The Kayano has a 25mm heel -- I'd call that a high heel (hunk of crap).
The Kayano has a 25mm heel -- I'd call that a high heel (hunk of crap).
worked in shoe stores wrote:
2090 vs 1090
it's been a while since i've worked in a running store but the 1000 line doesn't have the added gel in the forefoot and the 2000 line do.
i think the arch support is a little beefier in the 2090 vs the 1090 as well.
i never recommended kayanos to people unless they had $$$$ to throw away... i mean, if you have the cash - they're great shoes if you need the support and cushioning. but for a similar runner - the 2090's are a great shoe that will offer pretty similar qualities...
the 1000 series used to not have gel in the forefoot, but now it does.
A flat foot does not necessarily pronate...Perhaps you need a straight-lasted shoe with little or no medial support.
if you have a flat foot and are a "neutral runner"i would recc. trying on the saucony triumph, dyad from brooks, NB 1023. these 3 shoes do not have any medial posting, but are relatively flat under the arch(unlike say a nimbus from asics or the snova cushion from adidas)
as for kayano v. 2090
my experience with these 2 shoes is that they are both very popular inregards to moderate pronation. however it seems that for the pronator with a flatter foot, that neither of these work that well(for the most part) a lot of blistering under the arch and arch pain in general were most of the complaints.