whats a good running shoe?

[danzinreallife]

You'd be good to go for the LunarGlides, the Vomero or the classic Pegasus, but hey I'm just repping it for Nike as I work for them. Me, I'mrocking the Nike Air Structure Triax

severe over pronating ftl

 

[recycledpaper]

any shoe is good, as long as you have enough room in the toe area for movement and the shoe gives the correct support according to the way you run (pronation).also, make sure that there is enough balance for long distance running.

if you are in socal, i would suggest hitting up snails pace in brea.

 

[darkoduck]

It's not really the brand that's most important but it's getting that shoe that fits your arch type and the way your feet pronate.

 

[crazy ebw]

Originally Posted by Dynamic X

Originally Posted by Crazy EBW

Originally Posted by RED FLAG

Originally Posted by wj4



Nike running shoes suck. They're all gimmicky and expensive.

airmax 97 are the best running shoes ive had so far

This guy is the shoe guru. He knows whats best.

Anyway, PhysicX (God I hate AP Physics right now...

), I suggest you try shoes that are for neutral to underpronators. So, anything that doesn't have a medial post (meaning that it is a support shoe) or on the insides of your feet, should be fine. I'm wearing Nike Air Zoom Vomero 4s, and they're alright. Not the best, but good enough for me. Nike Vomero/Pegasus, New Balance 1062/1063, Asics Cumulus and Nimbus lines, Saucony Triumph, Brooks Glycerin 7 and Ghost may all be suitable shoes for you.

Some runners are mostly neutral gaited, but with a bit of pronation, and the Nike Zoom Elite 4 or the Asics Gel DS Trainer might work for you as it is a light but slightly supportive shoe.

I suggest you try on your shoes before you buy them at a running store. And until you've tried the specialty running shoes from the kinds of companies I listed, you can't say that the Air Max 97 is the best running shoe, nor is the Air Max 2009. Alright? It just isn't.

Someone else who knows something!

I love how people keep recommending Frees. So many runners are misinformed.

 

[knightngale]

Asics Gel Nimbus for neutral runners are

 

[th3ownly]

Asics are the best in my opinion

 

[davidisgodly]

Originally Posted by knightngale

Asics Gel Nimbus for neutral runners are

I'm wearing them RIGHT now.

If I had 1 shoe for the rest of my life. no doubt nimbus

at me quoting a laker fan.


But really, look into mizuno. Theyre so

btw, asics are overhyped. not the nimbus.

 

[ccb21040]

new balance 992 or 993
when i tried my 1st pair on in the store i swear i was bout to do a lap running around footaction! feels like your walking on pillows

 

[crazy ebw]

Originally Posted by davidisgodly

Originally Posted by knightngale

Asics Gel Nimbus for neutral runners are

I'm wearing them RIGHT now.

If I had 1 shoe for the rest of my life. no doubt nimbus

at me quoting a laker fan.
But really, look into mizuno. Theyre so

btw, asics are overhyped. not the nimbus.

The 2100 series from Asics is the main shoe I don't like. A lot of their low-end stuff gets thrown around too and people automatically thinkit's great. A $39.99 pair of running shoes just ISN'T cutting it.

993? You serious? That's almost as bad as saying AM97s.

 

[damnthosejs]

Overpronator using Asics Kayano 15 (D width when I shouldve gotten E but I'm alright).

I love how people keep recommending Frees. So many runners are misinformed.

...we don't have to call them "runners" if they're not using the right pair of sneakers

 

[swooshdude]

Right now i'm running in the Asics GT-2120. Love Love LOVE this shoe. It's got the post for support that I need for my flat feet. They are light ashell and very comfy. Tried running in my Air Max 360s, and they were decent, but not better than my Asics. Tried the New Balance MR1350, and i'm convincedthat shoe in particular contributed to my knee injury. The shoe was heavy and hard. Felt like absolutely NO cushioning after putting 40 miles on them. Ithought that maybe they'd need some break in time, but that wasn't the case. These will be flipped on ebay. I got them from Marshall's, sofortunately i'm only out 30 bucks. I'm going to go back and find another pair of Asics 2120, or 2130 (the updated model) to run in. My current pair isjust about at its end of its life (mileage).

 

[duckdafraft]

ASICS

 

[craftsy21]

Anybody at all interested in talking about barefoot running? the benefits of it and what not...

it's becoming the new rage.. all this support we try to give our feet is actually what's being found to give us all the injury and joint problems...you were never meant to land on your heels, but to run on the balls of your feet, so your bent knee and calves absorb the shock.. not your stiffened legs(therefore, bones, joints, etc).

This is part of the theory behind the Nike Free series, which is a step in the right direction of where running products need to go.

Then you have the barefoot shoe-lines which are literally just a cover that fit right to your bare foot, offering no support, just protection from theground/road/trails.

I was reading a really interesting article on all this the other day and I'm convinced of it.

 

[crazy ebw]

Originally Posted by swooshdude

Right now i'm running in the Asics GT-2120. Love Love LOVE this shoe. It's got the post for support that I need for my flat feet. They are light as hell and very comfy. Tried running in my Air Max 360s, and they were decent, but not better than my Asics. Tried the New Balance MR1350, and i'm convinced that shoe in particular contributed to my knee injury. The shoe was heavy and hard. Felt like absolutely NO cushioning after putting 40 miles on them. I thought that maybe they'd need some break in time, but that wasn't the case. These will be flipped on ebay. I got them from Marshall's, so fortunately i'm only out 30 bucks. I'm going to go back and find another pair of Asics 2120, or 2130 (the updated model) to run in. My current pair is just about at its end of its life (mileage).

Actually Asics is on the 2140 right now. Obviously you could catch a good deal on the 2130s if you can find them in your size. The 2100 seriesdoesn't work for me. The guidance support just doesn't feel right for me in the series. I've got some Nimbus that I just kick around in from timeto time and I love them to death.

If i'm running i'm using Trance or Nirvana. This year's Nirvana works better for me than last but i'm still working on my Trance 8's (lastyears model). I LOVE everything about this shoe.

 

[wj4]

Crazy EBW- I didn't know you were a runner.

I used to swear by Nike when I didn't know any better. The $80-90 Asics I use now > the $130+ Nike's I bought. Not to mention real running shoescome in more than one width, something Nike running shoes lack.

The Nike Free is OK if you're not running that much, like mentioned. My friend said they wore out horribly after about 100 miles.

Oh also, for optimal performance, replace the shoes every 350-500 miles, depending on how hard you run and how heavy you are.

I'm a life long fan of Asics now. I've been using them for about a year, on my 3rd pair. I usually run 3-5 miles a day, 6 days a week...feet NEVERhurt. I've been on Foundation 8, but I recently scored a slick deal on some 240's at the local Sport Chalet...only $20 and tax!

 

[jdotgdot]

Asics Gel Foundation. Flat feet and over pronator FTL.

 

[davidisgodly]

nope. no 21xx for me. I've been through countless Asics in my life. No pair like the nimbus.
But i'm a underpronator/supanator. so you have to know your foot type before buying running sneakers.

My next pair will be mizuno wave rider 12.

 

[wj4]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Anybody at all interested in talking about barefoot running? the benefits of it and what not...

it's becoming the new rage.. all this support we try to give our feet is actually what's being found to give us all the injury and joint problems... you were never meant to land on your heels, but to run on the balls of your feet, so your bent knee and calves absorb the shock.. not your stiffened legs (therefore, bones, joints, etc).

This is part of the theory behind the Nike Free series, which is a step in the right direction of where running products need to go.

Then you have the barefoot shoe-lines which are literally just a cover that fit right to your bare foot, offering no support, just protection from the ground/road/trails.

I was reading a really interesting article on all this the other day and I'm convinced of it.

Post up the article please. To me, it looks like another gimmick from Nike, like that lunar material they acquired from NASA. I do want a pairof Free or Lunar Trainer though..but not for running, for plyometric exercises.

 

[crazy ebw]

I picked up running last November. Seeing the technology and learning about the efforts that these company's put into their products was very interestingand it made me pick up the habit. I haven't logged as many miles as i'd like in the past few months with summer and just doing random stuff but latelyi've been getting back into that 15-20 mile a week mode. Nothing too major but it is such a stress reliever and just makes me feel better overall.

I can't stand people who are stubborn about their running shoes.

 

[wj4]

Originally Posted by Crazy EBW

I picked up running last November. Seeing the technology and learning about the efforts that these company's put into their products was very interesting and it made me pick up the habit. I haven't logged as many miles as i'd like in the past few months with summer and just doing random stuff but lately i've been getting back into that 15-20 mile a week mode. Nothing too major but it is such a stress reliever and just makes me feel better overall.

I can't stand people who are stubborn about their running shoes.

Yeah, man. I love running. The first mile always suck, but when the endorphine kicks in and you're on that runner's high. Mannnnn

 

[timcity2000]

Nike running shoes suck. They're all gimmicky and expensive.
while there are certainly plenty of nike running shoes that fit this description, to lump all nike running shoes together is just silly.

let's not forget how nike got its start....

 

[limitedretroog]

I love my Air Maxes.

 

[red flag]

Originally Posted by Dynamic X

Originally Posted by Crazy EBW

Originally Posted by RED FLAG

Originally Posted by wj4



Nike running shoes suck. They're all gimmicky and expensive.

airmax 97 are the best running shoes ive had so far

This guy is the shoe guru. He knows whats best.

Anyway, PhysicX (God I hate AP Physics right now...

), I suggest you try shoes that are for neutral to underpronators. So, anything that doesn't have a medial post (meaning that it is a support shoe) or on the insides of your feet, should be fine. I'm wearing Nike Air Zoom Vomero 4s, and they're alright. Not the best, but good enough for me. Nike Vomero/Pegasus, New Balance 1062/1063, Asics Cumulus and Nimbus lines, Saucony Triumph, Brooks Glycerin 7 and Ghost may all be suitable shoes for you.

Some runners are mostly neutral gaited, but with a bit of pronation, and the Nike Zoom Elite 4 or the Asics Gel DS Trainer might work for you as it is a light but slightly supportive shoe.

I suggest you try on your shoes before you buy them at a running store. And until you've tried the specialty running shoes from the kinds of companies I listed, you can't say that the Air Max 97 is the best running shoe, nor is the Air Max 2009. Alright? It just isn't.

Stop being a running shoe snob and comprehend/respond to what I actually said, as I never said AM97 are the best running shoe, I clearly said theywere the best I'VE had so far.

tried ~ Adidas, Reebok, Asics, and Puma

 

[nationaltruckerdave]

R4's maybe?

 

[stillmatic]

adidas zx - anything