On the other hand, a bad logo can leave a brand open to ridicule, and in some cases can even lead to stores refusing to carry their shoes. Such was the case with the brand Gravity Defyer. A few years ago I would often see web ads for Gravity Defyer shoes, and had to chuckle at the fact that they had what appeared to be a sperm logo on the sides:

I suspect that wearing a shoe with a sperm on the side is an effective form of contraception.

The shoes feature springs in the heel, as well as trampolines and stabilizers, and were often featured in the Skymall Catalogue (Skymall was a retailer whose catalogue was found in seat pockets of airplanes in the US – they are now out of business). You might think that the logo was intended to represent something else (maybe a tadpole?), but according to this article on Business Insider, the choice of a sperm logo was indeed intentional:

"Our logo is deliberate. Our customers feel like they are getting the beginning of a new life when they try our shoes," said Alexander Elnekaveh, CEO of Gravity Defyer. "We are not embarrassed by it."

Well, apparently times have changed, and not even the addition of multiple sperm was enough to prevent an inevitable logo change:

Nothing inspires speed like a race to conceive new life! And I wonder if there is any relation between the 3-sperm logo and the fact that this was “Revision 3.69”?

I’m not sure exactly when it happened, but Gravity Defyer now has a new logo, and sperm are no longer splashed on the sides of their shoes:

My initial reaction is that the logo looks a bit like the Om symbol – maybe they’re going after the yoga crowd?:

It’s definitely an improvement, though the bar was set pretty low by whoever decided to put reproductive cells on the earlier shoes.

Let this be a lesson to all marketers and shoe designers – though a great shoe may make you feel newly alive, celebrating that feeling with sperm is never a good idea.

I received my first wear-test pair of the Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 last February and I was impressed (Disclosure: I’ve been helping Skechers out with shoe development for several years). The prototype that I received felt markedly roomier with a stretchier upper mesh, felt considerably more flexible, and had a more resilient/bouncier feel underfoot. It felt like a very different shoe from the previous models (note: the name has been changed from GoRun Speed to GoMeb Speed).

Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 Final Version (top) and First Prototype (bottom)

As often happens in the development process, things change as shoes develop from one iteration to the next. Skechers receives input from a lot of wear testers, and this particular shoe is designed and named for 2014 Boston Marathon winner Meb Keflezighi. As a result, Meb has a lot of input into the design. Though I loved the first iteration I received, it felt a bit less like a race shoe and more like the GoRun to me, and that needed to be fixed. In particular, the sole had an incorrect plate (visible in midfoot region of photo below) so was not as stiff as intended, and the upper material was changed to one with less give for a more performance fit (that’s how I interpreted the changes).

Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 Final Version (top) and First Prototype (bottom) – note the different plates visible in the midfoot region

Fortunately, the next protoype ran just as well as the first one. The sole still felt a bit more resilient, and the shoe had a slightly stiffer, racier feel to it. Though the upper material had less give, it still felt a bit roomier than the GoRun Speed 2.

Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 (top) and GoRun Speed 2 (bottom)

Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 (top) and GoRun Speed 2 (bottom)

One of the things that puzzled me about the GoMeb 3 was why the sole felt more resilient. The midsole firmness didn’t really feel any different, and after inquiring I think we figured it out. One of the changes to the sole in v3 was that they opened up the concavity under the midfoot a bit and extended it backward under the heel. This allows for a bit more downward deflection of the heel under pressure (more open space under the foot), and gives the shoe a bit more bounce (not sure if that’s the right word to use, it’s hard to describe the difference in words). The photo below shows the difference in the size of the concavity well – it’s amazing how such a seemingly small change can alter the feel of a shoe so much:

Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 (top) and GoRun Speed 2 (bottom) – note the larger concavity under the midfoot of v3; it also extends back under the heel

Other changes from v2 to v3 include a slightly more padded ankle collar, and a softer interior lining of the upper which makes for more comfortable sockless running. The GoMeb Speed 3 also gains a bit of weight over v2 – the size 10 production shoe that I have (NYC version) weighs in at 7.9 oz vs. 7.2 oz for my Speed 2 in the same size. I don’t really notice the difference on the run. I’m pretty sure the stack height has remained the same at 18mm heel, 14mm forefoot.

As sometimes happens in the shoe development process, features are added that generate some amount of passion and controversy. In my review of the Skechers GoRun 4 I discussed my feelings about the addition of a Quick Fit Portal to the tab behind the heel. The QFP is a hole that you can slip your finger through to help pull the shoe onto your foot. I received a prototype of the GoMeb 3 that had a QFP (see photo below) and didn’t think it was a good idea in a shoe with a stiffer heel counter than the GoRun. I could feel the margins of the portal against my skin and felt that the risk of abrasion outweighed any benefit. Fortunately it was decided that the QFP would be left off the GoMeb.

Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 Final Version (left) and Prototype With Quick Fit Portal (right)

Skechers GoMeb 3 Prototypes (top and bottom) and Final Version (middle)

In all, I went through four iterations of the GoMeb Speed 3 to arrive at the final version, pictured below. The end product is a really nice looking shoe that feels like a much better match for my stride. It’s still a firm shoe, but it has a bit more spring under the heel, and the fit up front is just a tad more forgiving.

I raced a 5K in the GoMeb 3 last Spring – wasn’t my best race but I don’t blame the shoe. It’s a bit more shoe than I Iike for a 5K (Skechers needs a sub 6 oz speed flat!), but should serve well as a 5K race shoe for many. More importantly, it’s now a shoe that I’d be willing to use for long miles and races up to the marathon.

Conclusion

I’m very impressed with what Skechers has done in this update to the GoMeb Speed. The changes aren’t huge, but are just enough that both the fit and ride are much more to my liking. It’s a great looking shoe, and it’s tough to argue about performance – it is Meb’s marathon shoe after all, and was on his feet when he won Boston last year. If you’re looking for a racing shoe that’s a bit more forgiving than the typical flat, the GoMeb Speed 3 would be a great choice.

For some additional thoughts on the GoMeb Speed 3, see this video review by Caleb Masland.

The Skechers GoMeb Speed 3 sells for MSRP $120 and can be purchased at Running Warehouse and Shoebuy.

• Pat O’Malley, Head of Footwear
• Spencer White, Head of our Biomechanics Lab
• Chris Mahoney, Senior Designer
• Sean Robbins, Digital Marketing Manager

I’d spoken to Sean before, and have interacted with him a number of times via email, but this was the first time I’ve actually had contact with the footwear design team from the company. The purpose of the call was for Saucony to have a chance to explain a bit about their plans to reduce 3 of their flagship shoes from a 12mm heel-forefoot drop down to 8mm (the Triumph 9, Guide 5, and Hurricane 14).

I was impressed by how open the folks from Saucony were, and they answered every question we threw at them. I asked if they could give me a bit of history regarding the origin of the 12mm heel-forefoot differential, and if they knew when and why that number was settled upon as standard by the industry. The response was that they had indeed looked into that, but could not find an answer. They indicated that back in the 80’s some of their shoes had even a higher lift, but that it seems that much of the reasoning behind the design standard was simply because that is how it has been done for as long as any of them could remember – in other words, a historical norm with no real scientific basis (and they agreed on the lack of good science supporting it).

Of particular interest relating to the topic of heel lifts in running shoes is the fact that the Saucony folks revealed to us that they intend to abandon the 12mm lift model entirely. If all goes according to the plan they described, all of their traditional 12mm lift shoes will be migrated down to 8mm (not just the three mentioned above). They indicated that the science and their in-house testing supports the move, and feedback from their testers has indicated that people overwhelmingly have preferred a lower drop shoe. They also informed us that the Kinvara is now their number two best selling shoe after the Saucony Ride – they have a ton of consumer data since the Kinvara came out before most other companies started putting out lower drop shoes, and thus their experience tells them that this is the right choice at the right time.

We covered much additional ground in our conversation, but to me this was the biggest news. If they follow through, Saucony will be the first of the big running shoe manufacturers to fully abandon what has until recently been almost an industry standard midsole differential in favor of something less. I give them a lot of credit for having the guts to make changes to their traditional line. It’s a bold move in the current market, and it will be interesting to see how it is received.

What do you think? Wise choice, or big risk?

Image via Wikipedia

I’m often amazed by the degree to which we humans will put fashion before function when it comes to both our feet and our footwear.

A few days ago my friend Mark Cucuzzella forwarded me a link to an NPR article about the film adaptation of the book “Snow Flower and the Secret Fan.” In the article, film director Wayne Wang discusses the practice of foot binding, a horrific and disfiguring practice in which young girls’ feet were intentionally broken and bandaged in order to make them appear as small as possible (check out the x-ray above!). Wang makes an interesting comparison between foot binding and the modern wear of high-heeled shoes:

“Wang says footbinding was meant to establish and display social status. He elaborates that women with bound feet did not have to work in the fields, got carried around by other people, and were considered attractive by men.

Wang says that wearing high heels today is similar to having bound feet in the past because feet are packed into a tight shoe, and women who could afford heels are probably driven in cars by others.”

From there I found an associated NPR story specifically focused on the practice of Chinese foot binding –  here is an excerpt, and you can listen to the audio of the full story below:

“Wang Lifen was just 7 years old when her mother started binding her feet: breaking her toes and binding them underneath the sole of the foot with bandages. After her mother died, Wang carried on, breaking the arch of her own foot to force her toes and heel ever closer. Now 79, Wang no longer remembers the pain.”

“Because I bound my own feet, I could manipulate them more gently until the bones were broken. Young bones are soft, and break more easily,” she says.

Although foot binding clearly takes things to an extreme – modifying the foot to fit a tiny shoe – our practice of cramming our feet into shoes with narrow, tapered toeboxes clearly has the potential to cause deformity as well. Take a look at this X-Ray from Edward Munson’s 1912 book “The Soldier’s Foot and the Military Shoe“:

Makes you wonder how many of us who have spend our lives shod have truly natural foot anatomy and function – do your big and little toes angle inward toward their neighbors? Something to think about…

I need to start training harder so that I can warrant my own custom last…

It started with the first post published on the Brooks Blog about the PureProject. In the post, the author discusses how Brooks partnered with a market research firm:

“…Brooks partnered with the consumer insights and design firm, IDEO. IDEO is often regarded as the preeminent design and innovation firm. This is due in large part to their unique, qualitative approach to consumer insight gathering and how they synthesize that into inspiration for design.  Our team traveled the country from Chicago to Austin to NYC to talk to new runners ages 25 to 35.”

A couple of things bothered me about this. First, why emphasize market research? If you’re goal is to develop a performance product for runners, shouldn’t the foremost emphasis be placed on research as to how that product can be made in a way that is biomechanically most sound? Wouldn’t this be the point you’d want to emphasize when introducing the product to the world? I’d have preferred something along the lines of:

We studied every type of runner we could possibly find, both in the lab and on the road. We consulted with top experts on running mechanics across the country. We designed the PureProject shoes by putting a desire for a biomechanically sound product first and foremost, because we did the research and we know what runners need to help them maximize efficiency and minimize injury risk (and we have published the data to prove it). We varied heel heights, we varied cushioning, we varied last shape, and we came up with four shoes that we think will best suit the most runners.

I’m not a marketing expert, but if I’m relying on a shoe to allow me to run fast and keep me from getting injured, this is the kind of thing I want to hear. Later in the post, the author does say they are “…keeping biomechanics as the focal point for design on BOTH ends of the spectrum.” Why not put this right up front? Brooks has some excellent biomechanical experts who do work for them – why not make them the centerpiece?

Here’s a second point about the consumer insight approach – why focus your work on new runners? These are the people with the least experience out on the roads and trails, and are least likely to be able to provide helpful information about what makes a shoe effective in practice. I want design of my shoes to be driven by experienced runners and biomechanics experts, not by people who are just getting into the sport. Maybe I’m misunderstanding this, but it seems strange.

Moving along in that first Brooks Blog post, we have this quote:

“…the new runner feels disconnected from the current retail experience. They are clearly seeking a more simple understanding of the shoe selection process.”

Sounds good to me, and I agree. But in a more recent article in Running Insight, we get this quote from Brooks CEO Jim Weber:

“We see this very much as a specialty run product,” Weber said, “because it gives stores a chance to maintain their fitting process and offer their customers two different types of running experiences.”

OK. So, Brooks learned through its consumer insight research that new runners are looking for a more simple understanding of the shoe selection process, but their CEO states that they designed the PureProject shoes so that stores can maintain their current fitting process. Which is it going to be?

Next quote:

“We utilize a new proactive approach to biomechanics called Ideal. Ideal technology is built into the very geometry of these shoes. It was created to promote a runner’s ideal alignment by attempting to shift force application points to align force vectors, and then load internal structures to enhance performance and decrease the risk for injuries.”

I asked this question in my first post on the Brooks PureProject, but it’s worthy of repeating – enhanced performance and decreased risk for injuries compared to what? Brooks’ other shoes? Their competitors (e.g., Saucony’s Kinvara, Mirage, Cortana, and Peregrine – hmm, four shoes…)? Barefoot?

Regardless of the answer, statements like this mean nothing unless backed up by published data that can be read and evaluated by consumers if they so wish. Brooks is by no means unique in making statements like this (even barefoot proponents do it), but frankly I’m tired of reading statements about performance and injury risk without seeing hard data to back it up. Brooks released a PDF describing some of their IDEAL technologies and included some graphs based on lab data, but there is very little detail provided so it’s impossible to judge the meaning of this information (sample sizes, statistical significance, etc.). Interestingly, much of the information they report compares the PureProject shoes to “standard” running shoes, and points to the PureProject shoes as being better in a number of ways. That begs the question – which shoes were they compared against, and which performed worse? Are they still on the market?

Publish your research in a peer-reviewed journal. Fund a controlled trial of your shoes and publish it regardless of the results (to Brooks credit, this may be happening, just hope we get to see the results – see this news release). Show us the data!

There is one specific point I’d like to make about the PDF that Brooks published on the PureProject IDEAL technologies. In the document they tout the fact that their inverted heel design moves the point of ground contact forward:

“The Ideal Heel is an innovation that shifts the ground contact point forward. The runner lands with more ground clearance right under the middle of the heel rather than on an edge behind the center of the heel. This lets force vectors travel closer to joint centers and decreases lever arms and moments, leading to reduced internal stress and enhanced performance.”

“Landing more forward and reducing the lever arm also provides a smoother transition for the runner as they spend 10% less time in the braking phase wearing PureProject™ shoes. We also found that the shoes were able to shift the landing zone forward by 3cm, which is very similar to where runners hit the ground in the barefoot running condition. This encourages the foot to land under the body’s center of mass creating alignment of force vectors through the ankle, knee and hip joints.”

So if this is a good thing, why continue to design shoes with a more traditional style heel? The statement implies that the traditional heel increases internal stress and reduces performance!

I should also note that Dr. Joseph Hamill (who is doing some work for Brooks), just published a nice little study showing that running barefoot reduces loading rates compared to three iterations of shoes, all of which had a 4mm heel lift. All of the PureProject shoes have a 4mm heel lift. In their technology PDF Brooks points out that PureProject landings are still on the heel (albeit further forward), and there is very little discussion of running form anywhere in association with the product launch – I’m hoping that this will come later. I disagree with the statement about the similarity in landing location as compared to the barefoot condition, and Dr. Hamill’s study indicated that the likely reason for the reduced loading rate in the barefoot condition as opposed to that in the 4mm drop shoes was that barefoot landings tended to be on the midfoot/forefoot while shod landings were on the heel.

Moving along:

“Runners shouldn’t have to pay more for less technology. We want to build a better, biomechanically sound product in a lighter package that allows the runner to feel more with less.”

Excellent, and I agree once again. Well, the announced MSRP for the PureProject shoes ranges from $90-$120. You can come to your own conclusions on this one. We need more shoes like the New Balance MT101 – great trail shoe at a very reasonable price, and likely a direct competitor for the Brooks Pure Grit.

And I’ve saved the best for last – a gem from Brooks CEO Jim Weber on Running Insight:

“If you want to live your life with a ‘less is more’ philosophy, I can understand that,” Weber told Running Insight, “but when it comes to performance product the idea that ‘less is more’ is absolute crap.”

When I think about the term “performance” when it comes to a running shoe, I think sleek and lightweight. I think as little between my foot and the ground as possible. I think of a shoe like a racing flat, much like the Mach 12 cross-country flat that  Brooks makes. The Mach 12 is a great little shoe, perhaps a bit on the narrow end, but it does a lot very well. It’s low to the ground, lightweight, and free of bells and whistles. What’s more, its cheap – probably half the price of any of the PureProject shoes. Now, maybe Weber is going to start pushing for a Brooks Beast-style XC shoe, but to say that less is more is “crap” in a performance shoe is just bizarre.

This statement by Weber is also a slap in the face to the minimalist movement. Maybe that’s what Weber intended when he said it, but why offend the movement that made the market for the PureProject shoes possible? They may have been working on these shoes for years, but they didn’t pull the trigger on launching them until they saw a market – there was no risk-taking involved here. How do I know this? Because I recall quite clearly back in 2009 when Brooks was gauging interest in minimalist shoes on Twitter. In fact, I wrote a post about it on November 12, 2009 encouraging people to contact them – here’s what I said:

I just received a Twitter message from @brooksrunning requesting feedback regarding interest in a minimalist running shoe. My understanding is that there is nothing currently in the works, but that they want to hear if people are interested in such a shoe (in other words, would there be a significant market for it). If you’d like to see a minimalist shoe from Brooks, email them at news@brooksrunning.com or send a tweet to @brooksrunning to let them know.

I was in the Brooks ID sponsored runner program at the time, and I was very impressed with the way Brooks had embraced the on-line running community. I dropped out of the program shortly thereafter because I realized that being sponsored by a shoe company was not a good way to be unbiased given that I was getting into review writing, but I will say that I was also very impressed with the people I interacted with at Brooks, and I don’t think Weber’s comments represent the company as a whole (I certainly hope not…).

All of this seems like a bit of a confused message – I get the sense that Brooks is entering the minimalist market not because it’s the right thing to do (which I personally think it is, and I’m happy these shoes are finally coming out), but because they fear missing out on an opportunity. It’s clear to me that these shoes are arriving to try and capitalize on a market segment that has been until now been dominated by a few other companies – first Nike with the Free, then Saucony with the Kinvara, and now New Balance, Merrell, and many others. Brooks wants a piece of the action, and I don’t blame them for that – it’s good business. It’s just that when you read things like the statement above from the people at the top of the company, and see that consumer research with new runners is being emphasized and touted moreso than the biomechanics research that seems to have been done, it’s hard to view this product launch as anything more than a big money grab.

At the end of all of this, what I really want to see is a more honest approach to the design and marketing of running shoes. I want companies to put science before marketing, and to publish the science that is done no matter what the result – after all, we are dealing with products that are designed to help people run safely. I want to know that marketing claims that are made are backed by sound data, and that they are not simply sound-bites that appeal to new runners lacking the experience to know any better. I want the shoe fitting process to be looked at in detail, and revised if what we are doing know is wrong (as recent science seems to suggest). I’ve singled Brooks out here in this post because I’m tired of reading the same-old rhetoric, but they are by no means unique in their approach. Industry-wide change and re-evaluation is needed. Injury rates are high and have not changed for decades – why is this? Is running just an inherently dangerous sport, or might shoes be part of the problem?

We need answers, and it’s time for shoe companies to take risks because it’s the right thing to do, to be truly innovative. Don’t settle for the status quo because it’s easy. Question dogma, do research, and publish it. We will all benefit as a result.

Update 10/24/2011: I share my thoughts on the Brooks Pure Connect here.

Saucony Fastwitch 4

Saucony Fastwitch 5 Image via RunningShoesGuru.com

So what’s the big deal here? Well, while New Balance is set to release it’s 4mm drop Minimus line of shoes with a great degree of excitement and caution (word is they will initially have to be bought in store so that proper transition methods can be discussed), Saucony has had shoes with a similar level of heel to forefoot drop on the market for most of 2010, and nobody would argue with the fact that the Kinvara has been one of the hottest running shoes around in 2010 (my Kinvara review is consistently one of my top three posts in terms of blog traffic). Saucony has likely accumulated a lot of consumer feedback based on the success of the Kinvara, and my suspicion is that if they were receiving a rash of injury reports, this move with the Fastwitch 5 would not have occurred. Rather, I suspect that the success and popularity of both the Kinvara and Grid Type A4 have allowed Saucony to see that lower drop shoes sell, and that it’s a feature that many runners now want. Hence the decision to slice a good chunk off the heel off the Fastwitch 5 and go more aggressively after this section of the market.

I’m excited about this development because it suggests that we are continuing to see a push toward more minimalist style shoes. Saucony was an early adopter in the minimalist market, particularly compared to companies like Asics, Brooks, and Mizuno, who have largely relied on existing racing shoes to appeal to minimalist runners. The benefit of this early movement into the niche is that Saucony now has a one-year jump on much of the competition when it comes to marketing minimalist-style shoes (i.e., they have a lot of market data and consumer feedback to work with), and they are going to be the first of the big players to put out a true zero-drop shoe, the Saucony Hattori, in the not too distant future (other players like shoe giant Merrell and upstart Altra will be jumping in with zero-drop options next year as well). All of these companies deserve some credit for being a bit ahead of the game.

I must also confess to having a soft spot for Saucony shoes. The Fastwitch 2 was my first ever racing shoe, and it is the shoe in which I ran my 5K and half-marathon PR’s. Those PR’s still stand today, mostly because I haven’t raced those distance much lately, but I should honestly point out that the heel didn’t seem to get in my way when it came to running a fast race. However, I have moved away from that type of heel-lifted shoe for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is my determination to make my retooled midfoot stride stick and see how it affects my running going into the future – in other words, I’m planning for the long term. My Fastwitch 2’s are still runnable, but they are now collecting dust under a table in my office (they are my backup in case I forget to bring shoes with me on run days at work). My past experience with the shoe is probably part of the reason why I’m excited to try out the new Fastwitch. My other Saucony success story is that my marathon PR came this past Fall in the Saucony Kinvara, a race in which I also qualified for the Boston Marathon. I’m not naive enough to credit my performance in those PR races to my shoes, but PR shoes earn a special place in a runner’s psyche, and Saucony happened to be the brand on my feet on those triumphant days.

I’ve said this before, but 2011 is going to be a very exciting year for minimalist style runners, and news like that about the hacked heel of the Fastwitch 5 makes me ever more confident that variety in shoe design and choice is only going to increase. Minimalism has found a firm place in the running shoe market, and though it might not be for everyone, it’s nice that those of us who are proponents of a less-is-more approach to footwear will have even more options going forward.

It’s been a rather interesting couple of days here on Runblogger. Yesterday, after I published a review on a remarkable study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine that looked at the efficacy of pronation control shoes in preventing pain and injury in runners, Christopher McDougall published a post of his own on the same study that was provocatively titled “Breaking news from Nike: We’ve been talking a lot of crap, and selling it.“

In his post, McDougall states the following about the BJSM study: “Essentially, the top scientist at the world’s top sports shoe company is attached to a study that suggests the whole running shoe business is built on nonsense.” I’ve been mulling this over for the past 24 hours, and the implications of this paper are really quite amazing.

First, it’s important to realize that this study was supported by Nike. In the Acknowledgements section of the paper, the authors state that they would “like to acknowledge both Nike Canada, for donating clothing to our clinic leaders, and Nike Global, for providing footwear and funding for this project.” In the Competing Interests statement they state : “A research partnership grant from Nike Global was awarded to MBR, JET and KM to conduct this investigation. GAV is employed at Nike Global.” What does this mean? It means that Nike was well aware that this study was being conducted, and presumably knew of its results.

So why would Nike, the biggest sports shoe manufacturer out there, help to produce a study that essentially shows that all of the pronation control devices that we base our running shoe selections upon are ineffective at preventing pain and injury in the people who are supposed to be wearing them? Let me speculate:

1. Evidence is mounting that these shoes are ineffective at doing what they claim to do. The BJSM study was just one of several recent studies showing basically the same thing (there are a couple of large studies conducted by the military that are referred to in this NY Times article by Gretchen Reynolds – I have them and am working through them now). Other bloggers have discussed the problems with current shoe designs (e.g., this great post by Steve Magness and this one by Amby Burfoot), and hints at the questionable benefits of pronation control shoes have been present in the scientific literature for some time now (see this 2001 paper by expert biomechanist Benno Nigg).

2. If the shoe industry is changing, as suggested by McDougall in another post on his blog, wouldn’t you want to be in position to lead that change? If Nike was fully supportive of the publication of this paper, then I give them credit for helping to produce this data – it’s the right thing to do from a consumer standpoint. It’s clear that we need to rethink how we design and choose our shoes, and it would be a brilliant business move on Nike’s part to push the market and out-maneuver its competitors.

3. Nike is well positioned to adapt to a changing market. They are a huge company, can probably change production directions more easily than anyone else, and already have an established line of transitional and minimalist shoes (the Nike Free line). If traffic to this blog is any indication, the new Nike Free Run+ is a runaway hit, and the Nike Free 3.0 recently returned from its seeming demise. I wouldn’t be surprised if a Nike Free 1.0 is already in development – I’m hopeful that it is.

Although all of this is admittedly speculation and guesswork on my part, as a shoe geek it’s certainly interesting to think about. If Nike is indeed placing itself to lead a change in the market, other manufacturers had better take notice or be left in the dust as Nike runs past them (in truly minimalist shoes).

Heel-Toe drop/offset/differential as defined by Brooks Running is “the difference between (midsole + outsole) heel height and (midsole + outsole) forefoot height” (see picture above from New Balance if you’re not clear what the midsole and outsole are). Thus, a drop of zero would mean that when seated in the shoe, the heel and ball of the forefoot would be at exactly the same height off of the ground. A drop of 12mm would mean that the heel sits 12mm higher off the ground than the forefoot. The importance of the HT drop value is that it’s thought that the lower it is, the easier it will be to land on your midfoot or forefoot while running. I’m not sure if there have been published studies confirming this, but my personal experience running in shoes of varying HT drop values, as well as a few of my informal laboratory attempts to correlate heel height in shoes with footstrike, seem to suggest that this relationship is likely real. You can check out these posts for more:

Vibram Fivefingers and Barefoot Running: Does Removing Heel Cushion Change Footstrike?

Relationship Between Running Footstrike and Footwear: From Stability Shoes to Barefoot

Given growing interest among runners in how a given shoe might affect their footstrike, some running shoe manufacturers and running shoe sellers have begun reporting this value as a standard spec on each shoe. For example, Brooks Running has posted HT drop data on their blog for their more “minimalist” shoes, and Running Warehouse lists midsole height for the heel and forefoot for many of the shoes that it sells. I like this trend a lot, as it allows runners to consider one more piece of data to help them make a more informed choice of shoe to match their running style (e.g., it allows midfoot/forefoot runners to more easily find shoes with a lower drop if that’s what they prefer).

Despite the seemingly simple definition, I still find a few points confusing about the concept of heel-toe drop. Some places refer only to midsole height (e.g., Running Warehouse), whereas others (Brooks) include both midsole and outsole height in their calculation. Including the outsole does make a difference in some cases – as an example here are the stats reported on the Brooks blog for the Brooks Launch (one of my favorite shoes):

Brooks Launch
Midsole Height: Heel (22 mm), Forefoot (10 mm)
Outsole Height: Heel (3 mm), Forefoot (5.5 mm)
Heel-to-Toe Offset: 9.5 mm
Tooling Height: Heel (25 mm), Forefoot (15.5 mm)

You can see from the above example that the Launch actually has a slightly lower offset when the outsole is included in the calculation, due to the fact that the outsole is actually a bit thicker in the forefoot (tooling height, another new term to me, is oustole + midsole thickness). What confuses me is why you would ever exclude the outsole, and why the insole never seems to be included in these calculations? Seems to me that the goal is to determine how high off the ground the heel sits relative to the forefoot, and thus all three elements separating the foot from the ground should be included: insole (insert), midsole, and outsole.

Given this, I thought I’d do a little home experiment and measure the heel-toe drop in some of the shoes in my shoe rack. The challenge in doing this is that you can’t simply measure heel or forefoot height from the side of the shoe because the midsole frequently curls up around the sides above the level where the heel sits, such that you might overestimate thickness if measuring in this manner (not to mention that you wouldn’t be including the insole thickness). Rather, what I did was to use a bar clamp that could be cinched up inside the shoe on the insole and on the bottom of the outsole – in other words, I clamped from the top of the insole to the bottom of the outsole. By comparing the length of the clamp bar when fully closed to the length when cinched to the shoe (see photos below), I could calculate the difference and thereby estimate heel or forefoot thickness.

I measured heel thickness at the center of the heel, and forefoot thickness where the ball of the foot (i.e., metatarsal heads) would rest. The latter was accomplished by sliding the clamp arm through the laces between the tongue and the eyerow of the upper, so that no upper fabric was included in the measurement (this couldn’t be done in the Vibram Fivefingers KSO’s or Nike Sneakerboat, so I estimated the thickness of the forefoot fabric and subtracted it from the measured height). All measurements were taken on both the right and left shoes and averaged (measurements were remarakably consistent between sides on most shoes, giving me greater confidence in my data).

Clearly the measurements I provide below aren’t perfect, and a far superior way to do this would be to cut the shoe in half lengthwise and measure thickness with a calipers (which for obvious reasons, I can’t justify doing to my own shoes – but Newton Running has a picture posted of one of their shoes cut in this manner – see below).

Furthermore, all of these shoes have been worn for varying amounts of time, so I have no idea how much of an effect midsole compaction or outsole wear with increasing mileage might have on these measurements (that would be another interesting home experiment to do, and I hypothesize that if anything, compaction would decrease drop by compacting the heel cushion in a heel-striker like me; regarding outsole wear, most of mine is on the lateral corner of the heel, and was probably not a major factor in these measurements).

Despite the above considerations, I’ve made an academic living out of measuring microsopic parts of animal skeletons, so I’m pretty careful when it comes to taking measurements, and thus I’m confident that these numbers are at least reasonably accurate (and the method used was the same on all shoes).

Update 6/08/09: Ian Adamson from Newton Running was kind enough to leave several comments on this post, including one in which he lists the heel and forefoot thickness for each line of Newton shoes. Since my numbers for the Sir Isaac don’t match his, I thought I’d try to remeasure my Sir Isaac’s using another technique that is also easy to do at home. All that it entailed was measuring the height of a skewer stick, and then measuring the height to which it extended when lifted by the heel or forefoot of the shoe. You can see how I did this in the pictures below:

Below is what the resulting marks looked like on the paper:

You can see from the above that this method yielded a heel height of 33mm, and a forefoot height of 25mm, which gives a heel-toe drop of 8mm. These numbers are very close to those that I measured using the clamp method (see below – the fact that they are 0.5-1mm larger might be due to the clamp slightly compressing the insole when cinched), and I am confident in their accuracy. Not sure why there is a discrepancy with the numbers that Ian reported below (28mm heel, 23mm forefoot, 5mm drop).

Here are my numbers for heel height, forefoot height, and heel-toe drop using the clamp method:

Men’s Shoes

Saucony Progrid Guide: 31mm heel, 18mm forefoot = 13mm drop
Brooks Launch: 28.5mm heel, 18mm forefoot = 10.5mm drop
Brooks Green Silence: 25mm heel, 16mm forefoot = 9mm drop
Newton Sir Isaac: 32mm heel, 24.5mm forefoot (measured at middle actuator lugs) = 7.5mm drop
Nike Lunaracer: 24mm heel, 18mm forefoot = 6mm drop
Brooks Mach 11 XC Flat: 16mm heel, 12mm forefoot = 4mm drop
Saucony Kilkenny 3 XC Flat: 17mm heel, 13mm forefoot = 4mm drop
Nike Free 3.0 v2: 23mm heel, 19mm forefoot = 4mm drop
Vibram Fivefingers KSO: 8mm heel, 8mm forefoot = 0mm drop
Nike Sneakerboat II: 9mm heel, 11mm forefoot = -2mm drop
Saucony Kinvara: 23mm heel, 19mm forefoot = 4mm drop
Nike Free Run+: 26mm heel, 19mm forefoot = 7mm drop
GoLite Amp Lite (w/ thickest forefoot insert): 19mm heel, 19mm forefoot = 0mm drop

-All men’s shoes above are size 10 except the Nike Lunaracer and Saucony Kilkenny, which are 10.5, and the Vibram Fivefingers KSO’s, which are size 42)

Women’s Shoes

Asics 2130: 31.5mm heel, 17mm forefoot = 14.5mm drop
New Balance 768: 34.5mm heel, 20.5mm forefoot = 14mm drop
Brooks Adrenaline 9: 32mm heel, 19mm forefoot = 13mm drop
Nike Free 5.0: 29mm heel, 19mm forefoot = 10mm drop

-All women’s shoes above are size 9 except the New Balance 768’s, which are 8.5

Children’s Shoes

Asics 2130 (Kid’s 12): 26.5mm heel, 18.5mm forefoot = 8mm drop

A couple of thoughts on the numbers above:

1. First, how do my measurements match up with those published for some of these shoes? It’s difficult to compare absolute heel and forefoot thickness since I included the insole, so instead I’ll focus on the numbers reported for heel-toe drop in a few shoes for which I could find published data on-line (insole height might explain some of the discrepancies):

Brooks Launch: my measured drop = 10.5mm, mfr. published drop = 9.5mm
Brooks Green Silence: my measured drop = 9mm, mfr. published drop = 8mm
Brooks Mach 11: my measured drop = 4mm, mfr. published drop = 6.7mm (after running almost 50 miles in the Mach 11’s, I suspected that the drop was lower than the 6.7mm reported by Brooks)
Newton Sir Isaac: my measured drop = 7.5mm, mfr. published drop = 5m

My conclusion is that it is often hard to know what the thickness numbers being reported by manufacturers include – i.e., just midsole, midsole + outsole, or insole + midsole + outsole. Seems to me the latter is the most accurate representation of where the foot would sit relative to the ground in any given shoe, and that’s what I have reported here (with potential inaccuracies noted above). I should point out that a 1mm discrepancy is very small, and probably negligible from a performance standpoint (and not to mention, also probably well within the margin of error).

2. You can clearly see my preference for minimalist shoes by looking at the drops on most of the shoes in my collection. A more typical trainer like the Saucony Guide (or most of my wife’s shoes in the Women’s section) has a drop of 12-14mm, whereas most of my shoes have a drop of less than 10mm.

3. The thickness of the heel in the Newton Sir Isaac (see picture below) surprised me. At 32mm, it has a heel thickness that is right in line with most of the traditional training shoes included here. This likely explains why I heel strike in them despite the fact that they are designed to be a shoe to help runners transition into a midfoot/forefoot gait. They have a lower drop than traditional training shoes, but this appears to mostly be accomplished by a thickening of the forefoot and addition of the actuator lugs.

4. Comparing my Nike Free 3.0 (see picture below) to my wife’s Nike Free 5.0 shows clearly that the Free 3.0 is the flatter soled shoe. The heel thickness in the Free 5.0 is not far off what you would find in a traditional training shoe.

5. Spikeless cross country flats like the Brooks Mach 11 (see picture below) or Saucony Kilkenny are truly very flat (4mm drop for both). They’re also very cheap, which makes them good choices if you can handle a narrow shoe and want to experiment with a low-drop shoe.

6. The Vibram Fivefingers KSO’s (see below) are a true zero-drop shoe.

7. The Nike Sneakerboat II (picture below) appears to have a negative drop, meaning that the forefoot is thicker than the heel. I’m not 100% certain on the accuracy for this one as it doesn’t have a tongue and I had to subtract an estimate of upper fabric thickness for the forefoot, but I need to take these on a run and see how they perform.

8. My wife, who I’m almost certain is a natural forefoot striker based on her shoe wear patterns (need to confirm this with video), clearly needs some more appropriate shoes for her gait. Speculation altert!!! – maybe this is why she’s had continual problems with running injuries and I haven’t?

9.My 6yo son’s Asics 2130’s have a lower drop than my wife’s 2130’s. This is good, but there’s still an awful lot of probably unnecessary cushion on the sole of that shoe. I’d still like to find him some sneakers with a flatter sole, but thankfully he spends most of his time barefoot or in Crocs.

Hope you found this helpful – I’ll probably add to this list as new shoes find their way into my house. I’d also encourage you to give this a try yourself, and feel free to report numbers for your shoes in the comments. If you have any of the shoes that I measured, I’d be interested to see how your measurements compare.