asics gt 2000 4 women's

Forum discussion on Day of Defeat game

asics gt 2000 4 women's

Postby Rose Petty on Fri May 22, 2020 8:50 am

We (ASICS) are now working on a training shoe that is asics gel shoes 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 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?

And yes, runner's will always get injured, and we will do so because we are often dumb and run more than we should and when we should not. However, in the absence of clinical trials, which ASICS has not published in a peer reviewed journal to show that their own shoes reduce injuries, we rely mostly on anecdote. Anecdotes suggest that some runners benefit from a barefoot or minimalist approach. Why ignore this? If you believe that humans are variable, why is the 12mm model so ubiquitous in the ASICS shoe lineup. Where's the evidence?

Finally, there's a snide remark about minimalist shoes following the asics gel venture 6 mens path of toning shoes. However, I have a big problem with this. Toning shoes are an aberration that deviate humans farther from the condition we are born with (barefoot). Minimalist shoes bring us closer to our natural condition (barefoot). I would argue that the Asics Kinsei or Kayano has a lot more in common with a Sketchers Shape-Up than the Vibram Fivefingers do. I, for one, was not born with a hunk of unstable cushioning under my foot (like asics gel torrance the Sketchers provide), nor was I born with my heel lifted 12mm off the ground with a support element wedged below my arch.

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. Since we're in the business of asking for peer reviewed, published evidence, I'd ask what the evidence for using arch height to choose a shoe might be? I'd ask whether pronation has been reliably shown as a major cause of running injury that needs to be controlled by a shoe? I'd ask whether ASICS shoes or pronation control devices have asics gt 2000 6 womens been proven to prevent injuries?

Let's try this then (questions to follow the colon): 1) What is the average heel lift (defined as the height difference in millimeters between the heel and the forefoot) of the top 5 (by quantity) Asics running shoes sold at retail (both online & in stores) in 2010? 2) How many of those top 5 shoes have peer reviewed studies showing their effectiveness at preventing injury or increasing performance? I swear, this whole thing is like a religion discussion where neither side budges because both sides feel they are right. Anyhoo, I don't have a peer reviewed medical journal article to back up what I'm about to write so SB may want to hit that little "x" in the top right corner. For as long as I can remember every running shoe (for the most part) 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. Different companies may give it a spoiler, Foose wheels, HID headlights, or a flashy paint job, but no matter what they do, it's still a Model-T. If the Asics of the world don't start truly embracing a thing called innovation, then they WILL become the IBM of the shoe industry (as one astute reader stated previously).

actually.. I agree with you.. there are many gaps at many levels.. and that is what I have been trying to say. I cannot tell you how many discussions I have had with the powers that be bout educating.. on the facts at a grass root level about this stuff. it is very frustrating. There are 330 million people in the USa.. where to start?.. i wish I had the power.. but, i have been erroneously viewed as the "head asics gt 2000 4 women's of research" for ASICS.. just wish I had that power. Between you and me.. and the whole world on this blog.. the shoe fitting process.. the foot type categorisation process.. is stuffed and needs a major overhaul.. but I am tired.. and hope one day we can actually come together for the benefoit of the athlete.. the most important person. Pete.. reread my posts.. i agree with you.. it is a time of greta change.. of useful self appraisal.. no one has the answers.. I am more than happy to Image listen and learn.. just as long as it makes sense

Rose Petty
Recruit Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 22, 2020 7:38 am


Return to UKCS : Day Of Defeat Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest