good products?

Frustrating.

My wife runs approx 80 klm per week and goes through a helluva lot of shoes. Started out with Kayanos and then fell in love with Nimbus and ran with them for many years without any issues. And then some subtle changes (between V7 and V8, I think) which had an adverse effect on her knees and calves. So, back to the drawing board and experiment with a range of diff shoes.

She then finally finds the shoes that suited her (adistar cushion 6) and all's sweet, no injuries. Lo and behold 18 months later and adidas stop making the cushion 6 and bring out the 'ride' as a direct replacement and supposedly a superior product. Erm, no. Back came the former injuries. She luckily found a shop that had a few old pair of cushion 6 and bought 'em. So, she's got another few months before she needs to find a replacement.

This is where I'd like to ask for some help - which shoe would some of your experienced runners suggest she looks at?

She's a mild supinator, weighs 54kg, road runner, 5 days per week, between 14 klm ad 21 klm. She has a preference for highly cushioned shoes.

Many many thanks for your help and guidance.

When you have discovered a shoe with which you are comfortable, wait until it becomes 'on special' somewhere (sales, ebay, internet, last year's model/colour, whatever) and purchase numerous pairs.

Are you really certain it is the shoe that is causing the injuries?

I run in Nike Vomero 3's. Very cushioned, good for neutrals (perhaps even mild supinators). They work really well for me.

I'm a 57kg, 5 days per week road runner, between 10 and 26km per run. I like cushioning, and I don't have a problem with over-pronation. I sound a lot like your wife (except I'm a guy)

Can never be certain, Paul.

But the incidence of any injury has always directly co-incided with change of shoes.

Occasionally she'll pull out her adidstar 'rides' for another go (if doing a shorter run) however she nearly always ends up with mild knee issues as a result.

Cheers for that.

Yeah, this is a shoe that Athletes Foot was suggesting she should try, along with Brookes Glycerine.

It seems that lighter people react differently to certain shoes, so, you being 57 kg makes for a good comparison. Do you (or anybody else here for that matter) use different shoes depending on how far you intend to run?

FWIW are there any shops in Sydney that cater specifically for the hard core runner?

First thing, ditch Athlete's Foot - the staff there generally don't have enough specific knowledge. I ended up in totally the wrong size when I first started running!

I highly recommend Running Science in Rozelle which is staffed by podiatrists and physios.

http://www.coolrunning.com.au/runningguide...ear_incl._shoes

Kevin

I second ditching Athletes Foot-some of their staff are good, alot aren't.

Raff,

No, I pretty much wear the same shoes regardless of distance. If you intend to race in flats, then it'd be wise to do your speed training in them... but length of run doesn't really dictate what I wear. Even highly cushioned and/or highly stable shoes are now constructed pretty light, so racing flats are less of a must-have now than they once were (unless you're really up the pointy end).

Re Athlete's Foot: to be honest, I've never bothered with advice from sales staff on shoes. It's such a personal thing, that I really think you have to trust your own judgement with what feels right for you. Generally speaking, if I've tried on a running shoe in the store and it hasn't felt ABSOLUTELY right straight away, it's never felt right out on the road.

One thing I would add: I have two pairs of the same shoe on the go at once, and alternate between them. According to the manufacturers, resting your shoes like this extends the life of the midsole by as much as 20%.

It also means they don't seem to get as manky as shoes that are run in day after day.

Cheers mate, and thanks for the advice. Alternating shoes over the course of the week makes very good sense.

My wife ain't easily pleased when it comes to her runners. Like you if they don't feel perfect out-of-the-box then she simply isn't interested. Further, sometimes even if they feel perfect, an hour or so later whilst walking around the house she often finds hot spots etc that weren't evident when trying on in shop. I think I'll take her to the place recommended in Rozelle.

Thanks to all for their feedback. Unbelievably comprehensive site, this. Been on it much of the day. Overwhelmed with info.

Visited Running Science today - wow what a change to talk to knowledgeable people.

Confirmed that she was more than just a "mild" supinator.

Anyhow, shortlisted down to two pair - Brooks Glycerine and Nike Vomeros.

She went for the Brooks and hopefully she'll come back with a smile on her face after tomorrow mornings run (and maybe even cook me breakfast).

Many thanks for the advice given here.

The title of this thread may be rhetorical, but can anyone answer it?

The only way this may make us buy more shoes is if we buy the wrong ones then have to go back and buy another pair. But incorporates the danger of having us so grumpy that we switch brands.

I for one am sick of finding inventive new things to do with new shoes that haven't worked out.

Let us know how she goes goes rafferty I will be shopping for a new pair of shoes if she can fit right into something new and do 10k's out of the box without any blisters.

(I'm still trying to overcome blisters even after 150k's or so perhaps I should just put the purchase down to a learning experience and get a different pair.)

Had a look at the shoes (same model) I have used over the last four years.

Ditto my wife's shoes.

I am happy with the subtle and necessary changes made in that time.

cheers

Try loco running shoes, they are run a fellow Cool Runner, and one of their self proclaimed advantages is that they don't bring out new models every year, so you can reliably get the same shoe again and again.

Disclaimer: I've never actually owned a pair, but it seemed like a good idea.

Fair enough.

Maybe my wife has been unlucky. Had no problems for many years with Nimbus, but the changes in one particular version was more than "subtle". Likewise with the adidas. I'm informed that Brookes are less likely to make radical changes than other manufacturers so we'll see how this goes.

I'm not a Nimbus user, but Nimbus, like Pegasus, is one of those neutral shoes that have been structurally very constant over the years...the latter for over 20 yrs.

Perhaps the problem lies elsewhere.


However, I like the idea that shoes even change colour every two years, because I want to know that I am getting a 'fresh' shoe...otherwise how would you know?
It is well documented that the poly-urethane 'decays' and has a limited useful shelf life.

I also want to know that the company continues to invest in technology to improve the shoe. The latest version of neutral shoe I am wearing has more rigidity under arch to stabilise it after feedback from market and reviewers. My wife's one has the bunion cells which is the only concept that has freed her from painful blisters on bunions.

If the shoe then still costs the same, then there is no problem.

cheers

Reasons for all those changes:

1:
Most running shoes are purchased by people who are nowhere near as dedicated to running as the people on this site. A lot don't even run at all, and see these shoes as a badge. Maybe they use them to jog a few laps to warm up at footy, or just for walking the dog, or to the gym. Fact is, most sporting shoes and apparel are sold to people who don't really care all that much. And these people LIKE minor cosmetic and structural changes - it shows them 'newness' which is sexy, desirable, and worth paying for.

2:
The companies MUST continually evolve their offering, otherwise we'd still be running in Nike waffles from the 80's. Most big changes only happen as the result of many smaller changes - it's the incremental developments that over time, add up.

3:
The corporate dynamic is all about constant 'improvement'. It's a self-sustaining mechanism. There's no way all those product development people, researchers, designers and marketing people are going to adopt a 'change nothing' mentality. It's just not in their DNA.

4:
If companies don't continually alter/improve their products, they're seen by consumers as standing still - which is a relative sense is going backwards.

5:
The trade - ie, Rebel, The Athlete's Foot, DEMAND new models.. new news... constantly, because they know it stimulates retail sales. So if you're going to supply these guys, you have to continually offer them new models, or they'll give you less shelf space, or delist you altogether.

In summary:
Constant changing of running shoe models is good business.

Exactly,

Just look at other product lines as an example, it's marketing 101. Bergen bread, 10 types or so? Tooth paste, look at all the different types, they ALL do the same thing, clothing, cars, you name it, even FRUIT.....

Like I said, standard marketing 101, keep people consuming with 'new' (same) things.

Rafferty I am still intrigued how your wife can "know" from the shop whether its a good shoe or not, obviously alot of experience at play there! (women and shoes, who would have guessed )

Yes that may be marketing 101, but the analogy with shoes is not not close.

We may have four different types of bread in fridge (I was just remarking on that the other day), plus my wife's own home made bread...but I still run in the same type of shoe, paid at the same price or less, despite (or even because of) the subtle changes.

Where an analogy with bread may be apt, is that I know when my bread is not fresh, but if the shoe didn't have a distinctive appearance I wouldn't know if it is 2009 or 2005's depleted poly urethane model.

cheers

When I was a girl, we made the bread for the week every weekend. During the week the bread would evolve and change character, from soft, steaming and fragrant to crisp and chewy. It never entered my mind to call it "stale". I wear 20 year old Tshirts. I listen to Bach. Maybe that's why I don't want my running shoes to change.

<LOUDLY> Good grief ! It's people like you who are responsible for the economic meltdown. The Economy depends on consumers constantly striving to conform. Running shoes, cars, clothes... all must be "now". I bet you don't even change your mobile phone every six months like you're supposed to. Kevin Rudd will be knocking on your door soon demanding to know why you are resisting the stimulus to spend, spend, spend !

<very quietly> my mobile is 12 twelve years old (still works fine), I wear my favourite t-shirts until they disintegrate, eat sourdough and stopped buying running shoes when I realized I could make my own that were better, cheaper, more fun and solved my injury problems.

slowmo

Funny, I was under the impression that most manufacturers changed versions (new shoe) annually plus a mid version colour change, no?

IMHO consistency is a good thing - otherwise you've got to question if, for example, a Nimbus is still a Nimbus or something completely new/different. And, unfortunately, the only way you're gonna find out is by spending $230 which may lead to injury (health and financial).

I guess some people's feet are a tad more sensitive than others.

Can't help you, as I don't recall making the "know" comment.

Winner.

This thread has made me realise that the majority of people buying running shoes from Rebel, AMart and other chains probably aren't buying them to run in! What a strange world we live in.

I would wear 20yo t-shirts but, in my experience, they don't last that long. I do have one or two that are probably getting close to 10-15yo now but they are the exception rather than the rule. I find most clothing I buys these days (regardless of "quality") only lasts a year or two.

I listen to Bach too

Your post made me a little curious, Colin.

Did a little online research in an effort to find out if there where any significant structural changes with the intro of Nimbus VIII and found this:

http://www.asics.com.au/technology35.asp

And, after reading a handful of reviews it would appear that lady Raff was not the only runner having probs with the structural changes.

Begs the question - when is an "upgrade" truly an "upgrade"?

Perhaps there's significant company cost benefits in sharing parts with other shoes in their range?

Agreed that is more than just a subtle change. As I said, I don't run in ASICS, and found that my shoe model used for last 4 yrs has been pretty similar.
The last ASICS I used was the excellent Landreth, one of the best neutral shoes they had, but discontinued after only one or two yrs It was however not a very robust shoe for longevity.

Not sure why they have made a 'gender specific' change...thought there were already male and female models.

The only gender specific innovation I have seen that is based on need is the bunion cells in the ladies Vomero.

cheers

Marketing 101 as mentioned above?

Estreogen levels? Hormones? I mean, really.



The bunion cell, along with the low cut at back of heel (I think), was the prob with Vomero's for my wife when she tried 'em on at the shop.

FWIW she's just stepped in from her first serious run (14klm) in her new Brooks and she is delighted. She's now pretty pumped for the SMH half.

Now, fingers crossed that Brooks don't mess too much with this shoe in later versions.

If you don't have bunions it is still like a normal Vomero...if you do, then that bit expands.

Bunions are apparently 10 times more likely in women than men, so its a good gender specific innovation.

btw...re hormones and foot ligaments, lots of references can be found to support that (i.e. hormones when pregnant).

cheers

It just depends - I have run in Brooks and Nikes (both bought from Running Science - you get a discount as a repeat purchaser)

Never a hitch with Brooks - could have run a marathon out the box - but the Nikes caused blisters on my heel - I know others who had the same issue - but the blisters have gone now (less than 100k's running) and they are great lightweight shoes that feel differnent and are great for shorter distance runs - wouldn't try a marathon in them though.

Cheers

Different shoes for different times of the month?

Now there's an angle for shoe makers in version x.

Nah...many (non shoe company) references linking hormones released during pregnancy with looser foot ligaments...makes sense in that those hormones loosen ligaments in pelvis??

Maybe the pods may want to comment.

cheers