DarkSpeedWorks wrote:
desert dude wrote:
In all seriousness, if you've got a better solution for finding the best shoes for oneself I'm all ears.
Yup, it's a great question, not sure if I have the best answer. The research above does seem to create doubt as to whether the 'cushiest' or softest shoes are actually the best for speed or for injury prevention. But hopefully there will be more answers in the future.
It seems to me that there won't be a single best shoe for injury prevention.
Anecdotally you can find people who swear barefoot shoes solved their injury problems and you can find the same for max cushioned shoes. Isn't the easiest way to interpret that to say different types of shoes work for different people. Max shoes work for me - rubbish Achilles, bullet proof knees. Barefoot shoes would be my kryptonite but for people with knee problems and healthy Achilles/Calf muscles they are much more likely to help - IMHO.
I don't see increased impact force to necessarily be a red flag. Across the spectrum of barefoot to max shoes the impact force may increase. But, it seems to me, that is because the nature of the stride is changing. The implication of some of this thread seems to be that a running shoe could be rated to it's injury prevention properties. I think that is far to simple an idea given the complexities of running and the people who do it. If there was one shoe for everyone I think we'd of found it by now. The trouble is identifying what an individual needs and wading through 'data' from shoe companies who want all their shoes to sound like panaceas in marketing material.
BTW is it just me or if you look at the data isn't an Ultra Boost closer to Brooks Ghost in the study than the Hoka Conquest?