RW clothing

[alpnclymber]

Runner's World magazine (owned by Rodale) has teamed up with Gore-tex to market a RW clothing line
that will be sold in stores next spring. They claim this deal with Gore will have no effect on
product reviews and they won't review the RW products. What do people here think this does to the
magazine's credibility? Does it affect the credibility of other Rodale magazines (Backpacker,
Bicycling, Men's Health, Scuba Diving)? Would you purchase a RW Gore-tex suit or Windstopper shell?

[Globaldisc]

..the nature and detail of your question alone makes me think you're doing research for them. more
importantly...the premise of your question implies/assumes the magazine has been credible to date
and that's dead wrong friend. Runner's World has no product review credibility and I don't believe
they ever come acorss a "bad shoe" in the history of running shoes.

Give me a break. When the biggest thing next to every shoe review is a BUY IT NOW button (check
their site)....you're credibility is kind of shot from that point going forward....no?

This ain't "Consumer Reports"...and the purpose of the magazine is to promote the industry and
sport....NOT to be unbiased. Not too many people bite the hand that fees them....

Funniest thing about your post is the launch date. Methinks if you're going to launch a new Goretex
line of running gear....you do it in the Fall...or Winter....but not the Spring. Real marketing
wizards over there alright....

[alpnclymber]

Globaldisc <globaldisc@aol.com> wrote:

> ..the nature and detail of your question alone makes me think you're doing research for them.

Nope, no connection whatsoever. Just curious if it makes any difference to anyone. Unfourtnately,
the Consumer Reports attempts at running gear have been laughable so even "non-biased" is useless.

[Steve Hansen]

Consumer Reports did do a review of running shoes in May, 2002.

Of course, their ratings are not very helpful for someone who is trying to choose which shoe to buy.
Among much good advice, they said that your experience with a shoe depends "on how well it fits you
and works for your running style."

I'm not sure what a "running style" is. I suspect it may have something to do with pronation.

Steve

[Gentolm]

i would start with asics line - maybe kayano - i do wear them - after that it is all in the
air plodzilla

Steve Hansen wrote:
>
> Consumer Reports did do a review of running shoes in May, 2002.
>
> Of course, their ratings are not very helpful for someone who is trying to choose which shoe to
> buy. Among much good advice, they said that your experience with a shoe depends "on how well it
> fits you and works for your running style."
>
> I'm not sure what a "running style" is. I suspect it may have something to do with pronation.
>
> Steve

[Povl H. Pederse]

On 2003-10-18, Steve Hansen <spambucket312@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure what a "running style" is. I suspect it may have something to do with pronation.

Pronation is one thing, but just as important or more is how you land.

Most people have been taught to land in an unnatural way,
ie. land on the heel and roll over the ball of the foot. That is not natural, you canot run in
place that way.

The natural way is to land around the ball / midfoot of the foot. I am doing this, so I try ho avoid
high-heels on running shoes but goes for fast trainers, which are usually 1/4 - 1/2 inch lower in
the heel cushion (which I really only use when walking).