asics gt 2000 4 women's

[MeganMurray]

I have heard that good designs from a biomechanical standpoint can get sunk because they can't be marketed or because they don't meet aesthetic considerations I am sure this is the case with some companies, but not with ASICS.. the only reason a project gets sunk is if we can not establish beyond doubt that it works.. or, that it has the potential to injury the athlete. Let me give you a recent example. For almost 4 years, I have been working on a project aimed at individuals with late stage overpronation, that is those pronating from midstance on, which is very stressful. Let me emphasise that contact phase pronation is not in my sites and has not been for 20 years. The shoe we have been working on provides a stimulus to the plantar mechanoreceptor t send a signal to the brain that the foot is "off' the line of progression and alway it to dictate a change. After 4 years looking at the kinetics and kinematics and many prototypes, we know this works. What's more, we can demonstrate a refractory effect.. ie, once the shoe has been removed, the effect lingers.

Biomechanics and science should be forefront  build the best product for the runner based on sound science as you suggest that really IS what we do.. it is the only way it can work. "I do realize that products have to sell, but sometimes maybe taking a risk on a novel product is worth it because it's the right thing to do" Pete.. a part of my job is to try to identify injury trends in the community, and then see if I can design a research project to understand why that is happening. Sometimes it results in shoe technology that helps, sometime is has nothing to do with shoes. Let me give you an example of this and the risks we take. In 2005 I identified a group of athletes who had an extraordinary divergence of injury rate and type in the sports community. in particular this group was suffering ruptures of their ACL's at a rate 8 times more often than their peer group.

We did not expect a huge spike in sales!! Interestingly, we added 3mm to the heel gradient, because we were aware that the achilles tendon was susceptible! The rward we got from Chris MDougall for 4years of hard work and many many dollars wa for him to publically mock the shoe and call it thE ASICs Gel Menses. He never bothered to read the research or understand what it was about. Sometimes the crap flows the other way Pete! "it's not easy to offer alternatives, and I realize this. But, because alternatives are hard does not mean we should be content with the status quo when studies content with the status quo do suggest that basing shoe type almost exclusively off of things like arch height and pronation does not seem to be of any benefit to the runner" As we speak I am working on exactly this. I can tell you I am personally very embarrassed that there is any mention of a wet foot print test on any ASICS website. I will have it removed or die trying.

Ok. I've been thinking that I may be unfairly judging you (and Asics). So I'd like to try out a pair of Asics to try out. I went on the web-site to the shoe fit chart, but I couldn't really get past that page. Step 3 asks the consumer to select our "Category Type" but the only options available are "Structured," "Cushioning," "Maximum," and "Trail." If my foot requires a minimally supportive and minimally cushioned shoe because my foot arch is extremely strong as are the supportive muscles in my foot and leg, then which Asics shoe would you recommend? I am unconvinced that there is anything wrong with my running gait as evidenced by absolutely no foot, leg, or joint pain during short or long runs. Therefore I do not require any "correcting" or extra support devices in the shoe. All I really want is a little cushion and protection from abrasion and puncture. Also, I don't really want a "driving" or "casual" style shoe such as the Tiger.

And according to RW it has a 12mm lift [Heel (33mm), Forefoot (21mm)]. This appears to be a classic Model-T running shoe with some weight removed. Although its still much heavier than my Kinvaras and Trail Gloves (obviously). I suppose there isn't an Asics shoe to fit the bill. I'll just buy the Kinvara 2's or maybe the Hattori's. Thanks for trying Pete. =Ø ÞJust having a little fun. If there are people who do benefit from a shoe like that, by all means keep it on the market, even if it's just a small number. It's just that you made the statement that Asics has abandoned the concept of motion control shoes, but all it looks like to me is that the name has been changed to "maximum support." Still targeting the same audience from a marketing standpoint as a shoe like the Brooks Beast based on what is said in that video.

I share your frustration.. and I wish I could personally educate retail.. actually that is exactly what I am doing right now in Orlando. It's tough Pete.. retail is retail and I cannot control what is said and done out there even if we both know it is wrong. It is the same with some of the medical community.. things being said and done that are nonsense.. maybe years out of date and not accurate. What do you do? "There are many runners who would happily serve as guinea pigs for novel shoe designs, and I count myself as one of them" We have a very sophistcated shoe tester program that basically involves all continents so we do not get any enthnic bias.. literally thousands of runners. No product ever gets to market without this. If you let me know where you live and how to get shoes to you, I would be more than happy to receive your feedback.. there is some new stuff coming through that you might find very interesting.