61 replies to this topic

[BigAdam]

Hi All,

Thought I would put my two bobs worth in regarding my new running shoes. I bought a po\air of ASICS Gel Kayano 15's at Rebel Sport for $260. Now, $260 is a lot of money, especially for a pair of shoes, how ever I normally get Brooks Trance 7 or Mizuno Wave Nirvana's, so the price wasn't that much of a shock. I went for a walk in the new shoes, maybe 2km, and they felt so bloody awkward I had all kinds of fears about running in them. Last night I ran 10km with in 3 min of my PB in them with no sign of blistering at all. Somehow the shoes helped my posture, I could feel my bum and back tightening up, my legs did not fatigue any where near as much as they did in my old worn out mizuno's and to top it off I feel well enough today to go for a 6km trot later on.

I presume I will run better in these shoes as they wear in more. My Mizuno's took over a month to wear in, I'd had them for four weeks when I did my first Half Marathon in them and had blisters everywhere. Once run in the Mizuno's where great, until they wore out and I may as well have run barefoot. Let's hope these Asics' do the job well once run in and I certainly hope I get plenty of distance out of them.

[TehAxe]

 BigAdam, on Feb 11 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

Hi All,

Thought I would put my two bobs worth in regarding my new running shoes. I bought a po\air of ASICS Gel Kayano 15's at Rebel Sport for $260. Now, $260 is a lot of money, especially for a pair of shoes, how ever I normally get Brooks Trance 7 or Mizuno Wave Nirvana's, so the price wasn't that much of a shock. I went for a walk in the new shoes, maybe 2km, and they felt so bloody awkward I had all kinds of fears about running in them. Last night I ran 10km with in 3 min of my PB in them with no sign of blistering at all. Somehow the shoes helped my posture, I could feel my bum and back tightening up, my legs did not fatigue any where near as much as they did in my old worn out mizuno's and to top it off I feel well enough today to go for a 6km trot later on.

I presume I will run better in these shoes as they wear in more. My Mizuno's took over a month to wear in, I'd had them for four weeks when I did my first Half Marathon in them and had blisters everywhere. Once run in the Mizuno's where great, until they wore out and I may as well have run barefoot. Let's hope these Asics' do the job well once run in and I certainly hope I get plenty of distance out of them.

thanks for the recommendation, esp good to hear that they might have helped to activate your glutes. My Kayano 14s are due to be replaced so I'll grab me a pair of 15s

[CliffyB]

Yeah I've had a pair for about a month now and have no complaints. They are even more comfortable with Asics socks. The Mizunos were harder under the foot but was probably due to being a stability shoe whereas the 15s have so much cushioning. Didn't have a choice for colour but as they say red goes faster. They feel really light
I looked at the Nimbus which felt really comfy in the store but the toe area felt weird and I needed to get half a size bigger which made them look like clown boots.

[wozzam]

i once had a pair of kayanos and it took me about a week to break them in but i found they wore out too quickly but i can run in brooks adrenalines straight out of the box and they last longer,way better priced and come in a variety of widths but hey they suit my foot better than asics and i always go close or better than my pb so i wouldn"t put it down to the shoes otherwise i"d be wearing adidas!

[flyingdutchman]

I've had a pair since mid-december.
I didn't think anything was more comfortable than my Nimbus (I tried the 14's, but they didn't feel great for me), but I tried the 15's and they are the most comfortable shoes I've ever had.

[Andolate]

Has anyone bought some 15's who have run for a while in 14's?

I am on my 3rd pair of 14's and am not sure whether to buy a runout pair of 14's or try the 15's.
My understanding is the only change is something to do with the trussock? whether this really makes any difference is another question I would like answered?


??????????

Andolate

[KT26]

 Andolate, on Feb 11 2009, 08:51 PM, said:

Has anyone bought some 15's who have run for a while in 14's?

I am on my 3rd pair of 14's and am not sure whether to buy a runout pair of 14's or try the 15's.
My understanding is the only change is something to do with the trussock? whether this really makes any difference is another question I would like answered?


??????????

Andolate

Hi Andolate

I'm not sure what you mean by 'trussock'?

I had the 14s and really liked them. After trying to get hold of more 14s but not being able to, I got the 15s last month. The 15s seem to me pretty similar to the 14s.

The only major difference is that the 14s were quite a bit bigger than the 13s and I had to go up a size. I have gone back to my usual running shoe size in the 15s. So if you're thinking about getting the 15s, try them on to make sure they fit!

[flyingdutchman]

 KT26, on Feb 11 2009, 07:44 PM, said:

Hi Andolate

I'm not sure what you mean by 'trussock'?

I had the 14s and really liked them. After trying to get hold of more 14s but not being able to, I got the 15s last month. The 15s seem to me pretty similar to the 14s.

The only major difference is that the 14s were quite a bit bigger than the 13s and I had to go up a size. I have gone back to my usual running shoe size in the 15s. So if you're thinking about getting the 15s, try them on to make sure they fit!

I tried the run-out models of the 14's, thinking i could get more value, but I preferred the 15's.
Can't wait until the 16's come out, because the 15's will be cheaper.

[PhilN]

 Andolate, on Feb 11 2009, 08:51 PM, said:

Has anyone bought some 15's who have run for a while in 14's?

I am on my 3rd pair of 14's and am not sure whether to buy a runout pair of 14's or try the 15's.
My understanding is the only change is something to do with the trussock? whether this really makes any difference is another question I would like answered?


??????????

Andolate

Hello Andolate,
I am alternating between an older pair of 14's and a new pair of 15's. The 15's feel a better shoe to me, a bit lighter and more cushioning, Mind you my 14's have 500 more k's on then. Personally I do not really like the 14's I find them to heavy but love the 15's

[Andolate]

Thanks all for responses,

It's interesting to note how most people notice different things / changes in a new model shoe. Funnily, all of the changes that have been noticed have no correlation to what the manufacturer says are the changes made???

Without me researching it properly I am pretty sure that Asics only claim to have improved the trussock ( which I think is the support around the laces / midfoot area. They do not imply of any further changes being made.

I am certainly not having a crack at anyone's impressions or reviews. Just interesting I think to see how we all differ in likes / dislikes and opinions.

If anyone also knows the "facts " on the definate changes made from 14-15 that would be interesting too! I could well be wrong in my comments and would be happily corrected.

Cheers,

Andolate

[BigAdam]

It is interesting to see some hard core asics devotees on the forum. I have gone from Mizuno to Brooks to Mizuno to Asics and so far have got at least 700km or so out of each brand of shoe ('cept the new asics), despite being too bloody heavy to be a decent runner.

I will have a better idea regarding the Kayano's in the next month or so after running in but to date my favourite shoe would be the brooks Trance 7, light, fast and some how out lasted the thicker more cushy Mizuno's..... I did my first HM in my then month old mizunos and at the end of it felt like my knee caps had been smashed in, along with blisters and massive cramps in my calves.

Apparently the new top line Nike shoes were designed by the same person who did the Kayano's and the new Nike is fairly close to the Kayano. I generally stay away from Nike and Addidas as I want to pay for performance not fashion....

Edited by BigAdam, 12 February 2009 - 09:44 AM.

[Whippet gal]

IMO Asics make the best shoes for running in. I use Kayanos to train in and DS Trainers to race in.

I recently bought the newest model of both and was pleased to notice an improvement in the DS trainers. They were good before, but not as comfortable as the Kayanos. Now they're almost (well - as much as can be without the added support) as great. There was only one model of Kayanos that I didn't like - think it was the XIIs. I tried Mizanos then (on recmmendation) and got all sorts of pains in my ankle and arch of my foot.

People who aren't die hard Asics fans might be interested in a Reebok shoe (I know - I was so surprised). My husband (who wears Kayanos for training and racing) tried on a Reebok running shoe at Rebel (sorry, can't remember the name but it was lightweight and not cheap, but cheaper than the Asics) and he almost bought it.

Edited by Whippet gal, 12 February 2009 - 02:46 PM.

[chookrunner]

I've had quite a few pairs of Kayanos and I can always just put them on a run 10K or whatever, without breaking them in. I've never been able to do that with other shoes.

But I now have my first pair of DS Trainers and I absolutely LOVE them. So much lighter than the Kayanos, and I really don't miss the extra cushioning. I thought I'd train in the Kayanos and race in the DS. Now I find myself wearing the DS all the time.
Great shoes.

[KT26]

After doing a quick weight comparison of the last 4 models (which involves me using my hands like scales), the Kayano 15s are definitely the lightest so far.

[Bellthorpe]

Were they the last pair that you picked up?

[KT26]

No...just alternated various combinations of shoes in hands! It was a highly empirical scientific study.

[Mick]

Athletic Edge still have the 2130s for $140 + $5 postage. This is what I'm currently using.

Are Kayano's really worth the extra expense ?

Local running shop suggests to not use Kayano as not as much heal lift, AND more expensive.

[Lost Boy]

 Mick, on Feb 13 2009, 10:35 AM, said:

Athletic Edge still have the 2130s for $140 + $5 postage. This is what I'm currently using.

Are Kayano's really worth the extra expense ?

Local running shop suggests to not use Kayano as not as much heal lift, AND more expensive.

Be careful when switching between kayanos and 21xxs because they are different sizes. 2130/2140 are a 2E width as standard in Australia while Kayanos are D which is considerably narrower. Both have a 4E option for those with especially wide hooves. The D width of the Kayano is why I don't run in them anymore. I have been through several different versions of Kayano, the most recent being the 14, and I have found the 2130 to be just as good and with a more suitable width for me.

To settle the weight issue, the weight of 15 is 13ounces while the weight of 14 is 12.9ounces according to Asics. Not a noticable difference and contrary to those who believe the 15 to be lighter.

Edited by Lost Boy, 13 February 2009 - 01:09 PM.

[PhilN]

Good review on the differences at
http://drshoe.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/sho...ayano-15-vs-14/

Interesting the minor weight difference the mind can play tricks on you, they mention the 15 is more like Nimbus, I was using Nimbus for a couple of years before swapping to Kayano to add some stability. My pair of Nimbus 10 wore out faster than the previous models so the lack of duarability is a worry but I will have to see how I go with the 15's.
Some big differences I guess you should not assume the next model will be for the same type of runner and research each model change as well

Edited by PhilN, 14 February 2009 - 10:30 AM.

[imperfectlylou]

I have always run in Kayanos (was on my 5th or so pair) but found the 14s did not last very long at all (< 5 months being used 2-3 tmes a week). I did a bit of research and spoke to some fellow runners and found a lot of people had the same problem. I went to Running Science last week to get fitted for new ones and was not a fan of the 15s at all. They felt a lot wider on my skinny feet and too big around the ankles. I have switched to the 2130s in a A fitting. Have only run in the them once so far but they felt good.

[Andolate]

 PhilN, on Feb 13 2009, 11:47 PM, said:

Good review on the differences at
http://drshoe.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/sho...ayano-15-vs-14/

Interesting the minor weight difference the mind can play tricks on you, they mention the 15 is more like Nimbus, I was using Nimbus for a couple of years before swapping to Kayano to add some stability. My pair of Nimbus 10 wore out faster than the previous models so the lack of duarability is a worry but I will have to see how I go with the 15's

Thanks for link on that Philn,

The information was really handy. Enough info was there to sway me to not buying 15's at all. I might try and scoop up a couple of pairs of 14 which I love. I hate having to change things


Andolate

[wombatoutofhell]

 BigAdam, on Feb 12 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

. I generally stay away from Nike and Addidas as I want to pay for performance not fashion....

this is a little unfair Adam-both Adidas and Nike make serious running shoes. I ran GCM last year in brand new Nike's (a brand I had never tried before) with no problems at all. My podiatrist recomended several shoes to try back then including brooks, adidas, new balance, reebok and nike (no asics) and I tried them all in the shops, bought the brooks the first time (like you I thought Nike were for fashion) realised my mistake and bought nike the next time. I love the nike (structure triax 11)-far nicer to run in than the brooks (trance 7). I used to love my brooks adrenaline 7's but found the 8's didn't suit me.

[Leaf]

 wombatoutofhell, on Feb 14 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

both Adidas and Nike make serious running shoes.

When I got fitted for running shoes I ended up in the Adidas Supernova Sequence (or something like that, the stability supernova anyway) - and that was at a good running store. I tried on Asics and a few other brands at the same time but these seemed to suit me the best.

Having said that, I now run barefoot so that may not be the best advertisement for the brand!

[BigAdam]

Yeah, my comment about staying away from Nike/Adidas certainly was biased and unfair. I rarely go looking at running shoes, like maybe two or three times a year, when ever I see a Nike or Adidididas shoe, it seems the shoes on display are more for people who want to LOOK like they are athletes or are fit, not actually use the shoe for training or anything. In fairness if you take two steps to the side and check out the footy shoes, 90% of them are Nike or Adidididas and look the business. So perhaps the stockist aren't giving the brands a fair shot, Brooks, New Balance, Asics, Mizuno have the distance running market sewn up and the other brands don't sell as much.

Another observation is when I look at boxing gear, Adidididas make identical products to say, Lonsdale, Everlast, Kostya Zhu, Twins, Punch all them, but Adidididas is twice the price. Usually I see people in Adididididas with gold chains around their necks, gelled hair, bling cars and they can't talk with their hands in their pockets.

[Bernadette]

It was interesting to read all these comments on the Kayanos. I was running in 13s for a long time and had good luck with Asics. (I don't do a lot of bitumen, so the 13s lasted quite a while). I finally just changed up to the 14s in November and ended up with all kinds of calf and ankle problems. The shoes just felt heavy and too firm - not flexible at all to me. Now they sit unused and I'm in Adistars for the bitumen.

[wozzam]

its quite amusing how this topic has evolved and i can see your point adam about adidas and to be honest i have thought seriously about purchasing adidas shoes but my mind says when your onto something good don,t change it, though i,m a big adidas running apparel man just with the brooks shoes

[runbike]

i would rather strap a pair of bricks to my feet than run in a pair of asics running shoes, most over rated shoe on the market and the kayanos are the biggest lemon in there range.

i would rather strap a pair of bricks to my feet than run in a pair of asics running shoes, most over rated shoe on the market and the kayanos are the biggest lemon in there range.

[schwarta]

Wow, you dislike them so much you said it twice!!!

Looks like I'll end up in a pair of Adidas on the recommendation of my podiatrist (Intraining), they just have to order my size in so I can try them out. Most of my previous running has been in Asics.

[EatEm]

One man's (or woman's) brick is anothers feather ....

Ok the Kayano are not the lighest shoe going around .....but they continue to work well for me.
so tell me again why I should change ????

[joggymama]

Part of the sole of my husband's 15s fell off on his run yesterday, has anyone else had or heard of this happening? It was one of the black bits. Seems a bit odd. I run in Trabucos and have never had this happen. his 14s withstood trail running fine before being replaced.

JM

[speeedy]

Hi everyone,

I have been running for quite a while but have recently decided to get serious (half triathlons/marathons) so after some really good gear. I am a guy and I want a pair of asicis. I was going to buy a pair of Kayano 15 today simply because they are 'top of the range' and I want the best but my only concern is that i wear out the outsides of my shoes ie an underpronator. Should it still be ok since this is the 'best' shoe or should I go for the Nimbus instead since its designed for a netural-underpronating foot.

Thanks in advance!

[Mick]

 speeedy, on Apr 28 2009, 08:02 PM, said:

I have been running for quite a while but have recently decided to get serious (half triathlons/marathons) so after some really good gear. I am a guy and I want a pair of asicis. I was going to buy a pair of Kayano 15 today simply because they are 'top of the range' and I want the best but my only concern is that i wear out the outsides of my shoes ie an underpronator. Should it still be ok since this is the 'best' shoe or should I go for the Nimbus instead since its designed for a netural-underpronating foot.

Have you looked at Asic 2140s ?

[hammers]

 BigAdam, on Feb 12 2009, 09:42 AM, said:

Apparently the new top line Nike shoes were designed by the same person who did the Kayano's and the new Nike is fairly close to the Kayano. I generally stay away from Nike and Addidas as I want to pay for performance not fashion....

I have had Kayano's in the past and now I run in Nike Vomero which are the best suited to my foot I have ever had. In the past I wouldve agreed with you but I am very happy with the Vomero's. For me they are as good as the Kayano's, if not better, not to mention $100 cheaper!

[PhilN]

Hello Speedy,
the Kayano's are a stability shoe aimed at the mild to severe overpronator, if you do underpronate you should be looking at a Neutral Cushioining Shoe like Nimbus.
Worth pointing out both under and over pronators land on the outside of the sole. Pronation is identified by how much you foot rolls after landing. I would recommend getting to a specialist running store to determine what is the right shoe for you before making a very expensive purchase that may be a mistake

Edited by PhilN, 28 April 2009 - 09:42 PM.

[Lost Boy]

 speeedy, on Apr 28 2009, 08:02 PM, said:

Hi everyone,

I have been running for quite a while but have recently decided to get serious (half triathlons/marathons) so after some really good gear. I am a guy and I want a pair of asicis. I was going to buy a pair of Kayano 15 today simply because they are 'top of the range' and I want the best but my only concern is that i wear out the outsides of my shoes ie an underpronator. Should it still be ok since this is the 'best' shoe or should I go for the Nimbus instead since its designed for a netural-underpronating foot.

Thanks in advance!

Kayanos are not the "best" shoe in the Asics range. They are not even the most expensive, not that that is any indication of how good a shoe is.
If you are an underpronator (supinator) then Kayanos are goinf to be one of the worst possible shoes you could buy. The same goes for gt-2140s. Both of those shoes will make your problem worse. Try on as many pairs of shoes designed for neutral or supinating runners as you can find and buy the ones which feel the best. If you are a supinator then Nimbus might even be too supportive as they are fairly supportive as neutral shoes go. There is no good reason for wanting Asics shoes specifically. Buying shoes based on brand or how much they cost is stupid and will only lead to problems and injuries. Like Hammers has said, Vomeros have been popular with supinators and a lot of people love Nike Pegasus too. In short, forget about brand and price and go to store and try on as many shoes suited to neutral and supinating runners regardless of brand or price and pick the ones which feel best on.

[Bellthorpe]

 speeedy, on Apr 28 2009, 08:02 PM, said:

I have been running for quite a while but have recently decided to get serious (half triathlons/marathons) so after some really good gear. I am a guy and I want a pair of asicis. I was going to buy a pair of Kayano 15 today simply because they are 'top of the range' and I want the best but my only concern is that i wear out the outsides of my shoes ie an underpronator. Should it still be ok since this is the 'best' shoe or should I go for the Nimbus instead since its designed for a netural-underpronating foot.

Asics is just one brand of many. Choosing the brand first is not in my view the best way to approach the purchase of a new pair of shoes. I haven't worn an Asics shoe for many, many years.

'Top of the range' doesn't mean 'best'. It means 'most expensive'.

Is there some problem with your existing shoes? If not, I would suggest you stay with them.

The general consensus here is that you should go to a specialist running store and try a few pairs that might suit you. Something I've never done, by the way, and I've never had any trouble.

Edited by Bellthorpe, 29 April 2009 - 07:33 AM.

[DontStop]

Having worked pretty closely with a couple of sporting brands over the years, as well as running plenty, experience has taught me to be DEEPLY suspicious of the supposed corrective properties of running shoes.

Asics has built up a massively loyal fanbase, largely because they were smart enough to spend most of their marketing money on getting podiatrists onside in their early years. Runners went to the pod, having just gotten injured because they were trying to run 20k in 3year old cross-trainers, and the pod sent them off to buy Asics.

Result: asics 'cured' their injuries, and spawned a massive word of mouth advertising effect, while the other brands were spending their money on traditional advertising. But don't be mistaken: asics still spend plenty of your money on marketing their brand, because they certainly spend no more on making their shoes than the other guys do, yet their retail prices are very very high.

Obviously, people swear by certain brands of shoes. But if you get a sports company 'insider' in a candid moment, they'll pretty much tell you that shoes are shoes are shoes... with the only important variable being how they feel on your highly individual feet.

Asics are no 'better' than nike or brooks or adidas or mizuno. And most of the techonology put into running shoes (technology designed to correct problems that often aren't really problems at all... "overpronation" has to be the biggest load of bullshit ever invented I reckon. some people are severe overpronaters, but most of us are fine) well, most of that technology doesn't do that much at all.

Except hike the price up.

If you're on a tight budget, I'd recommend buying cheaper shoes more often. Because once that midsole starts to break down, it doesn't matter how many cool devices they've put on your shoes... they'll stop protecting you. It's no good saving up for Kayano's if you can't afford to replace them regularly. From research groups I've seen, a lot of runners think they're doing the right thing by spending big $$, and running these expensive shoes into the ground. Big mistake, because the midsole of the Kayano isn't going to last any longer than the midsole of a $120 pair of shoes.

Anyway - just my way of saying I have no brand loyalty whatsoever At the moment, Nike make a shoe that's perfect for my feet (Vomero 3), but I don't in any way believe that these shoes are any better or worse than any others.

[speeedy]

Hi guys,

Thanks to everyone for their advice. In highsight yes it is completely dumb to pick a brand first and then the shoe

I went down to the athletes foot and was confirmed as an underpronator. I ended up getting Nike Zoom VOMERO+ 4 shoes which seemed to be the best for my foot (they hardly had any shoes in their 'underpronator section' like 5 choices but I like them I probably should have asked what the 4 means tho as I have no idea anyway the boss of the shop who seemed to know what he was talking about the most said that these shoes are a current market leader in cushioning for my foottype, jibberish or not I guess I will really know if they are good after ive done a few k's in them..will let everyone know how I go..

Peace

[hammers]

 speeedy, on Apr 29 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

Hi guys,

Thanks to everyone for their advice. In highsight yes it is completely dumb to pick a brand first and then the shoe

I went down to the athletes foot and was confirmed as an underpronator. I ended up getting Nike Zoom VOMERO+ 4 shoes which seemed to be the best for my foot (they hardly had any shoes in their 'underpronator section' like 5 choices but I like them I probably should have asked what the 4 means tho as I have no idea anyway the boss of the shop who seemed to know what he was talking about the most said that these shoes are a current market leader in cushioning for my foottype, jibberish or not I guess I will really know if they are good after ive done a few k's in them..will let everyone know how I go..

Peace

the +4 is two things:
the + indicates that it is a nike plus product and therefore compatible with an ipod if you have the nike + adaptor. a handy little device for calculating distance covered/speed etc amongst other things if you run with an ipod. adaptor costs around $50 but you do need to calibrate on a track as I didnt and the ipod calculated my Melb HM to be around 22.5 k's.
the 4 is simply that your shoes are the 4th iteration of the vomero model.

I hope you enjoy them and if you do you can get your next pair online at www.wiggle.co.uk for quite a good price. (dont look until you have forgotten how much you paid at athletes foot).

[Bellthorpe]

DontStop, you is da shoe man.

No truer words WRT shoes have ever been written in this forum than yours.

I pay about $70 for my Mizunos, and keep plenty of shoes in stock. Never this year's model. It works well.

[FreeDickland]

DontStop
Bellthorp

True words

Shooz is shooz is shooz

But must ensure that the shoe fits - and works for you; eg., for me (moderate overpronator according to Pods with ankle reconstruction & use orthotics with some support in shoe) the Adrenaline line fit beautifully but seem to die very fast - possibly because I land mid-foot and the cushioning compresses very quickly; Asics 2etc. etc. etc fit well and last better; Nike Air Stab etc. similarly; as do most other brands I have tried over years - only one recent disaster, Pearl Izumi felt wonderful with superb fit but just not able too run in them more than a few ks - the last seems to have more curve than my feet appreciate - off they went to Kenya or wherever the local running shop sends discarded shoes - hope new user finds them better than I did.

[Lost Boy]

DontStop, I agree with the bulk of what you are saying but I disagree on a couple of points.

First, overpronation is not a load of bullshit as you say. OVERpronation is a problem and ought to be corrected for best results. This should not be confused with a normal degree of pronation which should not be corrected as it provides the body with a natural shock absorbtion/attenuation. If what you meant to say is that people who pronate normally are being given the impression that they OVERpronate then yes I agree with you but that is not what you said.

Second, you say that more expensive shoes will not last any longer than cheaper models. This is something I kinda want to research myself. Currently I run in Asics GT-21*0s and I was considering changing to 11*0s as they are cheaper but then I noticed that the more expesive model uses a different midsole material that is supposed to resist compression and deformation thus making the midsole last longer before it collapses. So, on paper at least, some more expensive models appear to be more durable in the midsole than their cheaper variant. Of course I am sceptical of these claims but can't really afford to test it out for myself.

Edited by Lost Boy, 30 April 2009 - 10:12 AM.

[DontStop]

Lost Boy,

Thanks for pulling me up on that, because I was being a bit throwaway with that overpronation comment. What I really mean is that the sports shoe manufacturers, aided and abetted by their cohorts in stores like TAF, see a dollar in attempting to convince large numbers of runners that normal pronation is over-pronation. Of course, some runners actually do have a genuine problem in this area, but by and large, the industry has created this boogyman named 'over-pronation' and tries to convince too many of us that we over-pronate, when the fact is we merely pronate.

Look at any running shoe buyer's guide, or check out the shoe wall at TAF: so many 'stability' shoes designed to correct over-pronation. I find it difficult to believe that the human body has been so poorly designed for such a basic activity as running, that such a large percentage of running shoes need to attempt to correct such a fault.

But one of the best ways to convince someone to part with their money is to create a fear-based need. The number of times I've had one of these stores (even the podiatrist-staffed ones) try to tell me that I overpronate and 'need' a stability shoe... I've lost count. But I don't over-pronate, because I've never had a knee injury, or a hip injury, or chronic pain anywhere that suggests I've got a structural weakness... even back in the day when I was cranking out 120-140k weeks.

Re the notion that more $$ can get you a better quality midsole, which will last longer, I wouldn't be surprised by this at all - especially if you're comparing shoes along a price-scale within a single manufacturers range. Brands often deliberately degrade the quality of their cheaper offerings, as a way to justify their top-end product. Happens in running shoes, happens in cars, happens in electronics, happens all the time.

But based on past experience, I suspect you'd be looking at perhaps a 15-20% difference in quality for your money. So if you're comparing a $240 pair of Asics vs a slightly cheaper pair, you may be better off getting the more expensive ones. But I doubt that paying $240 vs $120 would get you a midsole that will last twice as long.

Again, if you're on a budget, you'd generally be better off buying two pairs of cheaper shoes, alternating them (which can increase the life of the midsole by 10%-20% anyway), and chucking them a little earlier than the shoes that may be twice the price.

FreeDickland, you're absolutely right: the most important thing is how the shoe works FOR YOU. Feet are all different, and you can't get suckered in, just because 'everyone' runs in A or B.

BellThorpe, I figured a no-bullshit guy like you would agree with me on this one

This is a good discussion. We pay a lot of money for running shoes, and I reckon more people should question the whole setup.

[Lost Boy]

Dontstop. Agreed. Well said.
People who are new to buying running shoes would be well served by reading your comments I think.

[Englishman]

I recently tried some Asics Gel Kayano 15s. I have always been happy with Asics and I had in my mind to get a new pair Kayanos. First of all I tried the Kayano 14 then the Kayano 15. I thought they felt Ok. But then I tried on some Mizuno Nirvana 5s and they felt fantastic. I was walking around the shop with a Kayano 15 on one foot and a Nirvana 5 on the other foot. What I felt with the Kayano was that the gel at the back combined with the soft fore foot caused my foot to turn out. With the Nirvana I felt much more 'in control' (especially on the fore foot) and my foot felt a lot straighter. I bought the Nirvanas. Also, I tried the Nirvana 4s but they didn't feel as responsive as the 5s.

I've now been for three 5km easy runs in the Nirvanas. I know this is only short distance but i'm recovering from a bit of IT syndrome. They feel quite hard but are softening up. I remember thinking my Asics 2120s, my last pair of runners, felt quite hard at first. In terms of stability though they are great. Last night I had a go at running with my feet turned out a bit but the Nirvanas made it difficult and inclined my feet to be straighter. This is what I have been looking for in a shoe for a while. I remember about 15 years ago having some Reebok DMXs that had this effect.

[sharpie]

 DontStop, on Apr 30 2009, 09:50 AM, said:

Again, if you're on a budget, you'd generally be better off buying two pairs of cheaper shoes, alternating them (which can increase the life of the midsole by 10%-20% anyway), and chucking them a little earlier than the shoes that may be twice the price.

DontStop,

Over the years I've read on many occasions about the idea that you should rotate 2 pairs of shoes to extend their lives.

Is this based on the assumption that the midsole then has time to 'recover' between runs? Do the polymers actually recover any of their elasticity or is it really just a slow slide downhill?

If this is the theory then you'd think that there should be some data out there to back it up...I guess that the shoe companies would have run some tests but I've never seen the results published anywhere.

Your figure of an increase in the life of 10-20% sounds as if it must be based on something solid. Care to elaborate a bit more on this?

BTW I try to rotate 2 pair but I couldn't say that I believe they last longer as a result.

[Rico]

I never used to rotate shoes. I'd get a pair I loved and wear them to death.

But now I rotate all the time, purely because I've had a run of bad luck and bought several in a row that I wasn't happy with. Each time I responded by buying another pair I wasn't happy with and so on. Now I've run out of money and am left with this pile of relatively new shoes that I don't especially like any of.

So I rotate.

[Bellthorpe]

 sharpie, on May 5 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

DontStop,

Over the years I've read on many occasions about the idea that you should rotate 2 pairs of shoes to extend their lives.

Is this based on the assumption that the midsole then has time to 'recover' between runs? Do the polymers actually recover any of their elasticity or is it really just a slow slide downhill?

If this is the theory then you'd think that there should be some data out there to back it up...I guess that the shoe companies would have run some tests but I've never seen the results published anywhere.

Your figure of an increase in the life of 10-20% sounds as if it must be based on something solid. Care to elaborate a bit more on this?

Do you seriously think that the shoe companies would publish studies that show how to extend the life of their shoes?

Quote

BTW I try to rotate 2 pair but I couldn't say that I believe they last longer as a result.

I rotate three pairs. Over several decades of doing this I'm quite certain that it extends the life.

[DontStop]

I haven't seen any studies, but I've been told from the horse's mouth (two running shoe company product development people) that this is the case. Apparently it can often take longer than 24 hours for the midsole materials to fully recover.

Anyway, having two pairs also means that they get a chance to fully dry out in wet weather, without resorting to using artificial heat to dry them (which is definitely not a good idea).

[Old chook]

 DontStop, on May 5 2009, 02:14 PM, said:

I haven't seen any studies, but I've been told from the horse's mouth (two running shoe company product development people) that this is the case. Apparently it can often take longer than 24 hours for the midsole materials to fully recover.

Anyway, having two pairs also means that they get a chance to fully dry out in wet weather, without resorting to using artificial heat to dry them (which is definitely not a good idea).

Sort of along the lines of rotating undies when bushwalking: Every evening you put your used ones in the very bottom of your pack and every morning take "fresh" ones off the top. After 2 or 3 rotations you can start turning them insideout, for an extra burst of freshness.