Of Fitting New Shoes

Dadathome said:

He disappeared into the back and pulled two pairs of Asics and a
Brooks (in the same length as my old shoes and the new Nike's I bought
at store #1). I eliminated one of the Asics and then finally decided
on the other Asics - a pair of Gel-1090's. The Brooks fit good, but
too "cushy."

I have a pair of the Gel 1090s. I have about 350 miles on them so far.
These are considered to be a stability shoe. I'm wondering why they
suggested these, since you are more of a neutral shoe guy. I've worn eight
pairs of running shoes in the past 2,000 miles of running. I'm usually
rotating 3 or 4 different pairs. The 1090s are one of my favorites. I like
wearing them for a faster paced run, such as a tempo run or fartlek on the
roads. It is not a light weight shoe, but the ride is smooth. It was a
little stiff for the first 20 miles or so. It is also a relatively cheap
running shoe.

Phil M.

--
"Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make
them all yourself." ­Martin Vanbee

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

Quoted message said:

I visited running store #1 and after looking at the fit of my old shoes
and watching my gait in them, the guy said I'm "fairly neutral" in my
strike but my old shoes are too wide and I need a "narrow." The old ones
are long enough but they're not holding my foot and I'm sliding forward.
I asked about Asics since I've read such good comments here but he
thought that an Adidas or Nike would be better as the models he chose
are made for a narrow foot. I ended up getting a pair of Nike Air
Structure Triax 8 - they feel good but I've only gone around the block
with them.

The Structure Triax isn't technically designed for a neutral footstrike.
It's designed for someone who wants/needs additional arch support or
overpronates.

Quoted message said:

I decided to see what running store #2 would advise. Again, I took my
old shoes along and told the guy that I was having toe soreness. He
categorically said my old ones were too short - not likely too wide. He
examined my old shoes and confirmed by their appearances that I am
"relatively neutral" since they don't "lean." I stressed that I do
indeed have a narrow foot ("B" width in dress shoes) and the lacing on
my daily leather Reeboks will just about close together as they stretch
and get near the worn-out point...

He disappeared into the back and pulled two pairs of Asics and a Brooks
(in the same length as my old shoes and the new Nike's I bought at store
#1). I eliminated one of the Asics and then finally decided on the other
Asics - a pair of Gel-1090's. The Brooks fit good, but too "cushy." He
didn't carry Nike due to some disagreement on their dealer requirements
- plus he commented that he didn't think they were as well made as other
brands. (By the way, Nike is HQ'd in the area and is a powerful presence
in employment, philanthropy and politics.)

Again, the 1090 isn't designed for a neutral footstrike but it's not as
strong as the Structure Triax in terms of medial stability. The reason that
running shop isn't carrying Nike is because they don't have the large
up-front cost required by Nike to open them as a Nike dealer. This is the
case with many small specialty running shops. I'm sure that given the choice
of being able to carry Nike or not being able to carry Nike most shops would
choose the former simply because they're the biggest game in town. Love them
or hate them they're the 900 lb. gorilla when it comes to not only athletic
shoes but athletic apparel.

Quoted message said:

At this point I plan on keeping both pairs (unless the Nike's cause
discomfort on a real run). It was interesting to compare the two
fittings and the commentaries from both stores. Donovan Rebbechi said in
another post, "Knowing that they do fit properly however may take some
experience (experience running in several different shoes, or better,
experience running in the same model)." I'm getting the idea that there
is no *one* maker or shoe that fits - what we end up with in the
beginning of our running history, before our own preferences become
ingrained, may have more to do with store biases and employee
interpretation of our needs.

Go to several different running shops and you'll get several different
theories on shoe fitting. It will even change amongst employees of the same
shop. A lot of shops automatically put most people in stability shoes
because it's "safe" which I'm going to assume is what happened to you even
though both shops said your footstrike was neutral. It's probably not going
to hurt you in the long run but next time you change shoes ask to try a true
neutral shoe to see how that feels.

Jim Johnson

In article <nEf2d.310039$8_6.266711@attbi_s04>,

Jim Johnson said:

The Structure Triax isn't technically designed for a neutral footstrike.
It's designed for someone who wants/needs additional arch support or
overpronates.

SNIP

Quoted message said:

Again, the 1090 isn't designed for a neutral footstrike but it's not as
strong as the Structure Triax in terms of medial stability. The reason that
running shop isn't carrying Nike is because they don't have the large
up-front cost required by Nike to open them as a Nike dealer. This is the
case with many small specialty running shops. I'm sure that given the choice
of being able to carry Nike or not being able to carry Nike most shops would
choose the former simply because they're the biggest game in town. Love them
or hate them they're the 900 lb. gorilla when it comes to not only athletic
shoes but athletic apparel.

Yes, the owner said that Nike requires the store to carry a lot of the
apparel line and I guess he doesn't want to.

Quoted message said:

Go to several different running shops and you'll get several different
theories on shoe fitting. It will even change amongst employees of the same
shop. A lot of shops automatically put most people in stability shoes
because it's "safe" which I'm going to assume is what happened to you even
though both shops said your footstrike was neutral. It's probably not going
to hurt you in the long run but next time you change shoes ask to try a true
neutral shoe to see how that feels.

What would be considered a "neutral" shoe in both Nike and Asics? I
looked on the roadrunner site to read up on the two shoes I got and
their search engine doesn't list a neutral - just "cushioned",
"stability" and "motion control".

Dadathome said:

What would be considered a "neutral" shoe in both Nike and Asics? I
looked on the roadrunner site to read up on the two shoes I got and
their search engine doesn't list a neutral - just "cushioned",
"stability" and "motion control".

AFAIK, cushioned = neutral.

Phil M.

--
"Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make
them all yourself." ­Martin Vanbee

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

Quoted message said:

What would be considered a "neutral" shoe in both Nike and Asics? I
looked on the roadrunner site to read up on the two shoes I got and
their search engine doesn't list a neutral - just "cushioned",
"stability" and "motion control".

"Cushioned" shoes will be considered "Neutral" shoes. Asic's best selling
neutral shoe has traditionally been the Cumulus (although the new Nimbus has
been a huge hit for them this summer). Nike's best selling neutral shoe has
traditionally been the Pegasus. This particular category gets blurred
because some of the "Lightweight" shoes made by these companies could also
be considered neutral (ex. for Nike the Skylon and new Zoom Miler).

Jim Johnson

DO NOT BUY NIKES! They are pure garbage, and injure more runners than any other
brand.

by the way, i complained a lot about my Nimbae earlier in the summer; but alas,
i have come to like them. it took some adjustment, from earlier rolling ball
NB, but now the cushioning is great for strides and tempo.

i do, however, find that i have problems if i change shoes. apparently my
muscles adapt and any change will cause knee problems, due to the slight shift
in body weight, resulting from any pronation change in shoe.

\\ - - //
( @ @ )
+--------oOOo-(_)--oOOo----+
+------------------------Oooo----+

Quoted message said:

i do, however, find that i have problems if i change shoes. apparently my
muscles adapt and any change will cause knee problems, due to the slight
shift
in body weight, resulting from any pronation change in shoe.

I have the same problem when I change shoes.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Phil M. said:

I have a pair of the Gel 1090s. I have about 350 miles on them so far.
These are considered to be a stability shoe. I'm wondering why they
suggested these, since you are more of a neutral shoe guy. I've worn eight
pairs of running shoes in the past 2,000 miles of running. I'm usually
rotating 3 or 4 different pairs. The 1090s are one of my favorites. I like
wearing them for a faster paced run, such as a tempo run or fartlek on the
roads. It is not a light weight shoe, but the ride is smooth. It was a
little stiff for the first 20 miles or so. It is also a relatively cheap
running shoe.

Yeah, I think the 1090's would be OK for me, as in, I believe I can run
just fine with it but it might have just a little more support than I
need. (The Nike Structure Triax 8 pair caused pain at the inside of my
right ankle and later that evening and the following day discomfort at
the inside of my knee.) I tried a pair of the Cumulus and liked the fit
and feel. The Nike's were returned with no problem. The 1090's will be
going back tomorrow for a pair of the Cumulus or maybe Landreth.

Thanks for your insight as to the intended wearer of the 1090 - it
caused me to visit and read up on the entire line at the Asics website.
(duh, hadn't thought of that before)

In article <QmA2d.316358$8_6.302578@attbi_s04>,

Jim Johnson said:

"Cushioned" shoes will be considered "Neutral" shoes. Asic's best selling
neutral shoe has traditionally been the Cumulus (although the new Nimbus has
been a huge hit for them this summer). Nike's best selling neutral shoe has
traditionally been the Pegasus. This particular category gets blurred
because some of the "Lightweight" shoes made by these companies could also
be considered neutral (ex. for Nike the Skylon and new Zoom Miler).

Thank you Jim. From your's and Phil's replies, I finally had the
brainstorm of looking for Asics website to read up on their lineup. From
what I've read and heard, I do indeed have a neutral foot. I found a
pair of the Cumulus and last year's Nimbus at a G.I. Joe's. Both felt
pretty good though I preferred the Cumulus - plus the extra cost of the
Nimbus is a deterrent. I may try the Landreth too if I can find them...

I returned the Nikes, which I believe caused some ankle and knee pain
for about 12 hours after a short 4 mile run, to running store #1. That
store was out of my size in the Asics, so will return the 1090s to the
second store and see if they have the other Asics. If not I'll go to
either Roadrunner or return to the sports/auto store where I found the
one pair of Cumulus.

Thanks again.

Quoted message said:

(The Nike Structure Triax 8 pair caused pain at the inside of my
right ankle and later that evening and the following day discomfort at
the inside of my knee.)

Uh huh... NIKE SUCKS!

Norman said:

Anyways, I picked up a pair of Gel 1090s last month. No particular
reason. It was discounted, and the end price was very similar to the
discounted price I paid on the Nikes they were replacing. I'm getting
a little tired of deflating air bags, and was wondering if gels or
other padding was any better.

Anyways, after ~150 miles on them, I'm starting to notice some hip
discomfort & some tenseness in my lower legs. It's feeling as if
there's a lack of cushioning in the shoes as my foot hits the ground.
Thus, I'm wondering what the Asic users are typically getting in their
shoe life. Or, perhaps more generally, what kind of mileage are you
putting on your shoes? From above, 2000 miles in 8 shoes comes to
about 250 miles each. Is that about what I should expect?

Yes, but I rotate about 3 or 4 shoes at any given time. I usually get
around 400 to 500 miles in a pair of shoes. At 400 miles I start thinking
about replacing them. Sometimes it's difficult to tell if a shoe is too
worn to wear for running. You will see some visible wear on the sole
depending on your running style, but a lot of the wear will not be
visible because it is due to recuced cushioning in the midsole (EVA).
Obviously with as many shoes as I have I could probably go for a while
without buying any more shoes. At least this is what my wife hopes. ;-)

Quoted message said:

I haven't been keeping track for very long, but looking back, it
appears that one Nike got about 500 miles, while the next had to be
returned after <100, and it's replacement has failed after ~200 (I'll
have to call Nike again). As I stated, I'm at about 160 miles with the
Gel1090s, and they seem to be at the replacement stage. I had hoped
the gels would be a little better than the air bladders, but perhaps
they aren't.

The 1090s worked for me. They are still wearing fine with nearly 400
miles on them. Maybe this shoe just isn't for you. Are you a runner that
needs a stability shoe. The 1090s are in that category. If you are not in
need of a stablility shoe, then that could also be part of your problem
with these shoes

Phil M.

--
"Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make
them all yourself." ­Martin Vanbee

Quoted message said:

Maybe this shoe just isn't for you. Are you a runner that
needs a stability shoe. The 1090s are in that category. If you are not in
need of a stablility shoe, then that could also be part of your problem
with these shoes

I meant to add a similar comment to my post.