Running Shoe Mid-sole Durometer v. Thickness

Good luck with your search JonDCH, but I doubt you will ever find such a shoe that is fast and comfortable over a wide range of speeds and distances. For this reason shoe design has to be a compromise.

I would like to see something similar, but with soles that have some cushioning for long distances on the roads, but return much of the energy instead of dissipating it.

One day maybe?

Does the NB 1400 not meet these standards? It has a ~10mm drop and a thin fairly hard sole.

I also have run in a few pairs of Nike Lunar Race and Zoom XC 2 and I don't really feel a difference in the height, but I do notice a lot of difference in the hardness.

The 1400 has a high heel-toe drop.

Look at the Saucony A4 or AdiZero Rocket.

That's what the numbers say, and I was wary because of that, but it feels closer to 6mm. Maybe it's the stiffness of the sole? I don't know. It also feels great at a lot of different speeds and terrain for me.

OP, ever look at the Zoom XC? That's low and feels pretty stiff to me.

It's been awhile since I tried on the Zoom XC. This was five or so years ago, so it was an early version. It was quite soft to me. So much so that I returned it to Nike. Maybe it is different now? Here's the thing: when I see a shoe in the store, I will do the pinch test. I'm just using my fingers to see how much give the mid-sole has. My fingers, of course, are not coming close to applying the kind of pressure that an adult body can exert. Therefore, when using my fingers, I want that mid-sole to show almost no give.

Back in the day (60s), apparently the training of shoe of choice was the Adidas Rome (it has since be reissued, but nothing like the originals). It looks like a shoe that had a very hard mid-sole and/or that very quickly became as hard a concrete (no, not really, but it probably felt that way). It's just my theory, but these shoes were healthy in that they kept the foot and lower limb stable on landing. They also necessitated a form that reduced impact forces - more fore to mid-foot landing.

Again, some of the minimalist shoes try to do that, but what I've found is that many still have little bits of typical mid-sole materials, however thin. This just takes away from the whole idea. And, I'd submit, a shoe a little bit thicker than say the Merrell glove (or whatever it is) and the like could be much healthier if it had a really firm mid-sole (from say just behind the forefoot to the heel) and a flexible, yet firm forefoot.

I've wondered about the running shoes of yore - 60s and the like. The firmness of the ride and highly flexible (which I infer from the similarity of the shoes in photos to shoes like old school Keds) construction were pretty healthy. Maybe it's just me, but when I see old vids of guys like Mills, Clark, Ryun, and even Zatopek, I dig the way they run. Really simple, very straight leg at foot strike. Those guys were slower, but that's not a meaningful statement as they ran for their era and were the best in the world.

You can run in shoes with little to no midsole and the ride is as firm as you will ever find - what is there is quickly beaten down and all you feel is the road. VFFs, Merrell Barefoot Gloves are two I can think of. Many of the minimalist shoes offered by the big shoe brands are modeled after racing flats, which are not minimalist enough for many because they do feel too cushioned and supportive. I run in the Merrell barefoots and they are firm to me.

What I Really Think wrote:

Does the NB 1400 not meet these standards? It has a ~10mm drop and a thin fairly hard sole.

If it's 20 bucks then I'll take a look.

I am obsessed with running shoes across all brands and the OP's description reminds me the most of the Adidas Adizero line of shoes. The "Adiprene" or whatever they call it is rather firm and resilient. It absorbs the blow, but without the kind of give that saps the energy from your step. The Adios is a good all around trainer and racer for distance athletes. The Pro has a lower drop and seems to fit the OP's description best. Going more minimal for something like the Rocket is probably overkill.

I agree with the OP that there's more to it than the simple ratio. Shoes with a squishy heel may as well have a lower ratio, because you sink and this causes a lot of stress to the calves and Achilles. For example, I really liked the overall feel and cushion of the Nike Free 5.0 V2, except that the heel cup was squishy fabric on badly stabilized rubber and the result was a much more injury-prone repetitive stress.

Take a look at the Mizuno Wave Precision 10 vs the 12. Total night and day. They changed the midsole and the insole so that the 10 was firm and the 12 is extremely soft. They have the pretty much the same last and heel to toe ratio, but feel worlds different because of the change to density, resilience, etc.

Adizero Pros look interesting. Tried on the Merrells and was surprised they had some arch shape to them, as oppose to simply flat, the benefit of which is no impediment to the arch collapsing/absorbing energy on full weighting of the foot. That said, I'll take another look.

Maybe someone could find the source, but I seem to remember that Arthur Lydiard once specified the attributes of a good running shoe as having a firm/hard heel, light weight, very flexible forefoot.

No. They do not cost $20.

The new Merrel barefoot road glove - available Feb 2012 - will be flat, with no arch shape.

Maybe the New Balance Minimus road. 4mm drop from heel and very firm. My only complain is the geometry of the midsole. It has a beveled lateral heel which forces the foot into the shoe's prescribed gait pattern. The upcoming revision of the Minimus (which is "zero drop") seems to rectify this problem.

Although I haven't tried them, Inov-8 has a series of road shoes with relatively low heels. I've read reviews claiming they're firm and flexible. Anybody try them?

driving to work today i was thinking about my NB MT101s. there's not much there.

I was thinking the MR00 might be a good recommendation, but I gave them the pinch test at a New Balance store and they seem kind of squishy in the midole.

http://www.runningwarehouse.com/descpageMRS-NB00RM1.html

Closest I have tried is cross country flats. I have even cut off the rubber spikes for road use. The only criteria not met is flexibility...

I'm curious on this idea as well.

For example, I can understand why a built up, 11oz+, high cushioned shoe can mess with natural bio-mechanics.

However, what about a 9oz shoe that by no means has the profile of a racing flat, but isn't incredibly high off the ground either. Would it be better for this shoe to be firm or soft?

Obviously if you are trying to go fast, firmness would be better, but to be realistic, if you are going to train in a shoe like this everyday for lots of decent paced miles (7min pace and lower), unless you have grown up from childhood running barefoot or in racing flats, you need some moderate cush.

But to the point of natural biomechanics, it seems to me that unless the midsole is very low (which in that case you get into the 7oz and less category) a very firm midsole not allow your foot much give or flexibility. For example, if the outside edge of a shoe is hard, unless curved in some very special way (which I have never seen), the natural pronation seems to me not as smooth. It won't let your foot "roll" naturally.

A softer midsole would allow for this flexibility and natural roll. However, I can also see how an overly soft midsole would give too much in some areas, causing unnatural instability, if that makes sense.

Anyways, basically what I'm trying to say is that firmness is not always better. It depends on the height and weight of the midsole before you can determine what firmness or softness would allow for more natural bio-mechanics.