Why do reviewers classify shoes like this? It doesn't make sense.
I come across this every time I look at the Altra shoes I like (Superior, King MT, Escalante, etc.). They just about always give this caveat for these models: for lighter runners and shorter distances.
That's simply not true. If you're used to this kind of shoe, it doesn't matter how much you weigh or how far you run.
For instance, I'm so used to the models I like, I can't even wear Altra shoes with more cushioning.
They cause fasciitis plantar in one foot similar to if I wear shoes with big drops. I think it has to do with the shoes being less flexible. Either way, I'd destroy my feet in those shoes the reviewers say are meant for longer differences.
It would make more sense to say shoes for more experienced or efficient runners, runners with good technique, or even faster runners. But even then, I'm not sure. I think it's just what you're used to. But never heavier or lighter runners.
Surely a 60 and an 80 kg runner with the same BMI running at similar relative speeds --- everything else being equal --- would fare just as well in the same model and style of shoe.
But maybe heavier or lighter runner is a euphemism for overweight versus trim. That might hold more water.
Anyway, I wish they give up the trite caveats.
