|
shoe dilemma
Hi
I have been suffering a bit from niggling injuries around the top of my insteps and anround the ankles and front of calves since doing the Pitlochry 10K in october and am deperately trying to maintain them and fitness for this weekend [oh and lose a cold as well].
When I started running in June, I bought a pair of Saucony Triumph [neutral] shoes from run-4-it in aberdeen, as that's what they reckoned I needed. They have been great shoes and seen me through mileage I never thought would have been possible when I started, but with the onset of these injuries I was beginning to wonder if they were getting worn out. I've done around 250miles on them but I am 110kg+, so was willing to accept that the extra pounding I give them might mean lower mileage if it meant less injury in the long run.
Saucony ran a 'shoe lab' yesterday [Thursday] in aberdeen so I went along and did the full treadmill video bit. The outcome was a bit surprising for me. I do have high arches [i.e they look neutral standing still and walking], but once running I tend to roll inwards quite a bit, so after going through a few options I bought a pair of motion control shoes [Saucony hurricanes] which felt great in the shop and on the treadmill and seems pretty similar in fit to my existing saucony shoes.
Here is the dilemma, and nobody in the shop or the Sauncony guy could decide what the best course of action was, but agreed it wasn't a simple decision.
Do I run the Glen Clova 1/2M on Saturday with my current [neutral] shoes, which might leave myself open to agravating these injuries for a few weeks, or do I run in the new shoes, which isn't normally recommended, but may do me less damage? Currently wearing them in round the office today in an attempt to break them in and get used to them.
Any thoughts?
Kenny
|
