Run Run Away » new balance running shoes

i walked 4 miles

admin — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

i’ve been walking twice a day, almost 30 minutes each time. it’s very healthy. now i just need to stop smoking. i’ve been trying to read more, but it’s slow going. my mind is pretty strange. i want to play golf, but we don’t have flags in all the holes. i can’t remember where the holes are. m.

Response:

> i’ve been walking twice a day, almost 30 minutes each time. it’s very > healthy.

walking is good for you gravity. I just got some snazzy white New Balance running shoes, though I no longer run. They are emblazened with a big bold "N", which goes over well in Nebraska. The shoe is model "608" which is the test code for the EPA procedure I used to perform, EPA Method 608. I am wearing levis "505" jeans and I used to perform in the laboratory EPA Method 505.

Response:

>> i’ve been walking twice a day, almost 30 minutes each time. it’s very >> healthy. > walking is good for you gravity. > I just got some snazzy white New Balance running shoes, though I no longer > run. They are emblazened with a big bold "N", which goes over well in > Nebraska. The shoe is model "608" which is the test code for the EPA > procedure I used to perform, EPA Method 608. I am wearing levis "505" > jeans and I used to perform in the laboratory EPA Method 505.

Maybe I’ll try to get some walking in. But the only walking I have been doing is behind a lawnmower. I have already mowed three times this season and it isn’t even May yet. Jim

Response:

hi michael That’s good that you are walking. I used to walk everyday when I was on a haldol and seroquel combo. Now I am on geodon and haven’t gone for a walk in two years though sometimes I will walk to the store. penguin

Response:

michael Do you think you have problems reading because of olanzapine? I couldn’t read at all when I was on olanzapine. Other medications like haldol slowed my mind down too much to read. Have you thought of trying a different medication? penguin

Response:

"lazy dog" wrote in message

news:1Scae.28$Bb.27@okepread06… > Maybe I’ll try to get some walking in. But the only walking I have been > doing is behind a lawnmower. I have already mowed three times this season > and it isn’t even May yet.

Is it some kind of super-fast-growing grass, or do you just enjoy mowing the lawn? Miki

Response:

>> Maybe I’ll try to get some walking in. But the only walking I have been >> doing is behind a lawnmower. I have already mowed three times this >> season and it isn’t even May yet. > Is it some kind of super-fast-growing grass, or do you just enjoy mowing > the lawn? > Miki

I HATE mowing, but spring is early here. I mow once a week and have already mowed three times in April.

Response:

Replacing Running Shoes

admin — Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Having a "new" pair in the closet costs roughly $5/year. (This is assuming a $100 pair of shoes, and 5 percent cost of capital.)

Where are you investing your extra $100?

Response:

Having a "new" pair in the closet costs roughly $5/year. (This is assuming a $100 pair of shoes, and 5 percent cost of capital.) Where are you investing your extra $100?

I have recently been offered loans at about that rate, so it seemed like a good number to pick out of the air. Your cost of capital may be different from mine.

Response:

…. The Trigon held up well for me too. I wore them until the outsole was almost worn through (600 miles). Even now, I still wear them in emergencies (e.g. if I need an extra pair of shoes because the others are drying out)

Im my case, the outsole is still almost perfect. I just checked it out with a completely new pair, and the treads have almost as good as new, maybe 90%. That’s what makes me think that I could easily get another 200 miles. Of course, only time will tell… jobs

Response:

Which one do you have ? (LC, RC, DC) Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Im my case, the outsole is still almost perfect. Which one do you have ? (LC, RC, DC)

The RC. How about you? jobs

Response:

Im my case, the outsole is still almost perfect. Which one do you have ? (LC, RC, DC) The RC. How about you?

Same. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Im my case, the outsole is still almost perfect. Which one do you have ? (LC, RC, DC) The RC. How about you?

Funny thing is, it’s only worn in the "sweet spot" in the ball of the foot. I absorb nearly all the impact there, and they have blown rubber — which wears faster than the stiff carbon rubber that they use on other parts of the shoe. Makes for a nice comfortable ride though. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

… Funny thing is, it’s only worn in the "sweet spot" in the ball of the foot. I absorb nearly all the impact there, and they have blown rubber — which wears faster than the stiff carbon rubber that they use on other parts of the shoe. Makes for a nice comfortable ride though.

I checked mine more carefully and the visible wear is at the extreme end, under the toe box. You know those little rubber triangles – the top little triangle is worn out a bit. It’s the most comfortable shoe (apart from my NB 729) that I’ve worn. I still have 3 new pairs jobs

Response:

Buy a new pair now. If they feel much better than your old pair, you should have replaced them long ago. If they dont, then store them for a while.

Bingo! That’s the first sensible advice I’ve seen on this subject in a long time. Having a "new" pair in the closet costs roughly $5/year. (This is assuming a $100 pair of shoes, and 5 percent cost of capital.) Use the "new" shoes occasionally. If they run about the same as the old ones, put the "new" shoes back in the closet for a few weeks. If they don’t, then promote the old shoes to "garden shoes", and start using the "new" shoes for running. Then, within a few weeks, go out and buy a new "new" pair, and put them in the closet. Steve

Response:

You really need to go by feel because of the many variables. Running off road saves on wear on the bottom, but flexes the shoe more thereby working the upper more. I’ve worn 2090’s for years now, still using one pair for wet weather runs that is 2.5 years old at approx 9 miles a day, and has over 1000 miles on them easily. Used that pair exclusively before buying a new pair a year ago, and those still look like new. Forget time, when you start to hurt, ache, or feel ‘unusual sensations’ replace them, if the pains go away you’ll know you were spot-on. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A question to the other runners out there. How often do you replace your running shoes? I have read that shoes should be replaced every 3-4 months but can this be changed if you are running on soft surfaces? I don’t think it depends on the time as much as it depends on how many miles you put on it. Most shoes are good for anywhere from 300-600 miles, but it all depends on a lot of factors like where you run, your weight, your pronation factors, how much you paid for them, etc., etc., etc. Just to give you an example, I have a pair of Saucony Grid Trigons that I have been using for 19 months now. I have 600 miles on them and they look good for maybe another couple of hundred. I also have a pair of New Balance 729 that I bought about 32 months ago and has 90 miles on it. It’s still good. I run mostly on the road. jobs

Response:

Since shoes are so inexpensive, I change my every 500 miles no matter the shoe condition. Now if shoes were $500, I might do a better job of investigating the shoe after so many miles. Kevin

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello A question to the other runners out there. How often do you replace your running shoes? I have read that shoes should be replaced every 3-4 months but can this be changed if you are running on soft surfaces? Thanks Matthew

Response:

Buy a new pair now. If they feel much better than your old pair, you should have replaced them long ago. If they dont, then store them for a while.

Response:

Mileage has nothing to do with it. When they smell on the outside

Response:

Glad you have enough spare time to be a complete jerk! Love ya, Kevin – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mileage has nothing to do with it. When they smell on the outside

Response:

Hello A question to the other runners out there. How often do you replace your running shoes?

Every 500 miles or so. I have read that shoes should be replaced every 3-4 months

Depends on how often you’re wearing them. My racing flats will probably last years, because I only wear them for races, so they get very little milage. The cushioning gradually "goes". When they’re worn out, you’ll be able to feel the difference between old shoes and newer shoes. It might be a good idea to rotate two pairs (start wearing one pair when the other has about 200-300 miles) then you’ll start to notice when the old pair shows its age. but can this be changed if you are running on soft surfaces?

The soft surface might reduce the wear on the outsole, but the midsole will probably break down in a similar time frame. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Just to give you an example, I have a pair of Saucony Grid Trigons that I have been using for 19 months now. I have 600 miles on them and they look good for maybe another couple of hundred. I also have

The Trigon held up well for me too. I wore them until the outsole was almost worn through (600 miles). Even now, I still wear them in emergencies (e.g. if I need an extra pair of shoes because the others are drying out) Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Hello A question to the other runners out there. How often do you replace your running shoes? I have read that shoes should be replaced every 3-4 months but can this be changed if you are running on soft surfaces? Thanks Matthew

Response:

A question to the other runners out there. How often do you replace your running shoes? I have read that shoes should be replaced every 3-4 months but can this be changed if you are running on soft surfaces?

I don’t think it depends on the time as much as it depends on how many miles you put on it. Most shoes are good for anywhere from 300-600 miles, but it all depends on a lot of factors like where you run, your weight, your pronation factors, how much you paid for them, etc., etc., etc. Just to give you an example, I have a pair of Saucony Grid Trigons that I have been using for 19 months now. I have 600 miles on them and they look good for maybe another couple of hundred. I also have a pair of New Balance 729 that I bought about 32 months ago and has 90 miles on it. It’s still good. I run mostly on the road. jobs

Response:

New runner query

admin — Sat, 15 May 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am going to answer your questions from my own experience. Keep in mind that you may be very different. I’ve been running for 3 weeks now and the groups I run wiht runs 3 times a week (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday). I started of on the first week running once, second week twice and last week 3 times. I find 3 times a week to be too few. I get an enormous mood elevation after the first 2 miles. I have grown to depend on it to get through the day. How far? How fast? I get a elevated sense of well-being after 2 miles at a 10 min/mile pace. 10 minutes is not enough for me. Beginners should try not to extend their effort too quickly. A good That is a good suggestion. guideline I like to suggest is go by time. So for example as you begin, you can go three times a week, but each run only 10minutes long. You should run (or mix running and walking) at a pace where you can still talk. When you can run the entire time comfortably (and that includes not being sore the next day), then begin extending the time a little, say to 15minutes each run. When you get to 30minutes each run you can consider adding more days. At that point you would then also start to make different runs on different days, one day a faster 30minute run, while another day a longer than 30minute run. This is trite. How did you come up with such a scheme? 10 minutes? Will that produce any signficant health benefits? Everything I read suggested at least 20 minutes. If you can’t run 20 minutes you run and walk as you suggested.

Having a goal that beginners can easily reach sets up a positive feedback. When they cannot run for even 10minutes, getting them to keep going for 20 on their first runs sets up a tough goal. For advice, I try to err on the conservative/safe side. Yes the best benefit comes from 20minutes or more, at least three times a week. Walking for even 10minutes does help. It’s the repetition over many days that seems to build up the benefit. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My question is regarding leg / knee soreness or stiffness. – how much of it should I expect / how much is normal ? Most likely you are going too far, too fast for you condition. You body needs time to adjust. One thing a beginner needs to figure out is whether his/her bottle neck lies. If the person is very overweight. It may be a good idea to try to bike or swim instead. This is because his/her joints may not ever adjust to the running activity until the excess pounds come off. Another thing to determine is his/her goal. For me, I don’t get sore if I run 5 miles or less, but if I were to run 7 miles or more I will get sore. But does anyone really want to run 7 miles? That is a personal question. For me, the answer is I don’t want to be sore more than one day a week so I adjust my intensity accordingly. Someone may want to run harder than that, but I don’t think it is worth it for me because I risk injuries. Incidentally, in the more than 2 years I have run actively I only have to stop running due to injury for 2 days. The lesson I learned from that injury was not to sprint if I were not used to sprinting. The slight injury to my left hamstring healed in 2 days.

Good general advice. As the saying goes: we are each an experiment of one. FWIW, I tend to both give and take advice conservatively. I’ve managed to run with no runnning related time off for about 12years now. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This depend on my physical condition. I once restarted my running after 1 month or two of layoff. After my first run, my muscles were terribly sore for about a week. It was so painful that I could hardly walk. It was probably because my muscles were not able to get rid of the lactic acid quickly enough. If it was a week of soreness it was like NOT lactic acid. Running produces micro-tears in the muscles. Running hard when muscles are not ready can produce even more. Manworld, you likely tried to run at your pre-layoff level and suffered for it. Probably so. I remembered the run was done at a 8 min/mile pace for 2 miles. Felt great during the run…. little or no sign of soreness or stiffness on at least 6 days of the week. If I train harder than that, I may need to skip days, and that will have a depressive effect on me which may cause me to skip more days. As for knee soreness, I become very concerned if there is ANY soreness or swelling of my knees. This is because knee injuries can lead to an abrupt end to my running. If I experience any knee soreness I expect it to be gone in 48 hours. Meaning you take off two days if your knees are sore after a run? Not a bad idea. But it does sound like you go hard in every run. Try to put a little more variety in your training runs. You may be surprised at the results. How did you come to that conclusion? You may be confusing my post with that from the original poster. I have given you no information on how much or how fast I run. The only information I provided was how I react pain if any from my runs. When I wrote that I aim to have absolutely no pain in 6 out of 7 days a week, it does not mean I run 6 or 7 days a week.

I did read it as meaning you run 6days or more per week. … All it means is that I will do no more than 1 very hard day a week that may produce discomfort after the run. It is in my opinion that regularity is more important than intensity for people who run for health. I disagree on your fiat statement about variety.

But is sounds like you incorporate the variety to a small extent at least. What I meant was, for example, for a three times per week runner, you might have one short easy run, one short hard(ie fast) run, and one long easy run. The regularity is getting out there three days per week consistantly. Don’t you agree? It all depends on whether you are trying to improve your running performance. If I were not interested in improving, I don’t need any hard days. I will just run 3.5 miles at an easy pace most days of the week. That is adequate to keep most people healthy.

OR 30minutes three days per week. Again time here is a little better measure. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – – how long might it take for me to get my " runners legs " ? If by "runners legs" you mean not sore for most days of the week, I got my runners legs after I lost 35 lbs. It took me several months. Typically, the day after teh runs my knees are a tad sore, but if I am runing, no discomfort whatsoever. Beginners must allow time for their whole body to adjust, including the skeletal system. Assuming you moderate your pace, you should be fine in a few weeks. But this is very individual. One last suggestion: make sure you have decent shoes. Ah shoes! I tried the expensive ($70+) New Balance and I hated it. I use a cheap pair of Spaldings Anton from Target at $20 a pair and loved it. Your mileage may vary. I run very lightly, a result from years of Karate and Aikido training. I have come to the conclusion that a lot of runners are terrible consumers, equating price with quality. I suggest people become aware of the condition of their legs, and use their awareness and not the price tag to choose their shoes.

good advice. All I would add is something I have mentioned other times on the shoe topic: there is no such thing as a break-in period for running shoes, IMHO. If they don’t feel right and comfortable just out of the box, don’t buy them. Enjoy the run. Ed

Response:

I get a elevated sense of well-being after 2 miles at a 10 min/mile pace. 10 minutes is not enough for me. Beginners should try not to extend their effort too quickly. A good

That is a good suggestion. guideline I like to suggest is go by time. So for example as you begin, you can go three times a week, but each run only 10minutes long. You should run (or mix running and walking) at a pace where you can still talk. When you can run the entire time comfortably (and that includes not being sore the next day), then begin extending the time a little, say to 15minutes each run. When you get to 30minutes each run you can consider adding more days. At that point you would then also start to make different runs on different days, one day a faster 30minute run, while another day a longer than 30minute run.

This is trite. How did you come up with such a scheme? 10 minutes? Will that produce any signficant health benefits? Everything I read suggested at least 20 minutes. If you can’t run 20 minutes you run and walk as you suggested. My question is regarding leg / knee soreness or stiffness. – how much of it should I expect / how much is normal ? Most likely you are going too far, too fast for you condition. You body needs time to adjust.

One thing a beginner needs to figure out is whether his/her bottle neck lies. If the person is very overweight. It may be a good idea to try to bike or swim instead. This is because his/her joints may not ever adjust to the running activity until the excess pounds come off. Another thing to determine is his/her goal. For me, I don’t get sore if I run 5 miles or less, but if I were to run 7 miles or more I will get sore. But does anyone really want to run 7 miles? That is a personal question. For me, the answer is I don’t want to be sore more than one day a week so I adjust my intensity accordingly. Someone may want to run harder than that, but I don’t think it is worth it for me because I risk injuries. Incidentally, in the more than 2 years I have run actively I only have to stop running due to injury for 2 days. The lesson I learned from that injury was not to sprint if I were not used to sprinting. The slight injury to my left hamstring healed in 2 days. This depend on my physical condition. I once restarted my running after 1 month or two of layoff. After my first run, my muscles were terribly sore for about a week. It was so painful that I could hardly walk. It was probably because my muscles were not able to get rid of the lactic acid quickly enough. If it was a week of soreness it was like NOT lactic acid. Running produces micro-tears in the muscles. Running hard when muscles are not ready can produce even more. Manworld, you likely tried to run at your pre-layoff level and suffered for it.

Probably so. I remembered the run was done at a 8 min/mile pace for 2 miles. Felt great during the run…. little or no sign of soreness or stiffness on at least 6 days of the week. If I train harder than that, I may need to skip days, and that will have a depressive effect on me which may cause me to skip more days. As for knee soreness, I become very concerned if there is ANY soreness or swelling of my knees. This is because knee injuries can lead to an abrupt end to my running. If I experience any knee soreness I expect it to be gone in 48 hours. Meaning you take off two days if your knees are sore after a run? Not a bad idea. But it does sound like you go hard in every run. Try to put a little more variety in your training runs. You may be surprised at the results.

How did you come to that conclusion? You may be confusing my post with that from the original poster. I have given you no information on how much or how fast I run. The only information I provided was how I react pain if any from my runs. When I wrote that I aim to have absolutely no pain in 6 out of 7 days a week, it does not mean I run 6 or 7 days a week. All it means is that I will do no more than 1 very hard day a week that may produce discomfort after the run. It is in my opinion that regularity is more important than intensity for people who run for health. I disagree on your fiat statement about variety. It all depends on whether you are trying to improve your running performance. If I were not interested in improving, I don’t need any hard days. I will just run 3.5 miles at an easy pace most days of the week. That is adequate to keep most people healthy. – how long might it take for me to get my " runners legs " ? If by "runners legs" you mean not sore for most days of the week, I got my runners legs after I lost 35 lbs. It took me several months. Typically, the day after teh runs my knees are a tad sore, but if I am runing, no discomfort whatsoever. Beginners must allow time for their whole body to adjust, including the skeletal system. Assuming you moderate your pace, you should be fine in a few weeks. But this is very individual. One last suggestion: make sure you have decent shoes.

Ah shoes! I tried the expensive ($70+) New Balance and I hated it. I use a cheap pair of Spaldings Anton from Target at $20 a pair and loved it. Your mileage may vary. I run very lightly, a result from years of Karate and Aikido training. I have come to the conclusion that a lot of runners are terrible consumers, equating price with quality. I suggest people become aware of the condition of their legs, and use their awareness and not the price tag to choose their shoes. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Welcome to runnng and enjoy the run. Ed

Response:

Firstly, thanks for all the suggestions and information. This depend on my physical condition. I once restarted my running after 1 month or two of layoff. After my first run, my muscles were terribly sore for about a week. It was so painful that I could hardly walk. It was probably because my muscles were not able to get rid of the lactic acid quickly enough. These days I expect to experience little or no sign of soreness or stiffness on at least 6 days of the week. If I train harder than that, I may need to skip days, and that will have a depressive effect on me which may cause me to skip more days. As for knee soreness, I become very concerned if there is ANY soreness or swelling of my knees. This is because knee injuries can lead to an abrupt end to my running. If I experience any knee soreness I expect it to be gone in 48 hours.

I’m currently trying the rolling of the quads on the current week of runs, seems ok thus far. Seems that it is helping quite a bit, but I want to keep up with it for a while to get a complete feel. One thing is with the flexibility, it’s getting worse and worse (I’m rather flexible to begin wiht, but it’s decreasing with the running – so I have to stretch much more). If by "runners legs" you mean not sore for most days of the week, I got my runners legs after I lost 35 lbs. It took me several months.

I’ll update in a few months then. Typically, the day after teh runs my knees are a tad sore, but if I am runing, no discomfort whatsoever.

Exactly what I’m experiencing. I have no discomfort at all if I’m running, but stairs are the big pain.

Response:

f you w

Response:

I am going to answer your questions from my own experience. Keep in mind that you may be very different. I’ve been running for 3 weeks now and the groups I run wiht runs 3 times a week (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday). I started of on the first week running once, second week twice and last week 3 times. I find 3 times a week to be too few. I get an enormous mood elevation after the first 2 miles. I have grown to depend on it to get through the day.

How far? How fast? Beginners should try not to extend their effort too quickly. A good guideline I like to suggest is go by time. So for example as you begin, you can go three times a week, but each run only 10minutes long. You should run (or mix running and walking) at a pace where you can still talk. When you can run the entire time comfortably (and that includes not being sore the next day), then begin extending the time a little, say to 15minutes each run. When you get to 30minutes each run you can consider adding more days. At that point you would then also start to make different runs on different days, one day a faster 30minute run, while another day a longer than 30minute run. My question is regarding leg / knee soreness or stiffness. – how much of it should I expect / how much is normal ?

Most likely you are going too far, too fast for you condition. You body needs time to adjust. This depend on my physical condition. I once restarted my running after 1 month or two of layoff. After my first run, my muscles were terribly sore for about a week. It was so painful that I could hardly walk. It was probably because my muscles were not able to get rid of the lactic acid quickly enough.

If it was a week of soreness it was like NOT lactic acid. Running produces micro-tears in the muscles. Running hard when muscles are not ready can produce even more. Manworld, you likely tried to run at your pre-layoff level and suffered for it. little or no sign of soreness or stiffness on at least 6 days of the week. If I train harder than that, I may need to skip days, and that will have a depressive effect on me which may cause me to skip more days. As for knee soreness, I become very concerned if there is ANY soreness or swelling of my knees. This is because knee injuries can lead to an abrupt end to my running. If I experience any knee soreness I expect it to be gone in 48 hours.

Meaning you take off two days if your knees are sore after a run? Not a bad idea. But it does sound like you go hard in every run. Try to put a little more variety in your training runs. You may be surprised at the results. – how long might it take for me to get my " runners legs " ? If by "runners legs" you mean not sore for most days of the week, I got my runners legs after I lost 35 lbs. It took me several months. Typically, the day after teh runs my knees are a tad sore, but if I am runing, no discomfort whatsoever.

Beginners must allow time for their whole body to adjust, including the skeletal system. Assuming you moderate your pace, you should be fine in a few weeks. But this is very individual. One last suggestion: make sure you have decent shoes. Welcome to runnng and enjoy the run. Ed

Response:

So, you want joggers legs, huh? I had no idea that the splotchy, red, emaciated look was in right now.

Response:

f you w

With that tiny pecker you have John, chances are you could, and he wouldn’t even wake up.

Response:

New runners (or any sort of exercise) may have sore muscles for two weeks until they used it. Joint soreness is a more serious symptom that something is wrong. Let me guess: you bought new shoes fitted by a professional running store before starting running, didnt you? [ Nine out of ten times bad shoes are the problem. ]

Response:

actually, I did. I went to Running Room (on the recomendations of the group) and first pair was a Saucony. They bit me on the heel (right foot) so I took them back, and now I’m on a brooks pair. So far so good with the new pair.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – New runners (or any sort of exercise) may have sore muscles for two weeks until they used it. Joint soreness is a more serious symptom that something is wrong. Let me guess: you bought new shoes fitted by a professional running store before starting running, didnt you? [ Nine out of ten times bad shoes are the problem. ]

Response:

I find 3 times a week to be too few. I get an enormous mood elevation after the first 2 miles. I have grown to depend on it to get through the day. My question is regarding leg / knee soreness or stiffness. – how much of it should I expect / how much is normal ?

This depend on my physical condition. I once restarted my running after 1 month or two of layoff. After my first run, my muscles were terribly sore for about a week. It was so painful that I could hardly walk. It was probably because my muscles were not able to get rid of the lactic acid quickly enough. These days I expect to experience little or no sign of soreness or stiffness on at least 6 days of the week. If I train harder than that, I may need to skip days, and that will have a depressive effect on me which may cause me to skip more days. As for knee soreness, I become very concerned if there is ANY soreness or swelling of my knees. This is because knee injuries can lead to an abrupt end to my running. If I experience any knee soreness I expect it to be gone in 48 hours. – how long might it take for me to get my " runners legs " ?

If by "runners legs" you mean not sore for most days of the week, I got my runners legs after I lost 35 lbs. It took me several months. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Typically, the day after teh runs my knees are a tad sore, but if I am runing, no discomfort whatsoever.

Response:

I’ve been running for 3 weeks now and the groups I run wiht runs 3 times a week (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday). I started of on the first week running once, second week twice and last week 3 times. My question is regarding leg / knee soreness or stiffness. – how much of it should I expect / how much is normal ? – how long might it take for me to get my " runners legs " ? Typically, the day after teh runs my knees are a tad sore, but if I am runing, no discomfort whatsoever.

La Pedrera, You knees need to have the quads kneaded. Check out www.mindfulness.com/of5.asp for some ideas on rolling out your quads. Some previous posts that might be of help in your thinking about your knees, which most often than not is caused by the quads or the hamstrings being too tight. There’s a lot to look at as you continue thta deals with your form and style of running. It’s about learning to run lighter, with the foot landing more under your center of gravity and with your foot landing more flat rather than landing on the back of the heel. Oz Post #1 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, I am looking for a bit of advice, I have recently started to increase my mileage (outdoors, mostly on road) and in the last month or so my right knee has started to give me grief after running. Its a generally feeling of stiffness, slight discomfort not localized in any particular place but across the whole knee. It is particularly noticeable when going down stairs. It doesn’t give me any problems when running but a couple of hours after/next day it seems to stiffen up. From what i’ve read it seems to be "runners knee", I think I roll my right foot more than the left but whether that is the root cause I am not sure. I have read some of Ozzie’s posts on this or similar, (Sept 1st on rolling pins and facia release) and that is a long term cure/relief, what I was wonder is what I should do now? Stop running for a couple of weeks. Cut down on my running. Only run on soft surfaces or treadmills. Wear a (neoprene) knee support. Seek medical advice. or none of the above.

New Balance 807's — where are they??

admin — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Hi everyone, I have the latest Spring 2004 catalog for New Balance shoes. According to it, the 807 trail running shoes are supposed to be coming out in April 2004 (this month).

there’s another 3 weeks in April according to my calendar. — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

I need running shoes now……

What does that have to do with NB 807s ? if anyone has any info about these shoes,

Good for smacking big roaches. Not as good for smacking small ones, the small ones can slip between the tread. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Hi everyone, I have the latest Spring 2004 catalog for New Balance shoes. According to it, the 807 trail running shoes are supposed to be coming out in April 2004 (this month). Yet, no shoe store sells them, no online store has them, Google searches doesn’t give solid results, and last but not least, even NEW BALANCE’s website doesn’t even have any information on 807’s! They only mention 806’s, the old model. So, what’s going on? Are these shoes coming out or what? I need running shoes now……if anyone has any info about these shoes, thanks -Chris

Response:

explain – running shoe vs cross trainer

admin — Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

It’s track season at school – and our 13yr old son has been tagged – oh joy – So, we thought we’d get him a new pair of shoes….not cleats/spikes. Went to Kohl’s – picked out a new pair – fits ok – brought home. Now – what’s the difference between a "running" shoe vs a "cross trainer" – what to look for when you pick it up I thought it interesting that the New Balance model we chose CMX381C is not listed anywhere on the web – except Kohl’s – Any comments, suggestions, links, etc are appreciated – Next will be a discussion over on the hiking newsgroup – Day hikes – shoes vs boots – Phil –

Response:

… I thought it interesting that the New Balance model we chose CMX381C is not listed anywhere on the web – except Kohl’s –

… sometimes, the shoe companies make shoes specifically for the store. you’ll find lots of these at Big 5 stores. maybe the one you chose is one of these. Next will be a discussion over on the hiking newsgroup – Day hikes – shoes vs boots –

i’ve had great success with the new balance 805 trail running shoe. it’s good for day hikes. it’s good for a multi-day backpacking trip. jobs

Response:

Dear Phil, Let’s see if your limited intelect can comprehend this: Running shoes = running. Crosstraining shoes = crosstraining. Duhhhh? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s track season at school – and our 13yr old son has been tagged – oh joy – So, we thought we’d get him a new pair of shoes….not cleats/spikes. Went to Kohl’s – picked out a new pair – fits ok – brought home. Now – what’s the difference between a "running" shoe vs a "cross trainer" – what to look for when you pick it up I thought it interesting that the New Balance model we chose CMX381C is not listed anywhere on the web – except Kohl’s – Any comments, suggestions, links, etc are appreciated – Next will be a discussion over on the hiking newsgroup – Day hikes – shoes vs boots – Phil –

Response:

A lot of people don’t like a cross trainer…. They say it is a mixed shoe and is not as good as either a true running shoe or a specialized shoe for soccer, b-ball, tennis, etc. Buy him a running shoe for track…. And make sure you go watch him…. They grow up fast!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s track season at school – and our 13yr old son has been tagged – oh joy – So, we thought we’d get him a new pair of shoes….not cleats/spikes. Went to Kohl’s – picked out a new pair – fits ok – brought home. Now – what’s the difference between a "running" shoe vs a "cross trainer" – what to look for when you pick it up I thought it interesting that the New Balance model we chose CMX381C is not listed anywhere on the web – except Kohl’s – Any comments, suggestions, links, etc are appreciated – Next will be a discussion over on the hiking newsgroup – Day hikes – shoes vs boots – Phil –

Response:

running shoes…

admin — Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

All this recurring talk of good running shoes,so are newbalance tennis shoes considered ok? Ive read a report recently of newbalance 880 being a great shoe,wear 755 model now,Iwear a 10 1/2 wide,I weigh 200lbs also.Thanks Bob Hi Bob – I play tennis, and am familiar with the shoes (and other types) you mention. Although not bad shoes, they are obviously designed for tennis, which means support for quick side-to-side stopping and starting, primarily. I would say it’s probably okay if you are a once-a-week very, very casual jogger – but even then, I’d feel better recommending a real running shoe. Your weight is also another sign that that would be a better plan as well. Certainly running is more enjoyable with the right gear. cheers, — David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most insecure people are the ones you see, putting other people down constantly."

Response:

Bob you numbnutz, You MUST buy running shoes if you wish to run. That is why they call them RUNNING shoes and not TENNIS shoes. Look the meanings up if you are unsure. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – All this recurring talk of good running shoes,so are newbalance tennis shoes considered ok? Ive read a report recently of newbalance 880 being a great shoe,wear 755 model now,Iwear a 10 1/2 wide,I weigh 200lbs also.Thanks Bob S

Response:

Iwear a 10 1/2 wide,I weigh 200lbs also.

My pecker is 9.5"

Response:

Who the hell wears tennis shoes to run in? Do you wear footy boots to play tennis in?

Response:

. . . and to expand on David’s recommendation below – I’m a 190# runner and have found that running with the right shoes makes a HUGE difference for the health of your joints. If you use the wrong shoes you may wind-up with ankle, knee or hip pains that could have been avoided with a good pair of running shoes. Try some on at a good running store, not a Footlocker. I know that New Balance has stores around the country and their staff really know what you’re type of style would need. They put me on a treadmill in the store and looked from behind at my pronation and recommended the right shoe for me. Good luck, – Tom C.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – All this recurring talk of good running shoes,so are newbalance tennis shoes considered ok? Ive read a report recently of newbalance 880 being a great shoe,wear 755 model now,Iwear a 10 1/2 wide,I weigh 200lbs also.Thanks Bob Hi Bob – I play tennis, and am familiar with the shoes (and other types) you mention. Although not bad shoes, they are obviously designed for tennis, which means support for quick side-to-side stopping and starting, primarily. I would say it’s probably okay if you are a once-a-week very, very casual jogger – but even then, I’d feel better recommending a real running shoe. Your weight is also another sign that that would be a better plan as well. Certainly running is more enjoyable with the right gear. cheers, — David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most insecure people are the ones you see, putting other people down constantly."

Response:

heel or ball first?

admin — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I tried to change my gait in a 15 minute session, and hurt myself badly. Even 15 minutes was much too long for a change of style. The once every few steps sounds like a better idea! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi there, Thanks for all the pointers! Sorry I haven’t responded earlier, I haven’t had much chance to put anything into practice between having a cold and it being cold and rainy. I realize that it is optimal to start with a decent pair of shoes. I’m having trouble locating some as I have unusual sized feet. I went to a real running store and after observing my gait the salesperson said I definitely need motion control shoes. However she was unable to find anything in stock suitable for me to try on, and suggested I try a New Balance store. New Balance makes shoes that will probably fit me, I’m just currently playing hunt the shoe to actually try some on, and plan to visit one of their stores soon. I noticed the running store had signups for beginner running classes, so I’ll likely try that out if I can find some shoes. To get some feedback from someone who can see my run, and for the regular practice. As the classes start in January I’m a bit unsure though about mucking up the hard-to-find new shoes in snow though.. I guess I should just run what seems natural at first before worrying too much about optimal form early on. I don’t have a 5K picked out yet, but if I take the class they run one at the end. I’m hoping to be able to participate in a triathlon or duathlon next summer. I cycle avidly but running is new for me. I do end up walking quite a bit as well so I don’t think I need extra walking practice first. I probably should go out longer when I try to walk and run, and focus more on time and running as much as I can rather than trying to be able to run a fixed distance without stopping, then I guess the distance will follow. Anyways thanks everyone for the ideas – hoping to try them out and really get into and enjoy running, something I previously just thought was a torture device. Hi there, I posted a couple of weeks ago here about getting started from absolute scratch. I’ve improved a bit so far from being able to run only a few paces to about 400 yards without stopping. It was at quite a slow pace and I know its not very far at all (I want to be able to run 5k) but its an improvement so far anyway so it gives me hope for the future. The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the ground. (granted I’ve been running on the sidewalk and in athletic not running shoes, which I don’t have yet) I’m not overweight but tall for a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it hard not to move that much vertically when I run. I figure this may work itself out with more practice as I didn’t have the practice most people did growing up (it really hurt to run then so I avoided doing it if at all possible) So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them say that you should be hitting the ground first on the ball of your foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to hit heel first: http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83 So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal preference issues, but the ball arguments seem to make sense. What would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead? Thanks for any tips. Tanya

Response:

Hi there, Thanks for all the pointers! Sorry I haven’t responded earlier, I haven’t had much chance to put anything into practice between having a cold and it being cold and rainy. I realize that it is optimal to start with a decent pair of shoes. I’m having trouble locating some as I have unusual sized feet. I went to a real running store and after observing my gait the salesperson said I definitely need motion control shoes. However she was unable to find anything in stock suitable for me to try on, and suggested I try a New Balance store. New Balance makes shoes that will probably fit me, I’m just currently playing hunt the shoe to actually try some on, and plan to visit one of their stores soon. I noticed the running store had signups for beginner running classes, so I’ll likely try that out if I can find some shoes. To get some feedback from someone who can see my run, and for the regular practice. As the classes start in January I’m a bit unsure though about mucking up the hard-to-find new shoes in snow though.. I guess I should just run what seems natural at first before worrying too much about optimal form early on. I don’t have a 5K picked out yet, but if I take the class they run one at the end. I’m hoping to be able to participate in a triathlon or duathlon next summer. I cycle avidly but running is new for me. I do end up walking quite a bit as well so I don’t think I need extra walking practice first. I probably should go out longer when I try to walk and run, and focus more on time and running as much as I can rather than trying to be able to run a fixed distance without stopping, then I guess the distance will follow. Anyways thanks everyone for the ideas – hoping to try them out and really get into and enjoy running, something I previously just thought was a torture device. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi there, I posted a couple of weeks ago here about getting started from absolute scratch. I’ve improved a bit so far from being able to run only a few paces to about 400 yards without stopping. It was at quite a slow pace and I know its not very far at all (I want to be able to run 5k) but its an improvement so far anyway so it gives me hope for the future. The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the ground. (granted I’ve been running on the sidewalk and in athletic not running shoes, which I don’t have yet) I’m not overweight but tall for a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it hard not to move that much vertically when I run. I figure this may work itself out with more practice as I didn’t have the practice most people did growing up (it really hurt to run then so I avoided doing it if at all possible) So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them say that you should be hitting the ground first on the ball of your foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to hit heel first: http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83 So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal preference issues, but the ball arguments seem to make sense. What would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead? Thanks for any tips. Tanya

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tanya: I do find it takes more energy when I’m working on my form (the above tricks do cause me to increase my stride rate, and I just can’t maintain that kind of pace for very far yet). Do you mean "pace" as in "stride rate" or "speed" ? Because trying to shorten ones stride is another good way to increase stride rate (without speeding up) Usually both, although I’ve also tried increasing my stride rate and shortening my stride length. Ugh. That little pixy prance feels awkward, uncomfortable, and unpleasant, and no sort of thing that I could maintain for any length of time. Maybe some day. But since the mere act of running is still uncomfortable for me even under the best of circumstances, I try not to introduce any more unpleasantness than is strictly necessary, just so I’ll keep at it.

One training tool I learned, and still try (sporatically) to us, is a quick step. rather than trying to increase stride rate for long periods of time, this exercise tries to get better form and rate for a little at a time. And it kind of fits the gradual development usually advocated for improvements. Best done on a track. After a little warmup run your usual training pace every ten steps, take a quick step. (If you were ever in the Army, it is like a Change-step.) So it’s like left and right and left and right and left and right and left and right and left and right and left (the quick step happens here) right and left and right and left and … If you were "leading" with your left foot before the quickstep, you are "leading" with your right foot after it. By taking several steps between quicksteps, gives you time to mentally prepare for it. It give you a chance to exercise the fast turnover without the struggle to maintain it. As you use this you can gradually reduce the number of "slow" steps in between until you entire session is quicksteps, IOW, at that point you’ve changed your stride rate to a faster one. Even if you don’t completely change your stride rate, this does seem to help running form. The quick step almost forces you to run lighter and on your toes. HTH Ed

Response:

[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]] That said, there’s a couple mental tricks I’ve tried that I find help me smooth out my form a little. First, don’t think about whether you’re going to land on the heel or your ball. Think about not landing at all, but rather just gliding forward. Especially, think about not pushing off. This may be what Ozzie Gontag, the "form guru," refers to as "falling forward," but in all honesty his writing style makes my head spin and I have a hard time understanding him. The other one I try to practice some times is to lift my knees more and try to pull my legs forward in front rather than just pushing off in the back. I think both of these exercises help me to run with my "whole leg," rather than just the "pushing off" muscles. And it’s smoother, perhaps in the same way that a car runs smoother with all cylinders firing, rather than just 1 or 2.

Dr. L, Came here almost 8 years ago to have my answers questioned. Ask the questions to have me state more clearly what is "head spinning." You’ve done a nice set of images and pictures to help Tanya. If you want to start a dialogue to have me clear up my explanations better, email me so I’ll know that you’ve started the questions. Is a dialogue over at RunnersWorld Forum that talked about running forma and style, it may be of some help to Tanya. http://rwforums.rodale.com/thread.jsp?forum=22&thread=121483 Look forward to learning from you. In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Maintainer – rec.running FAQ Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975 Mindful Running: http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/

Response:

Tanya: I do find it takes more energy when I’m working on my form (the above tricks do cause me to increase my stride rate, and I just can’t maintain that kind of pace for very far yet). Do you mean "pace" as in "stride rate" or "speed" ? Because trying to shorten ones stride is another good way to increase stride rate (without speeding

up) Usually both, although I’ve also tried increasing my stride rate and shortening my stride length. Ugh. That little pixy prance feels awkward, uncomfortable, and unpleasant, and no sort of thing that I could maintain for any length of time. Maybe some day. But since the mere act of running is still uncomfortable for me even under the best of circumstances, I try not to introduce any more unpleasantness than is strictly necessary, just so I’ll keep at it.

Response:

One of the sources of confusion is that the terminology that is used to discuss running biomechanics is simply nonsensical. When confusion and ignorance is built into the language, even people who know what they’re talking about (and they are few and far between) will struggle to find a simple way to express this, which is partly why some find Ozzie’s descriptions long-winded and confusing. The problem is that it isn’t simple at all, and the common language used does more harm than good, so one must resort to detailed technical descriptions and various sorts of imagery. There is really no such thing as a "midfoot" strike — either the ball or heel has to touch the ground first. The "midfoot" doesn’t touch, let alone "strike" the ground. It seems that "midfoot strike" is the term used to refer to the heel and ball landing at almost exactly the same time, close enough that it gets difficult to tell which one touches first. (Actually, a midfoot strike is really a "heel strike" done right: with proper pronation, good turnover, and the ball absorbing most of the shock) The term "heel strike" is also problematic, because the heel doesn’t really "strike" the ground at all when one runs at close to 180 strides/minute. (already explained pronation etc in other posts) The term "heel strike" seems to be often (ab)used to mean overstriding and landing heavily with a lot of braking. Why not just call this "overstriding" as opposed to "heel striking" ? Beats me. I doubt that those who say that you should "land heel first" have overstriding in mind, they are probably thinking of a (gag) "midfoot strike". Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Tanya: Getting up to a stride rate of 180 steps/minute may just not be possible at this point.

Perhaps, and 180 may not be the ideal for all. But as a beginner (to structured running but had done a bunch of after-work jogging for many years previously) a couple years ago I began switching from *my* clod-hopping shuffle to 180 steps/min and it made running much easier *for me*. This primarily happened by shortening my stride. This forced the fore-, mid-foot landing with minimal thought. In the gradient from marching in place (forefoot landing) to huge strides (heel strike), smaller steps puts you closer to marching in place. I think my cadence on trails at night may have slipped to <180, but during the day on dry trails, I’m in the 170-180 range most of the time without doing anything special. And even good runners find it hard to maintain good form when they’re tired and struggling, and at the point you’re at, every step past the first few dozen is tired and struggling!

Right on both counts, but this is why people train and strive to improve, as you have recognized. But a change in form may require adjustments by body that it will need time to accommodate. I do find it takes more energy when I’m working on my form (the above tricks do cause me to increase my stride rate, and I just can’t maintain that kind of pace for very far yet).

Right. Anything new will probably take more energy until the muscles figure out what they’re supposed to do and become more efficient. Keep at it to build the endurance with what may be better form for you. So I do put in most of my miles just plodding along doing my fat-lady shuffle.

Just a thought since Lyndon’s already replied with some drills. I find that my form may fall off in the spring after a winter of running in snow (ok, most winters, last year’s lack of winter in Alaska was an exception I hope isn’t going to be repeated) and may decline in summer since I only run sporadically then. During fall when I’m recovering from and rebuilding after my field season, I try to emphasize form work while my runs are still short. I may do additional strength training to focus on some muscle imbalances or weaknesses I may have noticed in the preceding year. I have some achilles issues (part structural, part functional) that can be exaggerated by improper form. Ironically, I find certain flavors of hills to be very helpful for form *and* my achilles. Tanya, So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them say that you should be hitting the ground first on the ball of your foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to hit heel first: http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83

Frequently there are differing opinions that can be confusing. I had learned about mid-foot striking here first, then found a bunch of books (and my PT) that advocated heel first – which by then seemed totally illogical. (I did convert my PT to my way of thinking at least for me) Some said that forefoot-first landings were likely to injure calves and achilles. And that may be true if one doesn’t take the time to build the appropriate muscles and connective tissues. Good luck to both of you as you experiment with running. Dot (sorry for combining 2 responses in one but I’ve been out for awhile) — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

Tanya: I do find it takes more energy when I’m working on my form (the above tricks do cause me to increase my stride rate, and I just can’t maintain that kind of pace for very far yet).

Do you mean "pace" as in "stride rate" or "speed" ? Because trying to shorten ones stride is another good way to increase stride rate (without speeding up) Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

It depends on the situation. For walking or jogging, it’s heel first. If it’s bungy jumping or sex, it’s balls first.

Response:

I do find it takes more energy when I’m working on my form (the above tricks do cause me to increase my stride rate, and I just can’t maintain that kind of pace for very far yet). So I do put in most of my miles just plodding along doing my fat-lady shuffle. In my very non-expert opinion, so long as you’re not experiencing any lingering pain in your knees or shins after you run, you’re probably doing just fine for the stage you’re in.

Valid point, and for that reason, I do things differently with beginning runners. You really want to work on form from day one. Practice does not make perfect, it makes *permanent*, and you don’t want to make mistakes permanent or difficult to correct later. You might get away with shuffling on 5 miles per week, but if you up this to 25-50 miles/wk, you end up with injuries. The catch here is that it is difficult to work on form if you don’t have enough stamina to hold that form together long enough to work on it. Also, as others have noted, it is more difficult to "do" the form at slow speeds than it is at faster speeds. Catch-22. So I have athletes doing form drills from day 1, but don’t have them concentrate on form during regular running (conditioning) until some endurance is built first. For incoming 10th-graders that have not been in a running program before, I use a walk-to-run program. The object here is to cover some distance. They do 3 miles a day, five days a week, starting with walking when necessary, and gradually replacing the walking with running. When they can cover 15-20 miles/wk of running (some stop breaks permitted), we start intervals. The form work consists of basic drills as part of the warmup. We do these on a track, but you can do these on any kind of field or fairly soft surface (I would not do them on concrete). Each drill only lasts for 30-40 meters, so aerobic fitness is not required. You do not have to move forward very fast, but the emphasis is on leg motion, and leg motion should be fairly quick. The basic drills are: High Knees. Raise your knees high in a quick movement until your thigh (upper leg) is parallel with the ground. Butt Kicks. Like High Knees, except you use an exaggerated backswing, and you try to kick your posterior with the back of your heel. Quick Feet. Like High Knees, except you barely lift you feet above the ground and you try to move your feet up and down as rapidly as possible. If you do the drills right, it is virtually impossible to heel-strike. You will practice forefoot/midfoot landings and striking the ground quickly with minimum contact time (this is important). You also do some strides: accelerate smoothly over 50 meters, then run 30 meters at a quick but not sprint pace, then slow down to a stop. Only do 1-2 in the beginnning with plenty of rest. Concentrate on relaxation and running with "perfect" form. If you do these kinds of drills regularly, your form will improve during regular running, and building endurance will become easier. Eventually, you concentrate on your form during easy running. Lyndon "Speed Kills…It kills those that don’t have it!" –US Olympic Track Coach Brooks Johnson

Response:

First of all do get running shoes, a midpriced model should do fine. Then if you can check out your local high schools, most of them have a track and if you are lucky you can find one that is rubber coated. I have 3 nearby my home that I know of. Good rubber soles hitting a rubber surface is preferable to asphalt or cement any day. Good Luck!

Yes and no. Do get running shoes, they make a very pleasant and important difference. But stay away from the track. The tight turning radius and constant angle make you more prone to some injuries, and it’s _really boring_. The track is nice for occasional workouts when you need to work on specific paces, which is wholly unnecessary before you can run, say, 10 miles continuously. Hit the {dirt,asphalt,roads} in that order of preference, and make your runs fun. -Dave — work: dga – at – lcs.mit.edu me: angio – at – pobox.com MIT Laboratory for Computer Science http://www.angio.net/ (note that my reply-to address is vaguely despammed…) bulk emailers: I do not accept unsolicited email. Do not mail me.

Response:

Tanya: Do certainly take a look at all the suggestions you’re getting, but then also remember that what works for guys who can go for 26 miles at 7 minutes a mile might not work as well for beginners who are running at half that speed and still struggling to make one lap around a 1/4 mile track. Getting up to a stride rate of 180 steps/minute may just not be possible at this point. And even good runners find it hard to maintain good form when they’re tired and struggling, and at the point you’re at, every step past the first few dozen is tired and struggling! That said, there’s a couple mental tricks I’ve tried that I find help me smooth out my form a little. First, don’t think about whether you’re going to land on the heel or your ball. Think about not landing at all, but rather just gliding forward. Especially, think about not pushing off. This may be what Ozzie Gontag, the "form guru," refers to as "falling forward," but in all honesty his writing style makes my head spin and I have a hard time understanding him. The other one I try to practice some times is to lift my knees more and try to pull my legs forward in front rather than just pushing off in the back. I think both of these exercises help me to run with my "whole leg," rather than just the "pushing off" muscles. And it’s smoother, perhaps in the same way that a car runs smoother with all cylinders firing, rather than just 1 or 2. I do find it takes more energy when I’m working on my form (the above tricks do cause me to increase my stride rate, and I just can’t maintain that kind of pace for very far yet). So I do put in most of my miles just plodding along doing my fat-lady shuffle. In my very non-expert opinion, so long as you’re not experiencing any lingering pain in your knees or shins after you run, you’re probably doing just fine for the stage you’re in. And most of all, good luck and keep at it! Do you have a 5K picked out yet?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi there, I posted a couple of weeks ago here about getting started from absolute scratch. I’ve improved a bit so far from being able to run only a few paces to about 400 yards without stopping. It was at quite a slow pace and I know its not very far at all (I want to be able to run 5k) but its an improvement so far anyway so it gives me hope for the future. The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the ground. (granted I’ve been running on the sidewalk and in athletic not running shoes, which I don’t have yet) I’m not overweight but tall for a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it hard not to move that much vertically when I run. I figure this may work itself out with more practice as I didn’t have the practice most people did growing up (it really hurt to run then so I avoided doing it if at all possible) So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them say that you should be hitting the ground first on the ball of your foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to hit heel first: http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83 So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal preference issues, but the ball arguments seem to make sense. What would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead? Thanks for any tips. Tanya

Response:

The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the ground. (granted I’ve been running on the sidewalk and in athletic not running shoes, which I don’t have yet)

Well that’s your first problem right there. Get some proper running shoes. Go to a proper running store, and peruse the google archives for discussion on this topic. I’m not overweight but tall for a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it hard not to move that much vertically when I run.

Vertical motion is entirely a function of ground contact time and stride rate. You don’t want to increase ground contact time. As for stride rate, faster stride rate means less vertical motion. Check your stride rate, and if you take less than 180 strides per minute, you are overstriding and should try to focus on taking shorter strides. So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them say that you should be hitting the ground first on the ball of your foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to hit heel first: http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83

Strictly speaking, you do neither. What happens is that the outside of the heel touches lightly, then your foot rolls forward and inward like someone rolling to cushion a fall, then your heel lifts off the ground, then you push off with your toe. The front of your foot absorbs most of the impact even when your heel touches first. So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal preference issues, but the ball arguments seem to make sense. What would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead?

Do whatever is most comfortable, but try not to overstride. This increases the amount of impact. The advantage of "landing heel first" (not really an accurate description of what happens) is that some people are too heavy or not strong enough to run like an elite miler, and trying to force them to adopt such a running style is likely to produce injury. It is better to work on things like speedwork which lead to improved running economy and technique than it is to try to consciously and prematurely force change. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Please allow me to offer some opinions (armchair speculation, based solely on my own experience) The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the ground. (granted I’ve been running on the sidewalk and in athletic not running shoes, which I don’t have yet)

Running shoes might help you go a little further without any change in form. I know of runners who have ignored form and permanently damaged their knees. Or, try every other run on grass. If you dribble a ball, soccer style, arround a grassy field for a while, you develop the support muscles needed to survive on pavement. Accelerate between kicks by pumping the knees to develop a strong running leg. If your present shoes have plenty of room, or, you can use thinner socks, adding a flat neoprene Spenco layer under your insoles can increase cushioning. I’m not overweight but tall for a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it hard not to move that much vertically when I run.

Think horizontal. Since you are taller, your optimum stride rate may be less than 180/min. I can demonstrate smooth nonbouncy quiet running at almost any reasonable stride rate, with any type of foot plant and in "any" type of shoe. I bet if you tried some drills to run quietly, you could find a way to reduce the bounce. In order to do this you have to involve your quadriceps muscles more, for starters. Running with too little knee flex, as if on sticks, could be counterproductive. Your legs "know" that the surface will not give and may be reluctant to relax. Some drills to try: short faster running accelerations on grass or sand, running with a lower center of gravity using more knee bend, hill climbing, bounding, etc. Warming up by cycling, doing one-legged short-arc squats, lunges, or step-downs on a staircase, may help recruit the quads. Running uphill can help, as long as you are careful not to run downhill. Training yourself to run downhill without "bouncing" is the ultimate test. Even hiking hills could be great training for this. So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them say that you should be hitting the ground first on the ball of your foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to hit heel first: http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83 Strictly speaking, you do neither. What happens is that the outside of the heel touches lightly, then your foot rolls forward and inward like someone rolling to cushion a fall, then your heel lifts off the ground, then you push off with your toe. The front of your foot absorbs most of the impact even when your heel touches first.

I like this explanation. If you pick up the pace enough, you might find the initial contact point moving further forward on the foot. If you "reach" forward by overextending your knee in order to cover more ground, you may overstride. Rather, push off more effectively from behind to move yourself more horizontally and less vertically. Some runners do train themselves to run at 180 cadence and to use a forefootstrike, in order to improve and protect themselves. So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal preference issues, but the ball arguments seem to make sense. What would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead? Do whatever is most comfortable, but try not to overstride. This increases the amount of impact. The advantage of "landing heel first" (not really an accurate description of what happens) is that some people are too heavy or not strong enough to run like an elite miler, and trying to force them to adopt such a running style is likely to produce injury.

Makes sense. It is better to work on things like speedwork which lead to improved running economy and technique than it is to try to consciously and prematurely force change.

Perhaps, study a model of how you want to look. For example, record coverage of a Kenyan or Ethiopian female marathoner. Then convert this visual input and imagine how it would feel. On your next session, preferrably on a track, treadmill or grass, try exaggerating this form in short spurts. Doing drills such as short-arc lunges or hill climbing can help your muscles adapt.

Response:

Shoes come FIRST, then the running.

That would explain why you haven’t gotten to the running yet. You’re still not done worshiping your pair of 2080s. — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hi there, I posted a couple of weeks ago here about getting started from absolute scratch. I’ve improved a bit so far from being able to run only a few paces to about 400 yards without stopping. It was at quite a slow pace and I know its not very far at all (I want to be able to run 5k) but its an improvement so far anyway so it gives me hope for the future. The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the ground. (granted I’ve been running on the sidewalk and in athletic not running shoes, which I don’t have yet) I’m not overweight but tall for a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it hard not to move that much vertically when I run. I figure this may work itself out with more practice as I didn’t have the practice most people did growing up (it really hurt to run then so I avoided doing it if at all possible) So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them say that you should be hitting the ground first on the ball of your foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to hit heel first: http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83 So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal preference issues, but the ball arguments seem to make sense. What would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead? Thanks for any tips. Tanya

As others have said, get some good ruuning shoes. I’ll also add you should get them at a running store when the sales person can view your gait. You probably won’t find these stores at you local mall. Failure to use a decent running shoe will probably result in getting injured if you keep running. The subject of heel striking or ball striking is subject to much debate. I do not subscribe to the "one size fits all" theory of heel/ball striking. Not every one has the same biomechanics when they run. What works for some one else may not work for you. Now… If you think that you are having a lot of up and down motion, then you probably do have too much of it.

Response:

Hi there, I posted a couple of weeks ago here about getting started from absolute scratch. I’ve improved a bit so far from being able to run only a few paces to about 400 yards without stopping. It was at quite a slow pace and I know its not very far at all (I want to be able to run 5k) but its an improvement so far anyway so it gives me hope for the future. The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the ground. (granted I’ve been running on the sidewalk and in athletic not running shoes, which I don’t have yet) I’m not overweight but tall for a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it hard not to move that much vertically when I run. I figure this may work itself out with more practice as I didn’t have the practice most people did growing up (it really hurt to run then so I avoided doing it if at all possible) So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them say that you should be hitting the ground first on the ball of your foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to hit heel first: http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83 So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal preference issues, but the ball arguments seem to make sense. What would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead? Thanks for any tips. Tanya

Response:

Best running shoes and orthotic inserts for sever over-pronation

admin — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I have severe flat feet that really impede any fitness training activities such as walking (for long periods), running/jogging, working out on the treadmill etc. I get pain in my ankles as a result of this, and foot fatigue sets in very quickly, in as little a time as about 8 minutes of jogging/running. Can you please recommend running shoes to be used with/without orthotic inserts that would correct the severe over-pronation. I am looking for shoes that would be lightweight and have good shock absorption capabilities.

Along with going to a good running shoe store, you might see if you (perhaps with a PT or if the store can do gait analysis) can identify if there are functional issues in your feet / ankles that are causing this. If you are overpronating, you may not want cushioned shoes that would accentuate this and make your problem worse. If you are running for only 8 min on a treadmill (wasn’t clear if all your running is on dreadmill or if some is outside and what surface) and having pain in ankles, it may be more than a simple shoe issue IMHO, but could be wrong. FWIW, I have high arches, but severely overpronate which was twisting my achilles tendon, resulting in AT. A PT last year identified some functional (and some structural) issues in my feet / ankles that he gave me exercises to strengthen. Dot — "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Response:

so far the recommendations have been to get a well fitted running shoe. well, ow about this turn on the question. i can get orthotics and shoes for free. right now i’m jogging about 30 K a week and will be going longer as the months pass. but nothing extreme. i expect to top out around 40K. my feet are fine. sometimes my kneecap has a twinge but it goes away. once in a while one of my hips hurts a bit. nothing special. should i get orthotic running shoes or just some dress shoes. can getting orthotics hurt? i’m thinking the guy giving me the orthotics should know something. maybe i’m wrong. any opinions are welcome. thanks…thehick

Response:

New Balance 854 (old model) and 855 (new model) are good for over-pronation. Also, I can get them in narrow widths (I’m a ‘B’).

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have severe flat feet that really impede any fitness training activities such as walking (for long periods), running/jogging, working out on the treadmill etc. I get pain in my ankles as a result of this, and foot fatigue sets in very quickly, in as little a time as about 8 minutes of jogging/running. Can you please recommend running shoes to be used with/without orthotic inserts that would correct the severe over-pronation. I am looking for shoes that would be lightweight and have good shock absorption capabilities. Thanking all who respond in advance.

Response:

Rather than a shoe, I would recommend a good running store with a good shoe fitter. Only when someone can see you, your feet and see how you and your feet react to different shoes, can they offer any accurate suggestions. — Joseph E. Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It’s Irish Math

Response:

Looking for New Balance 998 shoes

admin — Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Thats THE shoe, Mark, thanks for your help. I thought that I had looked at everything to do with mens running shoes on that website but I NOW see that I hadn’t. :-) Kind regards. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I must be getting too much mileage out of my shoes because now, when I want to get another pair of New Balance 998, I cannot find them. Does someone know where I can find these OR, has one of you found another shoe that is a good replacement for it? Is this the right shoe? http://tinyurl.com/kqy6

Response:

I must be getting too much mileage out of my shoes because now, when I want to get another pair of New Balance 998, I cannot find them. Does someone know where I can find these OR, has one of you found another shoe that is a good replacement for it? Thanks. Lewis.

Response:

Is this the right shoe? http://tinyurl.com/kqy6 — – Mark – —

Response:

New Balance 855s

admin — Sun, 06 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Bill Rogers says he never said so an that I must be on acid. Who knows?

Actually I think my comment was to the effect that they all pretty much use slave labor. Viagra Bill

Response:

Bill Rogers says he never said so an that I must be on acid. Who knows? I can’t find the thread anyway. Check out the link all the same. If you can be bothered. J

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I also swallowed the New Balance story until BillRodgers from rec.running claimned that NB were made in Thailand, too. So I looked into the matter. He was wrong. At least prior to 2002 NB were being made in Chna. For a fairly horrific description of the factory involved, go to http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/reports/021025nike.htm. Jonathan. If you can offer a solution to the problems of the inequities of this world, vis-a-vis the re-distribution of income, education and opportunity, I, and the other 1 trillion of us, wait to hear from you. Otherwise, perhaps you’d consider leaving your bleeding heart at the door when you enter rec.running. You stink of hypocrisy and of privilege abused. And I don’t like that smell. The issue of whether to buy products which have been produced in appalling conditions in developing countires has always been a difficult one. While I accept some of the points you make, I feel that a company which tries to ensure good working conditions for its employees should also be rewarded. I know nothing about New Balance other than what I’ve seen on the internet, but the fact that they have a large factory in the UK means that those workers at least will have regulated working conditions. For example if there are noxious fumes from adhesives, I believe that UK workplace regulations will impose conditions on the manufacturer to provide extraction systems so that the workers are not poisoned. They are also subject to a maximum working week and a minimum wage. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for workers in poor countries. My hope is that if enough people pressurise certain companies to ensure their workers in developing countries get decent pay and conditions, then they may eventually realise it’s in their own interests to do something about it. Should you be interested, I’ve pasted below an extract from the New Balance UK site. — Slartibartfast To reply by email, remove the FJORDS from my address In 1993 Modular Manufacturing (teamwork) systems were introduced, which meant more efficient production and better quality control. With this, system versatility was improved with employees trained on more than one job in the factory, which meant a more varied day’s work for them, and tighter quality control for the product. When the factory moved in 1991, production was around 2-3,000 pairs a week. Production has steadily increased as demand for New Balance shoes has grown throughout Europe. The factory handcrafts almost all New Balance running shoes and heritage classics, and has recently introduced the technology to begin manufacturing styles from the popular cross training fitness range. More and more styles are increasingly becoming ‘UK made’ as factory capacity expands, currently making over 80% of all New Balance shoes on sale in the UK. In 1993 the factory was making 4,771 pairs of New Balance shoes a week. This increased to 7,403 by 1996 and to 9,787 by 1998. It is currently making around 20,000 pairs of shoes a week with demand for even more and will break the one million pair per year barrier in 2003. The recent construction of a new 21,500 square foot warehouse enables production to be increased to an amazing 25,000 pairs of New Balance running shoes a week, by the end of 2003. The UK factory is a real success story, continuing to grow as demand increases. However, there are some things that stay the same – many of the associates! New Balance Europe works hard to keep it’s employees, and many employees have been with NB since 1982 when the first NB manufacturing facility in the UK opened its doors. New Balance Europe (UK) hopes to continue to experience favourable growth in the domestic manufacturing arena, and plans to continue to provide stable employment for the people of Maryport and the surrounding towns.

Response:

And, if you believe this BS http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/reports/021025nike.htm. you are as dumb as Siderham. Viagra Bill

Response:

maybe it was another of your persona or a blood relative or something j – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I also swallowed the New Balance story until BillRodgers from rec.running claimned that NB were made in Thailand, too. So I looked into the matter. He was wrong. You are on acid, I NEVER said that. Viagra Bill

Response:

I also swallowed the New Balance story until BillRodgers from rec.running claimned that NB were made in Thailand, too. So I looked into the matter. He was wrong.

You are on acid, I NEVER said that. Viagra Bill

Response:

I also swallowed the New Balance story until BillRodgers from rec.running claimned that NB were made in Thailand, too. So I looked into the matter. He was wrong. At least prior to 2002 NB were being made in Chna. For a fairly horrific description of the factory involved, go to http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/reports/021025nike.htm. Jonathan.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you can offer a solution to the problems of the inequities of this world, vis-a-vis the re-distribution of income, education and opportunity, I, and the other 1 trillion of us, wait to hear from you. Otherwise, perhaps you’d consider leaving your bleeding heart at the door when you enter rec.running. You stink of hypocrisy and of privilege abused. And I don’t like that smell. The issue of whether to buy products which have been produced in appalling conditions in developing countires has always been a difficult one. While I accept some of the points you make, I feel that a company which tries to ensure good working conditions for its employees should also be rewarded. I know nothing about New Balance other than what I’ve seen on the internet, but the fact that they have a large factory in the UK means that those workers at least will have regulated working conditions. For example if there are noxious fumes from adhesives, I believe that UK workplace regulations will impose conditions on the manufacturer to provide extraction systems so that the workers are not poisoned. They are also subject to a maximum working week and a minimum wage. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for workers in poor countries. My hope is that if enough people pressurise certain companies to ensure their workers in developing countries get decent pay and conditions, then they may eventually realise it’s in their own interests to do something about it. Should you be interested, I’ve pasted below an extract from the New Balance UK site. — Slartibartfast To reply by email, remove the FJORDS from my address In 1993 Modular Manufacturing (teamwork) systems were introduced, which meant more efficient production and better quality control. With this, system versatility was improved with employees trained on more than one job in the factory, which meant a more varied day’s work for them, and tighter quality control for the product. When the factory moved in 1991, production was around 2-3,000 pairs a week. Production has steadily increased as demand for New Balance shoes has grown throughout Europe. The factory handcrafts almost all New Balance running shoes and heritage classics, and has recently introduced the technology to begin manufacturing styles from the popular cross training fitness range. More and more styles are increasingly becoming ‘UK made’ as factory capacity expands, currently making over 80% of all New Balance shoes on sale in the UK. In 1993 the factory was making 4,771 pairs of New Balance shoes a week. This increased to 7,403 by 1996 and to 9,787 by 1998. It is currently making around 20,000 pairs of shoes a week with demand for even more and will break the one million pair per year barrier in 2003. The recent construction of a new 21,500 square foot warehouse enables production to be increased to an amazing 25,000 pairs of New Balance running shoes a week, by the end of 2003. The UK factory is a real success story, continuing to grow as demand increases. However, there are some things that stay the same – many of the associates! New Balance Europe works hard to keep it’s employees, and many employees have been with NB since 1982 when the first NB manufacturing facility in the UK opened its doors. New Balance Europe (UK) hopes to continue to experience favourable growth in the domestic manufacturing arena, and plans to continue to provide stable employment for the people of Maryport and the surrounding towns.

Response:

If you can offer a solution to the problems of the inequities of this world, vis-a-vis the re-distribution of income, education and opportunity, I, and the other 1 trillion of us, wait to hear from you. Otherwise, perhaps you’d consider leaving your bleeding heart at the door when you enter rec.running. You stink of hypocrisy and of privilege abused. And I don’t like that smell.

The issue of whether to buy products which have been produced in appalling conditions in developing countires has always been a difficult one. While I accept some of the points you make, I feel that a company which tries to ensure good working conditions for its employees should also be rewarded. I know nothing about New Balance other than what I’ve seen on the internet, but the fact that they have a large factory in the UK means that those workers at least will have regulated working conditions. For example if there are noxious fumes from adhesives, I believe that UK workplace regulations will impose conditions on the manufacturer to provide extraction systems so that the workers are not poisoned. They are also subject to a maximum working week and a minimum wage. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for workers in poor countries. My hope is that if enough people pressurise certain companies to ensure their workers in developing countries get decent pay and conditions, then they may eventually realise it’s in their own interests to do something about it. Should you be interested, I’ve pasted below an extract from the New Balance UK site. — Slartibartfast To reply by email, remove the FJORDS from my address In 1993 Modular Manufacturing (teamwork) systems were introduced, which meant more efficient production and better quality control. With this, system versatility was improved with employees trained on more than one job in the factory, which meant a more varied day’s work for them, and tighter quality control for the product. When the factory moved in 1991, production was around 2-3,000 pairs a week. Production has steadily increased as demand for New Balance shoes has grown throughout Europe. The factory handcrafts almost all New Balance running shoes and heritage classics, and has recently introduced the technology to begin manufacturing styles from the popular cross training fitness range. More and more styles are increasingly becoming ‘UK made’ as factory capacity expands, currently making over 80% of all New Balance shoes on sale in the UK. In 1993 the factory was making 4,771 pairs of New Balance shoes a week. This increased to 7,403 by 1996 and to 9,787 by 1998. It is currently making around 20,000 pairs of shoes a week with demand for even more and will break the one million pair per year barrier in 2003. The recent construction of a new 21,500 square foot warehouse enables production to be increased to an amazing 25,000 pairs of New Balance running shoes a week, by the end of 2003. The UK factory is a real success story, continuing to grow as demand increases. However, there are some things that stay the same – many of the associates! New Balance Europe works hard to keep it’s employees, and many employees have been with NB since 1982 when the first NB manufacturing facility in the UK opened its doors. New Balance Europe (UK) hopes to continue to experience favourable growth in the domestic manufacturing arena, and plans to continue to provide stable employment for the people of Maryport and the surrounding towns.

Response:

I gotta ask ya. Is it true that a troll’s penis is really hairy?

Mine isn’t, I shave it.

Response:

Yes he is. Do you know what it’s like waking up with a sore butt, KY jelly tube, and a condom wrapper (of course you do…) next to you, then finding out it was Roidger?

That is bad. Bill, I gotta ask ya. Is it true that a troll’s penis is really hairy? Mr. Brown Howard Dean M.D. for America.

Response:

sick

Yes he is. Do you know what it’s like waking up with a sore butt, KY jelly tube, and a condom wrapper (of course you do…) next to you, then finding out it was Roidger?

Response:

I never had a tumor (correct spelling) that left behind a condom wrapper and an empty tube of KY jelly before.

sick what john wants john gets Mr. Brown Howard Dean M.D. for America.

Response:

Now who’s drinking at *my* pond?

Squeak, squeak.

Response:

Roger

That explains why my ass hurt when I woke up this morning.

Response:

And I don’t like that smell. I think it’s your crotch you’re smelling.

He has to wear nose clips when he sits down. Mr. Brown Howard Dean M.D. for America.

Response:

Roger

No, that’s your tumour. Roger.

Response:

sorry to hear that. i thought that their "thing" was that they are made in the states. darn.

Just good PR for them, unfortuneately not a reality.

Response:

No, that’s your tumour.

I never had a tumor (correct spelling) that left behind a condom wrapper and an empty tube of KY jelly before.

Response:

Plus, they don’t exploit children in the production of the shoe…always a plus.

Bullcrappie! They all use the same manufacturing methods and countries.

Response:

who would normally have to survive on the charity, or otherwise, of their government.

What kind of low-life, no-class, slimeball would do something like that? And I don’t like that smell.

I think it’s your crotch you’re smelling.

Response:

What kind of low-life, no-class, slimeball would do something like that?

Let me guess. A Wobbot? Roger

Response:

Let me guess. A Wobbot?

You are sp predictable, lead you to water and you drank it. LOL! And damn proud of it too! Roger

Doing exactly what I expected you to do pisses me off? You certainly are amusing in this new, fat, angry, old man act.

Response:

You are sp predictable, lead you to water and you drank it. LOL! And damn proud of it too!

I like to keep in your good books. Roger

Now who’s drinking at *my* pond? Roger

Response:

I would suspect they are caught in the same dilemma as many other shoe makers, being competitive. How do we know is they are using 6 years olds or not?

How do we indeed, my little shoe-Nazi? Have you ever considered what employment means to some of these six year olds in China or wherever? Put simply, it means the opportunity for a life. The ability to earn a wage, to contribute towards the support of their family, to possibly afford access to education at a later date, makes a difference that you are never likely to be in the position to appreciate, my over-fed, over-weight, over-pampered Yankee fool. Now I’m not trying to suggest that any of these shoe companies are engaging in anything other than the obscene exploitation of market forces. However, the effect – whether intended or not – is to bring employment and income to an otherwise desolate populous, who would normally have to survive on the charity, or otherwise, of their government. If you can offer a solution to the problems of the inequities of this world, vis-a-vis the re-distribution of income, education and opportunity, I, and the other 1 trillion of us, wait to hear from you. Otherwise, perhaps you’d consider leaving your bleeding heart at the door when you enter rec.running. You stink of hypocrisy and of privilege abused. And I don’t like that smell. Roger.

Response:

Plus, they don’t exploit children in the production of the shoe…always a plus.

How do yo know this? They are also making some shoes outside the US. " Unfortunately, New Balance is not able to obtain all materials and components that are needed for the shoes produced in the United States. In some cases, they are simply not available. In other situations, economic and quality considerations dictate foreign sourcing. However, New Balance remains committed to providing jobs for American workers and to supporting domestic manufacturers and suppliers where possible." I would suspect they are caught in the same dilemma as many other shoe makers, being competitive. How do we know is they are using 6 years olds or not? — Caveat Lector "the further you go outside, the further you go inside" – B. McKibben Doug Freese