best shoe for motion control/cushioning

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by [email protected], Feb 19, 2006.

  1. 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.
     
    Tags:


  2. On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:49:01 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

    >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 shit,
    then yes, you have a large frame.
     
  3. gr0tt0

    gr0tt0 Guest

    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 protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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.
     
  4. 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!!!
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. rick++

    rick++ Guest

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

    I think I have just been baited! :)
     
  8. On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:49:01 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

    >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
     
  9. On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:37:56 -0500, "gr0tt0" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >There is no one best shoe.


    Complete crappola! The best shoe for EVERY FOOT is Asics 2000 series.
     
  10. > 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.

    >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.

    >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
    crap 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".
     
  11. steve common

    steve common Guest

    [email protected] wrote:

    >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 ?
     
  12. On 19 Feb 2006 14:52:23 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

    >> 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.
     
  13. 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.
     
  14. ....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.

    >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".
     
  15. On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:42:02 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

    >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.
     
  16. On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 01:28:22 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

    >LOL!


    He was right you pussy.
     
  17. 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.
     
  18. On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 01:30:40 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

    >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.


    10 miles a day, everyday. You pussy.
     
  19. On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 01:30:40 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

    >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.
     
Loading...
Loading...