Brooks Addiction6

Quoted message said:

I've always thought

Brooks as a lower end athletic shoes.>

Very flexible, and probably useless as a motion control shoe. That
aside they are a short-life shoe, but I wouldn't call them "lower end".

Glenn said:

Newbie runner here. Just picked up a pair of Brooks Addiction 6 today after
the guy in the store recommended it due to my over pronation. They do feel
really comfortable but I'm new to Brooks running shoes.

If they're comfortable and work for *you*, that's what counts.

Quoted message said:

I've always thought
Brooks as a lower end athletic shoes. Could anyone give a little feedback
about this shoes please.

I can't tell you anything about the Addiction other than it's more
controlling than the Adrenaline (stability), one of the more popular
shoes on the market for recreational runners, and less controlling than
Beast. I do see a fair number of positive comments on it on other forums.

FWIW, about Brooks in general. My very first pair of running shoes were
a Brooks something or other that I bought in late 70s and wore for
almost 10 yrs since I couldn't find anything to replace it - the eyelets
finally ripped out of the leather and the tread was almost bald.
(granted, I didn't run as much then, and 1st couple years were on grass
athletic fields) I went through an assortment of models and brands
(some from Footlocker when I was clueless, some from running shoe store)
over a number of years before my physical therapist suggested
Adrenalines / Trespasses for my late pronation and wide forefoot. I've
been using the Trespasses for almost 2.5 yr now (just started on 4th
pair) for trail running and Adrenalines for everyday wear (got rid of my
remaining foot problems; soles are too thin for me for running).

The Brooks Cascadia (neutral trail shoe) that was introduced earlier
this year is considered one of the more innovative trail shoes and was
partly designed by one of the top ultra runners who is also a PT. I
don't think Scott Jurek would consider Brooks a low-end athletic shoe 😉
He wore a prototype last June while winning WS100.

I suspect like most brands, there's models that are higher quality than
others as well as budget shoes (what's usually found in Footlocker or
other mall stores). At least where I am, Brooks is regarded as very good
shoe.

Dot
Brooks fan since they're some of the only shoes that fit my wide forefoot

--
"Dream Big, and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughn
who was with Byrd in Antarctica and whose 99th birthday was Dec 19, 2004

Thanks for the feedback. I just started recreational running last year and I
wasn't too familiar with the do's and don'ts. As a result I developed shin
splints and a mild ITBS. That's when I started reading about the technicals
of running and my own biometrics. I've always used Nike's due to their
attractive styles, which people in this newsgroup seemed to lose favor from.
Anyway, I decided to run more this year and that's why I bought this Brooks
pair that would hopefully make it a pain free year for me.
"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Glenn said:

Newbie runner here. Just picked up a pair of Brooks Addiction 6 today
after the guy in the store recommended it due to my over pronation. They
do feel really comfortable but I'm new to Brooks running shoes.

If they're comfortable and work for *you*, that's what counts.

Quoted message said:

I've always thought
Brooks as a lower end athletic shoes. Could anyone give a little feedback
about this shoes please.

I can't tell you anything about the Addiction other than it's more
controlling than the Adrenaline (stability), one of the more popular shoes
on the market for recreational runners, and less controlling than Beast. I
do see a fair number of positive comments on it on other forums.

FWIW, about Brooks in general. My very first pair of running shoes were a
Brooks something or other that I bought in late 70s and wore for almost 10
yrs since I couldn't find anything to replace it - the eyelets finally
ripped out of the leather and the tread was almost bald. (granted, I
didn't run as much then, and 1st couple years were on grass athletic
fields) I went through an assortment of models and brands (some from
Footlocker when I was clueless, some from running shoe store) over a
number of years before my physical therapist suggested Adrenalines /
Trespasses for my late pronation and wide forefoot. I've been using the
Trespasses for almost 2.5 yr now (just started on 4th pair) for trail
running and Adrenalines for everyday wear (got rid of my remaining foot
problems; soles are too thin for me for running).

The Brooks Cascadia (neutral trail shoe) that was introduced earlier this
year is considered one of the more innovative trail shoes and was partly
designed by one of the top ultra runners who is also a PT. I don't think
Scott Jurek would consider Brooks a low-end athletic shoe 😉 He wore a
prototype last June while winning WS100.

I suspect like most brands, there's models that are higher quality than
others as well as budget shoes (what's usually found in Footlocker or
other mall stores). At least where I am, Brooks is regarded as very good
shoe.

Dot
Brooks fan since they're some of the only shoes that fit my wide forefoot

--
"Dream Big, and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughn
who was with Byrd in Antarctica and whose 99th birthday was Dec 19, 2004

The other reason why I got this one was because of the price. Seemed
resonable, specially for someone just starting out. Could you recommend
anything similar?

How long do you think this shoe would last? I'm planning to run between 20
and 30 KMs per week.

TIA

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've always thought

Brooks as a lower end athletic shoes.>

Very flexible, and probably useless as a motion control shoe. That
aside they are a short-life shoe, but I wouldn't call them "lower end".

Glenn said:

Newbie runner here. Just picked up a pair of Brooks Addiction 6 today after
the guy in the store recommended it due to my over pronation. They do feel
really comfortable but I'm new to Brooks running shoes. I've always thought
Brooks as a lower end athletic shoes. Could anyone give a little feedback
about this shoes please.

Like Dot says, most brands have real running shoes, and cheap garbage that
gets sold at foot locker type places. Brooks are a respectable brand and
several serious runners use them. They are also active in US athletics, they
sponsor a fairly sizeable national class running team (Brian Sell, Cint Verran,
etc).

The Addiction is a legit running shoe (not a cheapo model) but I don't know
much else about it.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Quoted message said:

The other reason why I got this one was because of the price. Seemed

resonable, specially for someone just starting out.>

That's a good reason to buy them then!

Quoted message said:

Could you recommend

anything similar?>

As far as how long they'll last, that's an unlnown, there are too many
variables. Genarally 400 to 600 miles for Brooks, but that depends on
many factors. A similar shoe would be the Asics 1000 or 2000 line of
shoes. According to the shoe goons at the running stores, they get the
most, and the best feedback on Asics when it comes to MC shoes.

"Glenn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the feedback. I just started recreational running last year
and I wasn't too familiar with the do's and don'ts. As a result I
developed shin splints and a mild ITBS. That's when I started reading
about the technicals of running and my own biometrics. I've always
used Nike's due to their attractive styles, which people in this
newsgroup seemed to lose favor from. Anyway, I decided to run more
this year and that's why I bought this Brooks pair that would
hopefully make it a pain free year for me.

Dot hit it on the head, lots of good shoes out there and you need to
find a model that works for you. Brooks makes some fine shoes just as
Nike, Asics, etc, etc.

What Nike model were you wearing? The addiction 6 seems to be for a
small to medium frame person needing motion control. There a little
under 13 oz and why suggested for that frame. If you were 190 plus there
would be the supreme brick - the Brooks Beast, 15 oz.

How many miles is a [censored] shoot. The party line, meaning mass averages,
is 400-500 miles.

-DougF

Quoted message said:

I've always used Nike's due to their

attractive styles,>

Nike is [censored]! That's why you are injured. You'll get a few fools here
who will say they are great shoes. however for the money they paid
(150$ plus) they could've gotten a far better shoe, for under 100$. The
"Nike lovers" will tell you it's just not so, but it seems strange that
you name the most common injury that nike wearers suffer from (via my
HO). Nikes are junk, no matter what the 2% of this group says, the
other 98% are smarter runners and avoid nikes.

I really didn't put a lot of thought when I bought that Nike running shoes
(Attest V). I figured, they're all pretty much the same. I know better now.
I'm 6'2" and 200lbs.

The store have a seven day return policy as long as I don't use them to run
outside. I just picked up the Brooks yesterday, I'm going to the gym today
and test it on the treadmill. If this one doesn't work for me, I'll probably
try the Beast.

Thanks for the info.

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Glenn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the feedback. I just started recreational running last year
and I wasn't too familiar with the do's and don'ts. As a result I
developed shin splints and a mild ITBS. That's when I started reading
about the technicals of running and my own biometrics. I've always used
Nike's due to their attractive styles, which people in this newsgroup
seemed to lose favor from. Anyway, I decided to run more this year and
that's why I bought this Brooks pair that would hopefully make it a pain
free year for me.

Dot hit it on the head, lots of good shoes out there and you need to find
a model that works for you. Brooks makes some fine shoes just as Nike,
Asics, etc, etc.

What Nike model were you wearing? The addiction 6 seems to be for a
small to medium frame person needing motion control. There a little under
13 oz and why suggested for that frame. If you were 190 plus there would
be the supreme brick - the Brooks Beast, 15 oz.

How many miles is a [censored] shoot. The party line, meaning mass averages, is
400-500 miles.

-DougF

"Glenn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Newbie runner here. Just picked up a pair of Brooks Addiction 6 today
after the guy in the store recommended it due to my over pronation. They
do feel really comfortable but I'm new to Brooks running shoes. I've
always thought Brooks as a lower end athletic shoes. Could anyone give a
little feedback about this shoes please.

Brooks and Mizuno are just about the only major brands in the U.S. who only
market higher end ($75+) running shoes. Brooks is a major player in running
specialty stores and have a great line of shoes. Not knowing what type of
foot you have or your degree of over pronation I'd say the Addiction is one
of the safer shoes you could get. Even though it's technically a motion
control shoe it's not going to raise your arch up enough to bother you if
you're neutral or tend to supinate.

Jim Johnson

I just did a 5K run on the treadmill with the Addiction 6 and I don't notice
anything special about it. In fact I find it a bit too bulky. But I guess
most MC shoes are, due to the stability bar. I even find that it lacks
cushion on the heel. No bad feedback on the shoe so I decided to keep it.

Thanks for everybody's responses.

"Glenn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Newbie runner here. Just picked up a pair of Brooks Addiction 6 today
after the guy in the store recommended it due to my over pronation. They
do feel really comfortable but I'm new to Brooks running shoes. I've
always thought Brooks as a lower end athletic shoes. Could anyone give a
little feedback about this shoes please.

Glenn said:

I just did a 5K run on the treadmill with the Addiction 6 and I don't notice
anything special about it. In fact I find it a bit too bulky. But I guess
most MC shoes are, due to the stability bar. I even find that it lacks

The weight is moderate, and so is the rollbar (it's stability, NOT MC). You
could probably check out light trainers next time. Look for the Mizuno
Maverick, Saucony Swerve, NB 900, Asics DS Trainer (all of these are light
statbility shoes ~10oz). But for now, it's probably a good idea to start with a
slightly bulky shoe.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Glenn said:

I just did a 5K run on the treadmill with the Addiction 6 and I don't notice
anything special about it. In fact I find it a bit too bulky. But I guess
most MC shoes are, due to the stability bar.

If that's too controlling, you might try one of their stability shoes.

Quoted message said:

I even find that it lacks
cushion on the heel.

Many kinds of cushioning add instability so I'd be surprised to see much
cushioning in a motion control shoe. I've changed my footstrike so that
I land more midfoot so have more control on hills and don't notice heel
cushioning

Good luck.

Dot

-
"Dream Big, and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughn
who was with Byrd in Antarctica and whose 99th birthday was Dec 19, 2004

While I do not have any experience with the Addiction, I have run in the
Adrenaline's for several years and love these Brooks shoes. For me, they
are just a natural fit (never need any break in) and work well for my mild
over pronation. Though I do not have the body shape that they are intended
for, I'm 6'3, 250lbs and run at about a 9:30-10 min pace, 15-20m/wk. From
experience, do not head immediately to MC shoes just because of size, many
stability shoes may work better for you. Try several out at a good running
store.

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The addiction 6 seems to be for a
small to medium frame person needing motion control. There a little
under 13 oz and why suggested for that frame. If you were 190 plus there
would be the supreme brick - the Brooks Beast, 15 oz.

How many miles is a [censored] shoot. The party line, meaning mass averages,
is 400-500 miles.

-DougF

Thanks for the suggestion. I decided to keep the Addiction 6. I have been
running on them for about 20K and it gets better every time. I can really
feel the arch support (I have flat feet) as well as the fore foot
cushioning. I would recommend this shoe to anyone with mild to excessive
pronation.

"TP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

While I do not have any experience with the Addiction, I have run in the
Adrenaline's for several years and love these Brooks shoes. For me, they
are just a natural fit (never need any break in) and work well for my mild
over pronation. Though I do not have the body shape that they are
intended
for, I'm 6'3, 250lbs and run at about a 9:30-10 min pace, 15-20m/wk. From
experience, do not head immediately to MC shoes just because of size, many
stability shoes may work better for you. Try several out at a good
running
store.

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The addiction 6 seems to be for a
small to medium frame person needing motion control. There a little
under 13 oz and why suggested for that frame. If you were 190 plus there
would be the supreme brick - the Brooks Beast, 15 oz.

How many miles is a [censored] shoot. The party line, meaning mass averages,
is 400-500 miles.

-DougF