You don't want to look cocky because you suck.
You don't want to look cocky because you suck.
i've tried wearing sunglasses several times, but i always end up getting sweat on the lenses and in my eyes. I guess i can't seem to wipe the sweat from my forehead when I have glasses on. Then I can't see a f*cking thing.
there are dorky looking sunglasses that won't make you look dicky.
When I'm racing distance or even training I don't wear them because I don't want to break stride to wipe off the sweat. I recently bought a Halo headband which works somewhat for sweat. I had 2 doctors say to wear sunglasses but if it interferes I won't do it.
boys 3200
if you look anything like that please dont wear sunglasses.
non-runners will probably think you look like an idiot whether you are wearing sunglasses or not.
smazis wrote:
Great advice. Buy sunglasses that lack proper UV protection and defeat the purpose of wearing protection from the sun.
Always skimp on cost when it comes to your eyes, they'll be fine. Plus you'll save a few bucks!!
i've got a pair of $20 sunglasses from target that i run in. they're comfortable and don't fog up, and they were listed at 100% UVA&UVB protection. could this be false advertising or would they not get away with that? i'm no expert on consumer affairs, but i would expect that a 100% UVA/UVB protection pair of sunglasses does what it says, even if it's from target.
joke wrote:
http://tullyrunners.com/Indoor07/SoTierInv.htmboys 3200
if you look anything like that please dont wear sunglasses.
Ok first rule of wearing sunglasses indoors. You must, at the very least, break 9:00 minutes indoors.
GeorgiaFan wrote:
Here, in the state of Georgia, the High School Association considers dark glasses to be jewelry. This presents a problem for those who wear contacts and should wear dark glasses over the contacts or for those who try to get by with one pair of glasses that darken in the sun.
It was the same in FL back when I was in HS. Actually, they didnt let anyone wear anything other than prescription glasses which had to be tied on the back with something. No watches, no necklaces, no ear ring of any kind (not even studs), no sunglasses, AND girls were not supposed to even have nail polish on (although this was rarely enforced at anything below regional level). The reason for all this nonsense? The state didn't want to get sued if someone got hurt as a result of one of these implements...STUPID. I see here in CO, they let kids wear shades (because it's always so sunny) and they also allow watches (which I could go either way on). Anyway, the sunglasses thing should really turn around - it is much better for the eyes.
run-bike-run wrote:
i've got a pair of $20 sunglasses from target that i run in. they're comfortable and don't fog up, and they were listed at 100% UVA&UVB protection. could this be false advertising or would they not get away with that? i'm no expert on consumer affairs, but i would expect that a 100% UVA/UVB protection pair of sunglasses does what it says, even if it's from target.
As to the cheap ones, there was a local news broadcast recently in which they tested the protection of very expensive glasses and very cheap ones, and they all, expensive and cheap, passed.
I try to wear them whenever it's sunny.
haha a-men to that