So I went into Athletes Foot today, got them all measured up (10.5, very slightly "rolling in" foot) and was recommended the most expensive pair of Asics at $260 odd dollars. Then I tried on the Nike Structure's (which were also a recommendation) and they felt just as good as the Asics... but for $200. I also popped into Foot Locker, Rebel Sport, Insport etc, but didn't get quite as much attention from the staff...... My question is, are Nike's any good longetivity wise, and are there any other makes & models that I should be trying on? I guess footwear is one of those things that very personal.. but just thought I'd ask based on the "rolling in" style foot, perhaps there's a few others with the same type of feet.
Also, are there any websites that sell shoes online (Local or overseas??)
Full Version: Further Shoe Discussion
EDIT: Can't quite remember what shoe width I am, perhaps I'd be better off purchasing straight from Athletes Foot..... Unless there's another way of measuring with a ruler or something?
Hi Max-welcome to Coolrunning.
Sounds like they were trying to sell you the Asics Kayano-a very popular shoe but as you noticed kinda expensive. I would have thought maybe a tad too supportive if you are only a slight pronator but I'm no expert.
I run in the Nike Structure Triax and love them. The 11's are being moved off the shelf at the moment to make way for the 12's so there are some good prices to be had if you're lucky. I got about 550km running out of my last ones.
Also worth a try are the Asics 2140 (i tried these on at rebel and much prefered them to the Kayano), New Balance 769 ($180)(tried and liked these as well), Brooks Adenaline ($200) and Trance ($260), Adidas Supernova Control and Adistar Salvation ($230), Saucony Progrid Guide ($180) and Omni ($200) or maybe even the Reebok Premier Road Plus KFS($200-my pod thought these would be good for me but as yet I haven't tried them) or the Mizuno Wave Inspire ($200). Cheaper possibilities are the Asics 1140 ($160), Mizuno Wave Nexus ($160), Nike Air Span ($160) or the Reebok Premier Phoenix ($160).
These are all stability shoes-I've lifted most of the prices from the Runners World and the Run For Your Life magazines shoe guides. There are alot I haven't listed-might be worth you popping down to your newsagent and buying each-both are the current issues.
While Athletes Foot have their fancy fitprint system which looks quite impressive, it's only as good as the salesperson using it-and with them it's very hit and miss as to whether you get someone who has a clue. I've had both good and bad. Same goes for Rebel or any of the large chains. If you're serious you're better off going to a specialist running store where they'll put you on a treadmill and analyse you properly. If you put your location up somone might be able to suggest somewhere.
Now I've confused the crap out of you-good luck!
Sounds like they were trying to sell you the Asics Kayano-a very popular shoe but as you noticed kinda expensive. I would have thought maybe a tad too supportive if you are only a slight pronator but I'm no expert.
I run in the Nike Structure Triax and love them. The 11's are being moved off the shelf at the moment to make way for the 12's so there are some good prices to be had if you're lucky. I got about 550km running out of my last ones.
Also worth a try are the Asics 2140 (i tried these on at rebel and much prefered them to the Kayano), New Balance 769 ($180)(tried and liked these as well), Brooks Adenaline ($200) and Trance ($260), Adidas Supernova Control and Adistar Salvation ($230), Saucony Progrid Guide ($180) and Omni ($200) or maybe even the Reebok Premier Road Plus KFS($200-my pod thought these would be good for me but as yet I haven't tried them) or the Mizuno Wave Inspire ($200). Cheaper possibilities are the Asics 1140 ($160), Mizuno Wave Nexus ($160), Nike Air Span ($160) or the Reebok Premier Phoenix ($160).
These are all stability shoes-I've lifted most of the prices from the Runners World and the Run For Your Life magazines shoe guides. There are alot I haven't listed-might be worth you popping down to your newsagent and buying each-both are the current issues.
While Athletes Foot have their fancy fitprint system which looks quite impressive, it's only as good as the salesperson using it-and with them it's very hit and miss as to whether you get someone who has a clue. I've had both good and bad. Same goes for Rebel or any of the large chains. If you're serious you're better off going to a specialist running store where they'll put you on a treadmill and analyse you properly. If you put your location up somone might be able to suggest somewhere.
Now I've confused the crap out of you-good luck!
QUOTE (wombatoutofhell @ Mar 3 2009, 09:23 PM) 
If you're serious you're better off going to a specialist running store
yep ditto
QUOTE (wombatoutofhell @ Mar 3 2009, 10:23 PM)
If you're serious you're better off going to a specialist running store where they'll put you on a treadmill and analyse you properly. If you put your location up somone might be able to suggest somewhere.
Now I've confused the crap out of you-good luck!
Now I've confused the crap out of you-good luck!
Wow, thanks mate
I am from NW/Western Sydney (Northmead)
QUOTE (maxwolfie @ Mar 3 2009, 04:43 AM)
I guess footwear is one of those things that very personal.. but just thought I'd ask based on the "rolling in" style foot, perhaps there's a few others with the same type of feet.
Also, are there any websites that sell shoes online (Local or overseas??)
Also, are there any websites that sell shoes online (Local or overseas??)
Maxwolfie,
Running shoes are divided into 3 categories -
1/ Neutral = No inbuilt support. For runners who don't have pronation ('rolling-in') issues.
2/ Support = Some inbuilt support on the medial (inside) of the shoe in the heel /arch area. Look for the grey-coloured (dual density) rubber. It prevents your foot from pronating (rolling inward). Most (some say 70%) runners are in this category.
3/ Stability = Also known as 'Motion Control' shoes. Even more support on the medial side. Medial side dual density rubber extending up into the forefoot area and often some extra supportive hardware in the form of rigid plastic arches, bridges, etc. in the medial heel / arch area. These shoes often have full-length flat soles to promote even weight distribution. If you have to wear these, I'm sorry. My advice to any PNG would be "do not attempt swimming while wearing these shoes."
As an on-line store Running Warehouse are excellent to deal with.
Cheers, Blue Dog.
Actually went to this place today ..they did me a very good deal on the current model when thinking i was going to settle for the old model..
http://www.athleticedgeonline.com.au/
Loco 66
http://www.athleticedgeonline.com.au/
Loco 66
I went to a podiatrist first and she told me what type of foot I had and the I went to the Sydney running center and tried on some shoes that they recommended and chose they Brooks Glycerin 6 since i have a neutral foot. When i saw the glycerin on special at Athletes foot about 6 months later I bought my second pair from them now I rotate between the two pairs. Goodluck
YONDI
www.sydneyrunningcentre.com.au
YONDI
www.sydneyrunningcentre.com.au
I was discussing current trends in shoe design with the guy who runs Athletic Edge. He said (and the cynic in me agrees) that running shoe manufacturers have learnt the wisdom in designing an increased level of comfort for that initial 'first fitting' into their shoes. ie: a greater effort has been put into hooking a potential customer by making the shoe feel good when walking around shop rather than just concentrating on actual running performance.
The moral of the story is to find a shoe that you like running in and matches your physiological predisposition. You will probably kiss a few frogs before you find the right shoe.
Then shortly after you find the right shoe... the manufacturer will bring in an 'innovative' new design feature which will fix what aint broken and completely ruin the shoe.
milov
The moral of the story is to find a shoe that you like running in and matches your physiological predisposition. You will probably kiss a few frogs before you find the right shoe.
Then shortly after you find the right shoe... the manufacturer will bring in an 'innovative' new design feature which will fix what aint broken and completely ruin the shoe.
milov
QUOTE (milov @ Mar 5 2009, 08:48 AM)
I was discussing current trends in shoe design with the guy who runs Athletic Edge. He said (and the cynic in me agrees) that running shoe manufacturers have learnt the wisdom in designing an increased level of comfort for that initial 'first fitting' into their shoes. ie: a greater effort has been put into hooking a potential customer by making the shoe feel good when walking around shop rather than just concentrating on actual running performance.
The moral of the story is to find a shoe that you like running in and matches your physiological predisposition. You will probably kiss a few frogs before you find the right shoe.
Then shortly after you find the right shoe... the manufacturer will bring in an 'innovative' new design feature which will fix what aint broken and completely ruin the shoe.
milov
The moral of the story is to find a shoe that you like running in and matches your physiological predisposition. You will probably kiss a few frogs before you find the right shoe.
Then shortly after you find the right shoe... the manufacturer will bring in an 'innovative' new design feature which will fix what aint broken and completely ruin the shoe.
milov
Ah, yes - Was that the Irish bloke? I bought some Asics off him today
QUOTE (milov @ Mar 5 2009, 07:48 AM)
Then shortly after you find the right shoe... the manufacturer will bring in an 'innovative' new design feature which will fix what aint broken and completely ruin the shoe.
Exactly. Most 'advances' in running shoe technology are designed in marketing, not engineering. But the punters love them, which is why there are so many threads here along the lines of 'should I be buying the new top of the line Asics or the new top of the line Brooks? The best answer would often just be 'no'.
Which is why when I buy my shoes through eBay, as I always do, I generally look for superseded models. Much cheaper, and a known fit and quality.
QUOTE (maxwolfie @ Mar 5 2009, 02:36 PM)
Ah, yes - Was that the Irish bloke? I bought some Asics off him today
As they would
QUOTE (Blue Dog @ Mar 4 2009, 08:26 AM)
1/ Neutral = No inbuilt support. For runners who don't have pronation ('rolling-in') issues.
2/ Support = Some inbuilt support on the medial (inside) of the shoe in the heel /arch area. Look for the grey-coloured (dual density) rubber. It prevents your foot from pronating (rolling inward). Most (some say 70%) runners are in this category.
2/ Support = Some inbuilt support on the medial (inside) of the shoe in the heel /arch area. Look for the grey-coloured (dual density) rubber. It prevents your foot from pronating (rolling inward). Most (some say 70%) runners are in this category.
Going to disagree slightly here. The types of shoes are correct, but firstly, pronation is not an "issue" but a necessity...and given that, secondly, therefore the greatest % should be running in 'neutral' with less in 'support' and very, very few in 'stability'.
I would even say that those who have severe enough problems such that they need 'stability' may be better off with an orthotically customised 'neutral'.
Stability shoes are the biggest evil perpetrated against runners in the last 30 yrs, and something the shoe companies (to a greater or lesser extent) want you to believe , because it offers them a point of differentiation so that you buy these 'bricks', and they keep finding new ways to make it more expensive.
I have no problem with new models, so long as it is a functional or cosmetic design change that doesn't alter the shoe from a running perspective. I mean , a neutral is a neutral whether it has different lacing or not. The colour change makes you aware of the 'age' of stock as well.
The Pegasus has not really changed in 20 yrs, and the Vomero is a more cushioned Pegasus with one of the 'design changes' being a long desired 'bunion cell'..simple functional change that gives comfort to those requiring it without changing the running.
No coincidence that the editors of RW around the world voted new Pegasus number one in 2007...they are not that easily fooled by the pronation argument.
cheers
ps, just in case...I have no association with Nike, I do wear them and support them. I just believe there needs to be balance because Asics have been the greatest beneficiary of the pronation scare campaign, and I roll my eyes everytime I see a casual new runner in a pair of $260 bricks.
QUOTE (milov @ Mar 5 2009, 06:48 AM)
I was discussing current trends in shoe design with the guy who runs Athletic Edge. He said (and the cynic in me agrees) that running shoe manufacturers have learnt the wisdom in designing an increased level of comfort for that initial 'first fitting' into their shoes. ie: a greater effort has been put into hooking a potential customer by making the shoe feel good when walking around shop rather than just concentrating on actual running performance.
Agree 100%! I was a neutral runner but my feet have changed and now I need more support. Originally I was wearing Pegasus and Glycerin (bought at Athletic Edge & RunnersWarehouse) and loved both shoes. Currently wearing Ardrenaline's but on recommendation of Pod I have bought the Trance. I was very tempted by the Kayanos - felt great but wondered if the new lace was just gimmick, that and I do like Brooks. I did go for a run around the very large block before making the decison. End of the day deciding factor was 40grams less shoe.
I will keep trying new shoe's out so I'm comfortable I have the right one and will continue to buy run out models when I find the one I like. The shop owner also said he didn't really think there was much difference between a Kayano and 2140 except the $$$$
As pointed out above, all the shoe companies will make a number of different shoes (often 4 or 5) under each category.
So given you were talking ASICS, if you look at their support shoe line up, they have the Kayano, Gel-3000, Gel-2140, Gel-1140 and Virage. Then the DS Trainer which is a lightweight support shoe and the DS Racer which is an even lighter supportive racing shoe.
So, the Kayano is the top of the range and therefore most expensive. It is probably best suited to heavier and/or high mileage runners who need plenty of medial support and also plenty of cushioning.
If you don’t fit either the heavy/high mileage descriptions then you can pretty safely move down the line to shoes that have less support/cushioning and they will be cheaper because they have fewer bells and whistles. The RRP of the Kayano is $260, but for the Virage (the entry level shoe) it is $130. It has ASICS’ older midsole material which I personally think is better than their newer version on the more expensive shoes.
Having said all that….
If the Kayano is what has been recommended for you then you might well need a fairly good supportive shoe. I noticed this morning that Rebel sport currently have the Gel-2130 (recently superseded model) on sale for $99 (reduced from $199) so personally I’d suggest you go and try a pair of those and if they feel OK grab them.
And to be honest brand doesn’t mean much. All the top brands will make a very similar shoe that will be basically of equal quality. However they do feel different on your feet and some brands of shoe tend to be narrower or shorter than others which will affect which brand is best for you.
So given you were talking ASICS, if you look at their support shoe line up, they have the Kayano, Gel-3000, Gel-2140, Gel-1140 and Virage. Then the DS Trainer which is a lightweight support shoe and the DS Racer which is an even lighter supportive racing shoe.
So, the Kayano is the top of the range and therefore most expensive. It is probably best suited to heavier and/or high mileage runners who need plenty of medial support and also plenty of cushioning.
If you don’t fit either the heavy/high mileage descriptions then you can pretty safely move down the line to shoes that have less support/cushioning and they will be cheaper because they have fewer bells and whistles. The RRP of the Kayano is $260, but for the Virage (the entry level shoe) it is $130. It has ASICS’ older midsole material which I personally think is better than their newer version on the more expensive shoes.
Having said all that….
If the Kayano is what has been recommended for you then you might well need a fairly good supportive shoe. I noticed this morning that Rebel sport currently have the Gel-2130 (recently superseded model) on sale for $99 (reduced from $199) so personally I’d suggest you go and try a pair of those and if they feel OK grab them.
And to be honest brand doesn’t mean much. All the top brands will make a very similar shoe that will be basically of equal quality. However they do feel different on your feet and some brands of shoe tend to be narrower or shorter than others which will affect which brand is best for you.
Perhaps we should ask the British Journal of Sports Medicine for their view? A recent paper suggested that for a given brand, their expensive shoes offer no advantage over its cheaper models.
QUOTE (moby @ Mar 6 2009, 11:55 AM)
I noticed this morning that Rebel sport currently have the Gel-2130 (recently superseded model) on sale for $99 (reduced from $199) so personally I’d suggest you go and try a pair of those and if they feel OK grab them.
Thanks for this tip ... this is the cheapest I have ever seen the 2130s, just went to their online store and ordered 4 pairs, they have flat $10 postage no matter how many it seems. Haven't tried the 2140s, but why risk changing what works ...
This should see me right for road shoes until 2011, and yesterday I bought a pair of Teva X1 Controls (Blue Dog endorsed for 6ft), expensive month for shoes. Where is Mr Rudd's cheque when I need it !
QUOTE (Colin @ Mar 5 2009, 04:29 PM)
As they would
Going to disagree slightly here. The types of shoes are correct, but firstly, pronation is not an "issue" but a necessity...and given that, secondly, therefore the greatest % should be running in 'neutral' with less in 'support' and very, very few in 'stability'.
I would even say that those who have severe enough problems such that they need 'stability' may be better off with an orthotically customised 'neutral'.
Stability shoes are the biggest evil perpetrated against runners in the last 30 yrs, and something the shoe companies (to a greater or lesser extent) want you to believe , because it offers them a point of differentiation so that you buy these 'bricks', and they keep finding new ways to make it more expensive.
I have no problem with new models, so long as it is a functional or cosmetic design change that doesn't alter the shoe from a running perspective. I mean , a neutral is a neutral whether it has different lacing or not. The colour change makes you aware of the 'age' of stock as well.
The Pegasus has not really changed in 20 yrs, and the Vomero is a more cushioned Pegasus with one of the 'design changes' being a long desired 'bunion cell'..simple functional change that gives comfort to those requiring it without changing the running.
No coincidence that the editors of RW around the world voted new Pegasus number one in 2007...they are not that easily fooled by the pronation argument.
i agree totally, i dont really like nike as corporation but having tried every shoe and brand out there, i now will only buy nike. usually pegasus for training and air zoom for races. having said that, i usually now try on 3 or four similar shoes and go with what feels best. the last couple of pegasus models havent done it for me, but loved the 2007 model, its funny they look the same and the structure is the same but they dont feel right.try them on take advice then go what u think right.
cheers
ps, just in case...I have no association with Nike, I do wear them and support them. I just believe there needs to be balance because Asics have been the greatest beneficiary of the pronation scare campaign, and I roll my eyes everytime I see a casual new runner in a pair of $260 bricks.
Going to disagree slightly here. The types of shoes are correct, but firstly, pronation is not an "issue" but a necessity...and given that, secondly, therefore the greatest % should be running in 'neutral' with less in 'support' and very, very few in 'stability'.
I would even say that those who have severe enough problems such that they need 'stability' may be better off with an orthotically customised 'neutral'.
Stability shoes are the biggest evil perpetrated against runners in the last 30 yrs, and something the shoe companies (to a greater or lesser extent) want you to believe , because it offers them a point of differentiation so that you buy these 'bricks', and they keep finding new ways to make it more expensive.
I have no problem with new models, so long as it is a functional or cosmetic design change that doesn't alter the shoe from a running perspective. I mean , a neutral is a neutral whether it has different lacing or not. The colour change makes you aware of the 'age' of stock as well.
The Pegasus has not really changed in 20 yrs, and the Vomero is a more cushioned Pegasus with one of the 'design changes' being a long desired 'bunion cell'..simple functional change that gives comfort to those requiring it without changing the running.
No coincidence that the editors of RW around the world voted new Pegasus number one in 2007...they are not that easily fooled by the pronation argument.
i agree totally, i dont really like nike as corporation but having tried every shoe and brand out there, i now will only buy nike. usually pegasus for training and air zoom for races. having said that, i usually now try on 3 or four similar shoes and go with what feels best. the last couple of pegasus models havent done it for me, but loved the 2007 model, its funny they look the same and the structure is the same but they dont feel right.try them on take advice then go what u think right.
cheers
ps, just in case...I have no association with Nike, I do wear them and support them. I just believe there needs to be balance because Asics have been the greatest beneficiary of the pronation scare campaign, and I roll my eyes everytime I see a casual new runner in a pair of $260 bricks.
whoops sorry about screwing up your post colin, dont know how i did that. 
is it daylight yet i want to go for a run
is it daylight yet i want to go for a run
QUOTE (Bellthorpe @ Mar 5 2009, 02:55 PM)
Exactly. Most 'advances' in running shoe technology are designed in marketing, not engineering. Which is why when I buy my shoes through eBay, as I always do, I generally look for superseded models. Much cheaper, and a known fit and quality.
I'm with you there BT. In the last 6 months my eBay purchases have been (all include postage):
1 - NEW Asics Nimbus 8's US11 - $100.00
2 - NEW Nike Air Pegasus+ 25's US11.5 - $97.17
3 - NEW Asics Nimbus 8's US11.5 - $100.00
4 - NEW Nike Air Equalon+ 3's US11.5 - $86.00
5 - NEW Reebok Premier Road Lite US11.5 - $55.00
6 - NEW Puma Complete US11 - $40.00
7 - NEW Brooks Glycerin 7's US11.5 - $81.00.
I am very happy with these purchases and rarely spend more than $100 on a new pair of shoes these days. From a 'shop' I'd be lucky to get 3 pairs for the 7 above.
J.
QUOTE (moby @ Mar 6 2009, 10:55 AM)
It has ASICS’ older midsole material which I personally think is better than their newer version on the more expensive shoes.
I concur with that. The newer midsole is no where near as nice as the old one.
Wow Justin - you go through a lot of shoes !
QUOTE (southy @ Mar 12 2009, 12:40 PM)
Wow Justin - you go through a lot of shoes !
Yeah, well 200km weeks will do that (though I only average about 130km). I tend to rotate through about 6-8 pairs (old, new, trail, lightweight, flat, prontation control - even though I'm neutral, etc.).
Still cheaper than smoking or drinking - except for the amount of food you have to eat to support the habit.
And on the whole pronation and support issue, I tend to agree that it's getting a bit overboard. The Nike Equalon's I bought recently are for people with pronation issues. Many will disagree with this (as they will probably disagree with a lot of my training methods) but I purchased them so they would force my feet into a different position when I run. The theory being that this will strengthen other muscles in my feet and legs and provide some occasional respite from the constant pounding of the same muscles. I only wear them for 5k or 10k runs at a relaxed pace and not for more than 15km of my weekly running. I have no idea if it helps, but they definately do have a tendency to twist my feet inward and exert additional pressure on the balls of my feet compared to my neutral running shoes. I've not had an injury since using them.
J.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.