Best Running Shoe For The Obese?

Weight training is more effective for weight loss, and less stressful on your joints than running, especially if you are overweight. Go to Wal-Mart and get a a cheap 100 pound barbell set. It's all you need. Get a great program like the P90x program or the GSP Rushfit program. I am doing the Rushfit program right now. It's great. Anything that causes muscle confusion is what you need.

Seconded. Though I would add that your diet needs to change too.
Do some research on the nontraditional diets, like Atkins, South Beach, Primal, etc. They really do work.
 
"Best Running Shoe For The Obese?"


Shoe-Car-funny-pictures.jpg
 
Your best bet is going to a running store, preferably a small independent one where the employees actually know what they are doing, and having them help you select a pair.
 
Agreed *BUT* the comfort thing is also best found via going to a store where they actually measure your feet.

I have wide feet, and I love New Balances. If you can actually find a NB store, they will measure your feet and go through your options with you.

When I wore running shoes, I was a NB guy. My heel pulls right out of most others.

But the point of running barefoot is, in part, to change your stride to reduce impact. Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jrnj-7YKZE
 
I'm a big guy(6' 4" , 250LBs)and I have bad knees. I have tried all kinds of shoes and even barefoot. I accidentally discovered a shoe that's perfect for me. No knee pain at all and it forces me not to heel strike.

Sanuks... I'm not joking. I jog in them every morning.

These are the ones I have...

http://www.amazon.com/Sanuk-Mens-Va...ie=UTF8&qid=1359471266&sr=1-6&keywords=sanuks

Edit: I jog on a dirt/grass trail. I don't know how well they would work on concrete.
 
Last edited:
5' 8'' I was around 80 kilos at 17 and i distinctly remember thinking i showed a little gut at 13 1/2 stone so 84kilos is 13stone 2pounds so a realistic weight i feel.I'm doing the 5:2 fasting diet.Eat what you like for 5 days and 600 calories only for 2 non-consecutive days.I exercise the other 5 days only.I did look at a weight bench from Argos only £50 including the weights.To chase the weight from my gut,chest and back.
 
5' 8'' I was around 80 kilos at 17 and i distinctly remember thinking i showed a little gut at 13 1/2 stone so 84kilos is 13stone 2pounds so a realistic weight i feel.I'm doing the 5:2 fasting diet.Eat what you like for 5 days and 600 calories only for 2 non-consecutive days.I exercise the other 5 days only.I did look at a weight bench from Argos only £50 including the weights.To chase the weight from my gut,chest and back.

There is very good diet where the goal is not to be hungry but to time your organism no to demand snacks which is what really adds weight on.You eat only 2 times a day ( no snacks between nor anything else ) 6 hours apart ( the best time for me was 14 and 20 so not to feel hunger when going to bed ) in those meals you get to eat all that you can eat from the meal that is for the day.

It went something like this:

Day 1. only pasta ( no spices or anything on )
Day 2 rice ( you can put something like mushrooms or carrots in it )
Day 3,4 white chicken meat with salad ( only boiled or baked meat and no oil in salad or toppings )
Day 5 beans ( no flour when cooking )
Day 6 fish and salad
Day 7 fruit
Day 8,9 beef and salad
Day 10 potatoes
Then you repeat it for a second time until the potatoes day and then you can eat all the sweet things you want to instead.During the diet no coffee,only clear juices and water and no sugar or bread.

You will lose 4-5 kg in 20 days, if you work out you could even lose 7.

If 5,8 is 155 cm than 80 would still be too much for you. 65-70 would be the best weight in my opinion.I am 191 cm and need to lose some weight to 85-57
 
Last edited:
Try a "stable work platform" boot like a hiking boot; they're designed for people carrying a heavy pack. Maybe a memory foam insole. Lightweight "running shoes" are great if you want to make the best time on the track and you're already lean, strong, and "light footed" when running. You're looking to keep your heart rate up and support load with less than ideal running technique without damaging joints; hiking boot.


Also check tactical boots for military/police.


amazon keywords

tactical boot
hiking boot
vibram sole
police boot
 
Develop a good brisk walking technique and do it for 45 minutes everyday until you get to the weight which will allow you to run. It'll be easier on your joints.
 
Day 1. only pasta ( no spices or anything on )
Day 2 rice ( you can put something like mushrooms or carrots in it )
Day 3,4 white chicken meat with salad ( only boiled or baked meat and no oil in salad or toppings )
Day 5 beans ( no flour when cooking )
Day 6 fish and salad
Day 7 fruit
Day 8,9 beef and salad
Day 10 potatoes


No offense, but this is probably one of the more retarded diets I have ever seen. Eating nothing but carbs for 6 out of 10 days is a good way to look and feel like garbage. There's pretty much no fat at all in that diet which would be very dangerous if you tried to extend it - but I doubt anyone could stick to this in the first place.
 
That diet up there is exactly that. A diet. You do it for 2 weeks and then you are done. That is why it is doomed to failure. You need lifestyle changes. That is key.

Also, I second the weight lifting instead of cardio for losing weight. A blog I follow offers up lots of succeess stories relating to that:
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2012/01/18/10-months-128-pounds-lost/
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2012/09/27/115-pound-weight-loss-journey/
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2012/11/12/josh-and-leah/

But I digress. Strength Training (whether weight lifting or body weight) is WAY better for losing weight then Cardio is.
 
Note to self: Check the internet next time. Advice for hamstring pulls: If it hurts to walk the next day,give it MORE than 3 weeks.(So give it at least 3 weeks whatever you do).Tweaked it again walking today but not badly so back to the exercise bike.
 
If you want to wear shoes when running, you are better off just choosing shoes that feel comfortable. There is some pretty compelling evidence that attempts to choose shoes based on biomechanics is a failure:

http://www.army.mil/article/42842/

Actually, that is NOT what the article said at all. In fact, the article you posted directly contradicts your statement.

"We found no scientific basis for choosing running shoes based on foot type," said Bruce Jones, M.D., injury prevention program manager at U.S. Army Public Health Command (Provisional), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. "Our findings have surprised not just military decision-makers -- many of whom run to stay fit -- but runners in general."

Popular running and sports medicine literature recommends that people with high arches should choose cushioning shoes, those with normal arches should choose stability shoes, and those with flat feet should choose motion-control shoes, Jones explained. The literature says that such shoes will compensate for the way these foot types strike the ground during running and lessen injuries to the legs and feet.

"This seemed to many of us to make sense," said Jones, a long-distance runner for many years. "But when we looked at it in multiple, scientific studies, it turned out to be a sports myth."

My comment pertained to having a trained person watch how you move while walking/jogging.

Some medical experts argue that static foot morphology (what Jones and colleagues looked at in their studies) is less predictive of injuries than studying the foot in motion, but so far that theory has not been put to the scientific test.
 
If you want to wear shoes when running, you are better off just choosing shoes that feel comfortable. There is some pretty compelling evidence that attempts to choose shoes based on biomechanics is a failure:

http://www.army.mil/article/42842/

I'm pretty sure that foot shape has precisely nothing to do with running/walking mechanics.

The referenced study is kind of a joke. They used the wrong criteria, and then they monitored the wrong statistic. Their conclusion was that the wrong criteria has no effect on the wrong statistic. LOL really? I wonder if the Army hired these scientists from the street corner beside Home Depot...

They didn't look at mechanics at all, they only looked at 'foot shape' which is about the most irrelevant datapoint you can possibly dig up on the issue. While appropriate mechanics has a not insignificant effect at reducing injury, frequency of injury is NOT even the appropriate measure for mechanics anyway - it's endurance.

I wouldn't really take that article to mean, well, anything. Except maybe it's possible to pay scientists too much money for mental masturbation and then post the results on the internet somewhere as if they had accomplished something.
 
My personal opinion is that running is not that good for you, it places lots of stress on the joints due to the constant impact. I concur with Mark Sisson that it is better to sprint in short intense bursts. Also weightlifting of course. Someone suggested swimming and that is good too, its fun and low impact.

Sep. 18, 2006 — A new study, published in The Journal of Physiology, shows that short bursts of very intense exercise — equivalent to only a few minutes per day — can produce the same results as traditional endurance training.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060918142456.htm

Why perform an exercise that takes more time, and is more likely to cause damage, when it is no more effective than shorter exercises?


Its the same with lifting weights, HIT (High Intensity Training) works better. Lift heavy for 45 mins and get the hell out of the gym, once or twice a week.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/chronic-cardio-2/#axzz2LK58DAaF

I'm 23 pounds lighter than I was a year ago, plus packed on quite a bit of muscle...I've probably lost about 30lbs fat altogether. It's mostly due to Paleo and HIT.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top