You are reading a single comment by @Prime_heretic and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@Prime_heretic
I'd skip 'em, look at the size of that heel, the Free aspect is just a gimmick, with a heel that large their going to be just as bad as a standard trainer.
You want something with a minimal heel and lots of flexibility.
Unless something's wrong with your foot you don't need arch support. Again it's just another load of misinformed bullshit coming from the shoe manufacturers through running shoe salesmen to customers.
This is how an arch is supposed to work : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch#Technical_aspects
Like a bridge it's entirely self-supporting, as any engineer will tell as soon as you start sticking support under an arch you completely fuck up it's ability to support and dissipate a load. End result of wearing trainers with arch support is that your arch then starts to collapse due to a weakening of the supporting muscles, so of course you then seek more arch support which perversely makes the problem even worse.
As I was saying on the previous page. The foot is entirely capable of doing the job it has evolved to do, if only people would let it. The more technical the shoe, the worse it is. The more you add to a shoe the worse it is, it's really that simple. The only issue is that running shoe manufacturers and running shoe shops are unable to increase profits unless they can convince runners that the more technical, fancy and expensive the shoe is, the better it makes you run. It wouldn't be so bad if it was just a money thing but the sad fact is runners who've bought into this clap-trap end up paying through permanent physical injury, via fucked up knees and the like.