Difference between revisions of "What to Look for in Running Shoes"

Revision as of 06:12, 27 November 2014

My shoe reviews are based around my personal experience and my interpretation of The Science of Running Shoes. I believe that a good running shoe should not interfere with your natural biomechanics, so shoes with raised heels (drop) or anti-pronation features are a bad idea. A running shoe is a trade-off between weight, cushioning, and longevity, and different runners will want to make different trade-offs, so I cover shoes that vary in their characteristics.

• Familiarity. There is reasonable evidence that runners will adapt based on their training, something that makes intuitive good sense. Part of that adaptation is to the shoes that are normally worn, so any radical change in shoe design can be disruptive, and possibly lead to injury. This is particularly true when moving to a more minimalist running shoe. Therefore, if you're looking for running shoe that is radically different to what you use too, it would be prudent to migrate through intermediary types of shoe. For instance, if you reduced to running in a traditional running shoe, but want to move to a zero drop shoe, you could use the Saucony Kinvara has a half-way house.
• Weight. Probably the most critical feature of the shoe is its weight, as relatively small increases in the weight of the shoe create a surprisingly large increase in the effort it takes to run. A general estimate is that each 3.5oz/100g increases the effort by 1%.
• Cushioning. While cushioning does not appear to be effective at reducing impact, The Science of Running Economy indicates that cushioning can reduce the effort it takes to run. In addition, I found that the highly cushioned shoes I refer to as Minimax can reduce how sore my feet become on ultramarathons. However, cushioning and weight, so the right shoe for you will be the right balance of cushioning and weight. The best shoes provide the highest level of cushioning for their weight.
• Longevity. How long a shoe lasts normally depends on the foam midsole. In shoes where the foam midsole is not covered by a hard rubber outsole, the life of the shoe is typically limited by how quickly the midsole wears away due to abrasion from the ground. Different types of foam have at differing levels of abrasion resistance. If the midsole is covered by a hard rubber outsole, and the life of the shoe is typically limited by how quickly the foam breaks down and loses its shape and cushioning. There are some minimalist shoes like the Merrell trail glove that have little or no midsole, in which case the life of the shoe is limited by how long the outsole lasts. These shoes typically lost vastly longer than the cushioned counterparts. The table below is a rough guide to how I assign longevity numbers, though obviously these are tweaked for specific shoes.

• Interference. Many shoes are designed to have features that are intended to interfere with the natural running stride. Shoes manufacturers try to use cushioning to reduce impact, medial posts to reduce Pronation, and a raised heel (drop) to reduce Achilles' tendon stress. However, there is evidence from The Science of Running Shoes that this interference is both unwarranted, and ineffectual.
• Drop. Since the 1980s shoes have had a higher heel than the forefoot in an attempt to reduce the strain on the calf and Achilles' tendon, something that has shown to be ineffective. The extra height in the heel can encourage an excessive heel strike, and produces a shoe with relatively little forefoot cushioning. The extra height in the heel is called "drop", and shoes that have the same thickness at the heel and forefoot are referred to as "zero drop". While I believe a zero drop shoe is best, a drop of 4-5 mm is not overly intrusive.
• Structure. The issues cushioning comes predominantly from the foam midsole, which can be a single density, or have multiple densities in an attempt to reduce pronation. The denser foam is also heavier, and the more extreme anti-pronation measures found in motion control shoes are correlated with higher levels of pain and injury. Therefore I believe that a shoe should have a single density of foam; simple is better.
• Flexibility. I believe that a shoe should be as flexible as possible, to allow a natural running style. However, high levels of cushioning create some intrinsic inflexibility, so this is another balancing act. Many shoes include grooves cut into the foam midsole in order to improve flexibility.
• Outsole. The foam midsole is not terribly hard wearing, so it is frequently covered by a layer of hard rubber. Unfortunately this hard rubber is also quite heavy, creating another balance between weight and longevity. Recent developments in foam technology of the created midsoles that are hard wearing enough to be exposed, though they are never as hard wearing as a true outsole.
• Shape. It seems bizarre, but the shape of a typical running shoe does not match the shape of the human foot. This creates the most problems in the forefoot area, where the toe box tends to squash the toes, and prevent the natural movement. Thankfully, shoe design is slowly adapting, and there are now a number of manufacturers producing shoe designs that are suitable for use with the human foot.
• Upper. The upper of a running shoe is there to keep the sole attached to your foot. There are several things to look for in the upper:
  • Flexibility. They are flexible upper can be more comfortable as it accommodates slightly different shaped foot's. However this flexibility involves elasticity that creates a continual pressure that can cause problems. Most shoes tend to be inflexible.
  • Seams. While it is possible to make a seamless, many shoes have uppers made of multiple materials to provide different levels of flexibility and reinforcement. Where these materials join they can be a seam that can rub and cause blisters.
  • Breathability. Because your feet have a higher density of sweat glands than anywhere else in your body (except your hands), it's important for a shoe to breathe well.
  • Padding. Padding can improve comfort and reduce blisters, especially where the shoe has seams. Padding is especially important around the ankle opening.
• Tongue. The main problem with the tongue of a running shoe is that it can slip to the side. Manufacturers have a various ways for addressing this problem, such as attaching parts of the tongue to the upper on one or both sides. A more extreme approach is to have a tongueless upper, sometimes called a "sock upper." The problem with a sock upper is that it requires a lot of flexibility in the material so you can get the shoe on your foot, and these approaches rarely work as well has a traditional tongue.
• Lacing. Given that shoelaces have been around since 3500 BC, it seems amazing that shoe manufacturers can find ways of screwing up this simple concept. The main thing you want from shoelaces is for them to stay tied while you're running. A shoelace that comes undone during a race can be disastrous. Generally, I find that flat laces work well, and round laces work poorly.
• Heel Counter. To try to bind the rear of the shoe to the heel of the foot, the part of the upper that goes around the back of the shoe is often made of a much stiffer material. As far as I can tell, this is another counterproductive feature that adds no value, but has the potential to cause problems.