Forefoot Running Shoes (newton, merell)

I've never been injured since switching to Newtons. They work for me.

I've run in most of the Inov-8 road shoes, and don't find any of them to be anything like the Minimus Road 0. The Road 0 has some midsole, albeit a thin one, and some hard Vibram rubber on the heel and part of the forefoot outsole.Inov-8 has a couple of road shoes that have no rubber outsole, you just run on the thin, soft foam midsole (like in the Nike Free 3.0) : the Road-X Lite 155 and the Bare-X Lite 150. The Road-X Lite 155 reportedly has a 4mm heel-forefoot differential, and the Bare-X Lite 150 reportedly has zero differential; however, I have both, and to me, both feel like they probably have a 3-4mm differential, i.e., about like the NB 730 or Nike Free 3.0. They are much more flexible than the NB 730, or for that matter, more flexible than the Minimus Road 0, probably as flexible as if not more flexible than the Free 3.0, which is the thinnest and most flexible Free by a lot. They also have shoes called the Bare-X 180 and Bare-X 200, which are differ only in the upper. Both have a thin solid rubber outsole and absolutely no midsole whatsoever, and very clearly have zero heel-forefoot differential. It is the most flexible shoe I've ever seen that visually resembles a shoe to any meaningful degree - you can crumple it up into a ball and hold it in your fist. These are actually my favorite shoe (not just my favorite minimal shoe, but favorite shoe period). I do not consider these to be comparable to the NB Minimus Road 0 in any way other than that they also have zero differential. The non-NB shoe I find most similar to the Minimus Road 0 is probably the Merrell Bare Access, which is almost identical to the Merrell Trail Glove or Road Glove, except that the Bare Access has a tiny little bit of midsole foam, which the others do not. The Inov-8 Bare-X 180 and 200 provide much more flexibility and ground feel than any of the Merrells, though.

Yams wrote:

waddup wrote:

new balance and inov8 are the brands to go with i reckon

Can you Compare the Invo8 to the Minimus? I don't really know the line, But what would be about equal to the Road 0?

I've run in both New Balance 730s and Newton (Sir Isaacs and gravities). My favorite of the three are the Gravities. They are very light and while the lugs take a little bit of getting used to they are more comfortable than the 730s. The 730s are great, but they were awful when running on paths that had roots or sharp stones. You can feel every part of the ground beneath your feet in them. The Sir Isaacs were great shoes as well for getting into minimal style shoes. They have have a higher toe-to-heel drop than the Gravities and are a better landing point for those beginning minimalist training.

............... wrote:

asics hyperspeed- probably the worst shoe ever. might be alright if you run 40 miles per week. wore out so quick.

Uhhh what? I've gone through probably 10 pairs total, some HS2, HS3, and HS4s, and I got between 850-1000 miles on each, about half on ungroomed trails (rocky, but not insanely so) and the other half on roads. What surface are you running on?

The ONLY complaint I have about the shoe at all is the pattern on the bottom, the little holes will get small rocks stuck in them occasionally.

If you are going to try Newtons as a everyday trainer I would recommend potentially starting with the Distance you pictured at the end. I would recommend you go to a local supplier of the brand and get them on your feet there are some sizing and fit things that can be worked out in the store if the staff has been trained by the people of Newton. Another great thing about the brand should you buy local is the company stands behind their product with a 30 day trial period. There will be some difference with the "lug" initially but should diminish within in a couple weeks. Its generally not recommended if you are running 50-60 miles a week to just throw on Newtons and run that mileage as the staff will explain. If you are a forefoot striker and not overstriding or reaching u may be able to get away with it (personally I ran 60 miles my first week in Newtons and havent worn another brand since). Based on how you beat up the Asics I wouldnt recommend starting in the MV2, I have heard there are some quite a few changes coming to the shoe in the future to improve durability and overall feel.

You still Pronate. as the outside of the foot (mid or forefoot) hits the ground and the roles in, your ankle roles in and your shin is slanted to the outside

Um, no.

Yams wrote:

really?????? wrote:

You don't get a chance to pronate in a forefoot strike. I pronate significantky when walking with a heel strike but not a trace when running forefoot. They are rather thin to heel strike in.

You still Pronate. as the outside of the foot (mid or forefoot) hits the ground and the roles in, your ankle roles in and your shin is slanted to the outside

[quote]Daryl Basarab wrote:

The Asics Piranhas didn't work for me, I tore them up in a single hilly 10k because my style is all toes. They felt good until I tore them up, but I need something stronger but still forefoot oriented.

If you're tearing up a 4.3 ounce pair of asics in one training run, I don't understand why you insist on going with a minimalist shoe. The Newtons are are ridiculously expensive-stay away. I'm a forefoot striker that supinates-very similar to the wear pattern in your photo. I'm 5'10" & 130 lbs. I wear the Nike Pegasus 29, The adidas Supernova Ride 4 (a little heavy and expensive, but very durable and great forefoot cushioning) and the asics Nimbus 13. Minimalist shoes are great, but they wear out fast and the forefoot outsole is blown rubber that grinds down too quickly. A couple of ounces per shoe will not make any difference in your running-save the racing flats for the speedwork.

I bought the Newton MV2 for $70 and I've been running about 30 miles per week in them for the past 6 months.

Before wearing any minimalist shoe, you should run barefoot first, for a long time so your form is right. After which, there's no point wearing a minimalist shoe anyhow. They're mainly just a scam.

kozz wrote:

Before wearing any minimalist shoe, you should run barefoot first, for a long time so your form is right. After which, there's no point wearing a minimalist shoe anyhow. They're mainly just a scam.

You're so right. These are the type of shoes I ran in from ages 15-18 (70-90 miles per week.) These had about as much support and cushioning and as today's minimalist shoes. They totally ruined my feet. Plantar fascitis, achilles tendinitis, etc. Unfortunately, there were not too many shoe options in the early 70s. A neutral shoe with good forefoot cushioning is what you need. Barefoot running is a scam and anyone that thinks that they can switch to a Vibram or any of the other knock-offs, even with a slow build-up in mileage and run problem free is sadly mistaken. When I see runners in 5 Fingers, it looks painful.

"I had a bad experience with running 90s mpw when I was 15 so running in a minimally cushioned shoe has to be a scam."

Got it.

I said minimalist shoes were a scam. Barefoot running is for real. Nobody makes money from it, and it works. And it's not painful at all.

The reason so few runners fail to transition is they get sidetracked by those bullshit minimalist shoes. Even Vibrams. To have good form, you have to put your skin on the ground. Just forefoot striking is not enough.

The reason the Piranha shoes were torn up has nothing to do with running on your forefoot. You have a crappy stride as others have mentioned. I imagine you used to be a heel striker and decided forefoot is better. In the process you ended up with some sort of f-ed up running form.

Daryl Basarab wrote:

Newton MV2 (racing flat)

http://www.newtonrunning.com/shoes/mens-shoes/men-racers/mv2

Merell Road Glove ("barefoot" possibly could race in)

http://www.merrell.com/US/en-us/Product.mvc.aspx/26342M/60840/Mens/Barefoot-Run-Road-Glove

Merell Bare Access ("minimalist" could probably race in)

http://www.merrell.com/US/en-us/Product.mvc.aspx/26343M/60909/Mens/Barefoot-Run-Bare-Access

The Asics Piranhas didn't work for me, I tore them up in a single hilly 10k because my style is all toes. They felt good until I tore them up, but I need something stronger but still forefoot oriented.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n273/austin2359/IMG_0817.jpghttp://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n273/austin2359/IMG_0831.jpg

This looks like a good trainer (not for racing).

http://www.newtonrunning.com/shoes/mens-shoes/men-racers/light-weight-neutral-trainer

Agreed. That wear on the outside of the sole makes me think you're over striding like crazy. Land with your feet beneath you... There's practically no way you can pronate or supinate that way. That's gonna mess you up, hombre...

I think the puma h-street look pretty good. They are almost like a road running track spike. They don't cost much either.

My three favorite brands are now Newton, Merell and Puma. It's good to have Newton and Merell outlets so close by.

Puma outlets rather.

There are no newton outlets that I know of.

By the way I have feedback now on the road glove vs the bare access.

Both can be worn without socks. The bare access you can wear thin socks if you want to.

I think the difference is that the bare access is designed for comfort, but the road glove is designed for speed. The bare access is also transitional shoe.

The road glove has some similarities to track spikes, in that it is indented in the insides and it has a lot of vibram sole on the toe. The bare access has a little more cushion and as I stated earlier, it's more about comfort than bounce.

I see uses for both.