What is the ideal midsole height in a running shoe?

Simon, out of curiosity and the fact that your last comment really bothers me, I looked a little deeper at ASICS to confirm or dispel whether there is a relationship between heel drop and shoe weight or not. I chose a specific shoe company whose products I think you are familiar with, Asics.

Piranha SP......weight 4.6 OZ......heel height 14mm, toe height 10mm......drop 4mm
Hyperspeed.....weight 7.2OZ.....heel 15mm, toe 10mm......drop 5mm
DS Racer......weight 7.6 OZ....heel 19mm, toe 10mm......drop 9mm (not 10 as you inaccurately stated)

Even with just one brand of shoes, the relationship is very clear, as the size of the heel drop increases so does the weight. Feel free to add more models of Asics to the analysis. I just picked the lighter shoes. Dig into some of the Asics with bigger heel to toe differentials and you quickly get into some pretty heavy shoes.


Dana

 

Look no further, use the 33 by Asics Collection as the exemplifying model.

You have got to be kidding me, they look like a poor attempt at a knockoff of the Nike Free, yet 40% heavier. Who is Asics trying to market these shoes to? I'm really struggling with the point. A great example of a conglomeration of compromises that will not likely suit anyone's requirements. Any bets on how long they take to hit the clearance racks?

 

The subject of this thread is an excellent one. I find it unfortunate that there can't be a constructive discussion and exchange of ideas around what the ideal midsole height or the heel-toe differential in a running shoe might be. It was pointed out in the initial post that the literature lacks supporting evidence to warrant change or to remain as is for that matter. Certainly, the lack of supporting literature does not preclude learning but I don't see that happening here. Because someone hasn't written about ideal midsole height or conducted and published a study, it does not necessarily preclude the existence of knowledge or insight about the subject.

In spite of the minimalist party line about minimalist shoes and "zero drop", I found it curious that New Balance chose a 4mm drop for it's line of minimal shoes. Given a certain characteristic or specification of a running shoe, it is almost impossible to draw meaningful conclusions about the effectiveness of a give specification by testing the shoe on a short run. By short, I mean 2, 3 or even 10 miles. It's just not long enough for the runner to fatigue enough and for the characteristics of the shoe to take over and compensate. It's also not long enough for a shoe with less than ideal specs to show an adverse impact on running performance. It often takes a run of 20, 30 or even as much as 50 miles before a runner can get a good sense of the performance aspects of a given characteristic of a shoe. I found the NB Minimus to be no different. For that matter, it took me almost 40 miles in a given run in NB Minimus trail shoes to gain the insight I was looking for regarding a 4mm drop.

Not only did I learn about what it means to me to run in a pair of shoes that has a 4mm drop, it also helped me understand some things about running in a pair of shoes with a zero drop as well as shoes with a 6mm drop or even greater.

Since I'm not aware of a crowd of people on this forum that have the ability to test a given pair of shoes in a 40 or 50 mile run, I thought what I had to share might be of interest. Apparently not, so I'll leave you to wait for the studies to come out on the ideal midsole height. I know you certainly wouldn't want to use the feedback from your clients who have pathological problems because, well, they have pathology.

I will conclude by saying that it is very clear to me what the ideal midsole height of a running shoe should be. Hint: it is not a zero drop. I'll let you fumble around for the next several years while you wait for some genius to conduct a study and come to a conclusion on ideal mid sole height. Good luck with that.

Fortunately there are some running shoe companies that have an open enough mindset to actually solicit feedback from experienced runners on their shoes so that they can continue to improve their designs.

Dana

 

And herein lies the overall issue Dana with this whole concept of 'drop' and barefoot stuff to begin with. You state that its going to take up to 50miles to get a real grasp of the shoe characteristics. While this may be correct for you, its not going to be right for someone starting out their running 'career' or even those that sit in an office 9-5 all week and just want some short runs for fitness. These people will notice the shoe characteristics, such as a 10mm drop helping them out even on short runs of say 2-3miles.

The best thing that has come out of all the discussion and fad movement is that there is options for all sorts of people and a focus on running technique. But these heel heights and midsole thicknesses will be useful for a majority of runners (that is the back end of marathons where average times in the US in 2010 are now reaching greater than 4hrs 20mins!).

 

Ben, for someone starting out their running 'career' or are just doing short runs for fitness, there is no question that they could benefit from what is learned from someone who runs 50 miles to gain insight on the effect of various shoe characteristics.

My point was not about what is correct for me but rather what can be learned or what is known, in spite of it not being in the literature. The literature does not support whether a 10mm drop helps someone running 2-3 miles or not. Based on what I've learned, I have a good idea about how a new runner might respond to a shoe with a 10 mm drop a 4 mm drop or just about anything in between. I also have an opinion based on experience about what might be best for a new runner. You can't assume that what the shoe companies are marketing, whether it be a zero drop shoe or a 10 mm drop shoe that either is best for a new or an experienced runner.

I thought the subject of this thread was an excellent one. In spite of the literature not supporting a given heel-toe differential over another does not mean that knowledge or insight about heel-toe differential doesn't exist. It is unfortunate that we can't have a discussion on this forum about different thoughts or ideas with respect to heel toe differential. No loss to me really.

Dana

 

I find it interesting that designers set the gauge height of a model, but fail to change it when the shoe length is either shorter or longer.

I assume if same shoe/model was used in a 'test', the momnet of angular velocity would change?

Toomoon, If this is true, have the shoe manufacturers got lucky or is their science behind it.

 

It's the way that the lasts are produced. Classically the master last maker will carve the last which is then copied and sized using a copy lathe. its enlarged not only in length, but in volume too.

 

Sorry Simon, I don't mean the 'last' but the gauge height of the sole and midsole. TooMoon mentioned it in his original post, that no matter what the shoe length, the forefoot height and the heel height remain the same. Therefore a UK size 5 would have a greater gradient (or ramp angle) than a UK size 14,

The shoes length, gauge height and 'moments' are related, therefore changing the length of the shoe will change these 'moments'.

If that is a ‘given’, an Asics 2160 size 7 will perform differently that Asics 2160 size 13, even though they have same material, upper etc.

If manufacturers have be making shoes 'for years' like this, is it because:
A) Research shows the longer the foot the lower gradient required
B) The manufacturers got lucky - and no one has noticed/complained
C) Shoes don't need to be that technical, as the foot is amazing and copes?

I only mention Asics as I check the gauge height of a size 7 and 13 earlier today.

 

If that is a ‘given’, an Asics 2160 size 7 will perform differently that Asics 2160 size 13, even though they have same material, upper etc.

Unfortunately that is correct Jonathon, and the reason is very simple. No athletic footwear company in the world could afford to tool a factory to make the adjustments neccesary to scale for side.
This is one of the sad and frustrating things about a mass production market, but a commercial reality unless we are talking bespoke footwear.

 

Ironically in a former life I was a tool maker (Aerospace). As all the moulds still need to be tooled - why can't they not accommodate the gauge ratio in new models?

(I know it's not always that easy)

Whilst there are probably too many variables it would be interesting to know if there was a relationship between foot length/ performance and gauge height'

Posted a while back, Dr Craig Payne did some work on shoe performance using an in-shoe PMD, the timing of the CoP leaving the heel was a reference. The assumption was, the 'better' the shoe the faster CoP would leave heel. (Craig correct me if I am wrong).
Although there was little difference in the results (the controls were quite strict) there was a difference, I would like to have known the gauge height of each shoe and whether this was reflected in the results.

If you could donate a Uni some shoes, 55 Eva and a pot of glue. They could run the same test with the shoes ‘standard’ and then add the EVA to create the same gauge ratio, see if it really matters.