Cushioned shoes reviews

You are looking at: Home : Reviews : Shoes : Cushioned shoes

New Balance 1063

A good high-mileage shoe for light, high-arched runners or heavier runners looking for secure cushioning.

This shoe should feel very different to its predecessor, as it's built on New Balance's new PL-1 last, to make the shoe less bulky and give a better fit. The Abzorb cushioning in the heel is now in columns rather than a single stack for a softer landing and Cocona ... Continue reading

3 user reviews of New Balance 1063 See all

Overall reader score

JOHN DONALDSON

Got my fist pair in jan 09, and i have just got 2 more pairs, they put up with everything i throw at them. Continue reading...

ANTHONY Donaldson

NB shoes were always race favourites as they are stable for a 185cm 80kg runner like me. Hopefully these will continue that tradition. Continue reading...

Dan98

A good lightweight cushioned shoe ideal for neutral runners or orthotic wearers.
Recommended. Continue reading...

See all reader reviews...

soreeneater

One of the recent articles in RW, talked about the fact that too much cushioning etc in shoes is bad for you. Should I run my present pair of shoes into the ground and just wear them forever? Should I buy the cheaper Asics rather than the top of the range? (not that I do anyway!)

Posted: 11/11/2009 at 19:24

kittenkat

Barefoot running or Vibrams......

Posted: 11/11/2009 at 19:35

LP84

Just remember that back in ye olden days people didn't run in super cushioned springy bouncy pillow shoes. They just wore cheapy canvas plimsolls.

With all this amazing shoe 'technology' you would imagine that we're all amazing runners free from injuries and leg problems but that's not the case.

I have friends who change their shoes fairly regularly and some who wear them FOREVER and the injury rate is pretty even. It's a personal decision but don't forget it's the shoe retailers who encourage us to get new shoes every 500miles.

Hmmmmm......

Posted: 11/11/2009 at 19:38

northern snail

I know that when my shoes get about 400 miles the cushioning feels worn out and the shoes lose some of the comfort. I normally replace them by the time they reach 400 miles.

Posted: 11/11/2009 at 21:46

cougie

I have a couple of pairs of different mileages on the go at the same time - worn out ones do feel 'flatter' than new ones and my feet ache more.

Everyone is different though - but I prefer to buy shoes rather than spend money on physio.

Posted: 11/11/2009 at 22:20

Bear B.Hind

I would have thought that if you run unevenly - as most mortals do - then you will be wearing out your shoes unevenly as well. That means that if you pronate/supinate, especially if it is on one side, then the older the shoes the more exaggerated the wear and you would only be exacerbating the problems you bought the shoes to remedy.

Posted: 11/11/2009 at 22:41

Steve C.

According to fetch I have three pairs coming up to the 800 km mark. I bought one replacement pair of Salomon 3D Pro GTX recently in preparation and the cushioning feels less springy than the pair that's nearly worn out. The others are Asics 2110 and 2140. I'm trying to wear them out but they all keep on going, with no injury problems either.

The conclusion for me is not to throw them out automatically - think of the environment! It maybe helps I only weigh 58 kg and wear them evenly. YMMV.

Posted: 12/11/2009 at 00:32

soreeneater

I have a pair of Mizunos which I bought just for races. I must admit , that when I put on a new pair, they feel great and I'm sure that I gain 3 or 4 seconds per mile. I do agree about the cost of a physio. A "good" pair of shoes is about the same as two visits. Thanks for your advice everyone.

58kg? I'm a skinny stick but I'm 70kg, big bones - it must be. (180cm in height)

Posted: 12/11/2009 at 17:28

Steve C.

According to this site's BMI calculator I'm well inside the normal range with a BMI of 20

As regards racing shoes, there must be a benefit for the lighter weight, but I have never seen any kind of pendulum physics analysis of swinging a weighted foot maybe 1800 times per mile run, but it must get noticeable energetically, after a point.

Posted: 13/11/2009 at 12:24

Steve C.

I spoke too soon. I found this in a paper on shoe protection and running performance:

"It is commonly believed that wearing lighter shoes with fewer protective features can
save energy. While oxygen uptake my be reduced by 1% or so for every 100 grammes of shoe
weight saved, the runner’s kinematic adaptations to reduced cushioning has been found to
produce a similar increase in oxygen consumption. Therefore, most runners have little to gain by
selecting shoes that lack risk-reducing features."

So minimal cushioning is bad for you too: you don't really gain anything energetically overall, and the risk of injury is greater with minimal cushioning.

Posted: 13/11/2009 at 12:31

Steve C.

(double post deleted)

Posted: 13/11/2009 at 12:48

soreeneater

Science was never my strong point at school. Thanks for the info. Barnsley 10k on Sunday, going for a PB. I'll let you know how the newish Mizunos fair.

Posted: 13/11/2009 at 18:17

See all reader discussions...