best shoe for motion control/cushioning

Quoted message said:

I have a large frame (230lbs) and love to run. Lately, my running has been
hampered by lower back problems. I use orthotics because I have flat feet.
Generally, I use Asics Kayano and have always loved them. I've tried brooks
beast a few years ago, but I felt that they were too clod-hoppy. New
Balance shoes seem to wear out within a month or two of use. I realize that
shoes technology changes fairly quickly. Can anyone recommend ideas on good
stability/motion control shoes that have massive padding and shock
absorption? Because of the back problems, I've had to limit my runs to 2-3
miles 1-2 times/week. Bummer. I fear that running may soon be in my past.

By "large framed" if you mean you are a fat, disgusting, lump of [censored],
then yes, you have a large frame.

What's wrong with sticking with the Asics? If you've always loved them...

There is no one best shoe. Each will feel a little different on your foot.
What is best for A is not always best for B. The most important thing, in
my opinion, is to be sure you have a proper fit. Don't buy a shoe by
cosmetics but by fit.

Don't forget to do core work to strengthen your back and alignment.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have a large frame (230lbs) and love to run. Lately, my running has

been

Quoted message said:

hampered by lower back problems. I use orthotics because I have flat

feet.

Quoted message said:

Generally, I use Asics Kayano and have always loved them. I've tried

brooks

Quoted message said:

beast a few years ago, but I felt that they were too clod-hoppy. New
Balance shoes seem to wear out within a month or two of use. I realize

that

Quoted message said:

shoes technology changes fairly quickly. Can anyone recommend ideas on

good

Quoted message said:

stability/motion control shoes that have massive padding and shock
absorption? Because of the back problems, I've had to limit my runs to

2-3

Quoted message said:

miles 1-2 times/week. Bummer. I fear that running may soon be in my

past.

no--I am not that fat. and you would not dare say those words in front of
me. I promise you that.

you are a pretty pathetic individual--it sounds like you can't contain your
own misery so you try to spread it to others. have a good life!!!

I will probably stay with the Asics--they seem to work best. Just wanted to
touch base to see if there were any new developments. I do work on core/abs
a lot and lift weights too--I may have to do less high impact exercises.
thanks.

If you look at shoe ratings, e.g. on the side of a Nike box,
you notice they dont have a shoe with high amount of both.
Thats because I hear the two conditions conflict with each other
in shoe engineering.

A medium stability - medium cushioning that I found works
is the ASIC GT2100 (I think that just stopped that number and
changed it to something else).
runnerswortld.com gives list of stability shoes. Then look on that
list for cushioning too.

on second thought, you probably would say that in front of me and I was just
laugh.

I think I have just been baited! 🙂

Quoted message said:

I have a large frame (230lbs) and love to run. Lately, my running has been
hampered by lower back problems. I use orthotics because I have flat feet.
Generally, I use Asics Kayano and have always loved them. I've tried brooks
beast a few years ago, but I felt that they were too clod-hoppy. New
Balance shoes seem to wear out within a month or two of use. I realize that
shoes technology changes fairly quickly. Can anyone recommend ideas on good
stability/motion control shoes that have massive padding and shock
absorption? Because of the back problems, I've had to limit my runs to 2-3
miles 1-2 times/week. Bummer. I fear that running may soon be in my past.

Been through that back thing. No shoe going to keep that from
stopping you. big time exercise program to strengthen your back and
abdominals. I went to a wellness center and did multiple sets on
every machine that smacked of back and abdominal strengthening for a
period of a year. Now I just do about 200 situps with one of those
cheap rocker frames maybe five times a week. only takes about ten
minutes. No back problems any more. run 5-6 days a week.

Frank

gr0tt0 said:

There is no one best shoe.

Complete crappola! The best shoe for EVERY FOOT is Asics 2000 series.

Quoted message said:

New Balance shoes seem to wear out within a month or two of use.

okay, time for someone who knows what they're talking about to chime
in. for the OP to say this above...well we know that's nonsense. but i
am still willing to help the OP despite this nonsense.

Quoted message said:

There is no one best shoe.

No, you're wrong, there is. it's just a matter of finding the best
shoe for you. it's kind of like the search for a spouse. if you're
lucky it will become a classic and available for several years
un-altered.

Quoted message said:

The most important thing, in my opinion, is to be sure you have a proper fit.

More nonsense. How a shoe seems & appears in fit in a shop can easily
have no nexus to real world shoe use & ride. It only stops being a
[censored] shoot at about 75-100 miles into your shoe. Besides..there are
lots of alternative solutions to perfecting a "fit" w/devices.

The OP should be running in NB 991 or 992, end of story. Why? These
shoes have more runners using them with the OP's situation and concerns
than any other shoe available in the world.....by a multiple of 4 or 5
"fold" or so. These shoes present the most favorable liklihood of a
shoe that works for the OP....due to their sheer number of satisfied
users and devoted following. No other shoe can come close to these
shoes.

Personally if I was in the OP's boat...I'd go w/the NB 2001, no
question. Asics: the default standard for the unenlightened runner.
Asics people think Kenny G is jazz music, and Applebee's is "dining
out".

Quoted message said:

These
shoes have more runners using them with the OP's situation and concerns
than any other shoe available in the world.....by a multiple of 4 or 5
"fold" or so.

I'm only asking to believe you. Where do the figures come from ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

New Balance shoes seem to wear out within a month or two of use.

okay, time for someone who knows what they're talking about to chime
in. for the OP to say this above...well we know that's nonsense. but i
am still willing to help the OP despite this nonsense.

No dumbass, NB are notorious for short life.

my only experience with NB was that there were great for about a month or
two running 25-30mi/week. Then there were useless. Again, I am pretty
heavy--230, but their motion control shoe should be built for someone like
me.

....contact NB, they'll tell you the approx. total sales figures for the
past 6 years of the 991....how manuy 991 shoes that have been made.
the total number of 991 shoes sold exceeds Asics best selling shoe by a
multiple of 4 to 5 or more. The lifetimes of Asics best selling shoe
is 6 months. NB _does not_ employ these marketing tactics on their
best sellers. The 991 bought in 1999 is the 991 bought in '06 (and
this is not even tossed into the classic category)....it's just the
same shoe. btw, it's also one of the few last shoes made in America.

Quoted message said:

From NB's site...(not the 990 series dates back to '79/'80)

"In 1999, the M991 was launched, and has since emerged as the
widest-selling New Balance shoe on the market, and today, is New
Balance’s most popular trainer. This widespread popularity has given
the 991 the reputation of being the staple New Balance running shoe.
Loaded with an assortment of state-of-the-art features that continue to
define excellence in running shoe performance and comfort, the M991
remains “The Classic,” a thoroughbred in the world of running shoes".

Quoted message said:

my only experience with NB was that there were great for about a month or
two running 25-30mi/week. Then there were useless. Again, I am pretty
heavy--230, but their motion control shoe should be built for someone like
me.

Then the problem isn't the shoes, it's that you are a fat piece of
turd.

LOL!

I'll tell you what--put a backpack on your back that makes you weigh 230 and
go run 25-30mi/month for 5 months. See if you can do it. I'd have a
helluva lot of respect for you if you could. Chances are you couldn't run
one mile.

Quoted message said:

I'll tell you what--put a backpack on your back that makes you weigh 230 and
go run 25-30mi/month for 5 months. See if you can do it. I'd have a
helluva lot of respect for you if you could. Chances are you couldn't run
one mile.

I'll do it at the rate you got your fatass ass fat, and add a 1lb a
week to the backpack.

err..make that 25-30mi/week for 5 months.

ok. try it with 230 on you back.