I’m getting ready for my first marathon in the fall, and I am trying to dial in my kit. I keep hearing about these “super shoes” people use for racing, but they’re expensive, and I don’t know if I should switch to something new for race day. Do I need to buy a super shoe to run my best? —Newbie Distance Runner

Dear Newbie,

Super shoes are no doubt attractive. The lightweight racers with ultra-bouncy foam and embedded carbon plates have been shown to enable some athletes to reach higher speeds with less effort.

Could a super shoe help you run slightly faster and easier than you would in a standard trainer or racer? Yes. Probably. Maybe. It’s complicated.

If you’re a sub-seven-minute-mile marathoner, you’ve established serious training habits and built a strong, athletic stride. And in that pace range, the research says you’ll likely get a 3 or 4 percent improvement in running economy from the shoes. This is why no elite runner would toe the line in anything but a super shoe.

But as a first-time marathoner, do you need that edge? Will it be impossible for you to accomplish your goals without these shoes’ performance-enhancing benefits? No, absolutely not. And there are some good reasons why you might not want to invest in a super shoe.

Research on the benefits for slower runners is mixed. One data analysis of slower marathoners showed time improvements—even greater than among faster runners—after adopting super shoes. In contrast, a controlled study revealed that the slower the runner, the lower the boost in running economy, with 9:40-mile runners seeing only about 1 percent improvement.

Still, any help is appreciated in the marathon, and some experts believe that the real advantage may have more to do with the shoes’ ability to reduce muscle breakdown and fatigue than with improvements in efficiency. If super shoes make finishing strong more likely, they might be worth the $250-plus price tag.

Be aware, however, that nearly a third of the slower runners in the same study showed a decrease in running economy—the shoes made running harder, not easier. Other studies have found even greater variability in runner response.

This is partially due to the fine-tuned bounce and roll of a super shoe’s midsole and plate. Every runner’s stride is unique and interacts with the shoe differently. When we staged a şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř Online—with three runners comparing 16 different super shoes head-to-head—we found that a shoe that felt magical to one runner often went clunk on another.

Even if a shoe seems good when you are fresh and running strong, it might not be what you want on your foot when you start to tire. Super shoes exacerbate any stride imbalances because of a trampoline-like action that magnifies all forces and movements, for better or worse. Can you maintain the even posture and powerful push-off that a super shoe requires over 26.2 miles? A tall, wobbly platform isn’t what anyone wants when doing the marathon shuffle. For slower, first-time marathoners, the risk of a super shoe impeding their efforts may not be worth the meager potential reward, especially at these prices.

If you decide to go with a super shoe, be sure to test out multiple models to find one that enhances your natural gait rather than changing it or, worse, fighting against it.

Regardless of what you choose for race day, remember that the first rule of marathoning is to dance with the one who brought you: if in doubt, go with old friends—your favorite tried-and-true trainers. Nothing different. Nothing new. Any change opens you up to the possibility of blisters, an altered stride that causes you to fatigue faster, even injury. If you want to wear a specialty shoe, start using it far enough in advance that you’ve adapted to it by race day. Gradually add miles over eight to twelve weeks, building up to several solid marathon-pace runs and at least one long run.

Marathon success depends far more on factors like how well you trained, how well you hydrate and fuel, and how the weather gods treat you than on which shoes you wear. In the end, the best shoes are the ones that get out of the way and quietly let your fitness shine.

Have a question of your own? Send it to us at deargear@outsideinc.com.

The post Do You Actually Need Super Shoes to Run Your Best? appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř Online.

The marathon is an arduous, complex physical and mental test—one that has never ceased to fascinate me even after I’ve run 26 of them. But I admit that actually watching a marathon isn’t that fun, even at the Olympics.

We see a group of runners go stride-for-stride for a little over two hours as the lead pack dwindles under the painful pace. Runners who fall off the front seem to disappear entirely. It matters little, except for personal pride, if they drop out, or hang on for 13th or 25th place.

Equally out of sight are the dozens of runners who make up the middle and back of the pack, and are never in contention to win. We see these athletes only as they straggle across the finish line during the anticlimactic half hour after the medals are settled. All of the attention is on the few athletes battling for medals.

I have a plan to make every participant in a marathon count, to make every position change significant and interesting, to make every runner a hero. It’s an idea that’s already widely used in running. My plan to fix the marathon is to transform it into a team event that employs the meets.

In cross country—that fall sport where gangly high schoolers run 3.1 miles around golf courses or rural parks—seven runners from each school represent their team. When the gun goes off, everyone starts together. Runners finishing in the top 10 or 15 (depending on the size of the meet) earn individual medals. But these awards are secondary to the team competition. To determine team placings, officials add up the finish position of the top five runners from each school, and the school with the lowest cumulative number wins.

Under this competition format, every runner matters. It’s just as important if the slowest runner on a team moves up two places from 45th to 43rd, as it is if the fastest one advances from third to first. No team can win due to the merits of its star runner. Every participant, from first to last, has to perform well for the team to succeed.

Runners back in the pack, in fact, often have the chance for much larger point swings: a top-10 finisher may get passed by three or four if she slows by 20 seconds, a mid-pack runner could easily slip back, or pass, 15 to 20 places in the same time.

Here’s my plan: we create a national team score for the Olympic marathon. Sure, we still award medals to the three individuals who cross the line at the front. But we also pay attention to how the runners behind them fare, by offering medals to the nations with the cumulative lowest score determined by each runner’s number placing.

Runners who fell off the lead would need to gut it out all the way to the finish—they wouldn’t dare abandon the race and jeopardize a team medal. Team scores—which would be displayed as current standings throughout the race as runners pass checkpoints—would become more competitive as the race went along, bringing the importance of slower runners into focus.

I’d love to see the field expand to seven from each country, or at least five; currently there are just three. But even with three runners per country you could organize a dramatic team competition. I recently re-watched the 2020Tokyo Olympics women’s race and applied my competition concept to the event. Only five points separated the top-three nations: Germany, Australia, and Japan.

Kenya, meanwhile, did not reach the podium.Sure, Kenya’s runners placed first and second, respectively, but its third runner dropped out, eliminating the country from contention. Alas, it was the same fate for the U.S. team—our runners were third, 17th, and DNF.

The Tokyo Olympic Marathon would have produced an edge-of-your-seat team competition. Germany’s first runner placed sixth, Japan’s eighth, Australia’s tenth. Each nation’s second runners were similarly close: Germany’s 18th, Japan’s 19th, Australia’s 23rd. With team totals standing at Germany 24, Japan 27, and Australia 33, the third runner from Australia crossed in 26th for a total score of 59.

As I tallied the score, I realized that a really compelling battle was brewing between each nation’s final runner. This was going on long after the Kenyans had finished first and second. Germany and Japan’s third runners were running two places apart in 31st and 33rd, respectively. Germany, in the lead after the first two runners, just needed to hang on to get gold with 55 points. If Japan’s runner could have passed one competitor, the team would have tied with Australia for silver. If she could have passed four runners, including the German, Japan would have won gold. In the end, the gold medals would have been decided by who finished in 30th place.

In a normal Olympic marathon, whomever finishes 30th is totally inconsequential, just a blurry face in the background as TV cameras focus on the winner. But with my Olympic marathon concept, running fans would need to cheer on every runner and fixate on every position change. We’d yell and scream during each dramatic moment when a runner crossed the line and hugged his or her teammates.

Just imagine this scenario. In my opinion, this would make the Olympic marathon as exciting as a high school cross country meet, which if you’ve ever attended one, you know is an edge-of-your-seat affair. And it might transform the Olympic marathon into a race you need to follow, from the first finisher to the last.

The post How I’d Get Runners and Viewers More Excited About the Olympic Marathon appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř Online.

With the new year approaching, running shoe brands have started previewing the models they’ll roll out out in 2024. The new crop shows lots of promise, with advanced materials and innovative designs delivering versatile shoes that are smoother-riding, faster, more comfortable, and more durable than ever. Here are some of the models that we’re most excited about running in when they’re available in the coming months.Ěý

Topo Specter 2 ($165)

Slated for May 2024

I was leery when Topo—a brand that started out making second-generation, slightly more cushioned minimalist models—launched the high-stack, well-cushioned Specter in 2022. But the shoe won me over because it maintained the stable ground feel I expect from the brand while delivering bouncy, lively cushioning. Topo achieved this by encasing a Pebax footbed in a firmer EVA frame that kept the foot rolling forward, not sideways. Even I admitted, however, that the frame sacrificed some of the exciting boing delivered by full-Pebax midsoles.

Last year, Topo delivered a full-Pebax shoe, the Cyclone 2, which avoided squishiness and instability by having a lower stack height and wide platform underfoot. I fell instantly in love, and it is now my favorite Topo—one of my favorite running shoes ever, in fact.

Now Topo has announced a new Specter, which will also have a full Pebax midsole, but maintains its high stack height. It even gains two millimeters, making it a whopping 37 millimeters in the heel, 32 in the forefoot—nine millimeters higher than the Cyclone 2. Despite the thick stack of soft, bouncy foam (the same density as in the Cyclone 2), and the lack of a plate to control that foam, Russ Stevens, product manager at Topo, says I won’t be wobbling or wallowing in them due to their geometry. “The heel is quite wide and you’re almost sitting down inside the midsole platform,” Stevens says. “So when you’re landing, you’re not rocking side to side—you roll nicely through the gait cycle. It does a great job of feeling light and responsive while still providing that stability.”

While I’ll have to experience it to believe it, I have been impressed with other recent models that create stability through geometry. I also prefer not to have a rigid plate in a training shoe because of injury risk and loss of foot strength. Stevens added another good reason why they went plateless: “We wanted to make sure that this shoe stayed fast, light, and responsive regardless of pace. By putting a plate in the shoe, we were concerned that we had to dictate the pace that the shoe was best at, because you have to tune the plate to an ideal runner. By keeping the plate out of it, it made the shoe more democratic.” Plus, omitting the plate saves some weight—the shoe comes in at only 7.6 ounces.

Even a cushion-leery curmudgeon like me can’t help getting excited about the promise of a shoe with Topo’s fit—snug from heel to arch with plenty of toe room—and the bounce of a full stack of super foam that stays in control through clever geometry. I’m eager to run in the new Spectrum to see if they pulled it off.

New Balance Fresh Foam X Balos ($200)

Slated for August 2024

Early Fresh Foam shoes from New Balance like the circa-2015 Zante were responsive, nimble, and rather firm, as befitted fast shoes of the day. I recall many pleasant up-tempo training miles in them. Through the years, the line has lost its speedy heritage and morphed into super-soft models that the brand admits are made more for wearing 24/7 than for logging serious miles. This shoe is a return to high-performance training, executed in a new way in this age of super foams. “What we wanted to do was to bring a super trainer into Fresh Foam,” says Constanza Campos, global product manager for performance running at New Balance.Ěý

What makes the Balos stand out is the Peba-based foam (the first use of the industry-leading midsole material in the Fresh Foam line), and the shoe’s unique geometry. The forefoot is aggressively rockered, like most fast models today. The Balos goes one step further with significant heel camber as well, which, combined with the malleable Peba foam and the gound-contact EVA outsole (remember the Beacon?), promises super-smooth landings and a seamless, fast-rolling ride from touchdown to toe-off. Like the Topo Specter, the Balos won’t have a prescriptive plate, allowing for each runner’s preferred movement pattern during training miles. High sidewalls and a wide base should keep the foot centered on the platform as you compress and rebound off the sole.

Rounding out the package is a comfy and secure upper. “Our inspiration was to create a crossover between racing and training,” Campos says. “So we wanted the lightweight, the breathability, the technicality of a racing shoe, but with the comfort of a training shoe.” Centering the fit is a stretchy, gusseted knit tongue that Campos calls, “Crazy nice.”

It’s easy to imagine putting in comfortable long miles and bouncy tempo runs in this 9.2-ounce trainer when it comes out in August.

Puma Fast-R Nitro Elite 2

Slated for February 2024

Two years ago, I named the first Puma Fast-R Nitro Elite as one of the shoes I was most excited to try in 2022 because of its decoupled sole, which allowed the heel and toe to move independently (and made it look über-cool). That shoe did indeed deliver a unique ride, but the different midsole compounds—Pebax in the forefoot, EVA in the heel—made the decoupling feel somewhat disjointed. This second version has the same foam under both ends, promising to smooth out the ride, plus Puma introduced new materials and innovations that have me salivating to try this one on the roads as well.

The second version of the Fast-R got upgrades in both elements that define super shoes: the foam and the plate. Todd Falker, the brand’s head product line manager, says they went to the lab and asked, “For the last seven years, everyone has said Pebax is the best thing in the industry. What is the next best thing?” And the materials lab had an answer: Aliphatic TPU, a polymer, which, in membrane form is often for its lightweight durability. As Falker describes it, this new compound retains all the bounciness of TPU in a lighter, more consistent foam, with more energy return than Pebax (they measured the Aliphatic TPU at 93 percent). Plus, it has endurance. “It is as strong at mile 25 as at mile one, or through a few hundred miles,” Falker says. “You get consistency in performance; the foam doesn’t degrade like others do.” The Aliphatic TPU delivers a similar squish-and-rebound trampoline effect as Pebax, but Falker says it feels a bit firmer underfoot, more bounce than squish, which I personally appreciate.

The Fast-R 2’s new plate is unique because it extends past the toe, sticking out from the midsole like the tip of an impertinent tongue. Falker says the patented design will add length to each step. “Our researchers have shown that it saves about 50 steps over the course of a marathon,” he said. Whether or not that will hold true for every runner, it will be intriguing to experience what Falker claims is the “longest and most aggressive plate in the industry.”Ěý

The next best thing in foam, coupled with a step-saving plate—what’s not to get excited about? I’ll use them sparingly but will certainly be trying them out when they’re available at retail in February.Ěý

Mount to Coast R1 Racer ($180)

Slated for April 2024

Every year we see several new brands try to break into the crowded running space. One that caught my eye this year was this clean-looking model designed for racing ultramarathons on the track. The oddly-named Hong Kong-based brand says their designs are rooted in a biomechanics lab where they can optimize the shoes’ ergonomic fit and long-run comfort and support. I don’t have a track ultra on my schedule any time soon, but I am interested in trying this shoe for several reasons.

First is the plateless, moderate-height (28/22mm) Pebax midsole with a PU insert under the highest-pressure areas that, combined, promises a smooth, bouncy ride with staying power. “They are made of very durable materials,” says Victor Zhang, head of sourcing at Mount To Coast. “They may last over 1,000 miles.” That’s an impressive claim, but they’ve got the ultrarunner testing to prove it.

Second, I love the decoupled closure system, with traditional laces on the top half of the eyelets, and a separate quick-pull lace on the bottom. I’ve long felt that it makes sense to be able to tighten these parts of the shoe separately, as the tension needs on the instep—where you want to lock the fit down—and ball—where you need room for splay—differ at all times, and even more so when the foot swells as you’re going long. This design makes it easy to dial in the different zones, and to quickly adjust the lower half tension when needed.

I also got to step into a pair of the R1s at The Running Event in late November, and can attest to the comfort of the shoe’s ergonomic fit: both the upper and the sole matched my foot shape, holding and supporting invisibly. A few running steps revealed a lightly cushioned, firmly responsive ride (reminiscent of the Tracksmith Eliot Runner, but with a better fit), that made me want to head out the door in them. I’ll have to wait for the April 18 release date before I can see if they live up to their promise on the long run.

Adidas Terrex Agravic Speed Ultra ($220)

Slated for April 2024

Lots of people have been eager to try this shoe, ever since Tom Evans wore a prototype to victory at the 2023 Western States 100. After having a chance to see and feel a production model, I’m even more excited about taking them out on my trails and dirt roads.

What impressed me most about the shoe is that it appears to be designed to act as an extension of the foot, rather than as a platform to land on and roll off of, like many max-cushioned models. The shoe’s shape is foot-like from heel to toe: the heel is rounded where you roll onto it, and relatively narrow, avoiding the rotational torque from the long levers created by flared soles—while your foot sits inside high sidewalls to ensure you stay centered. The shoe’s midfoot is even narrower and can flex rotationally, letting the rear- and forefoot act independently as you encounter uneven footing. The forefoot, however, widens out dramatically—like the human foot—enabling a stable, engaged stance.

Inside the midsole, the “plate” is actually four rods that act independently—like foot bones—and are made of Pebax in its firm plastic mode as you’d find in sprint spike plates. These rods splay closer to the outside edges of the forefoot than the ones on Adidas’s road models, providing more stability. They are also semi-flexible and responsive, to allow adaptation to technical terrain and add to the pop of the push-off.

The midsole itself is a thick (38–30mm) stack of Lightstrike Pro, a Peba-based foam used in Adidas’s top-end Adizero marathon racing models. Based on my experience with those shoes, I believe the foam will translate well to the trail, as it provides plenty of bounce but not as much squish as other super foams, delivering more of a smooth, highly responsive roll than a soft trampoline—so it won’t be bouncing you sideways on a trail.

Given their stack height, I probably won’t use them for truly gnarly terrain, where I’m much more comfortable being close to the trail (see the Brooks Catamount Agil), but I can’t wait to take them on long tempo runs on moderate trails when they’re available after April 15.

Brooks Catamount Agil ($180)

Slated for January 2024

Many runners seem to be fine running trails on high-stack shoes, as evidenced by the proliferation of max-cushioned trail models on the market today. I’m not one of them (which probably stems from having broken a bone in my foot when I rolled it over on a root while wearing a tall, squishy trail shoe). As a former (and sometimes current) minimalist, I’ve reluctantly learned to appreciate more cushioning and rebound on roads and smooth trails, but when I’m navigating rocky and rooty terrain I want to feel the trail and be able to react quickly and agilely. So I’m pleased when a company introduces a shoe that is svelte and nimble.

The original Brooks Catamount training shoe already had a moderate stack height (31–25mm) and a flexible, articulated plate that gave it a stable feel and a lively ride. But, the brand says, Brooks’ athletes asked if they could get a lighter, more flexible shoe to race in. Ask and ye shall receive: meet the Catamount Agil.

The new model keeps you closer to the ground while promising to still provide a lively underfoot feel by using a thin (26–18mm) layer of Brook’s most responsive foam, DNA Flash V2, a nitrogen-infused EVA-TPU blend found in their marathon-racing super shoes. The Agil has a new split, articulated, flexible Pebax plate that adds pop without losing proprioception, and gains deeper lugs for sure-footed foot-plants when moving fast and changing directions—but weighs in nearly two ounces lighter than the Catamount.

I love the Catamount (it will stay around, getting an updated upper for version 3 in 2024) and plan to keep wearing it for daily miles on long trail runs. But I’m itching to dance across rocky ridges, descend gnarly switchbacks, and bounce up boulder-strewn ascents in the Catamount Agil when it comes out in January.

The post The Running Shoes We’re Most Excited to Try in 2024 appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř Online.

Next time you watch a group of elite runners, pay attention to their arms. You’ll see that invariably—regardless of how high they carry their arms or what their hands do during the swing—they all drive their elbows far back with each stride. This characteristic of good runners is more universal than any type of footstrike or leg swing mechanics.

Driving your arms backward shifts your balance more upright and forward, so that your feet can land closer beneath your body and push backward. Keeping your arms back also helps ensure that your movement and force all travel in a forward and backward direction; if your arms stay in front of your body, they’ll tend to swing back and forth across the midline, misdirecting motion and wasting force in sideways and rotational movements.

Elbows Back

Keeping your arms back can do more for your footstrike than thinking about where your feet are landing. Where and how you land depends largely on the strength, mobility and mechanics of your hips, legs and feet, and, if altered without improving the underlying mechanics, usually ends up creating an unnatural, less-efficient stride.

Your arms, however, are not weight-bearing, so their movement can be more easily modified. They do, however, affect balance and cadence, and subconsciously influence what your legs and feet do. Thus, many who work with runners on their stride increasingly are finding cuing arms the most effective way to get people to start moving more efficiently.

The main thing they advise is to get your elbows back.

“For years now, I’ve been teaching runners that a compact arm swing is the number-one “quick fix” to improve their running form, especially if they want to stop over-striding,” says and founder Golden Harper, who conducts clinics on running form around the world. “While distance running, if your elbows come forward past your hips, that tends to pull your foot out in front of your body, causing an excessive heel strike or over-stride. Driving the elbows back improves running posture by driving the chest forward, opens up the airway, and propels the body forward.”

Physical therapist and form researcher Abby Douek of says she’ll often start with the arms. “When I’m working with somebody on cues for running form, 90 percent of my form correction is arm swing,” she says. “If your arms are out in front of you, your trunk starts to bend at your waist. If your trunk is bent at your waist, you’re sitting into your hip flexors, which means you’re not using your glutes and you’re going to overuse your hamstrings.”

RELATED: On the Beauty of Great Running Form

As far back as the 1950s Olympian Gordon Pirie advocated consciously stopping the forward motion of the arms to cue a quicker, backward-driving stride. “Get your feet back onto the ground as quickly as possible,” he wrote in ”ĚýThis can be achieved by strong arm-stopping, which causes the foot to land quickly but lightly on the ball/front of the foot.”

Coach Andrew Kastor says the one thing he typically yells in a race, where the runner can only hear and implement something simple, is, “Elbows Back!” When you drive your elbows back, he says, it cues the legs to drive backwards. This is particularly key later in a race when you tend to lose power. Drive your arms back and your legs will follow.

How to Swing Your Arms Effectively

How do you know if your arms are swinging effectively? One simple cue is to pay attention to your hands. If, while looking forward at the road ahead, you can see your hands during the full stroke while you run, you’re probably carrying them too far forward. They should disappear below and behind your peripheral vision on each back swing.

Douek cues runners to touch their waistband with each stride, ensuring that the arm is driving back and opening up behind the body. Harper says to focus on keeping your elbows behind your hipsĚýand only pumping your arms back, not forward. “Back is an active motion; forward is just a recovery or passive motion,” he says.

In his book, , Olympic medalist Meb Keflezighi says he looks at his shadowĚýand makes sure he can see the bright triangle of light between his torso and upper and lower arms.

A more aggressive strategy comes from Tom Miller, exercise scientist, masters coach, and author of . Miller recommends carrying a two-foot-long, half-inch-thick PVC pipe across your back, held in the crook of each elbow, to keep your shoulders back and your arms from driving forward. The posture is a bit exaggerated, as it doesn’t let your arms recoil as far forward as they usually would even with an effective arm carriage, but it is great for mandating that you drive back rather than forward, and creates a revealing a shift in posture and balance.

Miller suggests using the pipe for the first half-mile of an out-and-back run, leaving it in a secure place, then picking it up for the last half-mile to reinforce the posture when you are fatigued. Or, if running in a group, pass it around on the run, using it for three to five minutes every few miles.

Miller also recommends making an elastic harness that wraps over your shoulders and loops through your thumbs to keep your arms high and elbows back. Harper, one of Miller’s pupils from a young age, iterated on the idea to create the an updated design that is simple, effective, and comfortable enough to use consistently, even during speed workouts or races.

Release May Be Required

You may, however, need to do more than retrain habits to get your arm to swing behind you and maintain that posture comfortably throughout a run.

“Getting your elbows back is often inhibited by tight chest and shoulder muscles,” says Laura Bergman, sports rehab specialist. “The problem is, no matter how much you concentrate on it, the tissue is shortened. I can give you all the exercises in the world, but you’ve got to release that tissue.”

RELATED: Want to Get Fit? Keep Your Running Simple and Consistent.

To correct this, you need to the muscles in the front of the body—chest, sides, shoulders and arms—and strengthen the muscles in the back.

“I don’t think everybody needs an actual physical therapy intervention,” Douek says. “But most people need foam rolling and a daily stretching routine for shoulders and back, because we are so forward as people—our shoulders are forward, our heads are forward.”

Getting that forward-hunching posture pulled back puts us back in balance—and brings us closer to the light, smooth stride of those in the front of the pack.

—

Jonathan Beverly is şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř’s senior running gear editor and author of .

The post Want to Run More Efficiently? Focus on Your Elbows. appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř Online.

Not long ago, you could easily identify a stability shoe by its firmer, darker-colored foam underneath the arch side of the foot. On the run, you could tell it was a stability shoe by its stiff, heavy, and controlling ride. Not anymore.

Today’s stability shoes are well-cushioned, smooth riding, and free from clunky controlling devices—so much so that they are equally comfortable for neutral runners as for those needing extra support. In place of the stiff medial post—designed to block overpronation, the excessive inward rotation of the rearfoot—designers are using a variety of less intrusive, more integrated strategies to help runners whose feet stray inward or outward on the run.Ěý

It’s about time, given that the science showing that excessive pronation is rarely problematic and that traditional motion-control methods do little to control excessive motion has been around since the 1990s. But change has come slowly to an industry and a population steeped in the pronation paradigm. While the market for stability shoes, and the number of stable shoe models, have decreased substantially in the past decade, only recently have we started to see major shifts in how a stability shoe looks and rides.Ěý

“Stability is a function of so many features, such as sole geometry, stack height, midsole hardness, outsole, upper materials and how they are structured—not just medial posting,” says Kurt Stockbridge, product development vice president at Skechers. “Each of these levers can be pushed and pulled to make a great stability shoe without it having to look like what we typically picture.”Ěý

The New Wave of Stability Shoes

New stability shoe designs embrace the reality that every aspect of the shoe affects the ride, and the new strategies recognize and work to reduce the instability caused by the shoe itself as it distances the foot from the ground. Toward this end, all have wide bases to spread the support and keep the foot from rolling off the platform, and all ease the transition from landing to toe-off, ensuring that the shoe doesn’t create levers that torque the foot out of its preferred motion path. But each employs a variety of new features to achieve that smooth, stable support.ĚýĚý

Here are seven new shoes breaking the mold and ushering in a more comfortable, more versatile world of stability.

How We Tested Innovative Stability Shoes

After running in dozens of new shoe models this year, I selected the pairs with innovative, unique, and effective stability features and did multiple runs in each of them at a variety of distances and paces.Ěý

About me: I’ve been a runner since the late ’70s and a running magazine editor and shoe reviewer since 2000. I’m the author of , and . Once a 2:46 marathoner regularly doing 50+ mile weeks, injuries and age have reduced my volume by about half and slowed my easy training pace. Those injuries have also given me rather complicated stability requirements. My left foot is high-arched and neutral, while my right foot has been weakened and appreciates support. Too much support, however, makes my right knee hurt, as it has to pronate inward to off-load stress from a chronic condition. All of which makes me well suited to test these new, less-prescriptive stability strategies which promise to adapt to the level of support needed.

Asics Kayano 30 ($160)

Innovative Stability Feature: Soft, bouncy medial post

Weight: 9.2 oz (women’s); 10.6 oz (men’s)
Stack Height: 40—30mm (men’s); 39–29 (women’s)
Drop: Ěý10mmĚý

Ěý

The all-new 30th anniversary Kayano is the most radical example of change in stability strategies. For three decades the Kayano has stood as a pinnacle long-run stability shoe, bolstered by a substantial medial post and a plastic midfoot support bridge. The new Kayano replaces these firm, controlling devices with clever geometry and new, unobtrusive foot-guidance strategies, creating what Asics is calling a “4D Guidance System” (the fourth dimension being time, which leads to fatigue and causes more runners to need guidance for their strides).Ěý

“The system is everything working together; not one aspect but everything in concert that is helping aid in stability,” says Chad Mullavey, global product line manager at Asics. “Knowing that running is not a single-plane type motion but a three-dimensional interaction with the ground, we looked at how to address, slow, and accelerate certain aspects to ideally reduce the amount of forces that are translated into the runner’s body.”

The new Kayano’s stability strategy includes multiple tweaks to the midsole geometry: The platform is wide from heel to toe, and flares even wider at the base under the forefoot. The lateral side of the heel is sculpted out to let it compress more, smoothing and slowing the transition from heel contact to mid-stance. A corresponding bulge on the medial side reduces compression, plus the midsole wraps up along the side of the heel to cradle and subtly support.

Most unique, however, is a pod of softer, lower-density but highly responsive foam under the arch where previous versions had a firm medial post. “This pod does two different things,” Mullavey says. “It’s softer, so as you load at midstance, it compresses and increases the effective midfoot width, and it’s higher rebounding than the main carrier. So as you’re coming up and out of midstance, it helps to encourage you to resupinate to an effective position for each subsequent footstrike.”

The thinking behind this new insert stems from research that shows it’s not the degree of pronation that predisposes a runner to injury but the . So instead of trying to block the foot’s rotation, the shoe simply returns it quickly to a neutral position. On the run, I didn’t notice the rebound under the arch, but I did seem to sense its effect as my foot rolled onto the forefoot feeling upright, centered, and ready for a stable push-off.Ěý

Overall, the shoe’s width made the greatest impression, both in terms of luxurious space— without feeling sloppy—and the security of landing on and rolling over the generous platform. I didn’t even feel high off the ground, despite the 40mm stack height, given the lack of any tippiness. My only complaint was that the heel flared a bit much on the lateral side and seemed to torque my foot inward a little on landing when I’d heel strike heavily. (Mullavey says they’re increasing the bevel on the next version.)

The goal of the redesign, Mullavey says, was “to guide the foot but not overcorrect, simplifying and reducing components that were a stiffening element, knowing that comfort and stability don’t have to be mutually exclusive.” My testing convinced me they succeeded. The ride, though not particularly fast or responsive, is smooth and cushy with no hint of stiff control, yet my asymmetrical feet both felt cared for and supported—especially on longer runs when I started to tire.

Saucony Tempus ($160)

Innovative Stability Feature: Over-under frame

Weight: 7.9 oz (women’s); 8.9 oz (men’s)
Stack Height: 36.5–28.5 mm
Drop: 8mm

Ěý

The Tempus lies at the sharp end of the stability spectrum, delivering a lively ride that made me feel nimble, bouncy, and fast—yet still providing foot guidance and support. The shoe’s secret lies in its midsole, which features industry-leading, ultralight, high-cushioning, and maximum-rebounding—but unstable—Pebax foam at its core, surrounded by a denser, more supportive EVA frame.

The idea of using a firmer frame to control a softer foam’s squish is not new or unique. Most models with frames, however, surround the bottom of the full shoe with firmer material. While this provides a stable stance, it makes landings harsher and can accelerate the foot’s movement as it impacts the edge of the sole and rotates inward. The Tempus, however, employs a unique over-under frame that sits atop the soft Pebax in the heel, bridges the full midsole height under the arch, then dives under the Pebax in the forefoot and runs along the bottom edges up to the toe.

The magic of this frame, Chad Holt, product line manager at Saucony explains, is that by putting the Pebax on the bottom at the heel, its softness works to reduce the instability caused by the shoe. On impact, it compresses and deforms, rounding the edge of the sole and creating a smooth, gentle transition as the foot rolls inward and forward. Meanwhile, the firmer frame that surrounds the top of the heel wraps the foot and keeps it centered on the platform. The full-height frame under the arch slows the foot’s rotation and supports as needed. Up front, you feel the Pebax’s cushioning and rebound directly underfoot, while the firmer foam on the bottom adds a bit of rigidity to the rocker for quick-rolling toe-offs.

On the run, not only did the Tempus provide the snappiest, most-fun ride of the group, but it also seemed best at managing my varied stability needs. The soft Pebax on the bottom of the heel let my feet stay in a natural, supinated position on landing without torquing me inward like several of the shoes with stiffer flared heels did. As my foot rolled inward, the shoe provided my more-mobile right foot almost undetectable but effective support as I transitioned over the arch to the stable toe-off, yet didn’t block the pronation I needed for my knee. Meanwhile, my neutral left foot didn’t feel any control or clunkiness, just the smooth, comfy, responsive Pebax underfoot.

The Tempus is narrower than other stability shoes in the heel and midfoot, but spreads out as wide as any in the forefoot. It’s also low enough up front to provide the ground feel necessary for a solid, propulsive push-off, and flexible enough to allow a natural roll at any pace or stride angle. The shoe felt responsive and fast at any pace, but the subtle support was always present, and the farther I ran, the more I appreciated the shoe’s guided roll and side-to-side stability.

The Tempus could make a great marathon shoe for someone who wants the pop of Pebax with some foot bolstering during the long miles, and an excellent long-run training shoe even for those who will race in a carbon-plated super shoe.

New Balance Fresh Foam X Vongo V6 ($165)

Innovative Stability Feature: Angled plate

Weight: 8.5 oz (women’s); 10.6 oz (men’s)
Stack Height: 38–32łľłľ
Drop: 6mm

Ěý

All of the embedded plates popular in today’s running shoes function mostly to stabilize the squish and rebound of thick stacks of soft and responsive foam. While most plates, such as those found in marathon-racing super shoes, focus on directing and enhancing forward roll and push-off, some serve primarily to moderate lateral roll, like Skechers’ winglet and H plates, or the midfoot wings on the plastic plate in the Saucony Endorphin Speed.

The plate in New Balance’s completely remade Vongo V6 takes rotational guidance a step further. The semi-flexible EVA film is sandwiched between two foam layers (soft over firm), and angled in the heel, higher on the medial, or arch side, and lower on the lateral side. This results in more firm foam under the arch side and more soft foam on the outer, landing side. The plate also has hexagonal cutouts that reduce its rigidity on the lateral side but is solid on the medial side. Both elements help create a soft, smooth landing and slow the inward foot rotation without creating a clunky transition or compromising the shoe’s cushioning.

The Vongo’s plate isn’t just about defining that angled wedge, however, says Paul Zielinski, senior global product manager at New Balance. Research in their lab revealed that midsole foams stretch under force when the foot was pronating far or at high velocity. The plate, Zielinski says, “Allows for the foam to be a little more structured, and not stretch or shear as much. Working in combination with the two different midsole hardness foams, this system is helping stabilize the structure of the platform so the foot feels guided all the way from heel to toe.”

Contributing to that full-foot roll, the sole has also changed, moving away from traditional horizontal flex grooves to a more vertical, back-to-front pattern. Zielinski says this new sole—paired with the plate, additional midsole foam under the forefoot due to a lower heel-toe drop, and a slight rocker profile—is designed to provide a smooth rolling transition from midfoot to toe-off.ĚýĚý

On my foot, the plate and dual-density foam provided the strongest rotational support and traditional medial stability of any shoe in this group. While the midsole was soft underfoot, and delivered a cushioned and smooth ride, my foot pronated very little. The control didn’t irritate my neutral left foot, and it felt comfortable and comforting to my weaker right foot, but, fairly quickly, I could feel the bones in my right knee-that-must-pronate start to rub as it wasn’t tracking inward at all.

I also found the shoe ran smoother when I upped my cadence and got my balance over the forefoot where I could more effectively roll over and push off the thick, somewhat springy toe. Zielinski says it isn’t designed as an up-tempo shoe, but for my stride, it isn’t as comfortable at a slow recovery jog as other shoes in this category but rides snappier and smoother at a steady rhythm.

After a rather traditional, clunky, heavily posted V5 of the Vongo, I applaud New Balance for the innovative redesign of the V6. “Sometimes it feels like stability runners are getting a compromised shoe compared to their neutral counterparts,” says Zielinski. “We wanted to bring stability runners into the space of modern neutral foams that provide amazing energy return, bounce, and comfort.”Ěý

With its strong medial support, the Vongo V6 is not quite as versatile for neutral runners as some other options in this guide, but it’s a solid choice for those who want to slow pronation velocity in a shoe that delivers a smooth, comfortable transition from landing to toe-off.

Hoka Gaviota 5 ($175)

Innovative Stability Feature: H-Frame

Weight: 9.1 oz (women’s); 10.9 oz (men’s)
Stack Height: 34–28mm (women’s); 36–30mm (men’s)
Drop: 6mm

Ěý

Despite their high stack heights, Hoka’s shoes have always had an inherent stability from their wide platform and cockpit-like cradle surrounding the heel as it sits down into the top of the midsole. For years their stability models have also used a “J-frame” to provide more rotational control. This firmer-density foam reinforced the midsole at the full height of the arch side of the shoe and wrapped around to the lateral side on the bottom edge.

The redesigned Gaviota 5 retains the wide geometry and raised sidewalls, but swaps the J-frame for a new H-frame. This layer of less-dense foam lies on top of the midsole and surrounds the perimeter of the shoe with a connecting piece across the middle—forming a figure eight shape. As the foot sinks into this layer, it nests deeper in the foot frame created by the sidewalls of the more stable, but still cushioned, bottom layer. Hoka says the H-Frame allows them to use softer foams than before to deliver inherent stability while enhancing cushioning, especially close to the foot.

On the run, the frame was all but invisible, its presence only noted by a feeling of centeredness as I sunk into the forgiving footbed. It is enough, however, combined with the ample width and secure hold of the flexible-but-not-stretchy creel jacquard upper, to keep the well-cushioned shoe from feeling at all tippy. While it doesn’t make any pretense of reducing inward rotation—which may not work as well as other options for those who roll excessively—the full-foot stability kept both of my feet and knees feeling safely coddled no matter how long I ran.

Nike InfinityRN 4 ($160)

Innovative Stability Feature: Grooved lateral sidewall

Weight: 9.9 oz (women’s); 12.5 ozĚý (men’s)
Stack Height: 39–30łľłľ
Drop: 9mm

Ěý

Nike’s InfinityRN 4 relies on simple strategies to provide stability: a wide platform flared even wider under the forefoot, sidewalls surrounding the heel up to midfoot, and, most uniquely, a deep groove running the length of the lateral sidewall. That groove, which lets the base of the sole collapse upon landing, is designed to eliminate excess inward torque and, I found, creates a super-smooth transition from touchdown to midstance.

Despite lacking any more aggressive control features—this version even lost the rigid horseshoe-shaped heel clip of previous models—the shoe delivers a stable ride, primarily due to the cushioned, responsive, but not overly squishy ReactX midsole, which catches, supports, and centers the foot. The foam is thicker than ever (5mm more in the heel, 4mm more in the forefoot), and bouncier, delivering a luxurious yet sporty ride—think Lexus Sports Sedan rather than Cadillac Town Car. The early rocker encourages a quick toe roll and works together with the foam’s rebound to keep strides from wallowing in the thick platform, but the shoe’s weight keeps it from being very speedy.

A stretchy knit upper contributes to the plush feel, yet, surprisingly, doesn’t make the fit sloppy, thanks to some thicker-knit ribs around the instep and a gusseted tongue. One complaint: While the forefoot is amply wide around the ball of the foot, it narrows sharply toward the toe, keeping my big toe from splaying and fully engaging.ĚýĚý

The InfinityRN 4 doesn’t control rotation as strongly as other stability options, but it delivers a unique ride that is simultaneously cushy, stable, responsive, and oh-so-smooth, and will work for any who wants a plush shoe that isn’t sloppy or tippy.

Brooks Adrenaline GTS 23 ($140)

Innovative Stability Feature: Guide rails

Weight: 9.1 oz (women’s); 10.1 oz (men’s)
Stack Height: 35.5–23.5łľłľ
Drop: 12mm

Ěý

The Adrenaline GTS 23’s GuideRails are not new this year, but are worth highlighting because Brooks was a leader in adopting innovative stability strategies. The brand dropped the medial post on the Adrenaline, its signature stability model, in 2019 and has since created a more stable “GTS” option for a variety of models, from the light, low, responsive Hyperion to the smooth-riding, highly cushioned Glycerin.

All employ GuideRails, strips of slightly firmer foam on top of the midsole that run along the perimeter of the heel up to the middle of the arch and deliver lighter, more cushioned, and smoother support than a full post. Plus, they are less prescriptive, engaging the foot only when needed, thus working for a wider range of runners. “It doesn’t go all the way down to the ground, so it gives the shoe a little bit of play,” says Jon Teipen, principal footwear product line manager at Brooks. “It’s not going to be a firm block on the medial side of the shoe. The more you evert [roll inward], the more the GuideRail will push back on you.”

The updated midsole foam on this year’s Adrenaline is lighter and softer, and the engineered mesh upper provides a secure and comfortable fit, hugging the foot while staying flexible. The 12-millimeter drop, flexible forefoot, and palpable support under the arch give the Adrenaline 23 the most traditional stable-shoe feel of this group. Still, unlike the stiff, clunky Adrenalines of old, I found the ride smooth and un-controlling, similar to that of the neutral Brooks Ghost 15, with a bit of supportive rearfoot cradling. Both the cushioning and support seem to shine most when landing solidly on my heel and rolling through the stride.ĚýĚýĚý

Altra Paradigm 7 ($170)

Innovative Stability Feature: Footshaped last, balanced stance

Weight: 9.5 oz (women’s); 11.8 oz (men’s)
Stack Height: 31mm heel to toe
Drop: 0mm

Ěý

Altra’s shoes achieve stability through a balanced, zero-drop platform combined with a wide toe box that lets your foot spread out and supports your stance naturally. This has allowed the brand to use soft, bouncy foams, rather than stiff platforms and rigid control devices—long before other companies began playing with geometry. Their cushioned stability model, the Paradigm, has also had guide rails since 2014, but, unlike Brooks’s version, Altra’s elevated rim, higher on the arch side, is the same density as the rest of the midsole, creating a cradling effect that gently supports without any controlling pressure.Ěý

The soft foam lets the forefoot sink in, reducing the stress of adapting to zero drop, and Altra co-founder Brain Beckstaid has found that it works for just about any runner. “You can put a neutral runner in it, and they are going to love it, and yet it is nice for the heavier pronator,” he says. New this year, a wide option will accommodate those with high-volume feet as well.

The midsole, 31 millimeters of Altra’s lightest and most responsive foam, sinks in and contours around my foot before firming up and bouncing back, providing a unique combination of cushion, ground feel, and lively responsiveness. Plus, the ride is stable, thanks mostly to the foot-shaped last, which is not only wide enough to let my toes splay but flares underneath the big toe, allowing it to fully engage and support my stance like it would if running barefoot.Ěý

That shape, the airy, flexible upper with internal straps surrounding the instep, and the moderate stack of soft, bouncy foam make the Paradigm the most comfortable shoe of this group for my foot. That comfort persisted on the run even when going long, with the shoe staying out of the way and providing a stable platform with subtle support only where needed. The ride was smooth and snappy, feeling lively at all but the fastest paces, and seemed to keep my stride springy and quick.

Related: How To Pick the Right Running Shoe Today

The post Not Your Father’s Stability Shoes appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř Online.

The first running shoes were created roughly 50 years ago. Compared to running shoes today, nearly everything has changed. Outsoles are thinner, lighter, and more durable; midsoles are far more cushioned and responsive; and uppers are no longer leather but crafted of thin, breathable, engineered mesh or knits. One element, however, has remained essentially the same: laces. Today’s shoes, by and large, still use a long, thin cord crisscrossed across the instep to tighten the upper over the foot.

With all the technological advances elsewhere in shoe design it’s hard to believe that no one has come up with a more effective way of securing and holding the foot than by yanking laces through eyelets and tying them in a complicated bow that we learned when we were in preschool. Not only is the method cumbersome and imprecise, but it is also unreliable, coming undone at inopportune times far too often.

Truth be told, new tech has been developed but not widely adopted. Designers have tried various and or . Others have gone with pull-cord designs like the Salomon Quicklace system, where you tighten the shoe by pulling on a thin, slick lace and securing it with a clip. While all improve convenience, it comes at the cost of control and comfort for many runners.

One prominent alternative gaining traction is the BOA fit system that uses a ratcheted dial to pull thin laces through guides to tighten the upper. Having tried several trail shoes outfitted with BOA fit systems, I’ll admit I am a fan. In my experience, the BOA system addresses many of the limitations of traditional laces: tightening is convenient and smooth, with micro-adjustments dialed- and locked-in with precise clicks. And, rather than the traditional top-of-the-foot web of laces buffered by a padded tongue, the BOA system tightens panels—custom-designed for each shoe model—that wrap around the foot and hold it comfortably and securely.

Besides convenience and comfort, a new study—that was, it’s worth noting, funded by BOA and carried out by the BOA-sponsored Performance Fit Laboratory—suggests that better lacing can also improve performance. A published by Frontiers in Sport and Active Living details the study that revealed improvements in stability, agility, and speed on a technical trail when wearing a shoe outfitted with the BOA PerformFit Wrap closure system over the identical shoe with traditional lacing. Despite the conflict of interest and some inherent limitations in the methodology, the study seems sound, and the results are intriguing.

In designing the study, the researchers chose to assess performance in an actual trail-running setting rather than inside a lab. Thirty runners (15 male, 15 female) ran a one-mile loop of a technical trail in Red Rocks Park near Denver, Colorado four times—twice in a pair of La Sportiva Cyklon with the BOA wrap system and twice in the identical shoe retrofitted with traditional top-of-the-foot laces— in randomized, counterbalanced order. During each run, scientists used accelerators and gyroscopes, pressure-sensitive insoles, heart-rate monitors, and GPS trackers to gather biomechanical metrics on the runners. After the test, participants answered questions on the shoe’s fit and performance on each section of the trail.

I was curious who tied the laces and who controlled the tension on both laces and BOA fit system, so I asked Dan Feeney, the BOA-employed biomechanics PhD who directed the study. He said that, in keeping with the “ecologically valid conditions” of the study, they let runners lace their shoes to their preference. “This is more representative of what runners will experience in the real world, so we prefer to test that way,” Feeney said.

When the numbers were crunched, the wrap-equipped shoe was shown to increase ankle stability (reducing the velocity of inward rotation) by five percent, improve heel hold by two percent, and improve running speed on all sections of the trail (uphill, downhill, and level) by one percent—with no increase in effort. In addition, the test runners rated the wrap shoe a better choice for each section of the trail, and said it fit better and inspired more confidence.

Feeney wasn’t surprised by the results, crediting the improvement to the superior fit of the engineered wrap.

“The overlapping panels’ configuration that we designed specifically holds the foot differently from laces,” he said. “The targeted hold over the instep using a wider panel enables force to be spread over a wider area, reducing pressure points. This enables superior fit by pulling the heel back into the heel pocket and ultimately providing better foot-shoe coupling.” This better hold, Feeney believes, is what improved the runner’s stability and helped them to run faster.

Given my experience with BOA-equipped shoes, I too wasn’t surprised that they provided a better hold, but I wouldn’t have predicted the improved speed. It does make sense, however, that not slipping around in a shoe would make each stride more effective. Granted, a one percent improvement isn’t much, but, as we’ve learned with four percent, going faster without increasing effort is a path to PRs.

Before we get too excited, consider that the real-world structure of the study reduces control of all the variables and the likelihood that results can be reproduced. The paper also acknowledges the limitation that everyone involved in the study was aware of what type of lacing they were testing at all times, which could bias the results.

Even with the limitations and biases, however, this study is a reminder—in a world obsessed with the propulsive properties of foam and plates—that a shoe is a complete system and every element, even fit, affects performance. Rather than increasing midsoles to dangerous heights, perhaps designers could spend more energy improving the connection between the shoe and the foot.

BOA has made a good start, although there are some drawbacks. One limitation on the Cyklon and other one-dial shoes is the inability to vary the tension on different parts of the foot. With traditional laces, I can leave the lower eyelets loose while tightening those closer to the ankle—albeit clumsily and imprecisely. The BOA dial, in contrast, tightens the entire system at the same rate. While the independent wrap panels are designed to optimize the force on each section, they don’t allow for individual foot-shape variations and fit preferences (except on shoes with two BOA dials, where each tightens a different set of panels wrapping the top and bottom of the instep—a significant improvement in the technology in my opinion). BOAs are also more expensive than laces, and, admittedly, they look geeky and out of place if you’re wearing your running shoes for anything other than running, which most people do with their road shoes.

So it may be some time before we see BOAs on anything but high-performance trail shoes. But on my morning run today, as I re-tied my laces for the second time and still felt unhappy with the tension, I longed for a day when I could dial in the fit on all my shoes.

The post Can Better Shoe Lacing Make You Run Faster? BOA Thinks So.Ěý appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř Online.

The advent of supershoes has transformed the running shoe world in every category, none more than the class of shoes that used to be called lightweight trainer-racers. Rather than low, flexible, relatively firm shoes, the majority of up-tempo shoes now have a thick stack of light, bouncy foam with a curved carbon or plastic plate embedded in the midsole. Shoes without a plate are now defined by its absence. But concerns continue to grow about injury risk in carbon-plated shoes, and a growing number of models are eschewing the high-stack-with-plate trend and reviving the simple up-tempo shoe category with modern touches.

Besides not having a plate, these shoes share other characteristics. Like supershoes, they all feature advanced midsole foams that are ultra-light and hyper-responsive. Unlike supershoes, however, they all have relatively low stack heights and tend to be built on wider platforms, both of which enhance their stability. They also all have a flexible forefoot (rather than a rigid, rockered one), svelte uppers that have just enough structure to hold the foot in place, and price tags that run around $100 less than their supershoe siblings.Ěý

The Problem with Plated Shoes

If plated super racers and trainers are indeed super, allowing you to run faster with less effort, why would anyone want anything else? The answer has two seemingly contradictory parts: 1) to avoid the excess stresses and accompanying injuries that supershoes can cause, and 2) to allow the natural training stresses that supershoes reduce, in order to build stronger, more robust feet and lower legs.

The problems start with supershoes’ thick, bouncy, sole that propels you forward, but can also throw you sideways. “Running in supershoes is a much less stable environment,” says Jay Dicharry, physical therapist, biomechanical researcher, and professor at Oregon State University. “If you have really good alignment and foot and ankle control, you might be OK, but if not, a supershoe will greatly magnify your instability. You’ll wind up with a considerable increase in stress—and if you have something borderline, it might push you over the threshold.”Ěý

Amol Saxena, a leading sports podiatrist in Palo Alto, California, also points out issues with the prescriptive rigidity of the plates. “The problem with the carbon-plated shoes is that your foot is individualized, and the carbon plate is not,” Saxena says. “So if the shape or length of your metatarsals line up differently than where it has to bend, or your plantar fascia is less flexible, you can get stressed in those areas—that’s why people are breaking down. I’ve had people break or tear things just .” The more flexible plates found in many super trainers reduce some of this stress, but these shoes are still tuned to optimize specific strides and don’t let the foot move freely in its preferred patterns.

has also shown that running in supershoes changes your form: It decreases your cadence, increases stride length and peak vertical forces, and alters foot mechanics. All these add stress to joints. “When you put a supershoe on, you basically have a trampoline,” Dicharry says. “It’s going to compress and rebound, and creates a different rate of loading to muscles and joints.” While no studies to date directly demonstrate that supershoes cause injury, evidence links them to , , and other foot and lower-leg issues.Ěý

Paradoxically, while supershoes’ unstable platform and rigid plates can add excessive stress, their performance-enhancing rebound can also remove some of the training load. Supershoes , reducing the work they have to do and making running easier in the short-term, but simultaneously removing some of the stimulus for your body to adapt and grow stronger in the long-term. “If you run in supershoes exclusively, you’re going to end up with a bunch of deficient runners prone to injury—runners with less springy tendons, weaker tendons, and lower bone density,” Dicharry says.

The solution is to wear a variety of shoes in your training. “It is good to use different stack heights and flexibility,” Saxena says. “Plated shoes should be a training tool as well as for races—but how much depends on the runner.” You want to train some in the shoes you’ll be racing in, to let your body adapt to their unique stresses and stride patterns. But training in more flexible, less-bouncy shoes has been shown to and build the strengths you need to handle the unstable rebound of supershoes. “If you want to run in super shoes you need to put the work in to show up with stable parts,” Dicharry says.

How We Tested

Fortunately, I don’t find training in these shoes a chore. They may not be performance-enhancing racers, but they are light, nimble, stable, and make my feet feel connected, engaged, and alive.

After having run in dozens of shoe models released this spring, I selected those that fit in the category and ran in a different shoe every day for six weeks—on asphalt, concrete, and dirt roads. I did at least one daily run and speed workout in each, ranging from 100-meter pickups to VO2-max intervals to tempo runs. Despite their similarities, each shoe has a slightly different ride and significantly different fit, so it’s worth trying out a few before buying. All of these models will serve as an excellent trainer for easy daily runs, interval workouts, tempo runs, and occasionally going long.Ěý

Best Non-Plated, Flexible, Speedy Shoes

Topo Cyclone 2 ($150)

Weight: 5.5 oz (women’s), 6.9 oz (men’s)
Stack Height: 28mm heel / 23mm forefoot (5mm drop)

The Cyclone 2 epitomizes the modern lightweight trainer with a simple, thin layer of industry-leading, super soft-and-bouncy Pebax foam underfoot. The ride is soft on landing, then compresses and rebounds for a responsive, stable, connected ground feel during stance and push-off. The breathable mesh upper is adequately padded for longer outings, but stays out of the way, moving with the foot and complementing the flexible freedom underfoot. There’s ample room for splay in the forefoot, so much so that the hold seemed a bit sloppy to me when turning over quickly at 5K pace or faster. But the extra room felt luxurious to me at every other tempo, making me want to wear them just about every day.

Read our full review of the Topo Cyclone 2

|

HOKA Cielo Road ($160)

Weight: 7.5 oz (men’s-unisex)
Stack Height: 33mm heel /30mm forefoot (3mm drop)

Like the Topo Cyclone 2, the HOKA Cielo Road is built around a simple, soft, flexible slab of Pebax foam. But the HOKA sole is thicker (seven millimeters more in the forefoot) making the ride squishier and bouncier, although still far more grounded than any supershoe and most other HOKA styles. The open mesh, minimalist upper and medium-width last provide racing-shoe security, congruent with the ride, which feels tuned to faster paces. The shoes performed best for me when I was up on my toes, lifting my knees and driving hard into the ground to engage the foam’s explosive rebound.

|

Saucony Freedom 5 ($150)

Weight: 7.3 oz (women’s), 8.4 oz (men’s)
Stack Height: 27mm heel / 23mm forefoot (4mm drop)

The Freedom 5 is also built around a Pebax midsole, but its thin slab is denser than others in the test, such that it rebounds from the moment you step down on it, delivering a firmly responsive ride that keeps ground contact quick and lively. The feel isn’t harsh, however, as the foam contours around your sole’s high spots before bouncing you back into the air. With the lowest stack height of the test and no sloppy squish, this is the most stable of the lot and the best for bridging from runs to gym workouts. The upper—a breathable, flexible mesh with little stretch over a foot-hugging, gusseted tongue—also contributes to the sure-footed agility. I appreciated this shoe’s quick response during speed workouts and dynamic drills, and they provided comfortable support on urban walks. Saucony’s lightweight Kinvara 14 offers a softer, more flexible, non-plated ride, although it isn’t as stable or peppy.

|

Brooks Hyperion ($150)

Weight: 6.8 oz (women’s), 7.6 oz (men’s)
Stack Height: 30mm heel / 22mm forefoot (8mm drop)

The Hyperion—an update of the Hyperion Tempo—combines speedy turnovers with smooth stability. The nitrogen-infused, EVA-based midsole doesn’t compress and rebound as much as other superfoams. Instead, it lightly cushions on impact, then catches the foot and rolls it quickly and smoothly forward off the flexible toe. I felt like I got off the ground faster in these shoes, making me feel light and nimble. The airy, minimally-padded, warp-knit upper wraps the midfoot securely while giving the toes plenty of freedom. A moderately wide platform and the firmer foam make the ride inherently stable, but those wishing for more can get the GTS version, which adds guide rails around the heel, bumping the weight up half an ounce. Brooks’ Hyperion Max has the same foam in a slightly higher stack with a toe-off that rocks more than flexes.

|

Altra Vanish Tempo ($190)

Weight: 6.9 oz (women’s), 8.2 oz (men’s)
Stack HeightsĚý33mm heel to toe (zero drop)

With no drop in thickness from heel to toe, the Altra Vanish Tempo has, by far, the most foam under the forefoot of any shoe in the test, making it ultra comfortable—but threatening to be squishy. What saves the shoe from instability is the lively responsiveness of the nitrogen-infused foam that feels almost elastic as it molds and pushes back underfoot, as well as the relatively wide base, which, although narrower than the traditional Altra footshape, still supports a full-foot stance and splay. The zonal, engineered-mesh upper helps with stability as well, securely locking down the heel and midfoot while not impeding airflow or movement of the arch and toes. An early-stage rocker keeps the stride rolling quickly forward while the sole flexes enough to engage the toes on push-off. I found that the midsole’s softness combined with the rocker action let the forefoot sink enough to camouflage the zero-drop geometry, making the shoe feel simply well-balanced, smoothly comfortable, and delightfully snappy.

|

Tracksmith Eliot Runner ($198)

Weight: 8.0 oz (women’s), 9.2 oz (men’s)
Stack Height: 33.5mm heel / 24.5mm forefoot (9mm drop)

While the Eliot is rather standard in several areas—medium-to-narrow width, traditional nine-millimeter drop, moderate weight—it shines when it comes to ride. With a super-thick, soft Pebax sockliner over a denser Pebax midsole, the shoe feels simultaneously plush and responsive. The firmer midsole keeps strides quick and peppy while still smoothly cushioned, making the Eliot suitable for everything from intervals to long runs. The engineered mesh upper holds the foot and breathes well, but concedes some weight savings to retro, synthetic suede around the heel collar, the eyelets, and the midfoot sash. But those stylish details expand the shoe’s versatility to include casual wear.Ěý

Read our full Review of the Tracksmith Eliot Runner

Nike Pegasus 40 ($130)

Weight: 8.5 oz (women’s), 10.2 oz (men’s)
Stack Heights: 33mm heel / 23mm forefoot (10mm drop)

The venerable Pegasus has joined the masters ranks at 40 years old. This classic feels like an aging runner who hasn’t lost a step but has a greater appreciation of creature comforts these days. It’s the heaviest shoe in the test, but those few extra ounces are well spent on the well-padded, two-layer upper, and a moderate layer of durable React foam (a TPE-EVA-blend). It also has the highest heel-toe drop, a retro 10 millimeters, that not only spares the Achilles for those who need relief from the stress of supershoes but also makes the forefoot thin, flexible, and easy to roll off. That roll, combined with the pneumatic boost of compressed-air ZoomAir pods under the ball of the foot, makes toe-offs surprisingly spry. I found that the React foam felt soft underfoot but didn’t displace enough to get squishy, and delivered a smooth ride that swallowed easy miles and perked up during speed repeats.Ěý

|

Under Armour Velociti 3 ($130)

Weight: 7.0 oz (women’s), 8.8 oz (men’s)
Stack Heights: 30mm heel / 22mm forefoot (8mm drop)

The Velocity 3 delivers ultra-smooth landings and transitions, thanks to the lack of an outsole, the rounded heel edges, and the rubbery, flexible, Olefin-based Flow midsole foam (tuned softer than on previous versions and with four additional millimeters underfoot). A well-padded heel collar and engineered flat-knit upper lock down the foot without it feeling constrained. Although it bends easily in all directions, the shoe is surprisingly stable given the wider stance and how quickly the foam firms up on compression. I found the ride a pleasant combination of plush and peppy, with a soft initial feel underlaid with a fun, super-ball-bouncy rebound, and I appreciated it equally on uptempo runs and easy recovery days.

|

Puma Liberate NITRO 2 ($120)

Weight: 5.2 oz (women’s), 6.9 oz (men’s)
Stack Height: 28mm heel / 23mm forefoot (8mm drop)

Thin, light, and flexible, the Liberate NITRO 2 fits and runs like a minimal racer of old, but nevertheless delivered surprisingly comfortable cushioning. Puma’s nitrogen-infused EVA-blend provides a noticeably smooth ride, feeling almost viscous—as if flowing between pressure points underfoot as I moved through the stride and pushing back when I powered off. The mono-mesh upper and lightly-padded heel collar and tongue hold the foot securely with little stretch, and, combined with the lower-volume shape and eyelets that extend far down toward the toes, create a snug, aggressive fit that is race-ready, but not very accommodating for wider feet or those who prefer more toe splay.Ěý

|

NB FuelCell Rebel v3 ($130)

Weight: 6.2 oz (women’s), 7.4 oz (men’s)
Stack Height: 27.5mm heel / 21.5mm forefoot (6mm drop)

The exceptional fit makes this sleek shoe stand out: A stretchy, gusseted tongue wraps the midfoot inside a lightweight, engineered knit upper, holding the foot snugly while moving like skin. Like all FuelCell shoes, the nitrogen-infused TPU-EVA-blend foam feels super soft on step-in, but compresses to a springy platform during a running stride. I felt bogged down if I fell into a slow, rolling, heel-striking stride, but bounced along spryly when I stayed tall and forward-balanced, either turning my strides over quickly (and not compressing the foam much), or pushing off powerfully so the sole pushed back. The low stack height and flexible forefoot keep the Rebel more grounded than its max-height siblings, but look elsewhere if stability is a top priority.

|

The post Why Carbon-Plated Running Shoes Can Lead to Injury, and 10 Speedy Alternatives appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř Online.

Runners need more help than ever wading through the bewildering array of footwear choices and finding the right shoes for them. Gone are the convenient categories of yore: neutral, stability, and motion control—and good riddance, as science has shown they don’t do what they had promised. But what we’re left with is vague advice: find shoes that feel right for you. That’s sound, but it doesn’t give any guidance on where to start the search.

Ideally, every runner would have the chance to run in every shoe to find those few that give their feet wings and fill their hearts with joy. But that’s impossible for most of us. The reality is more like dating: we pick one that looks nice or comes with a recommendation from a friend and hope we’re compatible. If the relationship falls flat, we try a different one.

A new shoe company called Vimazi is trying to change that. The company’s proposition? We should choose our shoes based on how fast we run. The brand’s seven models (all $175) are sorted by the pace you would typically use them for, ranging from the Z20 (tuned for a 4:30 to 5:30 minute per mile pace) to the Z80 (tuned for running 12:00 to 15:00 minutes per mile). Vimazi’s founders, Scott Tucker and John Zilly, claim their shoes are “scientifically engineered for maximum performance within a pace zone.”

Defining a Pace-Optimized Shoe

What does it mean to optimize a shoe for a certain pace? Don’t ask Tucker and Zilly that unless you’ve set aside several hours for the answer. After three long conversations, complete with whiteboard diagrams, a deep-dive into physics, calculus, and a bit of Einstein’s special theory of relativity (I kid you not), I understand their thinking enough to roughly explain their strategy.

At the core, Vimazi optimizes each shoe for different paces by tuning the relative softness of the midsole foam in the heel and forefoot. These densities are strategically calculated and strictly controlled (they introduced new measuring protocols at the Asian factory to get the fine tuning required between each model).

Tucker, who has degrees in physics and atmospheric sciences as well as decades of experience in the shoe industry, claims he can calculate the exact forces and timing of impact for each pace range. Using these calculations, Vimazi tunes the density of the heel to compress as smoothly and maximally as possible, while adding a forefoot “fast-pod” insert that is slightly firmer, to support the greater forces of propulsion and minimize energy loss at push-off. With more speed comes greater forces, so models designed for faster runners are tuned firmer than those for slower ones.

It’s important to note that within their definition of “optimal,” Vimazi founders’ first assumption is that running shoes exist to provide cushioning. “We started with the belief that cushioning is a good thing,” says Tucker. “Having that belief, we want to dissipate energy in a smooth way so that the peak force at any instant is less—plus make it so the shoe doesn’t feel mushy. What we have done is applied engineering to the problem to solve the smoothing out of the deceleration on impact, as opposed to ballparking it, which is what is done otherwise.”

Complicated Calculations

It’s not, however, quite that simple. Calculating the forces of a running stride requires knowing more variables than simply pace, said the two biomechanics experts I talked with about the pace-tuning concept. Not everyone agreed on exactly which variables are necessary to know the intensity, timing, and location of stride forces, but all—including Tucker—concur that you at least need to know weight, cadence, and stride length. Vimazi’s sort is based solely on running speed, so none of these variables are known, requiring Tucker and Zilly to make some generalizations about runners at different paces.

Since the runners’ weight is unknown, Tucker says, “We made the assumption that runners in the Z20 are lighter than the runners in Z70s. So the Z20 fast-pod is not as much firmer as you may have expected because we adjust for weight.” If, however, you’re a larger runner who cranks out fast miles, or a featherweight who runs slowly, this will change the force calculations and may make a shoe supposedly tuned to your pace less than optimal.

Then there’s cadence. Cadence and stride length combine to create speed, but those who take more frequent steps put less force into the ground with each footfall. Not knowing the runner’s cadence, Tucker says that they used 180 steps per minute for all runners at all paces, thus assuming greater stride lengths, and forces, for those going faster.

That’s a problem, says Bryan Heiderscheit, co-director of the University of Wisconsin’s Neuromuscular Biomechanics Lab, because cadence not only often varies for runners going the same speed, most runners also change both their cadence and their stride length when speeding up. “Obviously step rate changes with speed,” Heiderscheit says. “It is highly, highly associated with speed.”

Geoff Burns, physiologist at the U.S. Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs and biomechanics researcher, concurs with Heiderscheit that cadence can vary significantly for runners moving at the same pace, and that . Burns adds that runners also differ in ground contact time and flight time at the same pace—which changes the timing and amount of peak forces as their feet interact with the shoe.

Tucker acknowledges that if your cadence varies significantly from 180 steps per minute that your forces will also vary from his calculations, and might make a shoe they’ve designed for a different pace more optimal. I, for example, tend to run in the high 160’s at a nine-minute-per-mile pace, thus putting more force into the ground with each step than a runner who strides at 180 steps per minute at this pace. As a result, the Z50 (supposedly tuned to 7:15–8:45 pace) feels better than the Z60 (geared for an 8:30–10:30 pace). This doesn’t surprise Tucker, who would consider me an outlier.

Beyond concerns about cadence and weight assumptions, Burns raises even larger concerns about the Vimazi calculations. While he admits you can estimate the overall peak force of a runner’s stride at mid-stance over the whole foot, he says that even if you had all the variables you couldn’t calculate the specific forces at one point in the shoe because of individual variability in how people move through the stride.

“Force compression through a foot strike is very much like a fingerprint,” Burns says. “When you watch compression through a shoe, it is different for every person.” Trying to tune the heel and toe of one shoe for all runners moving at a given pace is impossible, he says.

Burns also questions the Vimazi assumption that making the foam firmer is more beneficial for runners at faster speeds. This may have been true for older foams, he says, but today’s bouncy, highly-resilient foams have proven to be effective at fast speeds even when they are very soft and compressive.

Vimazi uses a traditional EVA-based foam, primarily because its density can be tuned more accurately. But, Tucker says, “Not using Pebax or other foam didn’t mean that the result we got was worse—we get the same performance in our design, in terms of cushioning and efficiency at propulsion, regardless of polymer.” Tucker allows that different foams have a different feel, which may affect how you interact with the shoe, but he believes the foam is irrelevant when it comes to performance. “It’s density that matters, not the polymer,” Tucker maintains. Burns strongly objects. “That makes sense only if we lived in a world without any other polymer,” he says.

Putting Them Through Their Paces

Equations, assumptions, and beliefs aside, what matters is how the shoes perform.

I tested five of the seven models—all but the Z30 (5:15–6:45 pace) and Z80 (12:00–14:00 pace)—on daily runs of three to six miles, plus all together in one session where I ran a half mile in each shoe back to back, hitting a range of speeds from a jog to a sprint, noting at what speed they felt best for my stride and how they felt at their optimized speed.

Overall, the faster-tuned models felt better at faster paces and slower-tuned ones rode smoother when running slower—and each felt best roughly in the pace ranges they are advertised for. I wasn’t sure, however, whether that was due to the underfoot tuning of the foam or the differences in geometry and upper construction as I moved up the array of models.

As the intended pace range gets slower, Vimazi gradually increases the stack height (from 25 to 30 millimeters), the drop (from four to six millimeters), the platform width, heel counter structure, and stiffness of the upper. The reason, says Zilly, is that slower runners, “tend to run fewer miles and have less fitness physiologically—so we make a wider platform for them, and add stability, which adds weight. We make the call that that is something a large percentage of those runners like in their shoes.” It’s a common tactic, but one that may or may not hold true if you are, for example, a slower runner who likes a more minimalist construction.

For me, the Z40 and Z50’s less-structured, comfortable uppers made me gravitate toward them regardless of the ride. They’re made of a smooth, stretchy mesh with small lateral overlaid stripes and a flexible, molded heel. In the Z60 and Z70 the overlays are thicker, making the upper stiffer, and the heel is wrapped with a rigid plastic external counter—all of which reduced the comfort and natural movement for my foot. On the other end, the Z20’s upper is a thin, non-stretchy mesh that wraps the foot tightly. It felt appropriate for the high-speed turnover and powerful strides that the shoe is made to support, but made me feel squeezed onto a too-narrow platform.

The Z50 also felt best underfoot when running my usual easy pace of 9:00-9:30 minutes/mile, even though the Vimazi optimization says that pace means I should fall squarely in the Z60’s range of 8:30–10:30 minutes/mile, not the Z50’s 7:15–8:45. On my feet, the Z50 rolled nicely through the stride and delivered a combination of cushioned comfort and ground feel that felt natural and enjoyable. In contrast, the Z60 felt mushy to me and lacked the responsive ground feel; it felt like I was struggling to get into the air with each stride.

This can be explained by my lower cadence at this pace than assumed by the Vimazi calculations, as discussed above, and, I’m guessing, may also be because I’m a lighter weight than assumed for my pace (Vimazi didn’t reveal their weight ranges, but I’m slower these days mostly because I’m older, not heavier). Interestingly, the Z50s still felt best to me when I dropped the pace to low 7’s and even down into the 6’s—again likely explained by my cadence, which goes up 20 or more steps per minute at those paces. The faster-tuned Vimazi models also turned over nicely at quicker paces, but, for my stride, felt firmer and less smooth than the Z50s.

The Bottom Line

Overall, all of the Vimazis have a soft, but not squishy heel, and a slightly firmer forefoot that still has some impact-smoothing cushioning (think a with a slightly more responsive forefoot). Runners who like a more traditional underfoot feel of smooth, non-bouncy damping will appreciate the Vimazi ride—some models more than others.

Which model will feel best to you seems to depend on your weight, cadence, stride mechanics, and preferences in cushioning, geometry, structure, and fit—as much as it does your pace. Vimazis are worth checking out for their unique ride, and their pace ranges provide a place to start your exploration, but it’s likely you still will have to try on a variety of models and assess what feels best for you, just like the rest of the shoes on the market.

The post Will These Pace-Tuned Kicks Change How We Buy Running Shoes? appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř Online.

Something magical happens when runners transmit energy through their feet to the ground, and some of that magic rubs off on their shoes. Over time, as the runner becomes fitter, faster, and more confident, the shoes become associated with this transformation, and simple rubber, foam, and fabric take on a mystical glow.

So it is that a pair of 1994 Reebok Racer X’s sit on a shelf in the back of my closet—even though I haven’t worn them in more than 20 years. The uppers are stained from Gatorade spills, finish-line puke, and bloody toes. The outsoles are embedded with the dust of Central Park paths and European streets, and the forefoot tread is almost completely worn off. But these shoes are, to me, objects of reverence.

I found the svelte road racers on the closeout rack at Paragon Sports on Union Square in New York City the year I turned 30. I was living in Manhattan at the time, and working at NYU, but mostly running. I lapped Central Park each morning before work, coached speed workouts with Bob Glover and the New York Road Runners club, and spent weekends either going long or competing.

I’d been a runner since high school but always believed my strength was in endurance, not speed. Steady training amid talented running partners, however, revealed that I could go relatively fast as well as long. The Reeboks, pure racers suitable for distances no longer than ten kilometers, were an indicator of this newfound prowess.

Soon after I got them, I ran a 4:54 mile in a Fifth Avenue Mile citizen’s-heat qualifying event. It was the first time in my life I’d broken five minutes. The shoes, now associated with my success, acquired their first hint of magic. Over the next five years I wore them sparingly, reserving them for races when I was primed for peak performance, days that would redefine the paces I thought possible and alter my self-image.

When I first broke 17 minutes in the 5K, I wrote in my journal: “Running faster than I ever have before made me feel taller, stronger, less eager to please—it erased a little more of the small, weak, nerdy adolescent that always tried too hard.” A few weeks later, I ran a personal record of 35:02 in a New York 10K and placed an unprecedented sixth overall, including first in my age group. The Reeboks carried me through these transformative moments and retained those parts of my soul I’d poured into the efforts that created them.

The final race I recall running in the Reeboks was a 10K in Carvin, France, not far from Brussels, where I was living in 1999. I had set a goal of “sub-35 by 35,” and the race, two weeks before my 35th birthday, was the last chance I’d have. My magic shoes delivered: I scorched a 34:36 on a flat course through narrow, cobbled streets.

One year later, I accepted the job of editor in chief at Running Times, which took a sizable bite out of my training time, and then I became a father, which reduced it even more. Before I knew it, I was too old to threaten any of my PRs, and the Reeboks languished ever deeper in the back of the closet.

When I take them out now, they seem ridiculously retro. The upper has heavy suede overlays; the midsole is a surprisingly firm, thin layer of EVA. I try them on and feel the familiar pop in my stride, though I’m aware that no amount of residual alchemy could grant me the paces I used to run. Their power was always to reveal speed, not create it.

Still, I’ll hold on to my retro Reeboks to remind me of a time when I was young and fast. When I toe the line today, I happily wear a pair of modern racing shoes with a smoothly engineered mesh upper, lively superfoam underfoot, and an embedded plate. As ever it’s training that creates the magic, but technological wizardry never hurts.

The post Why I Still Hold On to My 29-Year-Old Racing Shoes appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř Online.

Over the years that I’ve been a runner I’ve put in a lot of solitary miles, but for the past decade, I’ve had the privilege of running with a pack nearly every day. A pack of dogs, that is: three pups with whom we’ve shared our rural home.Ěý

They may be the luckiest dogs in the world, free to run leash-free with me over the trails and dirt roads of the high plains. When they’re not chasing rabbits or pheasants, they usually fall into a pattern: one out front scouting, one a bit behind herding, and one so close I can reach down and touch his head.

I believe, however, that I’m even luckier. To start, I have a group of training partners who are eager to head out anytime, any day. They literally spin in circles when they see that I’m changed up to run. They never fail to remind me that running is a privilege and a joy—and without it, we all get a bit frazzled and crazy.

That’s just one of many lessons I’ve learned from this pack. Another is that speed and distance are largely irrelevant — what is important is getting out, moving, exploring, seeing, breathing. They have no training plans or logs. Granted, they don’t prepare for races, they don’t set and achieve goals, nor do they have the satisfaction of progress and mastery. Those are uniquely human pleasures, which I appreciate as .

But, it’s been instructive to watch how my dogs’ lack of extrinsic motivation doesn’t in any way dilute their pure, unfettered joy from being able to run. Each run is appreciated for its own sake. It is not a means to achieving another end—like weight loss, better health, or raising money for charity—nor work towards becoming a better runner. They don’t know their PRs. They need no larger story for motivation; they simply want to and love to run.Ěý

They also bring no ego or expectations to the task. They’re happy running at whatever pace I am going, be that 5K tempo or taking a , and seem equally thrilled whether we go 10 miles or two (although they do lobby to go farther every time I turn around to head home).Ěý

With a bum knee keeping me from going very far or very fast these days, I’m learning from them how to value the smell of moisture in the morning breeze, the colors of the wildflowers along the trail, and the majesty of the clouds billowing up in the east as much as what the numbers on my watch tell me about my fitness. Truthfully, the dogs don’t care much about the flowers or the clouds, but they smell and see and feel plenty along our runs—as if for the first time every day. And, as I too start to pay attention to the world outside of my head, I am finding that runs can be measured by far more than length and pace.

One thing I never expected to learn from them is how to . They’re particularly sensitive when dealing with heat. Any of them can outrun me any time they choose, but as soon as the temperatures go up, they slow down. They don’t wait until they’re in trouble and have to slow, they don’t try to keep up until they fall off the back. They simply set a new pace and trot along happily behind me, catching up with tails wagging when we stop for a drink and (for them) a swim at a pond or water tank.

We humans seem to have lost this instinct. We fail to listen to the cues that tell us we’re working too hard to maintain our normal pace. Or we refuse to accept the messages and push on anyway, inevitably paying for it with a spectacular crash and burn. Fortunately, we have the ability to study the body even if we no longer listen to it, and scientists have learned Applying that research can help us pace appropriately and evaluate our runs more effectively.

Changing how we evaluate our runs on a larger scale might be the path toward learning to listen to our bodies and adapt our pace and distance. My training partners are free to adjust their pace because they never consider if they ran well or poorly, never ask if it was a good run or a bad run. They don’t worry what anyone else thinks of their pace, either, or how others might evaluate their run on Strava.ĚýFor them, every run is a great run.

The only question they ask is, “Can we go again? Soon?”

And I—even if a bit old, a bit lame, and a lot slower than I used to be—am the lucky one who gets to grant that wish, and share that joy.

The post Running Free with the Pack appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř Online.