knowledge there is no evidence that indicates running mid to forefoot striking is a more 'efficient' (though you maybe meant economical?) or to run faster, specially when most elite runners heel strike, and they are the faster and more economical runners.

Jorge. I guess we're lucky up here cos out of the 4 specialist shoe shops I have shopped in there was only one that I felt wasn't doing a very good job.  Definitely worth the time to find one who has experience and knows what they are doing, especially if you are having any issues.  My favourite one uses video analysis so is very useful as a play back so you can actually see yourself run.  The other 2 do it by eye but you are running for a lot longer than "a few mins" to try and run your typical run style (albeit on a treadmill).  As an aside I took my sister in law there and she was very impressed that they picked up a tiny scar on her knee and talked about the impact of that op - so they are definitely out there if you look for them.

Yes I agree "economical" may be a better word although lets not split hairs as efficient has similar connotations in how I was using it.   I actually think the issue here is where your foot lands compared with your body rather than heel or forefoot etc but if you are trying to get it under your hip for a more efficient stride then likely most people will find they come off their heel a bit and land a little more forward (my experience of my athletes and colleagues anyway).  However, the point is that I was saying not my personal thoughts but what I read on how Newtons were trying to market their product.

This seems to be a YMMV thread.  I recently tried the Newtons, and so far I really like them. In August, I began in earnest to change from a heel strike to a mid-foot strike due to plantar fasciitus problems that prevent me from running much. I'll try anything to get back out there running!

Prior to the Newtons I was wearing a New Balance motion control shoe recommended by a local running shoe store; however, my PF became very aggrivated after each run in the MC shoes.  Further, I could not seem to attain what felt like a proper mid-foot strike on the MC shoes.  Coincidentally, I purchased the NB 760s, which are a stability shoe, for my everyday use.  When the 760s arrived, I experimented running in them at the track, and they enabled me to attain a closer mid-foot strike, and I noticed I didn't not have the usual post-run heel pain I experienced in the MC shoes.  Out of curiousity, I bought the Newtons at Road Runner Sports at a reduced priced, and so far the Newtons have enabled to have what feels like a true mid-foot strike.  I am slowly increasing my mileage each week with with the goal of pain-free runs and pain-free post runs.  My runs are, thus far, pain free and any post-run discomfort I have experienced is far less intense than before, and easily dealt with by thorough stretching.  Once the mid-foot strike becomes second nature, I may return to a regular stability shoe - we'll see.  Regardless, the Newtons have enabled me to run regularly again.

Edited by betyoursilver 2010-09-06 3:46 PM

My last two running shoes have been Zoots and KSwiss Kona's.  The inside of the Zoots are so much more constructed for barefoot running.  To be honest, I can't help but put them on any time I get ready to run and they are both dry (even if running with socks).  I don't know about the Newtons.  That sticker price is hard to justify. 

They are shoes. No more, no less. Try them, and if they fit and feel good, get them if you want.

I do not understand all the emphasis put on "gait analysis". I've never had this done. I don't think it's as near as important as people seem to think.

If all you're doing is looking for some shoes to be able to run sockless, the Newtons seem like an unnecessary expense. Without regard to whether or not they would work for you, there are many other shoes that work well for sockless running. In fact, almost any shoe will work if you will allow your feet to adapt to going sockless. One of the keys for using almost any shoe is to always go sockless, all the time, whenever wearing any type of shoe. Maybe that's not possible to do at work, but the rest of time don't ever use socks. After a few months your feet should become adapted.

Personally I have used many different shoes for sockless running in races. Some may work better than others, but it's not a big deal if I get a blister or two in a race.

And there is--in fact--evidence (from a Japanese study working from video analysis of half marathoners) that there is no evident advantage to forefoot strike and that less than 2% of all runners were actually forefoot striking (and only one out of 50 elites).  Something like 75% of all 400+ runners analyzed and over 60% of the elites were heel strikers.  The study did identify some possible biomechanical advantages to midfoot strike, but it seems like mostly they were drawing that conclusion from a correlation of faster finishing times to higher incidence of midfoot striking..

So the study shows less heel striking as times improve. Saying that heel striking is "right" because most people run that way is faulty; they've been trained their whole lives by their shoes to heel strike. What would the study show if the whole raised-heel super-cushioned motion-control movement never started?