deutsche Verkehrspolitik » asics gel lyte

ÿþI've been following with interest a spirited asics gel lyte debate that is taking place over on . Like me, Bill is an advocate for greater variety in shoe choice, and his approach on his blog is to poke fun at the status quo in addition to providing the occasional shoe review. He also has published a number of interesting guest posts  is well worth a look if you haven't seen it already."We (ASICS) are now working on a training shoe that is less structure and lightweight, but still offering stability and holding true to a rearfoot srike pattern design.

I have based this on the premise that, no matter what is being said about technical running footwear, there is no evidence that it really  aint broken, so we will tweak, but no need to fix. The minimalist movement works on the premise that by reducing heel height, i.e. the overall gradient, by maybe 6 mm, it induces a asics gel nimbus midfoot or even forefoot strike pattern. I have not been able to identify one single piece of credible evidence to support this.. so.. we will stick to our guns. Once more the ether is thick with unsupportable nonsense. pose, chi, toning, barefoot, minimalist& .

when will it end?"Based on this comment, ASICS appears pretty asics tigers content to avoid following its major competitors (e.g., Saucony, New Balance, Nike and soon Brooks) into the minimalist fray. To be honest, I don't really care if they do  there are plenty of options out there nowadays from other companies, and it's ASICS loss if the movement continues forward and they lose out on a growing sector of the running shoe market ( according to Leisure Trends Group , minimalist models made up 39% of all trail shoes sold in April 2011  they accounted for only 3% in 2010)." Firstly, your photo caption erroneously states " if Asics had its way, all asics trainers mens runners should be perfectly content to continue as over-striding heel-strikers."

If you are running pain free in ASICS 2100 series shoes, by all means, keep doing so. Being able to run is what is important after all, and why mess with what's working. However, as Bartold points out, humans are variable, so why should we expect the 12mm lift, heel strike model to work for everyone? This is why I'm so perplexed at his willingness to fight the minimalist movement. If some people are benefiting it, why all of the resistance? Sure, ASICS makes racing flats that are similar to many minimalist shoes, but good luck to the recreational runner who wants to find a pair to try on and doesn't have access to a specialty running store.

How do you know which category you belong to? What you'll find next are instructions on how to determine your arch type based on the "wet footprint test." Once you determine your arch type, you can translate it into a pronation category and choose a shoe from one of three categories: high arch gets cushioning, medium arch gets structure cushioning, low arch gets maximum support. These are basically different words for neutral, stability, and motion control.

For as long as I can remember every running shoe (for the most part) asics womens running shoes has always been a variation on the same theme: high-cushioned heel with much less cushion under the forefoot. Without fail there was always a huge amount of these types of shoes in the running shoe section of ______ store. There may be some slight difference to make a few stand out from the others, such as gel pods, microchips, air pillows, whatever. Essentially the modern running shoe has remained unchanged in the last 30 years if you don't count the gimmicks (which I don't). So, essentially the shoe industry, for the most part, is still selling the Model T.