Replacement for NB 765?

The 765 is a definite departure from what has been a
successful 760 series. I bought a pair of the 765's recently
to use at the OKC Marathon. Fortunately I tried a couple of
long runs in them beforehand and my feet hated them. Like
you, I found some 764's at Roadrunner Sports and all was
fine. They have made the 765 a more neutral shoe with lower
arch support. Even with 2E widths, the outside of my big
toes were rubbed raw. The shoe seems to exaggerate
pronation, especially in the forefoot (odd quality for what
has been a stability shoe). The short version is: My boats
are in the same boat you are. If you find a replacement,
please post. I'll do the same.

Camille said:

I've been running in the NB 760's series shoes for a
couple models now and just switched to the 765's. My feet
hate these shoes. I've had heel pain and blisters
everytime I've worn them.

Switched back to my old pair of 764's and of course all
symptoms went away. Now I'm faced with every runner's
nightmare, switching models or brands of shoes.

Any suggestions for what might work as a substitute for
the fit and feel of the NB 764's?

Regards,

Camille

--
Random number generation is too vital a task to be left
to chance.

[email hidden] (Camille) wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I've been running in the NB 760's series shoes for a
couple models now and just switched to the 765's. My feet
hate these shoes. I've had heel pain and blisters
everytime I've worn them.

Switched back to my old pair of 764's and of course all
symptoms went away. Now I'm faced with every runner's
nightmare, switching models or brands of shoes.

Any suggestions for what might work as a substitute for
the fit and feel of the NB 764's?

I've been running in the 765s. I now have almost 300 miles
on them. The shoes required 50 miles of break in time before
they felt good for longer runs. After that I had no
problems. For the price ($57) I may buy another pair. I
never had the 764, so I can't comment on what the problem
is. However, after looking at the reviews at runnersworld.com0,1300,1 52 70Open ↗
940,FF.html? site=RunnersWorld, the 765 didn't change a
whole lot from the 764. It got a little wider fitting, the
Abzrob chiuchion covers the entire forefoot to increase
cushioning. The biggest change from the 764 is the fit with
a roomier forefoot and toebox.

The latest Runner's World magazine has a shoe review. In the
stability shoe category the New Balance 717 received a
pretty good rating. So if you want to be loyal to New
Balance, you might try those.

Phil M.

--
"Pain is temporary: the success it brings can be
everlasting." -fortune cookie

I'm also a 76x series wearer, started with the 76, worked
well ... then absolutely hated the 762 they rubbed me raw
(gave them to charity after just a few runs) ... 763 worked
fine again (stocked-up on them!) ... 764 was so-so ... and
765 great, seems to be closer to the 763 again. I don't find
any break-in needed on the 765s, wore the last pair out of
the box for a short 6k just to check for construction
problems, and then half-marathoned in them the next day.

I definitely have an odd/even trend going on this series, so
I am stockpiling some 765s for when they go to 766 on me!

R.

Camille said:

I've been running in the NB 760's series shoes for a
couple models now and just switched to the 765's. My feet
hate these shoes. I've had heel pain and blisters
everytime I've worn them.

Switched back to my old pair of 764's and of course all
symptoms went away. Now I'm faced with every runner's
nightmare, switching models or brands of shoes.

Any suggestions for what might work as a substitute for
the fit and feel of the NB 764's?

Regards,

Camille

Thanks for the responses!

Quoted message said:

I've been running in the 765s. I now have almost 300 miles
on them. The shoes required 50 miles of break in time
before they felt good for longer runs.

Hmmm. I never needed break in miles for the 762's, 3's, or
4's. Not sure I'm willing to sacrifice my foot health for a
lousy shoe to break
in (Ishould qualify that: a lousy shoe for me, perhaps
not others).

After that I had no problems. For the price ($57) I may
buy another

Quoted message said:

pair. I never had the 764, so I can't comment on what the
problem is. However, after looking at the reviews at runnersworld.com0,1300,1 52 70Open ↗
940,FF.html? site=RunnersWorld, the 765 didn't change a
whole lot from the 764. It got a little wider fitting, the
Abzrob chiuchion covers the entire forefoot to increase
cushioning. The biggest change from the 764 is the fit
with a roomier forefoot and toebox.

Well, the same review concedes that the "760 series
loyalist," which I'll go ahead and lump myself into that
category, may not like the changes. I hadn't read this
review when I started running in the 765's. It's interesting
that they say NB added cushioning, because I actually
thought the shoe felt harder, especially in the heel.

Quoted message said:

The latest Runner's World magazine has a shoe review. In
the stability shoe category the New Balance 717 received a
pretty good rating. So if you want to be loyal to New
Balance, you might try those.

I stopped by Fleet Feet today and tried out some other light
stability shoes recommended by the sales fella. Ended up
liking the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 5. Felt pretty good on the
ol' block jog, and just in general. I'll let you know how
things are going in a couple weeks...

Regards,

Camille

[email hidden] (Camille) wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I stopped by Fleet Feet today and tried out some other
light stability shoes recommended by the sales fella.
Ended up liking the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 5. Felt pretty
good on the ol' block jog, and just in general. I'll let
you know how things are going in a couple weeks...

Funny, but I have the GTS 5 also. I use it specifically for
long runs. Wonderful shoe! Due to the wear now on the 765s,
I use them only for shorter recovery runs.

Phil M.

--
"Pain is temporary: the success it brings can be
everlasting." -fortune cookie

Hey Phil M.,

Are you my foot twin? (A little "Friends" reference for
those of you mourning the end of the series).

:-) Camille

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

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Camille) wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I stopped by Fleet Feet today and tried out some other
light stability shoes recommended by the sales fella.
Ended up liking the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 5. Felt pretty
good on the ol' block jog, and just in general. I'll let
you know how things are going in a couple weeks...

Funny, but I have the GTS 5 also. I use it specifically
for long runs. Wonderful shoe! Due to the wear now on the
765s, I use them only for shorter recovery runs.

Phil M.

[email hidden] (Camille) wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Hey Phil M.,

Are you my foot twin? (A little "Friends" reference for
those of you mourning the end of the series).

:-) Camille

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

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Camille) wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I stopped by Fleet Feet today and tried out some other
light stability shoes recommended by the sales fella.
Ended up liking the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 5. Felt
pretty good on the ol' block jog, and just in general.
I'll let you know how things are going in a couple
weeks...

Funny, but I have the GTS 5 also. I use it specifically
for long runs. Wonderful shoe! Due to the wear now on the
765s, I use them only for shorter recovery runs.

Phil M.

Maybe. I'm afraid to ask, but do you have any Asics?

Phil M.

--
"Pain is temporary: the success it brings can be
everlasting." -fortune cookie