Oh dear...

Quoted message said:

Beguiled by two beauties who run Achilles Heel in Glasgow, I've come away with

two pairs of shoes. Some Brooks Illusion 2s and a pair of Asics Gel Kumo.

Enticing lead-in, but you spent all your time talking about the 2 pairs of shoes instead of the
2 beauties!

Quoted message said:

the Asics, I felt like I was dragging a couple of reluctant fat Labradors for

a walk.

I am a regular buyer of ASICS shoes and I run in them all the time, but they definitely come in two
classes: The more "rigid" models such as the Gel-Torrance, Gel-Kayano, Gel-Kumo, and 2090, on the
one hand; and shoes like the DS-Trainer, DS-Racer, Gel-Cumulus, Tiger Paw, etc., on the other hand,
which are much more flexible, lightweight, and, well, do not feel like a "couple of diesel people
carriers." I stick with the latter group.

It is definitely important to choose the model carefully depending on what your needs are! If you
aren't going to return those Gel-Kumos, maybe you can gradually break them in and use them for runs
of long, slow distance. Their features may come in handy on such runs, and their speed-hampering
effects perhaps won't matter so much? I have a pair of ASICS 2090's which I reserve for training
runs of 14 miles or more.

TopCounsel said:

I have a pair of ASICS 2090's which I reserve for training runs of 14 miles or more.

I have a pair still in the box and not worn yet. i'd be interested in what you think. I have been
wearing the 20nn models since their birth with never a problem. Each model had some tiny changes but
they always worked well for me.

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

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

Quoted message said:

TopCounsel said:

I have a pair of ASICS 2090's which I reserve for training runs of 14 miles or more.

I have a pair still in the box and not worn yet. i'd be interested in what you think. I have been
wearing the 20nn models since their birth with never a problem. Each model had some tiny changes
but they always worked well for me.

The one comment I hear more than anything regarding the 2090 from 20xx wearers is that it's a little
more narrow than previous models. A couple have mentioned a different feeling arch but that pretty
much goes with each version.

Jim Johnson

<snip>

I fell for a pair of Saucony Vision at the Jog Shop in August after trying on loads of other models
in an attempt to find a pair of shoes for a couple of imminent marathons. As usual Sam let me take
them for a trot up and down the road first. They felt snug. Light. They looked unusual. The staff
looked dubious but I said OK, I'd have 'em. After 5 k of my first real run I knew I'd screwed up.
They were totally rigid. Hard as hell. And I got blisters on the insides of my feet (you know, the
bit just before the big toe starts). And they cost me 100 quid. I ran the first marathon (Medoc) in
a pair of Mizuno wave something-or-others which I had almost discarded as I thought they were worn
out. I was comfortable in them. I was so grateful that I'm still using them - did this week's 30 k
LSD in them, actually, on asphalt, not an ache afterwards. I ran Odense (city streets) 6 weeks later
in my Saucony Approaches (their cheapest trail shoe), crippled for three days afterwards - but I
don't blame the shoes. I've worn the Visions for the odd bit of track training and a few gentle runs
in the country since I bought them. Maybe 70 miles in total. And the material covering the insole is
all scrunched up down one side. They still feel rigid and hard as hell.

I see the Vision has been withdrawn almost as quickly as it appeared.

<snip>

I fell for a pair of Saucony Vision at the Jog Shop in August after trying on loads of other models
in an attempt to find a pair of shoes for a couple of imminent marathons. As usual Sam let me take
them for a trot up and down the road first. They felt snug. Light. They looked unusual. The staff
looked dubious but I said OK, I'd have 'em. After 5 k of my first real run I knew I'd screwed up.
They were totally rigid. Hard as hell. And I got blisters on the insides of my feet (you know, the
bit just before the big toe starts). And they cost me 100 quid. I ran the first marathon (Medoc) in
a pair of Mizuno wave something-or-others which I had almost discarded as I thought they were worn
out. I was comfortable in them. I was so grateful that I'm still using them - did this week's 30 k
LSD in them, actually, on asphalt, not an ache afterwards. I ran Odense (city streets) 6 weeks later
in my Saucony Approaches (their cheapest trail shoe), crippled for three days afterwards - but I
don't blame the shoes. I've worn the Visions for the odd bit of track training and a few gentle runs
in the country since I bought them. Maybe 70 miles in total. And the material covering the insole is
all scrunched up down one side. They still feel rigid and hard as hell.

I see the Vision has been withdrawn almost as quickly as it appeared

Jim Johnson said:

The one comment I hear more than anything regarding the 2090 from 20xx wearers is that it's a
little more narrow than previous models. A couple have mentioned a different feeling arch but that
pretty much goes with each version.

I have been wearing 13 EE's for years so unless they redefined what EE means there should be no
width problem. Then again a size nn has never been universal. I did notice in the 80's a more
cushioned feel than the 70's and less miles per pair.

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

Hrmmm ... J

methinks you may be being a bit premature in throwing in the towel on the shoes downie.

first time i wore mizuno wave creations....i hated them. felt clunky, etc....was not impressed. i
stuck with them for 6 - 7 more 6 mile runs and still hated them. then perhaps on my 8th or 9th or so
run in them....started to notice different aspects/characteristics in the shoe's ride. by my 10th
run in the shoe i started to really like it for long slower runs.

i determined the shoe simply had a longer break-in period than the previous models i had been
wearing, that's all.

there are simply some models of shoes that you cannot formulate an impression on those initial runs
and easily get a "mis-read" on a shoe. true, maybe the shoe (for you) is awful....but maybe it's
not....tell me how you feel about the shoe after mile 50.

If you are male and you use the phrase "oh dear", or think for over 10 seconds a day about
shoes.............you're no longer a man, you're a p-whipped freak of nature. And you're no longer a
member of the man club. You're out.

Quoted message said:

If you are male and you use the phrase "oh dear", or think for over 10 seconds

a day about shoes.............you're no longer a man, you're a p-whipped freak of nature. And you're
no longer a member of the man

Quoted message said:

club. You're out.

Oh, Miss Anne, I love it when you talk that way. Were you also at the "Saks 5th" shoe event this
weekend? Weren't those Louis Vuitton "LV-Waffle" Runners just the cats? The LV-Waffle soles are only
visible when you're on your back!!!

Lanceandrew said:

methinks you may be being a bit premature in throwing in the towel on the shoes downie.

.. and so it would seem. (The name is "Tim" by the way).

I've persevered and they no longer feel like a pair of boats strapped to my feet. At the time I
first ran in them, I was probably in the middle of a mild viral infection that left me feeling heavy
and achy. Now that I'm recovered, they feel okay. Not brilliant but definitely passable.

The other factor that I'm sure heightened the contrast was that I had been using an old pair of
Rebok Premier Lite shoes (which are much much more flexible) as my regular shoe.

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email. Please support rheumatoid arthritis research! Visit
justgiving.comspeysideOpen ↗ or justgiving.comspeysideOpen ↗ if you're a UK
tax payer.