Just Don't Get Injured 3 - My $175 Newton Running Shoes

The entire, multi-billion dollar industry is based on a campaign not of facts, but of fear. Fear that if you don’t buy a $175 sneaker and replace it in three months, you’ll ruin your knees. 

So why does anyone wear them? And how did the running shoe, which didn’t even exist before most of us were born, become a multi-billion dollar business and a purportedly indispensable piece of sportswear? 

-- Christopher McDougall, Author of Born to Run

During the Barefoot Running Era I was intrigued by the uprising against the supposedly evil Big Running Shoe Companies and the argument that Big Shoe was brainwashing us just like Big Pharma and Big Oil.  Was Big Shoe really conspiring with retailers, coaches, podiatrists, and journalists to spread fear and misinformation? 

I am not a “gear person’ and have lamented the expensive equipment “arms race” in triathlon, and I am cynical about the marketing surrounding running shoes -- much of the shoe reviews, and particularly salespeople going on and on about pronation and supination seemed meaningless to me (as the research in this article suggests).  

I really wanted this "shoes are bull ###" theory  to be true -- like I wrote earlier, I have a hard time budgeting for $175 shoes every three months.  

But, alas, I have personally observed a dramatic difference when switching shoes.  During the barefoot running era,  I transitioned to a mid-foot strike style of running by gradually increasing use of the Newton brand of shoes.  The Newtons models all are only 0-6mm between the height of the heel and the height of the mid-foot

Newtons were more expensive and difficult to find.  But the Newtons simply felt better on my feet, and I do find there is at least some merit to their “Action/Reaction Technology which supposedly absorbs and returns energy back to you better than other shoes and generates a boost in running efficiency 





 Nike's new shoes have created controversy recently with their even more aggressive energy-return





Even more importantly than race performance for me, the Newton shoes seemed to cause less stress. And once I had evolved into a mid-foot striking runner, switching back to any other shoes would trigger discomfort in my hips, knees and ITB

So I had  become deeply loyal to Newton (or perhaps I had become captive to Big Shoe, depending on your perspective).

Loyal or captive right up until I ordered a pair of Newton Distance last summer.  I was so pleased when they arrived, but then 2 kilometers into the first run my left Achilles protested.  Soon I switched over to an old pair of Newton Motion III which helped but did not resolve the problem.  Finally I resorted back to the classic workhorse pair of Asics DS Trainers, a 9mm drop shoe. 

Immediately the pain went away. 

Of course eventually after a few hundred miles of running with the Asics my other pains (hip, knee, ITB) begun to return.  So my running shoe section has evolved into a bit of a "whack-a-mole" dynamic as I repeatedly find myself rotating back-and-forth now between Brooks (10mm drop) and Newtons (0-6mm drop).    

Obviously then I don't agree with the real skeptics who dismiss the shoe's contribution entirely -- for me it is dramatic what a difference shoes makes.  But between this rotation among different brands and my need for both racing and training flats, I am afraid my 2017 shoe budget will be well over $600.