New shoes

John B. said:

People say you have to "break in" new running shoes. I know this
sounds like a dumb question, but does that mean something has to
happen to the shoes, or that something has to happen to your feet? I
have new shoes that are different from what I've been wearing and I
had aching and soreness in my feet the first time I ran in them. Which
makes me think my feet need to grow accustomed to the shoes, not that
the shoes need to be somehow broken in.

Yes? No? Both?

It means that you bought the wrong shoe. Shouldn't need breaking in.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Quoted message said:

People say you have to "break in" new running shoes. I know this
sounds like a dumb question, but does that mean something has to
happen to the shoes, or that something has to happen to your feet?

Depends, sometimes neither, sometimes a little of both. Some shoes you can wear
right out of the box, others loosen up with time.

Quoted message said:

It means that you bought the wrong shoe.

Not necassarily true. If he's been in one model for a long time and is trying
something new, then it's perfectly reasonable to expect some changes in his
feet.

How true.
The NB 76x series are some of my favorite long distance shoes. That is,
after I have put about 25-40 miles on them. They seem to "bed in" (a
description for which I have been previously assailed-but thats the best
way I can describe it). On the other hand (or foot), the ASICS 20XX
series works well for me right out of the box. Haven't tried the 2100's
yet. I'm still trying to horde the 2080's.

FabulustRunner wrote: (snip)

Quoted message said:

Depends, sometimes neither, sometimes a little of both. Some shoes you can wear
right out of the box, others loosen up with time.

--
Quality is a function of design, materials, and craftsmanship.
Inspection can only confirm quality or reveal deficiencies.
In no case, can quality be inspected into anything.

Leafing through rec.running, I read John B.'s message of 30 Nov 2004:

Quoted message said:

People say you have to "break in" new running shoes. I know this
sounds like a dumb question, but does that mean something has to
happen to the shoes, or that something has to happen to your feet? I
have new shoes that are different from what I've been wearing and I
had aching and soreness in my feet the first time I ran in them. Which
makes me think my feet need to grow accustomed to the shoes, not that
the shoes need to be somehow broken in.

Yes? No? Both?

It could be you either bought the wrong size, the wrong type, the wrong
size and wrong type, or they may require some break-in period. Some shoes
will never break in, at which point you'll have to toss them and never
buy that model again (expensive lesson). Other shoes, may require a
slight break-in for them to mold to the shape of your foot. Every type of
shoe is make on a different last (a last is a form around which the shoe
is made). Within each model are a series of lasts based on size and/or
gender. If the last shape isn't close to the shape of your foot, then no
amount of break-in is going to help. OTOH, if it's close to the shape of
your foot, the shoe may require little or no break-in. There are a couple
of shoes I've purchased that I can wear right out of the box for a long
run. Others will require slight break-in before I'm willing to go more
than 10 miles in them. It's a good idea to rotate in a new pair along
with a pair that you've been wearing.

Some people believe that if you can't wear them right out of the box and
go for a 20-miler, then you bought the wrong shoe (hi Donovan). I believe
that there are some shoes that require a break-in. Some of these shoes
have ended up being my favorites. That has been my experience. YMMV.

Phil M.

"Wayne Conway" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:kR5rd.61589$_g6.24541@okepread03...

Quoted message said:

On the other hand (or foot), the ASICS 20XX series works well for me
right out of the box. Haven't tried the 2100's yet. I'm still trying
to horde the 2080's.

I'm lovin the 2100's. If I had to guess they're close to the 2070's
meaning they are a little firmer than the 80's. The 80's were a bit
soft and prone to less mileage but I still loved them. Only the 90's
sucked and they fixed it quickly.

-DougF

"Phil M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Some people believe that if you can't wear them right out of the box and
go for a 20-miler, then you bought the wrong shoe (hi Donovan). I believe
that there are some shoes that require a break-in. Some of these shoes
have ended up being my favorites. That has been my experience. YMMV.

Phil M.

I've had the same experience. There are shoes that in the running store
were a terrific fit, felt great, etc but once I got them on the road I had
problems. I found that some shoes weren't quite right at first but with a
little playing around with the laces, etc. to get them "just right" they
worked out really well.

Jenn

John B. said:

People say you have to "break in" new running shoes. I know this
sounds like a dumb question, but does that mean something has to
happen to the shoes, or that something has to happen to your feet? I
have new shoes that are different from what I've been wearing and I
had aching and soreness in my feet the first time I ran in them.

This sounds like it might be a poor fit.

Which

Quoted message said:

makes me think my feet need to grow accustomed to the shoes, not that
the shoes need to be somehow broken in.

But, at least for me, my shoes *do* need to get broken in - my orthotic
needs to embed itself in the sock liner, or at least I think that's
what's happening. I use the original sock liner, since it works well for
me. I can put on a new shoe of same size and style and wonder why it
feels so differently. After about 3 runs, the orthotic settles in,
providing more space for my foot. Also they are a little stiff for hills
in the first few miles, but after I manually bend the toes, and run some
flat or gentle hills, the soles are more flexibile. About 25 miles, it
feels just fine.

But if you have significant discomfort, that may not be the right shoe
for you.

Dot

--
The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury.
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

Yeah, the 2090's didn't work well for me. Probably only put 75 running
miles on them before I gave up. Couldn't keep them from slapping the
pavement. They were loud, and the ride was terrible. I use them now for
just kicking around.

Doug Freese said:

"Wayne Conway" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:kR5rd.61589$_g6.24541@okepread03...

Quoted message said:

On the other hand (or foot), the ASICS 20XX series works well for me
right out of the box. Haven't tried the 2100's yet. I'm still trying
to horde the 2080's.

I'm lovin the 2100's. If I had to guess they're close to the 2070's
meaning they are a little firmer than the 80's. The 80's were a bit
soft and prone to less mileage but I still loved them. Only the 90's
sucked and they fixed it quickly.

-DougF

--
Quality is a function of design, materials, and craftsmanship.
Inspection can only confirm quality or reveal deficiencies.
In no case, can quality be inspected into anything.

Quoted message said:

Yeah, the 2090's didn't work well for me. Probably only put 75 running
miles on them before I gave up. Couldn't keep them from slapping the
pavement. They were loud, and the ride was terrible. I use them now for
just kicking around.

They are MC shoes, you obviously don't need that kind.

"Wayne Conway" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:n9krd.62085$_g6.8716@okepread03...

Quoted message said:

I use them now for just kicking around.

Because I run trails my old runners are pretty filthy and crappy looking for
even "kicking around". BUT....I believe I have the most appealing, and
numerically superior, array of lawnmowing shoes in the neighborhood :^)

Ever play baseball or softball? Remember breaking in a new catchers mit?
Same concept. all that material is stiff and brand new-and when you
break it in-like a catchers mit-it has to be softened up.

"JMA" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've had the same experience. There are shoes that in the running store
were a terrific fit, felt great, etc but once I got them on the road I had
problems. I found that some shoes weren't quite right at first but with a
little playing around with the laces, etc. to get them "just right" they
worked out really well.

Same experience here. I use a shop called Runners Roost nearby and they
always want me to run on the treadmill or up and down the sidewalk, and even
now after all these years I still can't convince them that I never know if a
shoe is right unless I have run in them for a week or two.

If I'm going to try a new model I spend my time in the store seeing if they
fit and then take my chances out on the trail. If they don't work out...I
add them to my array of lawnmowing shoes.

Ramone Cila said:

"Wayne Conway" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:n9krd.62085$_g6.8716@okepread03...

Quoted message said:

I use them now for just kicking around.

Because I run trails my old runners are pretty filthy and crappy looking for
even "kicking around". BUT....I believe I have the most appealing, and
numerically superior, array of lawnmowing shoes in the neighborhood :^)

You can always take the insoles out and put them in the washing machine (but
I don't recommend tumble drying them). From what you've described, I doubt
they'll look like new after this, but they do come out looking much better.
I've done this after some trail runs messed up some of my nice white running
shoes pretty badly.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Ramone Cila said:

"JMA" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've had the same experience. There are shoes that in the running store
were a terrific fit, felt great, etc but once I got them on the road I had
problems. I found that some shoes weren't quite right at first but with a
little playing around with the laces, etc. to get them "just right" they
worked out really well.

Same experience here. I use a shop called Runners Roost nearby and they
always want me to run on the treadmill or up and down the sidewalk, and even
now after all these years I still can't convince them that I never know if a
shoe is right unless I have run in them for a week or two.

Same experience here. I usually know after about 100 miles whether I like the
shoe or not. Until then, it's hard to tell.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Quoted message said:

Ever play baseball or softball? Remember breaking in a new catchers mit?

Same concept. all that material is stiff and brand new-and when you
break it in-like a catchers mit-it has to be softened up.
____

wow, that's really a bad analogy. are you sure you played baseball? i did,
catcher in fact. you take _Oil_ (mink or any kind, lubricate your mitt, place a
ball in the center, then tie up the mitt w/string or whatever. That's how you
break-in a catchers mitt, and let it sit over night...and you can repeat this
the next day/night... and i think every kid in america knows that...especially
catchers.

"Same concept" Huh?

Quoted message said:

I usually know after about 100 miles whether I like the shoe or not. Until

then, it's hard to tell.
___

so what is it that strikes you at mile 100 that you could not discern at mile
75?

Marilyn Riffle said:

Ever play baseball or softball? Remember breaking in a new catchers mit?
Same concept.

Do you run in leather shoes ? Did the salesman forget to tell you that your
shiny new Bostonians are not high milage trainers ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Lanceandrew said:

Quoted message said:

I usually know after about 100 miles whether I like the shoe or not. Until
then, it's hard to tell.

so what is it that strikes you at mile 100 that you could not discern at mile
75?

I think there are minor issues with fit that are difficult to notice until
you've put some miles on the shoe (I believe you've had more than your fair
share of first hand experience with this concept ... )

Also, some shoes are better suited to warm, dry, or wet conditions. I despised
the Asics Nimbus in summer (too hot) but it works just fine for me as a wet
weather/winter shoe.

BTW, about your experience with the NB -- I remember I used to get bleeding
toes from the Saucony trigons. It had to do with the shape of the last -- it
was a little on the curved side, which put pressure one my toes (even though
the toebox was fairly broad). The reason I bring this up is that I've seen
the NB 750 and it has one of the most curved lasts I've ever seen on a shoe.
I remember looking at it in disbelief and thinking you'd have to be a martian
to fit that thing. Speaking of flats, my Asics tiger paws are holding up well
after 250 miles. They are a very flexible shoe, my favourite flat from Asics (I
have all the Asics flats and one of their spikes)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/