Why Are Running Shoes So Chunky? | Hacker News Reader

Why Are Running Shoes So Chunky?

wsj.com

15 pointslxm21 comments

Unwilling participant.

For a couple of years in the early 10's I swore by Merrell's zero drop shoes. I hated then, and still do now, the chunky look and feel of running shoes. It didn't make sense to me. Like many at the time, I had heard of and read parts of Barefoot Running by Michael Sandler and became convinced that the appropriate way to 'RETVRN' was to use a more minimal shoe. It worked, but had consequences. I was able to do ~8-10 miles with ease and remember telling my wife that "the only thing that really stops me from running further is time and boredom". It was an experience that I really hope to return to one day.

I run w/Hoka Speedoat's now. These are arguably some of the largest most cushioned shoes on the market. Without moderately cushioned shoes and a good solid vibram trail lug, I find myself with achey knees. I undoubtedly attribute it to my long miles with the Merrells. I'd love to not use Hoka's anymore.

https://archive.ph/Y4hRA (archived article without paywall)

I honestly thought this was just a fashion trend, and not particularly practical for running. Although I imagine some heel-cushioning is essential for heel-runners.

As far as I understand (I'm not a runner), running should really be on your toes, and that's how professional and historical runners always used to run, though the invention of shoes and heels on shoes has made us walk and run more on our heels, which gives us bigger shocks on our knees and spine, which makes the cushioning necessary. My impression is that this is actually a wrong technique due to laziness, but I could easily be wrong; maybe cushioned heel-running is better than toe-running. I don't know.

This is indeed a popular theory in the running community, and many runners have made an effort to transition to landing on their forefoot rather than their heel. However, there does not appear to be a scientific consensus whether runners with forefoot strike patterns are faster and/or less injury prone [1]. There are also professional runners that heel strike.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6189005/

I used to run in minimal shoes when there were more options. I am older now, and, perhaps more importantly, a bit heavier too. The idea of minimal running shoes is that you do a mid strike the whole way as they offer very little heel cushioning.

I don’t go for the chunky running shoes mentioned here, but I do need a bit more cushioning then I did a decade ago. A lot of this comes down to form. When I am in better shape I can mid strike throughout a long run, but when I am out of shape I start falling back to a heel strike.

These chunky shoes can help people Keep running who are a bit heavier, have non-optimal form for pavement, or have minor joint injuries that slow them down.

As an aside, I wish more shoe companies created consistent running shoes year to year. Every time I find a shoe I like they discontinue it.

Runner who reads a lot about the sport here. Like another comment said, there isn’t really a consensus that any particular foot strike is better. Even pros have variation in foot strike when wearing very minimal racing spikes [1]. There’s some thinking that the thing to focus on is your cadence, and as long as it’s not too slow then your form should just naturally become whatever is most efficient for you (for some that actually is a heel strike or mid-foot strike). And it’s also worth noting that you naturally have different form at different speeds. The most useful variable for shoe choice is honestly whatever you find to be most comfortable.

[1] https://youtu.be/uJSJSETFPwI

Consensus isn't required. Heel striking is provably detrimental to human physiology.

Big thick extended heels are designed today to lever the foot into position and place heel & toe on the ground concurrently, reducing impact at the heel.

Spending an entire lifetime walking with augmented feet means that people do not use their stride correctly or efficiently in the the manner it has been evolved to operate.

There is little argument about these facts outside of the realms of marketing and sales from shoe suppliers. You can't very well advocate for your product if you admit that it mostly acts as a crutch for poor form

Could you provide a source for these statements? In another comment I gave a link to a publication that summarized the literature comparing heel striking to forefoot striking, which showed no consensus on which is better.

I would direct you to the studies on the natives of Copper Canyon and the various studies completed at Harvard on impulse loading in the knee and hip relative to foot orientation.

Here's a crappy article about it:

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/01/barefoot-runn...

The take away here is that while you can make a big ass goofy shoe that takes all the force away from your poor form and prevents injury, the natural body mechanics are subverted. If you grow up and spend a lifetime with a prosthetic (soft shoe), everything about your movement is altered and augmented by the use of the prosthetic.

Just think on that for a moment as opposed to directing me to some argument or article in a study.

I'm a fairly large man and tried using Hoka One One running shoes for a while. They were extremely unpleasant. The thick cushioned sole made them feel unstable and wobbly. But others in the local club love them, so who knows.

I got a pair of Hoka Bondi at the recommendation of my foot surgeon. I had a lisfranc fracture last July.

I don't love the feel, but the support and cushioning is unparalleled. I ran 5.5 miles and walked another 5 with no foot pain at all

> Why Are Running Shoes So Chunky?

Because expensive running shoes are not made for running: they're fashion items that happen to suitable for running.

Simple running shoes (that is, non-fashion-items) can be found for like 25€ at Decathlon, and they're not clunky at all.

They are absolutely fine, but you can't ask 200+ euros for those.

As a person with a long enough feet (48-52 EUR, depending on the manufacturer labeling standards) I need to object: shoes from Decathlon are fine for not running, but otherwise...

I hate these shoes. I have a medium cushion running shoe and it's already too much, like running around on a sponge. Flat and thin is still the best and I'm looking forward to these shoes dying so I can go back to it.

I’ve been using Altra Escalante Racer shoes, maybe they’re the minimal ones you’re looking for? They’re low drop too.

I had Altras as I like a minimal shoe, but I have narrow feet and the toe box was huge. I have nearly broken my ankle because my feet slide around so much in them.

My favorites were the Brooks Pure Connects, but they slowly made them bigger and bigger and then discontinued them.

There may be good technical reasons but probably because everything is chunky? It's the rising dominant aesthetic in mainstream fashion right now. Everything is all about that y2k cyber shit, geriatric drip iykyk.

I don’t think it has anything to do with asthetics. Running on pavement is hard on your joints.

There are more older people trying to run distance to keep in shape and many of them need more cushioning. It can also be a decent training shoe where you can try to do long miles day after day.

I like my vibram's. Like most people that don't already run, I was prone to rolling an ankle, and they immediately corrected that.

I wish there was an alternative that solved the blister problem though.

I wear Vibram Five Fingers shoes for some of my slower (zone 1/2) training runs. What I've found is that heat makes a huge difference. When it's cold I'm fine but in the heat my feet sweat and I get blisters.

Of course you can also tape your feet before putting on the shoes.

Toe socks and Body Glide solve blisters. Merrell Vapor Glove are ultra-thin like Vibram Five Fingers while supporting socks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com