A new pair of shoes…

After procrastinating for FAR too long I finally went to get new running shoes.  The last three pairs I've run in have been Asics Nimbus-Gel 11’s, and I really haven’t had any complaints about them.  Thus, it would make no sense to try a different pair of shoes, right?  Well, for some reason unbeknownst to me, I decided to mix it up a little bit.  I went to the local tri/running store, and decided to go through the whole shoe, fit, test, treadmill camera thing again.  Good news, I'm still a neutral runner, with a little pronation on my right foot, but nothing to be worried about.  However, as I tried out the different pairs they suggested, I started to like a pair slightly more than the Nimbuses.  Long story short, I bought my first pair of Reebok running shoes.  I don't know why, but I have a terrible opinion of Reebok, but these shoes, the Trinity KFS IV, whatever that means, were far more comfortable than the Asics.  I can’t think of a better word for the fit than “bouncy.”  That seems to have some negative connotations, but I really did enjoy the fit.

Now, here is the real point of this post.  It is pretty commonly accepted that Rotating Running Shoes helps to avoid injury and increase the life of your shoes.  Two pairs of shoes that are rotated by usage can actually last longer than three pairs of shoes used one at a time.  I’ve known this for some time, but my running simply hasn't warranted needing two pairs of shoes.  Lame I know, but hey, I’m a poor college student.

However, the question I am posing today, is: Is it MORE helpful to rotate two different kinds of running shoes or two identical pairs.  To me, this question sounded strange at first, and I didn't readily find the information in a quick Google search...  Maybe I should try BING. This assertion does does seem to make some sense though.  Assuming both pairs are of a good fit, and are appropriate shoes, injury should not be a significant issue.  Some pretty smart people have studied the issue, and determined that different shoes have a different strike/plane of first contact with the ground.  So, here is my theory: wearing different types of shoes may actually help to PREVENT injury.  By changing the tendons/ligaments and exact points of stress every other run, this practice ought to decrease the overall chance of injury, as it would relate to fit injuries.  This ‘cross-training’ of sorts could help to strengthen a runner's feet, ankles, and knees.  Minor tweaks in strike could lead to an increase in overall stability, so long as the differences are not extreme.

A study was done to test the effect of different types of shoes and their ability to influence joint loading in the hip.  While the test was done with walking, and on hip-implant patients, I THINK there is a connection here.  Maybe I'm stretching, but at least it is food for thought;

…No relation was found between the different type of shoes and the load increase, only shoes with very hard soles were clearly disadvantageous. Soft heels, soles or insoles did not offer advantages.Gait stability seems to play the most important role in increasing the joint loading and should be the criterion for the choice of footwear.  Influence of shoes and heel strike on the loading of the hip joint

-Journal of Biomechanics, Volume 28, Issue 7, Pages 817-827

I have access to this online because I’m a student, but it won’t let me post a direct link, and I’d rather attempt to avoid copyright issues.

Okay, enough of my pseudo-scientific stretches, back to the regularly scheduled programming of rare, non-inspirational posting.

If you’ve seen a study or have heard something about this, let me know :D

Can’t say I'm too upset about this…