Newton vs. New Balance running shoes

After the Newton Running Shoes teleconference I got an e-mail from Alan Reynolds asking if I would follow up with Danny Dryer about a New Balance shoe that Danny Dryer helped design. After a few e-mails with Danny, this was his response. Thanks for the question Alan…

The difference between the Newton Shoe and the New Balance ChiRunning midfoot shoe is huge.

The Newton shoe is built and designed for racing shorter distances at high speeds. It’s marketed to the 5k-10k runner who spends most of his/her time on their forefoot. It is not a midfoot strike shoe. They’re calling it a midfoot/forefoot strike shoe, but I think they’re just trying to mix words to broaden their market. I’ve told Danny Abshire (the inventor) that I would be totally into endorsing a Newton midfoot shoe as soon as they come out with one. The uppers on the shoe are some of the most comfortable and breathable I’ve ever had on … they’re fabulous. I really hope they do come up with a design that can accommodate a more varied group of everyday runners who are looking to find a nice, flexible, low-profile shoe for ChiRunning.

The New Balance 800MFS is the shoe that I helped NB design for midfoot strikers. It does indeed work for midfoot strikers and for those who are transitioning from a heel strike to a midfoot strike. They are not built for people looking for speed. They’re a bit stiff and heavy feeling. The lateral side “crash bar”… (the red hotdog shaped plug in the lateral side of the shoe’s sole) is NB’s design. Here’s the problem I have with it: when you land in a midfoot strike, it is not necessary to add cushioning to the shoe in the midfoot section because you’re not creating a tenth of the impact that you make when you’re heel striking. The shoe companies have been making cushioned shoes for so long that they think it’s the solution to all injuries. But, as the annual injury rate for runners indicates, all that cushioning has been pretty much for naught. So, even though the NB 800MFS is a step in the right direction, it is still an over-built shoe in terms of adding too much cushioning where none is needed.

There have never been any scientific studies showing that building more cushioning in the heel of running shoes prevents injuries. There have been, in fact, a slew of articles circulating in recent months questioning the premise behind the idea that “more is better” when it comes to running shoes. For the first time since the running boom hit in the 1970’s runners are starting to question the role that shoes play in preventing injuries. ChiRunning is one of a small handful of organizations spreading the word of injury-prevention in terms of adjusting one’s running form and not relying on the shoes to make the difference.

Danny Dryer talks about midfoot strike and more on his website http://www.chirunning.com/.