World vs. Times

Posted by on Thursday, January 29, 2009 @ 10:31 pm | 7 Replies

runnersworld_feb09_coverMagazine shoe reviews can be mixed bag. The current issues of Runner’s World and Running Times are a great example.

We’ve been working for almost two years to get Runner’s World to review our shoes. The hold-up seemed to be that Newton didn’t fit any of RW’s standard shoe test categories. Finally, when New Balance introduced its own forefoot/midfoot shoe, the 800, Runner’s World had a category and could publish a comparison of the shoes. Of course, the comparison is apples versus oranges. We have to agree with blogger Jim Gosse’s critique of the review. Click the following link to read the article and form your own opinion. runnersworld_feb09_gravity

Interestingly, Runner’s World UK has a similar, but much more positive review of the Newton shoe. Click the image below to read their review.runners-mar09-step-forward

Meanwhile, the March issue of Running Times features a in-depth article on midfoot running by Brian Metzler. In the story, Metzler includes quotes from the major proponents of midfoot running, including Danny Dreyer, Malcolm Balk, Nicholas Romanov and Newton Running’s cofounder, Danny Abshire. The article delves into the history of running technique and includes results from some interesting midfoot running studies. It’s a much more detailed and in our opinion, more valuable story for readers than the very cursory midfoot shoe review in Runner’s World.

At Newton Running, our first priority is helping runners to learn faster, more efficient running technique. Metzler’s article in Running Times presents one of the more comprehensive and compelling arguments for runners to try midfoot running that we’ve seen to date.

Click the following link to read the Running Times story and you can be the judge. Running Times Mar09_Newton

Share

7 thoughts on “World vs. Times

  1. Chevas

    I’m actually of the belief that all human beings are “bio-mechanically blessed” to be FOREFOOT runners. Active footwear has always been designed to pad up the heels making us think we can heel-strike since we were children. No one heel-strikes barefoot on hard ground. We naturally switch to a forefoot strike. I was a heel striker until my joints couldn’t take it. Once I switched to forefoot running, my leg muscles are way stronger and I have no joint pains. How does Runner’s World explain me?

  2. steve

    Speaking as a Brit now living in the States, I must say the UK version of Runner’s World is so much better than the US mag. I’m usually lucky enough to pick up a copy in the local bookstore and agree with you about the positive review of the Newton shoe.

    Of course, if you’d like me to review the shoes on my popular running blog – just say the word :)

  3. alex_m

    Sir Isaac. You link readers to two articles that you consider “positive,” “balanced” and “fair.” Yet you fail to provide a link to the article that claims “mixed results” and “room for improvement.” Short of going out and purchasing said magazine, I have absolutely no way of drawing my own conclusions (the RW article is not yet available on line). How is this supposed to help a potential buyer decide if the negative article is fair, biased or irrelevant? I do also realize that this blog aims to shine a positive light on your product but simply adding a link to the negative article would boost your credibility tenfold. Why not use this space as a soapbox to debate what you consider to be the article’s shortcomings. Ignoring a negative review screams “marketing ploy.” Do you think your readers are not able to form their own opinions?

  4. Sir Isaac Post author

    Thanks for your comment Alex. The reason we didn’t post the Runner World (US) article is that they generally frown upon scans of their articles posted online. But, I agree with your comment so I’ve added it to the post above…for now.
    Cheers,
    Sir Isaac

  5. J2theP

    The Runner’s World (us) article is a rather biased… and they gave no details of their “Lab” testing… Just another heap of ‘pseudo-science’ that the media world is giving us these days…

  6. Steve D

    I am not “biomechanically efficient”. I would probably be the poster child for the “non-biomechanically efficient”. I’ve got morton’s toe on both feet and they are flat. I am not a 140 lb. marathoner, I am a 200 lb. plodder. I have run in Newtons for the last 7 months and I do not hurt. I hope that gets across; I DO NOT HURT! My knees don’t hurt, my hips don’t hurt, my back doesn’t hurt. I did 8 miles in my Newtons Friday without pain. For the first time in my life I actually enjoy running (which is a relative term since speed is not in my arsenal). So phooey, get some Newtons and go run!

  7. Jon D

    I recently purchased (3 months ago) a pair of Newton Motion Running Shoes. Running in Nikes, New Balance and Asics for the past 2 years, I have been trying to find the right balance of weight, stability and breathability.

    The first few days of running in the Newtons (3 miles @ 8:30 pace) was a new experience. My calves were a bit sore, as I was a heel landing runner and I had to get used to running on the front of my feet. After that initial break-in time, I started to notice that my times went down considerably.

    In the past 3 months I have dropped 2 minutes off of my personal best 5k time and I have noticed considerably less back pain after a long run.

    I run for personal growth and not for a career. The less my equipment interrupts my run the better I feel. The sensation of running in these shoes is comparable to running barefoot. The shoes are practically weightless and they hold up on long outdoor runs as well as fast treadmill sessions. I also appreciate the eco-friendly packaging. My next pair of shoes will be another pair of Newtons.

Leave a Reply