J
best shoe for motion control/cushioning
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
J
J
S
steve common
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> btw, it's also one of the few last shoes made in America.
the ones we get here ain't. they're made in UK (best case, and maybe all
recent kit) or from the far east (very poor track record on durability)
your figures are US only right? In this 2004 article, no market share for
NB overall - even less than "struggling" Adidas and 2% Reebok. The only
thing on the chart is your fave 991, ahead of the Asics 2xxx shoe and
behind the BARF Shox.
http://www.sbrnet.com/sbr/PreviewSamples/Footwear_Business.htm
Asics is having a banner year, with sales (as measured by SportScanINFO),
up in the mid-teens. Asics now has a 12 percent share in running, and its
new 2090 series has been extremely well-received. Nike is up in
double-digits in running, and has a 44 percent share on strong sales of
its proprietary Shox product. Adidas continues to struggle because its new
technologies have not gained much traction. Reebok is showing some
progress, with sales up in the high single-digits, but share is only 2
percent. In fact, Reebok did not have a single shoe make the top 50 styles
year-to-date. Top running styles in dollars are the Nike Shox Turbo, New
Balance 991, and Asics 2090.
> btw, it's also one of the few last shoes made in America.
the ones we get here ain't. they're made in UK (best case, and maybe all
recent kit) or from the far east (very poor track record on durability)
your figures are US only right? In this 2004 article, no market share for
NB overall - even less than "struggling" Adidas and 2% Reebok. The only
thing on the chart is your fave 991, ahead of the Asics 2xxx shoe and
behind the BARF Shox.
http://www.sbrnet.com/sbr/PreviewSamples/Footwear_Business.htm
Asics is having a banner year, with sales (as measured by SportScanINFO),
up in the mid-teens. Asics now has a 12 percent share in running, and its
new 2090 series has been extremely well-received. Nike is up in
double-digits in running, and has a 44 percent share on strong sales of
its proprietary Shox product. Adidas continues to struggle because its new
technologies have not gained much traction. Reebok is showing some
progress, with sales up in the high single-digits, but share is only 2
percent. In fact, Reebok did not have a single shoe make the top 50 styles
year-to-date. Top running styles in dollars are the Nike Shox Turbo, New
Balance 991, and Asics 2090.
S
steve common
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> btw, it's also one of the few last shoes made in America.
the ones we get here ain't. they're made in UK (best case, and maybe all
recent kit) or from the far east (very poor track record on durability)
> btw, it's also one of the few last shoes made in America.
the ones we get here ain't. they're made in UK (best case, and maybe all
recent kit) or from the far east (very poor track record on durability)
T
G
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 03:09:38 +0100, steve common
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Asics is having a banner year, with sales (as measured by SportScanINFO),
>up in the mid-teens. Asics now has a 12 percent share in running, and its
>new 2090 series has been extremely well-received.
I'm personally responsible for 80% of that, and my bank acct reflects
it. That .002% of each sale really paid off for me.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Asics is having a banner year, with sales (as measured by SportScanINFO),
>up in the mid-teens. Asics now has a 12 percent share in running, and its
>new 2090 series has been extremely well-received.
I'm personally responsible for 80% of that, and my bank acct reflects
it. That .002% of each sale really paid off for me.
T
T
Tom Phillips
Guest
[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...
> New Balance shoes seem to wear out within a month or two of use.
Not something I've noticed. I tend to get
a good several hundred miles out of NB 1122...
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.
>
> 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...
> New Balance shoes seem to wear out within a month or two of use.
Not something I've noticed. I tend to get
a good several hundred miles out of NB 1122...
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.
B
Beach Runner
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> 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.\
What the hell is wrong with you people. Are you so insecure that you
think by insulting others it makes you better? It only puts you down.
Try reading the work of the researches on Fat Cells, especially Hirsch,
and you will find the biggest determinate of weight gain is the number
of fat cells as a child, but I doubt you could read peer reviewed
scholarly journals. Since I had a mother who over fed me I've worked
very hard to stay in shape, a statistical outlier. I haven't always
done it. Luckily I run on the beach and lift serious weights. I'd be a
better runner if I didn't push so much weight.
As far as shoes, all the advice is that I should use motion control
shoes, but the best shoes for me, are Sacouny Jazz, with my orthodics.
The only way to determine the best shoe for you is the try every shoe in
a large store, to see what fits, and then you won't know to you run in
it. When you find a good one, buy 10 pair from a mail order/internet
company and trade off at least between two pair every day.
Best of luck and enjoy your running.
> 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.\
What the hell is wrong with you people. Are you so insecure that you
think by insulting others it makes you better? It only puts you down.
Try reading the work of the researches on Fat Cells, especially Hirsch,
and you will find the biggest determinate of weight gain is the number
of fat cells as a child, but I doubt you could read peer reviewed
scholarly journals. Since I had a mother who over fed me I've worked
very hard to stay in shape, a statistical outlier. I haven't always
done it. Luckily I run on the beach and lift serious weights. I'd be a
better runner if I didn't push so much weight.
As far as shoes, all the advice is that I should use motion control
shoes, but the best shoes for me, are Sacouny Jazz, with my orthodics.
The only way to determine the best shoe for you is the try every shoe in
a large store, to see what fits, and then you won't know to you run in
it. When you find a good one, buy 10 pair from a mail order/internet
company and trade off at least between two pair every day.
Best of luck and enjoy your running.
M
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 06:34:18 GMT, Beach Runner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>What the hell is wrong with you people. Are you so insecure that you
>think by insulting others it makes you better? It only puts you down.
Suck my wad, you little wankering, cumquat weasel.
>
>What the hell is wrong with you people. Are you so insecure that you
>think by insulting others it makes you better? It only puts you down.
Suck my wad, you little wankering, cumquat weasel.
T
don't let these guys get you worked up--I think that they are probably 120lb
teenagers living with their mamas. only time and maturity can hopefully
save them.
beach runner--how much do you weigh? and what can you get yourself down to?
I have a helluva time getting below 220--running 30mi/week, some
weightlifting, 1500 cal vegetarian diet (3000 cal on saturdays generally).
My doc tells me don't expect to get too much below 220. Haven't been able
to exercise lately due to injury, so the weight is packing on....when I was
in college, I was (almost literally) a starving college student (under
1000cal/day unless I drank a lot of beer), but was pretty thin (165-175) and
could run pretty well (I could run 8mi at around a 6-7min pace without
pushing myself too hard). Now I am lucky if I can maintain a 9min pace
anything over 3 miles. Under 3mi I can get to an 7:30-8min pace, but a 9min
pace is comfortable. oh...I was a 10 pounder when born...
teenagers living with their mamas. only time and maturity can hopefully
save them.
beach runner--how much do you weigh? and what can you get yourself down to?
I have a helluva time getting below 220--running 30mi/week, some
weightlifting, 1500 cal vegetarian diet (3000 cal on saturdays generally).
My doc tells me don't expect to get too much below 220. Haven't been able
to exercise lately due to injury, so the weight is packing on....when I was
in college, I was (almost literally) a starving college student (under
1000cal/day unless I drank a lot of beer), but was pretty thin (165-175) and
could run pretty well (I could run 8mi at around a 6-7min pace without
pushing myself too hard). Now I am lucky if I can maintain a 9min pace
anything over 3 miles. Under 3mi I can get to an 7:30-8min pace, but a 9min
pace is comfortable. oh...I was a 10 pounder when born...
B
Beach Runner
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> don't let these guys get you worked up--I think that they are probably 120lb
> teenagers living with their mamas. only time and maturity can hopefully
> save them.
>
> beach runner--how much do you weigh? and what can you get yourself down to?
> I have a helluva time getting below 220--running 30mi/week, some
> weightlifting, 1500 cal vegetarian diet (3000 cal on saturdays generally).
> My doc tells me don't expect to get too much below 220. Haven't been able
> to exercise lately due to injury, so the weight is packing on....when I was
> in college, I was (almost literally) a starving college student (under
> 1000cal/day unless I drank a lot of beer), but was pretty thin (165-175) and
> could run pretty well (I could run 8mi at around a 6-7min pace without
> pushing myself too hard). Now I am lucky if I can maintain a 9min pace
> anything over 3 miles. Under 3mi I can get to an 7:30-8min pace, but a 9min
> pace is comfortable. oh...I was a 10 pounder when born...
It's not what you weigh when you're born, it's the number of fat cells
as a child, or any that you add. If you read Stunkard, Hirsch, or the
top researchers in the field, when we lose weight, we maintain the same
number of fat cells, they are just empty and the body does everything it
can to fill them. Now there are people who maintain long term
statistically significant weight loss. The National Weight Control
Registry follows up on them. Each year I fill out a survey.
The findings are people need to eat a lot of good stuff, like salads,
do aerobics, which you do, and lift weights. I was doing a lot of
weight training and was getting serious on body building to a car
accident put a stop on everything for a year, and now still limits any
serious weight training, and it's tough.
I was running at age 59 10Ks at 7 minute miles. I was 165 but mostly
muscle. I've been down to 150s. In my 20s I got into the 130s and ran
faster, but I liked the 165 bulked up version better. Now I could lose
after my hiatus 20 lbs, so I'm running slow.
> don't let these guys get you worked up--I think that they are probably 120lb
> teenagers living with their mamas. only time and maturity can hopefully
> save them.
>
> beach runner--how much do you weigh? and what can you get yourself down to?
> I have a helluva time getting below 220--running 30mi/week, some
> weightlifting, 1500 cal vegetarian diet (3000 cal on saturdays generally).
> My doc tells me don't expect to get too much below 220. Haven't been able
> to exercise lately due to injury, so the weight is packing on....when I was
> in college, I was (almost literally) a starving college student (under
> 1000cal/day unless I drank a lot of beer), but was pretty thin (165-175) and
> could run pretty well (I could run 8mi at around a 6-7min pace without
> pushing myself too hard). Now I am lucky if I can maintain a 9min pace
> anything over 3 miles. Under 3mi I can get to an 7:30-8min pace, but a 9min
> pace is comfortable. oh...I was a 10 pounder when born...
It's not what you weigh when you're born, it's the number of fat cells
as a child, or any that you add. If you read Stunkard, Hirsch, or the
top researchers in the field, when we lose weight, we maintain the same
number of fat cells, they are just empty and the body does everything it
can to fill them. Now there are people who maintain long term
statistically significant weight loss. The National Weight Control
Registry follows up on them. Each year I fill out a survey.
The findings are people need to eat a lot of good stuff, like salads,
do aerobics, which you do, and lift weights. I was doing a lot of
weight training and was getting serious on body building to a car
accident put a stop on everything for a year, and now still limits any
serious weight training, and it's tough.
I was running at age 59 10Ks at 7 minute miles. I was 165 but mostly
muscle. I've been down to 150s. In my 20s I got into the 130s and ran
faster, but I liked the 165 bulked up version better. Now I could lose
after my hiatus 20 lbs, so I'm running slow.
T
wow--it sounds like you are doing great! I am going to look into some of
the research that you cited--thanks!
the research that you cited--thanks!