ASics 2090 vs Kayano???

if you aren't having problems with your shoes then there is no reason to spend 50 more dollars on a heavier more cushioned shoe stick with what works

Asics 2090s? STAY AWAY!!

Stay away? He already runs in them. Me too. I like 2090s a whole lot, although I am a neutral pronator.

If you don't need quite as much stability, try the Nimbus VI. My new favorite shoe.

what is a neutral pronator...didn't know there was such a thing? i figure you are either neutral or a pronator -

Well...this is what RRS says:

There are three types of pronators:

Overpronator - The excessive inward roll of the foot. A flat foot absorbs a lot of shock. It's very flexible and needs support. Motion control shoes work best for overpronators. We use the symbol for our shoes that offer motion control.

Neutral pronator - The foot pronates naturally. Mild pronators disperse shock effectively. A medium arch absorbs shock moderately. Stability shoes work best for the neutral pronator. The symbol is for stability.

Underpronator (Supinator) - the lack of sufficient inward motion of the foot. A high arch absorbs less shock. Cushioning shoes that are highly flexible are best for the underpronator. Only a small population truly underpronates.

the kayanos are a nice shoe but in my opinion they arent worth $50 more than the 2000 series shoes.

thank you.

The Kayano is just a glorified 2090. The Kayano has a bit thicker gel pads but the basic construction of the shoe is very similar. The Kayano has a twisted gel pad in the heal, and is a little more colorful. The Asics rep at my work told me this. Probably not worth the extra $50

i like the kayano's much better, as you can see from that post if you click on it, i had a stress fracture for 4 more months so im partial to the kayano's...on the other hand i switched from kayano's to trying 2090's and ended up broken, im back to the kayano's now...what i'm saying is dont fix it if it aint broke

Check out the below thread on this topic.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=536056

I am still not convinced that the lower heal placement & barefoot running is better. Strengthening of the calves seems to make sense however it may not work for everyone.

I have had numerous recurrent calf injuries and have tried numerous things to prevent the injury & strengthen the calves. A Doctor specializing in sports medicine told me that due to the excess daily pounding my calves take, along with my age (43), my calves do not recover quick enough from all the micro tears and eventually pop! He recomended half-inch heel inserts ( made of felt) to raise my heel, which in turn transfers the pounding from the calf to the lower quads. The quads are a much stronger muscle and can handle the pounding. I am using the inserts on 50% of my runs as a way to give the calves a chance to recover. I feel using them 100% would be too radical of a switch. My stride & form took some getting used to but when the heel inserts are in I actually land more mid-foot than before (comapared to more heel strinking). Also, my lower quads did get sore at first.

Im not opposed to the lower heal theory but on a daily basis I don't think my calves can handle it.

It's too early to tell if this is going to be a sucess but, so far it seems to be working!

OldSchooler

Ive run in both but learned my lesson.If you run further than 10k pay the extra 50 bucks.

The corner pimp says it best, "Shoes are like women. You have to find the ones that will work for you."

Can you all do your own research...Asics Kayano versus the 2090. Here goes.

First, Asics is a great shoe company, if their shoes fit your feet well and you don't have any problems in them. Second, there is a major piece to those who have achilles and calf problems and are wearing asics, the company makes very little height in the heel, causing a lot of stress from the plantar through the top of the hamstring, even into the butt. It's one of their technical trademarks, if you can handle the shoes, they're GREAT.

Second, the kayano is NOT A GLORIFIED 2090, I don't know where this shit comes from. The Kayano is for a much flatter footed athlete, a LOT heavier, MORE cushion to it and MORE CONTROL for MORE PRONATION...someone with a high arch will feel a very choppy ride in the kayano. Someone with a medium arch can get into a 2090; put it on and feel the arch inside compared to the kayano.

Try them both on, go for a jog.

get the all black 2090s

Pronation and Supination are normal parts of the foot strike cycle.

If the angle of pronation (first part of the cycle) and supination ( second part of the cycle)are close you are considered neutral. The is about 4-6 degrees. In Pronation the angle about the Tibia is counter clockwise and in Supination its clockwise.

You can pronate excessively and are called an over pronator. They usually do best in Stability or Motion Control shoes depended on the amount. Wear is normally more toward the Big toe.

Underpronation is when the angle is less than normal and is done mostly by people who have higher than normal arches that do not colapse with load (force)

Very, very few people are Supinators. I have only seen two in my 27 years of running. Both had significant forefoot wear under the small toe and almost none in the heel area. I saw one of them yesterday and he has had good success with shoes like the Gel Lyte. He is currently wearing the ASICS Flash.

Wear on the outside of the heel just means you are a heel striker and doesn't tell much else.

I use both the Kayano and the 2090. I am a marathoner, but like to jump in the occassional 5/10K. The 2090 is more of a moderate stability shoe, while the Kayano is a step up in stability. Not motion control, but a step above the 2090 in terms of stability.

The extra $50 in really nothing when it comes to marathon training. My thought is if your shoes can help relieve some of the pain that you get at the end of a 20 mile training run the are worth the $.

what's the difference between the 2090s and 1090s?

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...

So what does it mean if you have flat feet AND significant wear under the small toe?