Shoe Recommendation

pixel_a_ted said:

A few years ago I tried out the Asics GT-2100 based on a
recommendation for my foot type and they worked out well. Since then,
I have stuck with these shoes and their apparent successors (2110,
2120) without any problems. I like the fit of the Asics so maybe I
should just stick with them.

I think so. The grass isn't greener on the other side of the shoe
store. For the kind of running you do the best you can expect from
your shoes is exactly what you've been getting: problem-free running.

Quoted message said:

But, I am just wondering what the alternatives are in the same type of
shoe, any brand, just for my consideration. I am a jogger more than a
runner, but middle-aged and not getting any younger. I usually jog on
hard surfaces, so I want to minimize the impact of my feet on the
ground.

Asics 21xx series are for moderate over-pronators. You can probably
assume that's what works for you since you've gone through three
models of that type. All the big makers (Mizuno, Saucony, Brooks,
Adidas, New Balance, Nike, who am I forgetting?) make models for
moderate over-pronators (in fact I think that's the most sold type of
running shoe, which makes me wonder why it's called over-pronating if
most people do it. But that's besides the point). The specific model
that works for you will depend on fit and your preference so someone
else's recommendation probably isn't going to be that helpful for you.

I'm a "Neutral" runner (but since most people are moderate
over-pronators wouldn't it make more sense to call me an
"under-pronator"? But that's still beside the point.) so what works
for me (Mizuno Wave Riders rule!) isn't what you want.

If you still want to experiment a real running store is your best bet.
They'll know what you need and will have appropriate models from many
brands for you to try out. If you go to a mall chain store they won't
know pronation from pixie dust.

Michelle said:

The way that shoe manufacturers keep "improving" the shoes,
the same model name/number is not necessarily the same shoe from one
year to the next, if they happen to keep the same model name and/or
number.

No you asswipe, that's not true at all. If this transvestite knew
anything, he'd know that even if the shoe gets design "updates" they
don't change it from a motion control shoe, to a cushioned shoe. In
other words there maybe small design changes, but it is still intended
for the same type of running styl, even if it is chnged or improved.

Quoted message said:

Michelle said:

The way that shoe manufacturers keep "improving" the shoes,
the same model name/number is not necessarily the same shoe from one
year to the next, if they happen to keep the same model name and/or
number.

No you asswipe, that's not true at all. If this transvestite knew
anything, he'd know that even if the shoe gets design "updates" they
don't change it from a motion control shoe, to a cushioned shoe. In
other words there maybe small design changes, but it is still intended
for the same type of running styl, even if it is chnged or improved.

Perhaps he stated it a bit crudely, but he is 100% accurate. Michelle
is blowing farts out her mouth again, and runs is correct.

"tfactor" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

All the big makers (Mizuno, Saucony, Brooks, Adidas, New Balance, Nike,
who am I forgetting?) make models for moderate over-pronators (in fact I
think that's the most sold type of running shoe, which makes me wonder why
it's called over-pronating if most people do it. But that's besides the
point).

Did some research recently on foot motion and a couple of texts I dug up
said that only 10% have "normally pronating" (optimal for running) feet. I
guess that means that most of us will have problems running reasonable miles
without tending to that.

I'm one of the 90%...When starting out umpteen years ago, as soon as I got
up to 40+ miles/week I had all kinds of problems until I got the right
orthotics (something that makes a shoe more over-pronater friendly). The
pronation control shoes of the day alone weren't strong enough for me.

Nowadays I can wear just about any shoe (provided I use my inserts).

-- Dan

D Stumpus said:

"tfactor" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

All the big makers (Mizuno, Saucony, Brooks, Adidas, New Balance, Nike,
who am I forgetting?) make models for moderate over-pronators (in fact I
think that's the most sold type of running shoe, which makes me wonder why
it's called over-pronating if most people do it. But that's besides the
point).

Did some research recently on foot motion and a couple of texts I dug up
said that only 10% have "normally pronating" (optimal for running) feet. I
guess that means that most of us will have problems running reasonable miles
without tending to that.

Nonsense Dan. That's your "guess" and nothing more. Prtonation does
not equal injurys. The fact that it is behind many injurys gives it a
bad rap, but facts are I see some of the worse pronators running
everyday, and they are normal to injury-free.

Quoted message said:

I'm one of the 90%...When starting out umpteen years ago, as soon as I got
up to 40+ miles/week I had all kinds of problems until I got the right
orthotics (something that makes a shoe more over-pronater friendly). The
pronation control shoes of the day alone weren't strong enough for me.

I certainly do agree that at some point of doing higher miles you'll
likely hit this "injury plateau" and it's one that each person needs
to find, and solve themselves, because everyone's different.

Quoted message said:

Nowadays I can wear just about any shoe (provided I use my inserts).

Avoid flourescent pink pumps with a black miniskirt. Careful in those
heels on the dancefloor too.

D Stumpus said:

Nowadays I can wear just about any shoe (provided I use my inserts).

-- Dan

You're lucky, I can't wear pink pumps with my purple minskirt.

tfactor said:

which makes me wonder why it's called over-pronating if
most people do it

I guess the implication is it's not "more than average", it's "too
much for injury-free runnng."

Interesting question is why a large majority of people, when we're
plainly built for running, pronate too much and require some
correction.

Luddite "blame technology" theories appeal to me. A couple which
purport to address this question are:

[a] the amount of cushioning we've put in running shoes these last few
decades, the height of the heels, makes runners inherently unstable in
them and requires correction

[b] we're built for walking and running unshod but everyone in the
developed world goes around in shoes from early childhood, so some of
our muscles are underdeveloped

Anecdotally, a bunch of born-again shoe minimalists claim they were
able to cast off their stability and motion control shoes after they
started running in very flat skimpy shoes or barefoot. Some cite shoe
geometry, some believe they've strengthened arches and other
musculature, some say the lack of cushioning encourages better form
and higher stride rates and midfoot striking instead of crashing down
on their heels.

To the OP I'd ask, what do you hope to gain by ditching something
that's working for you? Some racers want to try different shoes to
improve performance, some higher mileage folks who go through lots of
shoes anyway are simply curious about trying something different.

Maybe you're just curious too. The risks are injury and/or wasting
your $$ on something that doesn't work for you, but hey, that's also
true for any of us who like to experiment. Me, even if I were just
jogging for health or pleasure, I'd be glad I tried lighter skimpier
flats because I find running in them more enjoyable and natural
feeling.

"Charlie Pendejo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
[quote="Quoted message"]Luddite "blame technology" theories appeal to me. A couple which
purport to address this question are:

[a] the amount of cushioning we've put in running shoes these last few
decades, the height of the heels, makes runners inherently unstable in
them and requires correction

[b] we're built for walking and running unshod but everyone in the
developed world goes around in shoes from early childhood, so some of
our muscles are underdeveloped[/quote]

Definitley under used. Look at third world countries. We strap shoes on
our kids at about 6 months

Quoted message said:

Anecdotally, a bunch of born-again shoe minimalists claim they were
able to cast off their stability and motion control shoes after they
started running in very flat skimpy shoes or barefoot. Some cite shoe
geometry, some believe they've strengthened arches and other
musculature, some say the lack of cushioning encourages better form
and higher stride rates and midfoot striking instead of crashing down
on their heels.

Quoted message said:

To the OP I'd ask, what do you hope to gain by ditching something
that's working for you? Some racers want to try different shoes to
improve performance, some higher mileage folks who go through lots of
shoes anyway are simply curious about trying something different.

"Charlie Pendejo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
[quote="Quoted message"]

tfactor said:

which makes me wonder why it's called over-pronating if
most people do it

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:09:02 GMT, "Tony S." <[email hidden]>
[quote="Quoted message"]"Charlie Pendejo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
[quote="Quoted message"]

tfactor said:

which makes me wonder why it's called over-pronating if
most people do it

Charlie Pendejo said:

To the OP I'd ask, what do you hope to gain by ditching something
that's working for you? Some racers want to try different shoes to
improve performance, some higher mileage folks who go through lots of
shoes anyway are simply curious about trying something different.

I am the OP. I didn't mean to raise such a ruckus here. What did I
hope to gain? Just thinking that as I get older I might need something
that even better lessened the impact of the ground on my feet and so
was wondering if there was something "better" out there worth trying.
I'm getting the message that leaving well enough alone is probably the
best policy.

Thanks.

Quoted message said:

Michelle said:

The way that shoe manufacturers keep "improving" the shoes,
the same model name/number is not necessarily the same shoe from one
year to the next, if they happen to keep the same model name and/or
number.

No you asswipe, that's not true at all. If this transvestite knew
anything, he'd know that even if the shoe gets design "updates" they
don't change it from a motion control shoe, to a cushioned shoe.

Some manufacturers (e.g. Asics, New Balance) do notably good job of
not screwing up a shoe, of keeping about the same characteristics from
one year to the next. They know that they get repeat business from the
runners who will buy the new version of the same shoe.

pixel_a_ted said:

A few years ago I tried out the Asics GT-2100 based on a
recommendation for my foot type and they worked out well. Since then,
I have stuck with these shoes and their apparent successors (2110,
2120) without any problems. I like the fit of the Asics so maybe I
should just stick with them.

But, I am just wondering what the alternatives are in the same type of
shoe, any brand, just for my consideration. I am a jogger more than a
runner, but middle-aged and not getting any younger. I usually jog on
hard surfaces, so I want to minimize the impact of my feet on the
ground.

Thanks.

I pretty much run only in asics. Over the years have run in a bunch
of the GT-2X shoes ... all of the asics brand tend to work pretty well
as long as you buy new ones before putting in too many miles.

People tend not to realize that shoes oxidize and lose their ability
to absorb shock even if they have not had too many miles put into
them.

When I first started running one of the guys selling shoes told me
that most shoes wear out after 300 to 400 miles. I thought that this
was just a way to sell more pairs of shoes.

I rarely put in more than 400 to 500 miles in a pair on my shoes these
days before moving onto the next pair. You have to run smart and
listen to what your feet and ankles are telling you ...

Many years ago when my expendable budget was larger I used to run in
Nike Air Max's. They are very shock absorbing and ( used to anyhow )
work well for me.

Lots of people like New Balances. I never did.

Caveat Emptor.

pixel_a_ted said:

I am the OP. I didn't mean to raise such a ruckus here. What did I
hope to gain? Just thinking that as I get older I might need something
that even better lessened the impact of the ground on my feet and so
was wondering if there was something "better" out there worth trying.
I'm getting the message that leaving well enough alone is probably the
best policy.

Probably so.

The whole issue of shoe cushioning vs. impact is murky anyway. It
turns out it's not as straightforward as more cush = less jolting on
the body. Our leg muscles are designed to absorb impact from running,
and they adjust to absorb more or less as required by shoes, surface,
etc. So maybe you relieve those muscles of some of that impact-
absorption burden, but maybe that doesn't help the rest of your body.

And some folks think as you isolate your feet from the ground via more
shoe cushioning, you lose important sensory feedback that your body
wants to use in making some of these adjustments so that in the end
you might be more injury prone with more cushioning. Or in short: too
much cushioning allows you to get away with sloppier form that, in the
end, harms you.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Michelle said:

The way that shoe manufacturers keep "improving" the shoes,
the same model name/number is not necessarily the same shoe from one
year to the next, if they happen to keep the same model name and/or
number.

No you asswipe, that's not true at all. If this transvestite knew
anything, he'd know that even if the shoe gets design "updates" they
don't change it from a motion control shoe, to a cushioned shoe.

Some manufacturers (e.g. Asics, New Balance) do notably good job of
not screwing up a shoe, of keeping about the same characteristics from
one year to the next. They know that they get repeat business from the
runners who will buy the new version of the same shoe.

I would agree about the New Balance of the past, though even with their
variety of wider width models, I haven't found any New Balance models
recently that I can run in. Asics, like others, have fallen for the new
lighter foam, and it drastically changed the feel of the shoe IMHO, for one
model, 2110 to 2120, so much so that I can't even run in the 2120s whereas I
loved the 2100s and 2110s.

Say what you will about Nikes, but recently I've found them the most runable
for my feet. I've used Air Pegasus in '05 - '07 models, and they're all
great shoes, though very different from year to year. For example, the Peg
'05 I used to use for roads and flat trails, while I used Asics 2100s for
rough trails (neutral vs. stability yea but it worked for me at the time).
The Peg '06 are total bricks and horrible on roads, but they're stiff and
very nice for rough trails I've found, and I just ordered a couple more. Peg
'07 are back to the softness of '05, but with that lighter foam - no good
for trails, but good road shoes, though the new foam is even less supportive
than the '05 model, which I ran a 50 miler in, and wouldn't think of doing
that with the '07 model. The moral for me is when you find a shoe that works
for a purpose, order a bunch of pairs. Since I run on all kinds of terrain,
I have lots of different shoes.

-Tony

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

Quoted message said:

pixel_a_ted said:

I am the OP. I didn't mean to raise such a ruckus here.

It's a vaild topic without an answer! 🙂

Quoted message said:

What did I

Quoted message said:

hope to gain? Just thinking that as I get older I might need
something
that even better lessened the impact of the ground on my feet and so
was wondering if there was something "better" out there worth trying.
I'm getting the message that leaving well enough alone is probably
the
best policy.

Probably so.

The whole issue of shoe cushioning vs. impact is murky anyway. It
turns out it's not as straightforward as more cush = less jolting on
the body. Our leg muscles are designed to absorb impact from running,
and they adjust to absorb more or less as required by shoes, surface,
etc. So maybe you relieve those muscles of some of that impact-
absorption burden, but maybe that doesn't help the rest of your body.

Quoted message said:

And some folks think as you isolate your feet from the ground via more
shoe cushioning, you lose important sensory feedback that your body
wants to use in making some of these adjustments so that in the end
you might be more injury prone with more cushioning. Or in short: too
much cushioning allows you to get away with sloppier form that, in the
end, harms you.

Also....for some brands/models when you opt for a shoe that has more
cushioning you often lose stability. I can say that the Asics 2000
series has managed to keep a reasonable cushion and maintain stability.
It's a hybrid of sorts. I will gig the 2120's as they made the shoe
lighter to appease the notion that lighter is better and significantly
dropped life span. Was it on purpose I don't know but I do know that I
can get at best 350-400 miles before they get moved into lawn mowing
duties.

-Doug

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:34:02 -0400, "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

pixel_a_ted said:

I am the OP. I didn't mean to raise such a ruckus here.

It's a vaild topic without an answer! 🙂

Quoted message said:

What did I

Quoted message said:

hope to gain? Just thinking that as I get older I might need
something
that even better lessened the impact of the ground on my feet and so
was wondering if there was something "better" out there worth trying.
I'm getting the message that leaving well enough alone is probably
the
best policy.

Probably so.

The whole issue of shoe cushioning vs. impact is murky anyway. It
turns out it's not as straightforward as more cush = less jolting on
the body. Our leg muscles are designed to absorb impact from running,
and they adjust to absorb more or less as required by shoes, surface,
etc. So maybe you relieve those muscles of some of that impact-
absorption burden, but maybe that doesn't help the rest of your body.

Quoted message said:

And some folks think as you isolate your feet from the ground via more
shoe cushioning, you lose important sensory feedback that your body
wants to use in making some of these adjustments so that in the end
you might be more injury prone with more cushioning. Or in short: too
much cushioning allows you to get away with sloppier form that, in the
end, harms you.

Also....for some brands/models when you opt for a shoe that has more
cushioning you often lose stability. I can say that the Asics 2000
series has managed to keep a reasonable cushion and maintain stability.
It's a hybrid of sorts. I will gig the 2120's as they made the shoe
lighter to appease the notion that lighter is better and significantly
dropped life span. Was it on purpose I don't know but I do know that I
can get at best 350-400 miles before they get moved into lawn mowing
duties.

-Doug

Oh Doug, you get me so hot when you talk about shoes.

Or in short: too

Quoted message said:

much cushioning allows you to get away with sloppier form that, in the
end, harms you.

_

unless you run mechanically very well - in a great cushion shoe. you
have to allow for that combo - as that's the combo i am relying on to
be running when I am in my 70's, or heck, even older than that, even
when I am as old as Doug F !

i've done most of my marathon training in an Asics Nimbus VII -
fabulous shoe. However the Kayano series is even greater. Both are
a step above of the 21xx series in discussion and are the natural and
expected next line of progression for someone looking to upgrade out
of that [censored] shoe Doug F runs in.

that shoe is basically a toyota camry, a honda accord, etc. solid -
good - boring as hell and won't get you laid. Nimbus & Kayano are
more Lexus, Acura, etc. - just a step up.

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

Quoted message said:

unless you run mechanically very well - in a great cushion shoe. you
have to allow for that combo - as that's the combo i am relying on to
be running when I am in my 70's, or heck, even older than that, even
when I am as old as Doug F !

When you're 70 I'll be 90 and drooling if I'm still above the ground.

Quoted message said:

i've done most of my marathon training in an Asics Nimbus VII -
fabulous shoe. However the Kayano series is even greater. Both are
a step above of the 21xx series in discussion and are the natural and
expected next line of progression for someone looking to upgrade out
of that [censored] shoe Doug F runs in.

I think [censored] shoe is your opinion. At one time I was looking at the
Kayano and while the cost of shoe usually doesn't mean much, the extra
dollars was way out of line.

Quoted message said:

that shoe is basically a toyota camry, a honda accord, etc. solid -
good - boring as hell and won't get you laid. Nimbus & Kayano are
more Lexus, Acura, etc. - just a step up.

But does it get you laid? Considering your 40+ and still single my
guess is you have to visit the local slammer on conjugal visit day to
even get lucky. For that steep an increase it better be a step up, a
big bloody step up. The question, is it worth the extra $$$$. I'll take
the Camry but wait, I already own one.

So Bubba, you have yet to answer - what are your time goals for NYC
marathon? You you be cranking A 100 or 120 a week bu now, right? Even
a self proclaimed elite have aspirations.

-Doug