Sturdy running shoes

Phil12

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
For a couple years I've been wearing Onitsuka Mexico 66 shoes, but they've been going up in price and since I've started running I go through them a lot faster. I sometimes run on ashphalt as well as up and down my gravel driveway as well which is pretty hard on them (I know).

I'm wondering if I can get a shoe with a longer lifespan or if I should just confine myself to buying a new pair of shoes every year. For reference I strongly prefer the minimalist, thin style of the Mexico 66 (now that I think about it the thinness of them is probably part of why I go through them so quickly...but I'm used to it at this point).
 

Matts

More than 300 posts
if you're wearing those and you're not getting sore knees or feet or anything, I'd stick with them. Lots of people go through several different models to find what works for them. Changing shoes once a year is already thrifty- no need to push that. They say the midsoles in the real cushy shoes stiffen after a few months and those type of shoes should be replaced then, to you're served well by the Tigers! Classic shoe.
 

Steve Freides

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Senior Certified Instructor
I'd get on a running group and/or go to a running specialty shoe store. I've used Road Runner Sports and liked them - they're mail-order but also have retail stores including one near me. They'll watch you run and make shoe recommendations.

-S-
 

banzaiengr

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
I'm going to say that sturdy and running shoe is an oxymoron. : )

Definitely if you are putting in more than 20 miles per week I think you'll find that most every running store will recommend new shoes every six months.

Another option that I never tried but have heard of is to buy two pair and swap them out each day. But I would guess that would only get you 9 or 10 months out of those two pair.

The next thing is I'm not sure just how serious you are about your running, miles per week, pace, and your body weight. That all comes into play.

Obviously since Onitsuka is now Asics this is an old model. So it's kind of like buying tires. There's nothing wrong with buying a tire that's been around for thirty years but it's technology is way behind newer models.

As far as the thinness and that being something you like then there are many minimalist running shoes available with a low to zero heel rise which come to mind. When I went to a minimalist shoe I liked those made by Merrill. But the jury is still out on whether minimalist shoes are good or just a fad.

Take your shoes to a good shop that has someone working there that knows running. Have them look at your shoes and determine how they are wearing. Are you a heel striker or a mid-foot striker. Do you need a stability shoe for any pronation problem? You run on asphalt so don't buy a trail shoe. How is your foot shaped? Do you need a curved last or a straight last. Does the shoe flex well in the middle and is the area around the heel firm. Wear them around the store and ensure you can take them home. Wear them around in your home and if it doesn't feel right, take them back. Just my two cents.
 

Phil12

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Thanks for the replies gents.

I run about 9mi a week, these are also my main shoes though so I guess that's enough to necessitate replacing them more often. Given I don't have any kind of pain or issues with them other than wearing out, I think I'll just stick with the brand I have rather than risk messing anything up.
 

Matts

More than 300 posts
@banzaiengr Shoes aren't like tires- most of the older ones are much better than any of the new ones. The only running injury I had in running zillions of miles was switching to some anti-pronation shoes when they first came out, and broke an ankle while my foot was being anti-pronated! Tires have come light-years from the old bias ply when most people got a flat every couple months...running shoes have just been one huge marketing scam after another. Most of us who were running distance before the running boom have healthy knees, feet, etc., while many who bought into the fancy shoes have had joint replacements and kept orthopods in country clubs. Just my experience and opinion...maybe not even worth .o2 to anyone....
 

Stefan Olsson

More than 500 posts
When I prepared for my first half marathon I had a pair of asics cumulus 16. The cumulus series are sturdy, or safe in terms of stability. I did 90% of my weekly distance (50-80km) on trail.I noticed that my running tecniuqe abd strength improved a lot from that. Running on asphalt is hard on my body and I only do it occationly.
 

Matts

More than 300 posts
@Stefan Olsson Yes, running on trails is much better for many reasons. Starting with cross-country training is best for almost everyone. I'd disagree that sturdy stability shoes are "safe," though. Strong muscles with lots of capacity, proper form, and healthy bodyweight are real safety. I think a lot of modern running injuries are caused by shoes that let people think they are good to go for longer distances or hard pavement way before it's really time physiologically. Running shoe industry has had some of the most successful marketing in history. Many are pure marketing companies and don't have any other capacity than marketing, and have all their shoes made by other companies on contract.

Many of these companies introduced raise heels so everyone's achilles tendons would shorten and the people would have pain when they switched brands. The cushion turns one flat-footed, so when they switch shoes, they feel pain. They promote heel striking, when this is the worst way to run, so people need the cushy heels. Etc... Personal pet peeve...from one who started running way before the running shoe industry existed and is much better off for it. I remember when a guy came to our cross country practice selling some new type of shoes out of his trunk- called adidas...
 

Stefan Olsson

More than 500 posts
@Stefan Olsson Yes, running on trails is much better for many reasons. Starting with cross-country training is best for almost everyone. I'd disagree that sturdy stability shoes are "safe," though. Strong muscles with lots of capacity, proper form, and healthy bodyweight are real safety. I think a lot of modern running injuries are caused by shoes that let people think they are good to go for longer distances or hard pavement way before it's really time physiologically. Running shoe industry has had some of the most successful marketing in history. Many are pure marketing companies and don't have any other capacity than marketing, and have all their shoes made by other companies on contract.
I see that I explained myself a bit wrong on the wording. By "safe" I simply translated it straight off from swedish. By "safe" I meant that in my experience at that time, the shoe, as stable as it is, did me good. I realize Im contradicting my self by saying that I agree with you to an extent, but in my experience a more thin shoe would probably worsen my shin splints at that time. One could argue that I should have used more of a vibram-esq shoe and that I simply was not ready to run distances, but at the same time I did complete a few half Marathons and were feeling great doing it!


@Stefan Olsson
Many of these companies introduced raise heels so everyone's achilles tendons would shorten and the people would have pain when they switched brands. The cushion turns one flat-footed, so when they switch shoes, they feel pain. They promote heel striking, when this is the worst way to run, so people need the cushy heels. Etc... Personal pet peeve...from one who started running way before the running shoe industry existed and is much better off for it. I remember when a guy came to our cross country practice selling some new type of shoes out of his trunk- called adidas...
Let me finish by saying that my shoe today is more in line what you suggest, but not close enough for you, I guess;)
 
Last edited:

banzaiengr

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Shoes aren't like tires- most of the older ones are much better than any of the new ones.
I wasn't saying that shoes are like tires. I was saying that both have come a long way in technology.

The only running injury I had in running zillions of miles was switching to some anti-pronation shoes when they first came out, and broke an ankle while my foot was being anti-pronated!
Probably because you didn't need an anti=pronation shoe.

running shoes have just been one huge marketing scam after another.
Yep, there is a lot of marketing that goes into running shoes. That doesn't make them lesser than if they were not marketed.

Most of us who were running distance before the running boom have healthy knees, feet, etc.,
You can run in the old canvas flats if you want. If they are superior then why aren't runners still using them?

I think a lot of modern running injuries are caused by shoes that let people think they are good to go for longer distances or hard pavement way before it's really time physiologically.
The shoe doesn't let people think they can go further than they should, the runner's ego does that.
 
Last edited:

banzaiengr

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Many of these companies introduced raise heels so everyone's achilles tendons would shorten and the people would have pain when they switched brands.
So the raised heel that the individual may have been wearing for the other 15 hr. of the day had nothing to do with this?

They promote heel striking, when this is the worst way to run, so people need the cushy heels.
I would have to guess that running shoes made for a mid-foot striker isn't promoting heel striking.

I remember when a guy came to our cross country practice selling some new type of shoes out of his trunk- called adidas...
Adidas have been around since before WW2. In '49 they were making mostly soccer shoes. They're track shoes were first seen in the '52 Helsinki Olympics. '68 is when they produced they're first running shoe. So you must have been around awhile for someone to be trying to sell you a new shoe called Adidas.
 
Top Bottom