Shoe advice for overpronation

lecolvin said:

I was thinking I might need to switch shoes to get a better arch
support. Also, sometimes on long runs I have to loosen my shoes, or my
toes get numb. Maybe that'd be solved by a larger size. I have two
black toenails (fourth toe on each foot).

Defeniately need a larger size, this should never happen.

Quoted message said:

I went back to a running store to be re-fit. I tried a pair of Brooks
Adrenaline 6, but, after only a mile knew there wasn't enough arch
support. My right arch hurt for a few days after that.

IMNSHO Brooks are a very soft, squishy shoe, with little support of
any kind.

Quoted message said:

I went to another running store last night, and since the 2090s weren't
controlling my overpronation (siginificant wear on the inside of both
toes), he wanted me to try motion control shoes instead of stability. I
took home a pair of Brooks Ariel, and while the cusioning and arch felt
good, my left knee (outer) started hurting after only 3/4 of a mile.

See above.

Quoted message said:

I do think the shoes were a half size too big ... but would that cause
knee pain?

I doubt it.
Asics have a rather crummy insert, although it's still better than
most. Try Dr Scxholls arch support insoles in them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I went to another running store last night, and since the 2090s weren't controlling my overpronation (siginificant wear on the inside of both toes), he wanted me to try motion control shoes instead of stability. I took home a pair of Brooks Ariel, and while the cusioning and arch felt good, my left knee (outer) started hurting after only 3/4 of a mile.

I do think the shoes were a half size too big ... but would that cause
knee pain? <<

I've heard that pain on the outside of the knee can indicate too
much support from the shoes, so maybe that's your problem with motion
control shoes. If the only problem you had with the 2090's was arch
pain, I'd suggest checking Running Times shoe guides and trying a shoe
that better matches your arch profile - flat, normal, or high. If the
2090's did match your arch, then I'd say head back to the running store
for more advice but try to consult with a better salesman.

Mike

lecolvin said:

I've been running in Asics 2090s for nearly a year, currently about
15-25 miles per week.

I overpronate, and I tend to lean in on my right arch, so sometimes I
have arch pain if my shoes aren't tied tight enough. I don't have high
arches, and I'm small (5'3, 110 lbs).

I was thinking I might need to switch shoes to get a better arch
support. Also, sometimes on long runs I have to loosen my shoes, or my
toes get numb. Maybe that'd be solved by a larger size. I have two
black toenails (fourth toe on each foot).

This is common. Usually from getting shoes that are too small. Your
feet will swell as you increase your mileage, so you have to allow for
that. Try a half size bigger.

Quoted message said:

I went back to a running store to be re-fit. I tried a pair of Brooks
Adrenaline 6, but, after only a mile knew there wasn't enough arch
support. My right arch hurt for a few days after that.

I went to another running store last night, and since the 2090s weren't
controlling my overpronation (siginificant wear on the inside of both
toes), he wanted me to try motion control shoes instead of stability. I
took home a pair of Brooks Ariel, and while the cusioning and arch felt
good, my left knee (outer) started hurting after only 3/4 of a mile.

I'm curious, why the 2090s? This shoe has been replaced by the Gel 2100
for quite a while now. The 2090s were Asics' worst shoe in the 20xx
series. A lot of people complained about that one for various reasons.
OTOH, the 2100 put the series back on line as one of the best running
shoes out there. However, it still may not be for you if you really
need more motion control. And I seriously question shoe store employees
that try to push the motion control idea on their customers. In many
cases the runner doesn't need motion control at all. In fact, it can
cause a poor running style to become even worse.

Quoted message said:

I do think the shoes were a half size too big ... but would that cause
knee pain?

Yes. Discomfort in one area can lead to an altered stride, which can
lead to pain in other areas of the body.

Quoted message said:

Aside from a lot of foot/knee pain after a metric marathon (26.2K) on
Sunday (which I'm attributing to lots of hills, kind of worn shoes, and
road slope -- we had to run the whole race in the shoulder), I haven't
really had any major issues with the 2090s.

Suggestions? Maybe there's a stability shoe that would be better for me
than going over to motion control?

All of the above is just advice, take it or leave it, because it really
depends on a lot of things that can't be diagnosed over usenet. One
thing for sure, don't take any advice from our resident troll
TheBillRogers. Blanket statements such as "Brooks are a very soft,
squishy shoe, with little support of any kind," are not at all helpful.
Brooks makes all types of shoes. Some with stiff soles, some without.
I've heard a lot of rave reviews about the Brooks GTS 5 (not sure about
the new GTS 6).

Quoted message said:

I'm curious, why the 2090s? This shoe has been replaced by the Gel 2100
for quite a while now. The 2090s were Asics' worst shoe in the 20xx
series. A lot of people complained about that one for various reasons.

I got my first pair of 2090s just before the 2100s came out ... and
they worked well for me. I previously had IT band pain with Mizunos --
can't remember which model -- and the pain went away completely with
the 2090s.

When it was time for a new pair, I tried the 2100s, but they didn't
feel right for me. Since the store still had 2090s, I went with those.
I didn't take the 2100s for a test run, though.

I may try the Brooks Ariel in a smaller size, just to see how it feels,
and I might give the 2100s a chance (in a larger size).

There are lots of shoes out there ... something's got to work!

Thanks.

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

Quoted message said:

I've been running in Asics 2090s for nearly a year, currently about
15-25 miles per week.

I overpronate, and I tend to lean in on my right arch, so sometimes I
have arch pain if my shoes aren't tied tight enough. I don't have high
arches, and I'm small (5'3, 110 lbs).

It sounds like the right time to seek a running-experienced podiatrist.
See if the local uni's sport medicine dept will tell you what podiatrist
they refer to, or ask at the local running shoe store - some podiatrists
advertise or look for referrals from there. Although you may need to invest
a few hundred dollars for the orthotics, I think you'll be very pleased in
the long term.

Dave

Quoted message said:

If the only problem you had with the 2090's was arch pain, I'd
suggest [...] trying a shoe that better matches your arch profile -
flat, normal, or high.

Similar factor: some people's arches are further fore or aft than
average, as I learned the first time I was fitted at a real running
shop. Mine are a bit forward which works out OK since I size up a full
notch from my street shoes.

Another possibility for the OP: a vocal minority of runners has found
success running in flats and very minimal shoes. Some folks opine that
a minimal shoe is even more stable than a stability or motion control
shoe, because it lacks the higher heel, and more natural, hence works
better for the overpronator than anything. Some people get pretty
evangelical about it and hold up minimal shoes as the cure for all
running ills.

The issue of minimal shoes is very tightly bound up with running form.
There's a lot more to say about it, and thousands upon thousands of
words have in fact been said both here (mostly several years back) and
on letsrun.com (much more ongoing, at least last I checked). I don't
want to represent this philosophy as a no-risk guaranteed way to cure
your ITB and pronation issues; but I do think you're at least light
enough to consider exploring this route, were you otherwise interested.

Pendejo, who'd wear even less shoe if he could avoid more pavement

Quoted message said:

The 2090s were Asics' worst shoe in the 20xx series.

IRVINE, CA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 01/10/2005 -- ASICS America Corporation,

a leading distributor of performance-driven athletic shoes, apparel and

accessories, announced this week a strong finish to 2004. With a record

performance in 2004, ASICS surpassed the $200 million mark finishing
off the year with $223.8 million in sales, an increase of 12.5% over
2003. Footwear sales continue to soar with sales up 13.5%,
year-to-date. The
top selling shoe for ASICS in 2004 was the GT-2090™, with sales
numbers up 53% compared to the GT-2080™ in 2003. The GT-2090™
quickly became the top selling shoe, based on sales volume, in ASICS
America's history.
____

Mr. Macelroy, will be offering any stocks tips today? Ahhhh take
another swing at it....the side of the barn is not far....and you'll
hit it yet!

"lecolvin" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1128521660.760719.320350
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

I was thinking I might need to switch shoes to get a better arch
support. Also, sometimes on long runs I have to loosen my shoes, or my
toes get numb. Maybe that'd be solved by a larger size. I have two
black toenails (fourth toe on each foot).

Instead of being resized into bigger shoes, have you considered going
wider? I had some numb toe/injured toenail issues while I was running in
regular width shoes. A foot-guy recommended I try 4E width shoes (my feet
are kinda wide at the tip compared to most) and it helped a lot.

The downside to that is that not every shoe is available wide (especially
if you go into anything less than a real running shop). But I know the
Asics 2100 is available wide. I run in the New Balance 766 in a 4E.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The 2090s were Asics' worst shoe in the 20xx series.

IRVINE, CA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 01/10/2005 -- ASICS America Corporation,

a leading distributor of performance-driven athletic shoes, apparel and

accessories, announced this week a strong finish to 2004. With a record

performance in 2004, ASICS surpassed the $200 million mark finishing
off the year with $223.8 million in sales, an increase of 12.5% over
2003. Footwear sales continue to soar with sales up 13.5%,
year-to-date. The
top selling shoe for ASICS in 2004 was the GT-2090?, with sales
numbers up 53% compared to the GT-2080? in 2003. The GT-2090?
quickly became the top selling shoe, based on sales volume, in ASICS
America's history.
____

Mr. Macelroy, will be offering any stocks tips today?

No. I don't deal with stocks, only real world data from the running
community. Your numbers are purely sales figures. I would like to see
satisfaction survey results.

Quoted message said:

Ahhhh take
another swing at it....the side of the barn is not far....and you'll
hit it yet!

OK. I'll give it a shot...

How many of those Asics customers were disappointed after buying the
Asics 2090? Your numbers won't show that. They were happy with the
2080. The shoe eventually wore out. They go to buy another pair. Low
and behold, the shoe has been discontinued and replaced by the "latest
and greatest" (according to marketing hype). So of course the numbers
are going to show that the 2090 is the best selling shoe in the Asics
line. However, your numbers don't show how many of those customers
would go out and buy another pair.

I don't know what kind of running circles you're in, but if you talk to
other runners about the 2080 vs the 2090 vs the 2100 you'll surely
notice the trend from a great shoe to an average shoe and back to a
great shoe. I still stand by my comment, "The 2090s were Asics' worst
shoe in the 20xx series." Please note that I did not say "worst SELLING
shoe."

...i believe you. imo they did the same thing with the DS Trainer which
peaked at VII and went downhill after that (they're not at X). Asics
is great at screwing up a shoe that generated a solid fan base. i give
new balance a lot of credit in sticking w/a shoe....of course that 991
shoe's been forever...but even the 900 has changed just about "nil"
other than color schemes since it's release and i think 2.5-3 year
lifetime i've not seen a pair of 901s.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i give new balance a lot of credit in sticking w/a shoe....of course that 991 shoe's been forever...but even the 900 has changed just about "nil" other than color schemes since it's release and i think 2.5-3 year lifetime i've not seen a pair of 901s. <<

When New Balance went from 854 to 855, they added a post or
extended a post or something and the redesigned shoe was more of a
motion-control shoe than a stability shoe. That's when I was told that
too much support can cause pain on the outside of the knee, because I
started getting the pain when I started wearing the 855's.

Mike

macelroy said:

However, it still may not be for you if you really
need more motion control. And I seriously question shoe store employees
that try to push the motion control idea on their customers. In many
cases the runner doesn't need motion control at all. In fact, it can
cause a poor running style to become even worse.

I agree (this means his advice is no good?) Macelroy is the troll,
never ran a mile, and is full of [censored]. Just google him, you'll see.
You shouldn't buy anything like MC or stability UNLESS you have
injurys. Many people pronate, and it never causes them any grief
whatsoever.

Quoted message said:

TheBillRogers. Blanket statements such as "Brooks are a very soft,
squishy shoe, with little support of any kind," are not at all helpful.
Brooks makes all types of shoes. Some with stiff soles, some without.
I've heard a lot of rave reviews about the Brooks GTS 5 (not sure about
the new GTS 6).

Um as I said, that has been my experience with Brooks, but I haven't
tried them in many years, so this jerk maybe correct. But since I'm
again agreeing with him, and my advice is allegedly useless, this
means his advice is useless too.

lecolvin said:

I got my first pair of 2090s just before the 2100s came out ... and
they worked well for me. I previously had IT band pain with Mizunos --
can't remember which model -- and the pain went away completely with
the 2090s.

When it was time for a new pair, I tried the 2100s, but they didn't
feel right for me. Since the store still had 2090s, I went with those.
I didn't take the 2100s for a test run, though.

I've run in the 2000 series for years and years, and they've all
served me well.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The 2090s were Asics' worst shoe in the 20xx series.

IRVINE, CA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 01/10/2005 -- ASICS America Corporation,

a leading distributor of performance-driven athletic shoes, apparel and

accessories, announced this week a strong finish to 2004. With a record

performance in 2004, ASICS surpassed the $200 million mark finishing
off the year with $223.8 million in sales, an increase of 12.5% over
2003. Footwear sales continue to soar with sales up 13.5%,
year-to-date. The
top selling shoe for ASICS in 2004 was the GT-2090? with sales
numbers up 53% compared to the GT-2080?in 2003. The GT-2090?
quickly became the top selling shoe, based on sales volume, in ASICS
America's history.
____

Mr. Macelroy, will be offering any stocks tips today? Ahhhh take
another swing at it....the side of the barn is not far....and you'll
hit it yet!

I TOLD you he was a troll.

macelroy said:

No. I don't deal with stocks, only real world data from the running
community. Your numbers are purely sales figures. I would like to see
satisfaction survey results.

Hey stupid, nobody'd buy them if they weren't any good. If you could
read you'd notice sales are going up, not down.

Quoted message said:

OK. I'll give it a shot...

Keep trying, you might be right eventually.

Quoted message said:

How many of those Asics customers were disappointed after buying the
Asics 2090?

None, or they'd return them stupid.

Quoted message said:

Your numbers won't show that. They were happy with the
2080. The shoe eventually wore out. They go to buy another pair. Low
and behold, the shoe has been discontinued and replaced by the "latest
and greatest" (according to marketing hype). So of course the numbers
are going to show that the 2090 is the best selling shoe in the Asics
line. However, your numbers don't show how many of those customers
would go out and buy another pair.

I don't know what kind of running circles you're in, but if you talk to
other runners about the 2080 vs the 2090 vs the 2100 you'll surely
notice the trend from a great shoe to an average shoe and back to a
great shoe. I still stand by my comment, "The 2090s were Asics' worst
shoe in the 20xx series." Please note that I did not say "worst SELLING
shoe."

Keep trying...

David Geesaman said:

It sounds like the right time to seek a running-experienced podiatrist.
See if the local uni's sport medicine dept will tell you what podiatrist
they refer to, or ask at the local running shoe store - some podiatrists
advertise or look for referrals from there. Although you may need to invest
a few hundred dollars for the orthotics, I think you'll be very pleased in
the long term.

Ignore this stupidity. Orthos are a LAST RESORT. You need to see a
chiropractor.

"TheBillRogers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I agree (this means his advice is no good?) Macelroy is the troll,
never ran a mile, and is full of [censored]. Just google him, you'll see.

Here, I did it for you. You're welcome.

http://tinyurl.com/7gejm