Very interested, I am about 2-4 kilo's lighter but otherwise basically the same profile. Have been running in the Omni's for a couple of years and I really enjoy them and have been pretty much injury free. I did have some lighter shoes for shorter races (like the Asics DS Trainer) but have run all my PR's (10K, 15K and half marathon) this year in my Omni's.

So I am not sure if there is a big difference, but am interested in other people's thoughts!

It helps to define 'fast'. Are you just looking for light or do you want better foam and stiffness? If it's just weight, you may be better served finding a shoe that has enough stability that you can ditch the inserts.

Brooks Ravenna are considered a lightweight stability shoe. Both Odyssey react and Adidas Tempos are lightweight and combine higher end midsoles with some stability. NB 1500 is billed as a stability shoe for racing. Plenty of other lightweight shoes with stability features.

Ok, good question. I guess by 'fast' then I mean something that isn't going to significantly work against me in my goal of running a 3:15 marathon. So I'm reading threads about the nike 4% thingies, and I'm looking at them compared to my shoes and thinking that's a lot more energy I'm putting into every leg lift. Now I also appreciate that bio mechanically I'm not a runner, and so need more help than pure runners. May mean that this is the cost to me. That's good, my genes gave me freakish lungs to be an hour up the road from the runners in tris.

In terms of getting rid of the orthotics, I'm very very skeptical that's possible. I've worn orthotics for 20 years now in all shoes, and have gone over riping my ligaments (needing surgery) in two races - left in a road race, right on a trail run. I have nerve damage and so no meaningful preceoception and the orthotic means that where my foot lands on the outside edge and would then risk rollng over on the outside of the ankle, the orthotic means that the sole of the shoe lands flat and so gives that stability.So I think I'm 'stuck' with the orthotic. It replaces the footbed of the shoe, and is a carbon fibre half construction with a material to complete the sole. So not ultralight, but perhaps double the weight of the normal footbed that I've removed from the trainer.

Brooks PureCadence

4mm Drop .... for Overpronation....light....fast

This is the best show i can recommend from a personal perspective. Give them a try...i'm sure you'll love em.
Otherwise, Asics have similar shoes, but they dont feel the same to me.

The GT-2000 line from Asics is good.

Saucony Fastwitch. /thread

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

keep it simple! Altra zero drop..over-pronation is a myth...stability shoes crush knees & joints.

+this.

Purecadence is my race shoe, but I get my long miles running in New Balance Vongo which are just the best thing since sliced bread (but a bit heavier).

Cheers, Rich.

Why yes, let's take somebody who has been running in a tool that has worked for them, and decide that he should junk all of that to fit into a shoe that is about as runnable as a piece of cardboard. (And this is coming from someone who likes Altra and sold plenty of them in my day.)

If it works for you, stay with it. If it doesn't, then look to something else. I went from a pair of Saucony Stabil (think Brooks Beasts) and now pretty much run in neutral shoes, as my super low navicular bone was always confused for excess pronation. But look, if somebody's running pretty injury free in a pair of Beasts with orthotics, who am I to tell them to change?

Wear the shoe that is most comfortable to you. Run miles. Don't make this harder than it needs to be.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

The PureCadence is a great shoe, and it may also be a decent racing shoe for a marathon. I use the PureCadence for training (not so much for racing).

For marathons, I use the Brooks Racer ST5. I think it's considered a "light stability racing flat". It's more beefy that true racing flats, and it has a pretty high ramp (12mm, I think). I personally like to use my racing shoes only for racing (and not training).

Adidas is discontinuing the Tempo's. Stock up if that's your shoe.
Someone mentioned Asics DS Trainers. The new edition, DS 24s, offer even les stability than the 23s,22s, 21s.

The Ravenna - good call there. Brooks has been doing a good job with their foams over the last 2-3yrs. IMO each edition of their shoes gets better & better.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I'd like to ask the OP to ignore this ill informed, bullshit laden, fucking stupid ass post please.

I mean if this poster had even bothered to read the OP I'm pretty sure this ridiculous response wouldn't have been typed.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

lots of research to support my claims that "stability shoes" can often cause long-term health impacts; just a different perspective on the topic (which is relevant to the thread)

My most sincerest apologies that this post made you so mad, hope you can enjoy the rest of your day (don't take it out on your athletes pleassssee!) . Happy Boston Marathon day!

Mad? Hahahaha, you obviously do not know me, there is too much to life to get angry about some random post. I did want to correct your post before the OP when out and potentially increased their risk of injury. There was no anger in my post, just a description, that I still stand by as you'll see if you read further down, of your advice.

"Lots of research" may be a stretch, but please do post "lots" of it as I love to read this stuff.

I'd argue that much of that research is also flawed, maybe you are referencing Nielsen et al (2014) when you say "lots of research"?

We can look at research done by Ryan et al (2009) & also by Knapik et al (2013) that when you match shoes based on foot posture you do not have any increase risk of injury. (in this case the OP pronates therefore you'd match him to stability shoes)

You told the OP to do what research has shown will increase the risk of injury. Malisou (2015) showed that when you just give people shoes & do not match based on foot posture you do have an increased risk of injury rate. (much like you suggested to the OP)

Increasing the injury rate is never a good thing imo, hence why I said your post was full of crap.

It could be that I put my name & business on my posts that I feel an obligation to put forth credible facts in response to specific issues that someone is having vs just throwing fiction out there and seeing what happens.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Mostly quoting research done by Aarhas University suggesting that after a study of ~1000 runners over 12 months, there was no increase in injury for over / under pronators when given a neutral shoe. To the OP, I would say that it is not the shoes that most likely cause more or less running comfort, but perhaps other external factors (running surface, body type, etc.).

Look, I get your angle, you make a living off of providing advice and helping athletes navigate through the complicated world of equipment, specs, etc. While I don't think much of the shoe technology helps anyone at all (okay maybe those pesky 4% shoes), its out there and is hard to really understand!

That said, hopefully you don't tell your athletes about how bullshit-laden they are when they say something they don't agree with. Eeek! Tough!

1 does not equal "lots." Whereas Brian's brought plenty of research to the table on his side of the equation.

Look, at the end of the day, run in the damn shoe that's comfortable. Miles, not millimeters.

And Stover, have to agree that Brooks has done some interesting stuff in the last 18 months or so. The last time I tried on their shoes I loathed them. Just bought a pair of Launch 6 and it reminds me so much of my beloved OG Mizuno Sayonara. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given who originally shepherded the Launch at Brooks. Stocking up on a couple of pairs so I can use them through LP this summer.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

At least here in Denmark the Brooks racer st has been discontinued for a few years. Their replacement is the Asteria. Love this shoe very much.

Also a heavy pronator here and use them with orthotics. Save them for my track sessions and races only as you can't put loads of miles in them. But definitely worth a try for a race shoe

I just LOVE the Brooks Ravenna. The shoe is made with some kind of super springy foam ("BioMoGo DNA") that feels incredibly fast and actually results in a measurably faster cadence and less ground-contact-time for me. I wear them for all road races up through IM/Marathon distance and my brisk training runs.

I tried the PureCadence and didn't like it as much. Ravenna has a more traditional 10mm drop. They're also pretty light (at 9.5oz). I'd describe pronation control as "mild."

Best part about Brooks shoes is you can buy them, and even if you don't like them, send them back even if worn. So you have nothing to lose.

For the Ravenna 10s the use DNA foam. I think the BioMoGo foam is pretty much out the door at Brooks in favor of DNA & DNA Loft.

The other awesome thing about Brooks is if you go to your local running store and they don't have the shoes in stock that you want, Brooks will drop ship them to you. You pay at the LRS 4-5 business days later you get your shoes.

Since Brooks launched that program we probably sell 10+ pair a week that way. Another reason why Brooks is occupying the top slot in neutral & stability shoes for sales.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Neilsen from 2013!
I've read that study a few times in the past. On the whole that was a pretty well done study. I would say there are a few things in regards to that paper that make one question some of their findings

1. I'm just going off the top of my head from reading the paper 3 or 4 years ago so a bit fuzzy on all the details. IIRC they put people in the neutral group with a FPI or PFI (can't remember) between 0-7. The problem is scores > 0 are considered pronated. The only true neutral people in the neutral group were the people that scored 0. The rest of the neutral group were pronators. Which leads me to point 2

2. How good are they, the researches with ranking people with the FPI scale? I can't remember if they live in the foot/shoe world or just undertook the study. If they've not been using the scale and are not accurate with it are they classifying people correctly?

3. They also eliminated anyone who wore orthotics. That's a group that's more susceptible to injury from running bc they typically pronate more. Taking those out reduces the overall tendency for bad outcomes since most people are not going to be severe overpronators.

4. Finally how will giving lots of people who are mild to moderate pronators neutral shoes impact the injury rates? In this study the injury rates are in line with most of the literature iirc, maybe on the lower end actually, which is a good result. IIRC I think the highest injury rates were in the people that pronated the most though.

That leads to this question: Would the injury rates have been lower in a stability shoe? I guarantee you that at least half of that 0-7 group gets a mild to moderate stability shoe if they go into a knowledgeable LRS.

Anyway thanks for putting that out there, made me ponder about why the uni sounded familiar.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Right. So that's sorted it then, nice and simple Sandals/Jandals it is then. Ta.

;-)

So summarizing for a simple cripple. 1 - I may or may not get increased injury if I try running in a neutral shoe. (side question, but I'm interpolating that stability is always going to be heaver than neutral based on comments above. There isn't a 'light' stability as such.

2) I may be fine with the vapourfly (see other thread), or I may not.

3) It what I've got is working, don't mess around. Stick with the Omnis

4) If I ask 3 different shops / fitters I'll get 6 different answers. So find one that I trust and stick with that until I don't trust em.

5) Based on some academic research then it's conclusively inconclusive, as without being assessed as part of the trial I may be at the edge of the spectrum that was excluded from the trial and so the conclusive evidence may not be applicable to me.

Spot on Dunc!!

Talk to Pete and ask him what he thinks. He had a bit of time working in Smith’s so has a bit of knowledge. Oh, plus he’s seen you run....