New Balance 1050

Summary | Full Review | Reader Reviews | Gallery | Specs | Discussion
New Balance 1050
If you’re looking for stability and cushioning, then make sure that you add a pair of 1050s to your shortlist.

Our Review

At £75 the 1050 is going pretty much head to head with the market’s leading stability shoe, the Asics GT-2100, so a lot is riding on it for New Balance. To give the 1050 the best chance of taking a bite out of Asics’s dominance, New Balance has loaded the ...  Continue reading

Reader Reviews

14 user reviews of New Balance 1050 See all

Overall reader score
Tried these shoes after recommendation and following a knee injury. Worked perfectly for me and have just bought my second pair after wearing the first ones out. Continue reading...
Having had several pairs of 764s and 765s (last pair of 765's still used for short lunchtime runs) I bought a pair of 766's when they came out. Got a blister and a sore right achiles/heel with them, found them Continue reading...
Very comfortable and durable. Trained for Edinburgh marathon in these and avoided injury along the way, which was partly due to these shoes. Continue reading...
I have only run about 30 miles in total in these , my average runs are 4-5 miles - 2- 3 times a week. I am on the heavy side at 13.5 stone, Yes yes I know, I am working on it.

I get sore feet and ankles whic Continue reading...
Once the initial blisters healed, the shoes are incredibly comfortable. good support. Continue reading...

Discussions

If so what did you think? I have used the Asics for a while, quite happy, but fancy a second different pair. Good idea? I'm a 12 2e (wide fit) by the way.

Posted: 29/07/2005 at 20:41

The NB have a lower arch than the 2100's and they're heavier.

IMHO the 2100 is the better shoe of the two, but if the arch on the 2100 is giving you aggro, the 1050 ain't a bad option

Posted: 30/07/2005 at 18:18

sorry, didn't mention as well - the 2100 is more cushioned and slightly more supportive than the 1050

Posted: 30/07/2005 at 18:19

I can't offer a comparison but the 1050s are £50 at Sweatshop at the mo. I've bought a pair but not ran in them yet.

Posted: 30/07/2005 at 20:36

I went the other way from the NB to 2100 and wouldn't change back. Asics are so much more comfortable and have caused me less niggles.

Posted: 31/07/2005 at 12:14

Actually, I think I got it wrong. Are not the NB 1221's actually more the equivilent of the asics 2100's?

Posted: 31/07/2005 at 13:46

1221 is nb's kayano

Posted: 01/08/2005 at 00:50

I bought some 1050s and was disappointed with them for the cash. Felt much harder underfoot than Asics -so I'd stick to them. (Currently on Saucony Triumphs which are neutral -and I like them -very plush).

Posted: 01/08/2005 at 08:24

I'm surprised these are felt to be 'interchangeable' shoes - I tried both in Runners Need - the NB have a much flatter overall construction and the Asics have a much more pronounced arch. My left arch is flatter than my right and the 2100 was simply not comfortable for that reason. I'd be sure to try them both rather than order blind.

Posted: 01/08/2005 at 10:59

If you are happy with Asics - don't change. Evey few years I try somthing else and always go back to Asics.
Tim o'D is right - NBs will be much flatter ie, with out the arch support of a 2100.

If you want somthing faster try DS racer or trainer, somthing plusher go for Kayanos.

Posted: 03/08/2005 at 13:18

i have just bought the 2100 , they are a great pair of running shoes if you are or in my case
6f 5in and 15s 5 these are the right shoes for big people like me keep the good work up asics

Posted: 03/08/2005 at 13:29

>>somthing plusher go for Kayanos

Unfortunately they don't make the kayanos in a 2e wide fit (or at least they did not last time I looked).

Have ordered the 1221's, going to see how they pan out. Figured it was worth a go.

Posted: 03/08/2005 at 14:48

Lesson learned. After the first run in the 1221's I had blisters on both little toes - never had that with the Asics.

After the second run, noticed blood on sock. Have trauma around the nail my fourth toe on one foot, the nail must be hitting the shoe end. Even though they are the same size as my other old NB's (12 2e). So back to the trusty asics and am going to try and return the 1221s!

Posted: 08/08/2005 at 17:08

asics are b*****ds! I was happy with the 1090's in 2e wide, then they upgraded to 2100 with no wide fit, big toe started hurting on runs over 10 miles with 2100 - this was at 4.5 weeks to FLM so had to find a solution fast. tried the NB 1050's 2e which seeemed to do the job and now on second pair but still use the 2100 for track training and short runs and actually prefer the 2100 feel I just wish they did a 2100 2e

Posted: 08/08/2005 at 17:24

Anti-coach...they DO do a 12 2E in a 2100.

Posted: 08/08/2005 at 17:27

i have now done 60 miles in them and i am now heading down to the 7 minute a mile over 12 miles , not bad for a 15s 5p man bring on the rome marathan in march

Posted: 11/08/2005 at 12:20

I have a pair of brand new NB 1050's in a size 5.5 but ordered the wrong fit (need wide, however, I ran in a pair of 719's in a 6 wide fit only to do a 13m at the weekend and find I have blisters and one toe nail less! Please help - need a pair of cushioned structured shoes the will prevent my socks from bunching under my foot and giving me blisters if I get the 1050's in a wideer fit - what do you think?

Posted: 03/04/2006 at 19:58

Sacha, sadly its a case of try-em-and-see. You have to get to a good run shop in your normal run socks and try as many as you can on the treadmill. See which feel best. Remember too, long runs in new shoes never a good idea.

I never had any luck with NBs, to be honest, so am a little biased. Have you tried the Asics or Brooks, they offer wide fits too.

If you have not tried already, get *Thorlos* run socks, expensive but they last ages and NO blisters (for me anyway). And get some micropore tape from Boots (make sure says 3m on the inside of the reel, the best) and then you can tape up your toes etc where you might be prone to blistering. But to be honest get the right shoe and socks and then blisters should not be an issue.

Posted: 03/04/2006 at 20:05

Nick, I think you're right.

I'm pretty new to running after my footballing days have come to an end. I bought NB 1050's on the advice of a running shop after they sold me some Brooks Radius 6 that gave me chronic blistering on my arches.(£65 down the drain) When I went back they had another look at me walking etc - and they adviced the 1050's - which I paid £40 for. Cost price apparently.

However, i cannot get on with them at all. I think my left foot rolls in a bit more than the right and is bit flatter - and I have ended up with what feels like shin splints on left calf. Very infuriating now with over £100 spent on running shoes, new to the sport and just getting fit enough to enjoy it - and both shoes not for me!

Tonight I ran in very old Nike standard/fashion air shoes and breezed round 6 miles with no pain!!

I'm now looking for a different running shop and new shoes....

Anyone want to buy Radius 6 (ran in 4 times) or 1050's - ran in 10/12 times?????

Posted: 04/04/2006 at 22:57

Hi Jon. Yeah, getting the right shoes can be a pain, and even well intentioned shops can get it wrong sometimes, have for me. I won't bore you with the stories but for me it was a case of learning over time. It was about 5 years before I even realised that I needed a wide fit DOH.

The London shop of www.runandbecome.com would be worth a visit, they always seemed very knowledgeable and keen to sell the right shoes.

I would ebay your other shoes if quite new, I have done that with a pair or two that did not work out and got a few £££ back. Someone should set up a swap-nearly-new run shoes website :o)

Posted: 05/04/2006 at 09:11

Thanks Nick, I will pop onto runandbecome and have a look. Just want to run without thinking of how sore my feet and calfs feel!

generally speaking i presume you get what you pay for with running shoes, i.e more expensive the better quality? are there makes that cater more for wider feet, heavier runners etc etc?

My standard nike things dont give me much hassle - although I probably wouldn't want to run more than 10 miles in them. i presume that they're just a normal cushioning shoes as well?

I'll chuck my others on ebay as suggested.

Posted: 05/04/2006 at 16:23


>>i presume you get what you pay for with >>running shoes

Actually, not always :o)

My first pair (from runandbecome) were £35 because they were in a sale. Nowdays I tend to spend £60-£80 on Asics 2100,2110 etc. For example, Asics sell a more expensive shoe (Kayano) but not in a wide fit which I need.

Budget £40-£70 and you should get great shoes. Don't assume a shoe higher up the range will be definately bette *for you*. In 400-500 miles they all get retired anyway :o)

>>makes that cater more for wider feet

Brooks, Asics and New Balance do wide fit shoes

>>heavier runners etc

Just avoid very light 'racing' shoes. Sadly you can't look at a shoe and tell by the amount of cushioning how good it is.

Runandbecome will be great if they look after you as they did me. The other idea is to look up the websites of the brands above (if you need a wide shoe) and find out when a 'roadshow' will be near your town, OR. just head for a big race expo. There you can get foot analysis and determine what shoe type (neutral, structured etc) you need. THEN you can read up on what models in those brands are that type. Then head for the shop in your gym trousers and try them all on the treadmill. If you are well prepared beforehand then it will be easier to ignore the shop monkey if he tries to flog you some ones with flashing lights or other twaddle ;o)

Posted: 05/04/2006 at 16:47

Nick

Many thanks for the advice, really appreciated.

I am tentatively thinking of entering 10 mile event in early June so need to be running freely without pain pretty soon.

Went out in old nikes again tonight and again pain free, despite the OBVIOUS lack of cushioning left in them. Will get myself to runandbecome - i live not far from London anyway so not a hassle.

cheers!!

Posted: 05/04/2006 at 22:56

Well guys thank you so much for the advice. I went to a running shop yesterday (Running Forever @ Taunton) and tried on a few, I had run in Brooks Adrenaline and Asics before so after a few I decided on a pair of Saucony Hurricane 7's. They feel just what I want, cushioning and stability (fingers crossed that I am as pleased after a run!). Lesson of the day - never buy a pair of trainers over the net or direct if you are not really sure of what you want - in the long run it will cost you more. Use the experts that is what they are for! - HAPPY RUNNING!

Posted: 08/04/2006 at 08:29



Summary | Full Review | Reader Reviews | Gallery | Specs | Discussion