[Closed] Running shoes - any things/brands I need to look out for?

Comfort is king.

After that it's pretty much all just comment.

I've never paid more than £40.

I've got Saucony, Inov 8, Montrail, Salomons (all variation of trail shoes)

Find running on the road just too dull !

Find a brand that fits your foot shape and then look for last years stuff cheaper. £80-£100 shoes are better (lighter) but I would never pay big money

Make sure they fit, don't worry too much about motion control or whatever. Keep up a decent cadence and you won't heel strike so much.

The main difference for a given brand+price will be weight, cheaper is heavier. And obviously last year's models are fine.

I'm a heavy, heal striking runner and I swear by Mizuno Wave shoes more specifically the Wave Creation. Not the lightest shoe by any stretch but I've never had any injuries with them. Only time I tried something different I ended up with a knackered right knee and shin splints in my left. This was within three runs which combined were less than 30km and has taken ages to recover properly.
My wife is a fan of Saucony shoes and recently tried some Brooke's on the advice of our local running shop but couldn't get on with them so gone back to her preferred shoes.
If you got on with Brooke's previously I'd give them a try again. I think Ghost is their top cushioned shoe.

I'd give another vote for Mizuno as I do like them, but I'm wary of recommending brands - we're all different, and what works for one person may be hell for another. FWIW the Decathlon Kalenji brand shoes get reasonable reviews and are fairly cheap, you could probably do worse than trying them.

The brands are indeed all different - I used to have New Balance >10yrs ago, but now get on best with a pair of Adidas Supernovas, and have found that I do need a stability variant or I suffer. £60 should get you a decent pair, especially if you can source something from the sales.

I do most of my miles on nike revolution 2 which I bought for about 40 quid, about to get another similar or identical pair now they are getting worn out after 18 months steady use.

Expensive/light shoes are a mistake for a heavy occasional runner. (BTW what do you mean by tall/heavy? I am 195cm and 80kg.) I do have a better pair but save them for races. Adidas also fit me ok, different makes tend to have slightly different shapes though.

+1 for work on your cadence, I think this has helped keep injury rates down for me. 180 per min may feel silly/impossible at first but you get used to it. Currently doing a lot more running than cycling, occasional marathons etc. Much less cleaning up than an MTB ride, even when fell-running!

I thought Walsh were the best running shoes? Or is that only fell running?

For those that heel strike - I'll try and find the paper on it but my spinal surgeon was part of a massive project over the last few years.
Involved Uni's, special running track, pressure sensors, etc.
The results were very, very surprising.
They found that taking the shoes away - virtually no one heel struck. No one at all.
Think about it - how would you run down the garden on grass? Not on your heels.
The human body is designed so the the calves are shock absorbers with a line of impact running up through the thighs and core - missing the knee and spine.
Put comfy, soft shoes on people and the impacts were often 7-10 times greater AND sent through the knee/pelvis/spine causing injuries because heel striking moves the line of impact rearwards.
He likened it to "slow sprinting" with weight forwards - difficult to break the habit but instantly obvious when you see the sensor measurements!!
Trail runners funnily enough don't suffer from this as badly because of the number of stabiliser muscles involved off-road. They rarely heel strike and when they do - it hurts so they stop.
I'm back there on the 16th so will ask him for a copy of it.

They found that taking the shoes away - virtually no one heel struck. No one at all.

This

Most people forefoot/midfoot strike IME. Cushioning at the heel is largely wasted on me. I like neutral Nike shoes as they have the air cushioning all the way along meaning I get some where I land around my midfoot and ball of my foot.
They can be a bit narrow though.

I thought Walsh were the best running shoes? Or is that only fell running?

They have a "following" IME they are ridiculously narrow and Inov8 are much better in every respect.

No mention yet of Asics which are always worth a look too.

My advice is always to go to a proper running shop for the first pair or three to get proper advice who is prepared to look at your feet and running style whilst talking to you about aims and goals. If you have existing running shoes take them in with you as they often reveal a lot about your gait.

Take a look at the On range. The Cloud is an excellent lightweight low profile shoe, great for distances up to half marathons

For those that heel strike - I'll try and find the paper on it but my spinal surgeon was part of a massive project over the last few years.
Involved Uni's, special running track, pressure sensors, etc.
The results were very, very surprising.
They found that taking the shoes away - virtually no one heel struck. No one at all.
Think about it - how would you run down the garden on grass? Not on your heels.
The human body is designed so the the calves are shock absorbers with a line of impact running up through the thighs and core - missing the knee and spine.
Put comfy, soft shoes on people and the impacts were often 7-10 times greater AND sent through the knee/pelvis/spine causing injuries because heel striking moves the line of impact rearwards.
He likened it to "slow sprinting" with weight forwards - difficult to break the habit but instantly obvious when you see the sensor measurements!!
Trail runners funnily enough don't suffer from this as badly because of the number of stabiliser muscles involved off-road. They rarely heel strike and when they do - it hurts so they stop.
I'm back there on the 16th so will ask him for a copy of it.

This sounds horribly like it could turn the thread into a whole barefoot running fad can of worms debate. I thought the running world had got over all that (what with vibram shelling out a whopping lump of cash to [url= http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/fivefingers-payout-celebrity-favourite-vibram-barefoot-shoes-settle-multi-million-dollar-1448256 ]settle a class action because of unsubstantiated science [/url]etc)?

Expensive/light shoes are a mistake for a heavy occasional runner. (BTW what do you mean by tall/heavy? I am 195cm and 80kg.)

I'm about 197cm / 89kg.

hammyuk - interesting read - the intention is to try and train myself back to more of a forefoot strike. Especially as I'm starting again from scratch. With long legs I've always had a lopping stride when running (but funnily enough a high cadence on a bike...).

So as long as I find a decent comfy pair I don't have to worry about anything else. Couch to 10K here I come!

As far as the difference between 60 and 100 quid shoes goes I think 60 quid should get you a perfectly fine pair. Especially last years models online.

I've mostly run in Asics shoes both cheap and more expensive. Even the cheapest ones have decent cushioning with gel in the rearfoot. They were fine for me. Pay a bit more and you'll get forefoot gel cushioning as well which I wouldn't say is vital for comfort but might make them feel a bit plusher if you want to try and be a forefoot striker. Paying a bit more might also get you a rock protection plate in trail shoes so you don't feel the stones so much if you want to run offroad. Apart from that I personally can't feel the difference any of the "technology" in their top of the range shoes makes and what was top of the range technology a few years ago filters down to the lower priced models of today.

Oh and if you want them to last look for some kind of high durability carbon rubber in the sole. I had a pair of Asics Trabucos that lasted 1300 miles of running, another few hundred in backpacking trips across Scotland, a fair bit of biking and then I wore them to work for another 6 months before they were shagged out.

Paying a bit more might also get you a rock protection plate in trail shoes so you don't feel the stones so much if you want to run offroad.

I really wouldn't get trail shoes unless you're actually planning on doing proper trail running - I've got some and use them a lot for the mountains round here, but they're horrible on road. I've got some Pearl Izumis for that.

I really wouldn't get trail shoes unless you're actually planning on doing proper trail running - I've got some and use them a lot for the mountains round here, but they're horrible on road.

I'd say it depends on the shoe. Often there isn't a great deal of difference between a brand's trail and road shoes. I've happily run a marathon in trail shoes. And equally run hundreds of miles offroad in road shoes. I do however have a pair of Adidas Duramo trail shoes which when new had some faily soft squishy treads which made them feel squirmy on anything other than a soft surface. They're better now they've worn down a bit.

In no way am I advocating barefoot running Convert!
That was him sitting me down in front of him and putting the info in front of me. TBH - its about the only way to get me to listen sometimes. The figures were really, really, really scary on impact forces and exactly where they go. They only published their research the middle of this year. There was a report on the BBC about it too from the Uni with the special track.
They used the same tech that they use in movies to track body movements and then added shock and pressure sensors to the runners bodies. Coupled with the track being one big pressure sensor as well they had the bases covered.
It wasn't about debunking the barefoot/padding argument - it was about understanding injuries from a clinical POV so as to have a better understanding of the causes and treatment devices.
Notice I said "were often 7-10 times greater " - I didn't say always.
He explained that the gait is what is as important - someone who may heel strike but roll onto and through the mid and off the toe often doesn't land with the same force. If they are moving quickly and smoothly the impact runs in the correct plane.
Those who heel strike and come up off the midfoot are the ones who are getting massive impacts and the injuries because of it. Its basic body mechanics - the calf muscles are our shock absorbers. Landing on your heel doesn't allow them to do the job evolution designed them to do.
The best "explainer" he came up with was "stand on that desk and jump off onto your feet and land on your heels".
"No?"
"EXACTLY!"
"You land on your forefoot - the same way you should when you run"
His words not mine Convert.

I'm ridiculously light on shoes of any kind - never wear out heels, etc.
I kill the treads before I kill shoes and always on the fore.
For him it was about showing me that the idea of getting back to fitness by taking up road running again would not only see me most likely without the use of my legs but also banned from his clinic for good.
Strangely enough - he's fine with me riding the MTB or trail running.
His words were "stabiliser muscles - and if you fall over/off we can fix that. We can't fix a compressed spinal column...."