DS-Trainer

Quoted message said:

If you want a great lightweight trainer, consider the new
ASICS GEL-Landreth.

As soon as this shoe appeared in my local running specialty
shop, they already had only sizes below 8 and above 13 !!! I
do hope that ASICS opts to make this shoe a part of their
general line, as it seems very popular and has gotten only
glowing reviews.

On 10 Mar 2004 16:52:17 -0800, [email hidden] (sotampacane)

Quoted message said:

If you want a great lightweight trainer, consider the new
ASICS, GEl-Landreth. I haven't worn it enough to insure
that its going to be a long lasting shoe, but others have
told me that it definitely holds up. And its comfortable
and fits like a slipper.

I've worn it for track workouts, long runs, a 10K and a
marathon. The shoe rocks. At close to 200 miles it still
feels like it did when it was new. I hope it lasts a long
time. Barring that, I hope Asics keeps it around for a while
so I can stock up.

Karen

In article said:

From personal experience, this is a shoe that has a short
shelf life. I had two pairs and they just flattened out
quickly. I normally get 300-350 miles and these were toast
after about 230. Just bad shoe construction.

It's a lightweight trainer. You know these aren't as durable
as other shoes, right ?

BTW I'm running in the Verdict now for speed work. Haven't
got many miles on it yet, but I like the feel.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

From personal experience, this is a shoe that has a short
shelf life. I had two pairs and they just flattened out
quickly. I normally get 300-350 miles and these were toast
after about 230. Just bad shoe construction.

If you want a great lightweight trainer, consider the new
ASICS, GEl-Landreth. I haven't worn it enough to insure
that its going to be a long lasting shoe, but others have
told me that it definitely holds up. And its comfortable
and fits like a slipper.

It *should* hold up better because it's not really a
lightweight shoe. It's got the midsole from one of the
old 20xx series shoes without the dual density. Put it on
a scale and I think you'll find it's the same weight as
the Cumulus.

Jim Johnson

Jim Johnson said:

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

Quoted message said:

From personal experience, this is a shoe that has a short
shelf life. I had two pairs and they just flattened out
quickly. I normally get 300-350 miles and these were toast
after about 230. Just bad shoe construction.

If you want a great lightweight trainer, consider the new
ASICS, GEl-Landreth. I haven't worn it enough to insure
that its going to be a long lasting shoe, but others have
told me that it definitely holds up. And its comfortable
and fits like a slipper.

It *should* hold up better because it's not really a
lightweight shoe. It's got the midsole from one of the old
20xx series shoes without the dual density. Put it on a
scale and I think you'll find it's the same weight as the
Cumulus.

Nope, the Landreth is 10.9 and gel Cumulus is 12.5,
Gel Cumulus V
11.9 and NEITHER is considered a lightweight shoe. I would
expect the Landreth to wear like the DS Trainers(10.8).
As Donovan pointed out, these are lighweight shoes(what I
call quasi racing shoes) and you get significantly less
miles out of pair.

--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" [email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

sotampacane said:

From personal experience, this is a shoe that has a
short shelf life. I had two pairs and they just
flattened out quickly. I normally get 300-350 miles and
these were toast after about 230. Just bad shoe
construction.

It's a lightweight trainer. You know these aren't as
durable as other shoes, right ?

BTW I'm running in the Verdict now for speed work. Haven't
got many miles on it yet, but I like the feel.

Cheers,

I've tracked my shoe miles for about ten years, and the
difference in miles between lightweight trainers and a
regular training shoe might be 5-7%. If I get 350 on a
GEL2080 (for example), a Gel lyte might be 325-330. With the
DS Trainer, I threw these away after 250 miles. They were
dead. ASICS has had some problems over the past 3 years with
shoe wear, and while they deny it, there isn't much doubt
that a few of there models just have not lasted as long as
they used to. It's forced me to look at alternatives, like
the Brooks Illusion or the Burn. But lately, I've had good
luck with alternating between the 2080 (now the 2090) and
the Landreth.

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

Quoted message said:

Nope, the Landreth is 10.9 and gel Cumulus is 12.5, Gel
Cumulus V
11.9 and NEITHER is considered a lightweight shoe. I would
expect the Landreth to wear like the DS Trainers(10.8).
As Donovan pointed out, these are lighweight shoes(what
I call quasi racing shoes) and you get significantly
less miles out of pair.

Put them on a scale and weigh them. We weighed a size 9
Landreth and Cumulus V and they were spot on the same
weight. But, no two shoes will weigh the same even in exact
sizes and models so this whole shoe weight thing is pretty
pointless.

Jim Johnson

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >

Quoted message said:

Jim Johnson said:

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

Quoted message said:

From personal experience, this is a shoe that has a
short shelf life. I had two pairs and they just
flattened out quickly. I normally get 300-350 miles and
these were toast after about 230. Just bad shoe
construction.

If you want a great lightweight trainer, consider the
new ASICS, GEl-Landreth. I haven't worn it enough to
insure that its going to be a long lasting shoe, but
others have told me that it definitely holds up. And its
comfortable and fits like a slipper.

It *should* hold up better because it's not really a
lightweight shoe.

It's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

got the midsole from one of the old 20xx series shoes
without the dual density. Put it on a scale and I think
you'll find it's the same weight

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the Cumulus.

Nope, the Landreth is 10.9 and gel Cumulus is 12.5, Gel
Cumulus V
11.9 and NEITHER is considered a lightweight shoe. I would
expect the Landreth to wear like the DS Trainers(10.8).
As Donovan pointed out, these are lighweight shoes(what
I call quasi racing shoes) and you get significantly
less miles out of pair.

I politely disagree, I would consider the 'lightweight
shoe/quasi racing shoe' description to fit models such as
NBrc240, NBrc330, Asics Tiger Paw, etc. - all these models
you point out here are trainers. Plain and simple. They are
lighter than other shoes, yes.

Shoe companies are starting to realize people want lighter
shoes, so the companies make their trainers a little lighter
(but with all the "trainer shoe" properties still there...
high heels, medial post, etc), and then call them
"lightweight trainers" to make to buyer feel like they are
buying a "fast" shoe.

If the company is really irresponsible, they call their
trainer a racing flat - the Brooks Burn is a great example -
10.5oz, high heels, medial post... this is a trainer!

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see, putting other people
down constantly."

In article said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

sotampacane said:

From personal experience, this is a shoe that has a
short shelf life. I had two pairs and they just
flattened out quickly. I normally get 300-350 miles and
these were toast after about 230. Just bad shoe
construction.

It's a lightweight trainer. You know these aren't as
durable as other shoes, right ?

BTW I'm running in the Verdict now for speed work.
Haven't got many miles on it yet, but I like the feel.

Cheers,

I've tracked my shoe miles for about ten years, and the
difference in miles between lightweight trainers and a
regular training shoe might be 5-7%. If I get 350 on a
GEL2080 (for example), a Gel lyte might be 325-330. With
the DS Trainer, I threw these away after 250 miles. They
were dead. ASICS has had some problems over the past 3
years with shoe wear, and while they deny it, there isn't
much doubt that a few of there models just have not lasted
as long as they used to.

It does seem at least that the DS Trainer line has been
causing them some grief. I avoided it in favour of the
verdict at least partly because of unfavourable reviews.

As far as durability is concerned though -- I think a lot of
manufacturers simply have to cut corners on this to keep the
shoe lightweight and properly cushioned.

Probably worth looking for durability features, e.g. carbon
rubber outsole as opposed to blown rubber. Most Mizuno shoes
seem to use carbon rubber outsoles btw.

Quoted message said:

It's forced me to look at alternatives, like the Brooks
Illusion or the Burn. But lately, I've had good luck with
alternating between the 2080 (now the 2090) and the
Landreth.

The Landreth is barely "lightweight", but then, if you're
using it as a general training shoe, that's fine.

I'll keep you posted on how the verdict goes. It's hard to
tell at this stage, but I'll have a pretty good idea how
it's doing at about 200 miles or so (I get about 500 out of
a midweight-heavyweight cushioned trainer like the Nimbus).

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

In article said:

Quoted message said:

Nope, the Landreth is 10.9 and gel Cumulus is 12.5, Gel
Cumulus V
11.9 and NEITHER is considered a lightweight shoe. I
would expect the Landreth to wear like the DS
Trainers(10.8). As Donovan pointed out, these are
lighweight shoes(what I call quasi racing shoes) and
you get significantly less miles out of pair.

I politely disagree, I would consider the 'lightweight
shoe/quasi racing shoe' description to fit models such as
NBrc240, NBrc330, Asics Tiger Paw, etc. - all these models
you point out here are trainers. Plain and simple. They
are lighter than other shoes, yes.

"Racing shoe" means different things to different people (-;

They are "trainers" in the sense that the construction is
similar, only the quantity of material and the stiffness of
the material are substantially different. Like you say, the
shape is much the same, and despite the name, they aren't
even "flat".

But they're not "trainers" in the sense that they aren't
built for high milage like trainers are. They are built to
be used infrequently either for speed training, racing or
both. Very light, biomechanically gifted runners might be
able to wear them as everyday trainers, but most people will
find that they break down too quickly.

BTW, what shoes would you call racing flats if not the rc240
? Does the (discontinued) rc150 qualify ? What else ?

Quoted message said:

Shoe companies are starting to realize people want lighter
shoes, so the companies make their trainers a little
lighter (but with all the "trainer shoe" properties still
there... high heels, medial post, etc), and then call them
"lightweight trainers" to make to buyer feel like they are
buying a "fast" shoe.

If the company is really irresponsible, they call their
trainer a racing flat - the Brooks Burn is a great example
- 10.5oz, high heels, medial post... this is a trainer!

Of course the burn is a trainer, but where do they argue
that it's a flat ? I took a look at their webpage, and they
do indeed make racing flats, but the burn is not one of
them. It's listed as a cushioned trainer (without much in
the way of advertising about the weight).

It's true that some other sources have mischaracterised
these shoes though. I was appalled to find RunnersWorld
listing the Asics Verdict as a racing flat. I'm perfectly
happy with the Verdict, but it sure as hell isn't even close
to being a flat.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

In article Bj_3c.6163$Gm5.16261@attbi_s04 said:

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

Quoted message said:

Nope, the Landreth is 10.9 and gel Cumulus is 12.5, Gel
Cumulus V
11.9 and NEITHER is considered a lightweight shoe. I
would expect the Landreth to wear like the DS
Trainers(10.8). As Donovan pointed out, these are
lighweight shoes(what I call quasi racing shoes) and
you get significantly less miles out of pair.

Put them on a scale and weigh them. We weighed a size 9
Landreth and Cumulus V and they were spot on the same
weight. But, no two shoes will weigh the same even in
exact sizes and models so this whole shoe weight thing is
pretty pointless.

I'm curious as to what that weight is ... ? was the Landreth
over or the Cumulus under ?

BTW, the lightweight shoes don't just weigh differently,
they also feel different. The lower durometer rubber
contributes at least as much to the difference in feel
(usually more flexibility) as the actual weight does IMO.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

SwStudio said:

Quoted message said:

Nope, the Landreth is 10.9 and gel Cumulus is 12.5, Gel
Cumulus V
11.9 and NEITHER is considered a lightweight shoe. I
would expect the Landreth to wear like the DS
Trainers(10.8). As Donovan pointed out, these are
lighweight shoes(what I call quasi racing shoes) and
you get significantly less miles out of pair.

I politely disagree, I would consider the 'lightweight
shoe/quasi racing shoe' description to fit models such
as NBrc240, NBrc330, Asics Tiger Paw, etc. - all these
models you point out here are trainers. Plain and
simple. They are lighter than other shoes, yes.

"Racing shoe" means different things to different
people (-;

So if I put on my 10-hole Doc Martens and run a 5k, they are
'racing shoes' because I decided to call them that? Where
does one draw the line between truth and fiction?

Quoted message said:

They are "trainers" in the sense that the construction is
similar, only

the

Quoted message said:

quantity of material and the stiffness of the material are
substantially different. Like you say, the shape is much
the same, and despite the name, they aren't even "flat".

But they're not "trainers" in the sense that they aren't
built for high

milage

Quoted message said:

like trainers are. They are built to be used infrequently
either for speed training, racing or both. Very light,
biomechanically gifted runners might be able to wear them
as everyday trainers, but most people will find that they
break down too quickly.

I'm not sure where I stated that lightweight trainers or
flats last as long as regular trainers. I'm pretty sure I
didn't... my point was that trainers are often marketed as
flats, not that they last a long time.

A shoe isn't a racing flat simply because it's lighter
than most and falls apart quickly. If that was the case, I
have a pair of Converse Chuck Taylors for you to run your
next 5k in.

Quoted message said:

BTW, what shoes would you call racing flats if not
the rc240 ? Does the (discontinued) rc150 qualify ?
What else ?

Off the top of my head - Adidas Cubato, Nike Air Streak
Vapor IV, and yes of course, NBrc150.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shoe companies are starting to realize people want
lighter shoes, so the companies make their trainers a
little lighter (but with all the "trainer shoe"
properties still there... high heels, medial post, etc),
and then call them "lightweight trainers" to make to
buyer feel like they are buying a "fast" shoe.

If the company is really irresponsible, they call their
trainer a racing flat - the Brooks Burn is a great
example - 10.5oz, high heels, medial post... this is a
trainer!

Of course the burn is a trainer, but where do they argue
that it's a flat

? I

Quoted message said:

took a look at their webpage, and they do indeed make
racing flats, but

the

Quoted message said:

burn is not one of them. It's listed as a cushioned
trainer (without much

in

Quoted message said:

the way of advertising about the weight).

Lots of websites that sell shoes list it as a racer -
admittedly, many more list it as a lightweight trainer, a
little closer to the truth, although still stretching it.

Quoted message said:

It's true that some other sources have mischaracterised
these shoes

though. I

Quoted message said:

was appalled to find RunnersWorld listing the Asics
Verdict as a racing

flat.

Quoted message said:

I'm perfectly happy with the Verdict, but it sure as hell
isn't even close

to

Quoted message said:

being a flat.

I wish we were in the 70's, when all the "trainers" were the
flats of today, more or less. No high heels, no rigid
midfoot posts, etc! I remember my Dad's NB trainers from
those days. Sure, the materials and all that have improved
dramatically since then, but the basic premise of what a
running shoe should be was a lot better.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see, putting other people
down constantly."

In article said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I politely disagree, I would consider the 'lightweight
shoe/quasi racing shoe' description to fit models such
as NBrc240, NBrc330, Asics Tiger Paw, etc. - all these
models you point out here are trainers. Plain and
simple. They are lighter than other shoes, yes.

"Racing shoe" means different things to different
people (-;

So if I put on my 10-hole Doc Martens and run a 5k, they
are 'racing shoes' because I decided to call them that?
Where does one draw the line between truth and fiction?

If your trainers are a pair of 10-hole Doc Martens, then a
normal pair of trainers could well be called "racing shoes".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But they're not "trainers" in the sense that they aren't
built for high milage like trainers are. They are built
to be used infrequently either for speed training, racing
or both. Very light, biomechanically gifted runners might
be able to wear them as everyday trainers, but most
people will find that they break down too quickly.

I'm not sure where I stated that lightweight trainers or
flats last as long as regular trainers. I'm pretty sure I
didn't... my point was that trainers are often marketed as
flats, not that they last a long time.

A shoe isn't a racing flat simply because it's lighter
than most and falls apart quickly.

The tiger paw (for example) is also considerably more
flexible than any of the regular trainers. I regularly run
in heavier, stiffer shoes and the tiger paws really are
substantially different in their feel.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BTW, what shoes would you call racing flats if not
the rc240 ? Does the (discontinued) rc150 qualify ?
What else ?

Off the top of my head - Adidas Cubato, Nike Air Streak
Vapor IV, and yes of course, NBrc150.

These are all 6oz or less. I suppose it all depends on at
which point you draw the line, what your threshold is.
For someone used to training in fairly stiff, firm 13oz
shoes though, something like the tiger paw or even the DS
racer feels like a substantial change. Since you don't
run in such heavy shoes, you don't have any reference
points that would lead you to judge the 8oz "flat" as a
flat and not a trainer.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

SwStudio said:

Quoted message said:

Nope, the Landreth is 10.9 and gel Cumulus is 12.5, Gel
Cumulus V
11.9 and NEITHER is considered a lightweight shoe. I
would expect the Landreth to wear like the DS
Trainers(10.8). As Donovan pointed out, these are
lighweight shoes(what I call quasi racing shoes) and
you get significantly less miles out of pair.

I politely disagree, I would consider the 'lightweight
shoe/quasi racing shoe' description to fit models such
as NBrc240, NBrc330, Asics Tiger Paw, etc. - all these
models you point out here are trainers. Plain and
simple. They are lighter than other shoes, yes.

"Racing shoe" means different things to different
people (-;

So if I put on my 10-hole Doc Martens and run a 5k, they are
'racing shoes' because I decided to call them that? Where
does one draw the line between truth and fiction?

Quoted message said:

They are "trainers" in the sense that the construction is
similar, only

the

Quoted message said:

quantity of material and the stiffness of the material are
substantially different. Like you say, the shape is much
the same, and despite the name, they aren't even "flat".

But they're not "trainers" in the sense that they aren't
built for high

milage

Quoted message said:

like trainers are. They are built to be used infrequently
either for speed training, racing or both. Very light,
biomechanically gifted runners might be able to wear them
as everyday trainers, but most people will find that they
break down too quickly.

I'm not sure where I stated that lightweight trainers or
flats last as long as regular trainers. I'm pretty sure I
didn't... my point was that trainers are often marketed as
flats, not that they last a long time.

A shoe isn't a racing flat simply because it's lighter
than most and falls apart quickly. If that was the case, I
have a pair of Converse Chuck Taylors for you to run your
next 5k in.

Quoted message said:

BTW, what shoes would you call racing flats if not
the rc240 ? Does the (discontinued) rc150 qualify ?
What else ?

Off the top of my head - Adidas Cubato, Nike Air Streak
Vapor IV, and yes of course, NBrc150.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shoe companies are starting to realize people want
lighter shoes, so the companies make their trainers a
little lighter (but with all the "trainer shoe"
properties still there... high heels, medial post, etc),
and then call them "lightweight trainers" to make to
buyer feel like they are buying a "fast" shoe.

If the company is really irresponsible, they call their
trainer a racing flat - the Brooks Burn is a great
example - 10.5oz, high heels, medial post... this is a
trainer!

Of course the burn is a trainer, but where do they argue
that it's a flat

? I

Quoted message said:

took a look at their webpage, and they do indeed make
racing flats, but

the

Quoted message said:

burn is not one of them. It's listed as a cushioned
trainer (without much

in

Quoted message said:

the way of advertising about the weight).

Lots of websites that sell shoes list it as a racer -
admittedly, many more list it as a lightweight trainer, a
little closer to the truth, although still stretching it.

Quoted message said:

It's true that some other sources have mischaracterised
these shoes

though. I

Quoted message said:

was appalled to find RunnersWorld listing the Asics
Verdict as a racing

flat.

Quoted message said:

I'm perfectly happy with the Verdict, but it sure as hell
isn't even close

to

Quoted message said:

being a flat.

I wish we were in the 70's, when all the "trainers" were the
flats of today, more or less. No high heels, no rigid
midfoot posts, etc! I remember my Dad's NB trainers from
those days. Sure, the materials and all that have improved
dramatically since then, but the basic premise of what a
running shoe should be was a lot better.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see, putting other people
down constantly."

In article said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I politely disagree, I would consider the 'lightweight
shoe/quasi racing shoe' description to fit models such
as NBrc240, NBrc330, Asics Tiger Paw, etc. - all these
models you point out here are trainers. Plain and
simple. They are lighter than other shoes, yes.

"Racing shoe" means different things to different
people (-;

So if I put on my 10-hole Doc Martens and run a 5k, they
are 'racing shoes' because I decided to call them that?
Where does one draw the line between truth and fiction?

If your trainers are a pair of 10-hole Doc Martens, then a
normal pair of trainers could well be called "racing shoes".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But they're not "trainers" in the sense that they aren't
built for high milage like trainers are. They are built
to be used infrequently either for speed training, racing
or both. Very light, biomechanically gifted runners might
be able to wear them as everyday trainers, but most
people will find that they break down too quickly.

I'm not sure where I stated that lightweight trainers or
flats last as long as regular trainers. I'm pretty sure I
didn't... my point was that trainers are often marketed as
flats, not that they last a long time.

A shoe isn't a racing flat simply because it's lighter
than most and falls apart quickly.

The tiger paw (for example) is also considerably more
flexible than any of the regular trainers. I regularly run
in heavier, stiffer shoes and the tiger paws really are
substantially different in their feel.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BTW, what shoes would you call racing flats if not
the rc240 ? Does the (discontinued) rc150 qualify ?
What else ?

Off the top of my head - Adidas Cubato, Nike Air Streak
Vapor IV, and yes of course, NBrc150.

These are all 6oz or less. I suppose it all depends on at
which point you draw the line, what your threshold is.
For someone used to training in fairly stiff, firm 13oz
shoes though, something like the tiger paw or even the DS
racer feels like a substantial change. Since you don't
run in such heavy shoes, you don't have any reference
points that would lead you to judge the 8oz "flat" as a
flat and not a trainer.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

These are all 6oz or less. I suppose it all depends on at
which point you draw the line, what your threshold is. For
someone used to training in

fairly

Quoted message said:

stiff, firm 13oz shoes though, something like the tiger
paw or even the DS racer feels like a substantial change.
Since you don't run in such heavy shoes, you don't have
any reference points that would lead you to judge

the

Quoted message said:

8oz "flat" as a flat and not a trainer.

I see your point - I've trained and raced in NBrc2xx's for
several years now, with a brief stint in the (similar) Tiger
Paws, so I guess that is my reference point. I look at these
types of shoes as lightweight trainers. To me, a lightweight
trainer has no medial post of any kind (which excudes the
NBrc330) and usually weighs about 8 - 9oz in general. A flat
is a lightweight trainer stripped to absolute bare
essentials, at about 6oz or less, and falls apart very
quickly. I can get 500km out of my NB's before they start
feeling old (a little less with the Tiger Paws, I think the
soles aren't as durable), and real flats are throwaways
after 150 - 200km, tops.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see, putting other people
down constantly."

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

Quoted message said:

If the company is really irresponsible, they call their
trainer a racing flat - the Brooks Burn is a great example
- 10.5oz, high heels, medial post... this is a trainer!

This is incorrect on a couple of accounts. Brooks markets
the Burn as a lightweight training shoe, not a racing flat
and it has no medial post. Their racing flats are called the
Racer ST and the T3 Racer.

Jim Johnson

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

Quoted message said:

I wish we were in the 70's, when all the "trainers" were
the flats of today, more or less. No high heels, no rigid
midfoot posts, etc! I remember my Dad's NB trainers from
those days. Sure, the materials and all that have improved
dramatically since then, but the basic premise of what a
running shoe should be was a lot better.

You can still buy these shoes. Just go to any mall store
that caters to teenagers and you'll find old skool
Saucony/Asics/Puma/etc. trainers and racing flats from back
in the glory days of running. They'll only set you back
about 50 bucks too.

Jim Johnson

"Jim Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

If the company is really irresponsible, they call their
trainer a racing flat - the Brooks Burn is a great
example - 10.5oz, high heels, medial post... this is a
trainer!

This is incorrect on a couple of accounts. Brooks markets
the Burn as a lightweight training shoe, not a racing flat
and it has no medial post. Their racing flats are called
the Racer ST and the T3 Racer.

As I type this there is a pair beside me, and trust me,
there's a medial post. I can see it, feel it, and hate it.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see, putting other people
down constantly."