If you don't run in Nike your a chump

before someone flames me you're*

Almost without exception, Nike shoes are for biomechanically perfect young people at or below LR accepted body weight.

If you have a shred of stability issues, or are above the age of 32, or could drop a size or two before feeling good going shirtless, you can't wear Nike shoes. Every other running shoe manufacturer makes a shoe that is more stable than anything Nike makes. And you're not fast anyway, so why are you tempting fate?

Nike 4% shoes are cheating.

The stark fact about Nike wrote:

Almost without exception, Nike shoes are for biomechanically perfect young people at or below LR accepted body weight.

If you have a shred of stability issues, or are above the age of 32, or could drop a size or two before feeling good going shirtless, you can't wear Nike shoes. Every other running shoe manufacturer makes a shoe that is more stable than anything Nike makes. And you're not fast anyway, so why are you tempting fate?

Just one problem with your diatribe: the myth of stability shoes has been debunked long ago.

You do know that it's the runner inside the shoe that makes the shoe go fast and not the other way around, right? If you're looking to your shoe to make you faster you actually are the chump. And anyway, I'd rather be a chump than give my money to Nike.

dbsquirtNXC21 wrote:

With all the insane product improvements in the past few years I really don't get how anyone actually competitive (who isn't sponsored by another company) chooses to run in anything besides Nike. From the Vomero as the high end plush trainer down to the LTStreak 4 they have a full line of awesome shoes fit for any type of run. I can guarantee you with near certainty that most actual fast people run in the swoosh. If you disagree post with your PRs.

*you're

It's not that effing hard. You did the same thing on the 'VF vs Spikes' thread. I won't even bother with your punctuation.

Please note: You + Are= you're

consider this wrote:

The stark fact about Nike wrote:

Almost without exception, Nike shoes are for biomechanically perfect young people at or below LR accepted body weight.

If you have a shred of stability issues, or are above the age of 32, or could drop a size or two before feeling good going shirtless, you can't wear Nike shoes. Every other running shoe manufacturer makes a shoe that is more stable than anything Nike makes. And you're not fast anyway, so why are you tempting fate?

Just one problem with your diatribe: the myth of stability shoes has been debunked long ago.

You must have stock in Nike. I wear them, they literally fall apart in three weeks. Other shoe brands don't suffer such a fate.

The stark fact about Nike wrote:

If you have a shred of stability issues

I've got light pronation and the Vomero is perfect for me. No arch aches or plantar issues.

If I wanted to know what some 16 minute 5k person thought I’d ask my wife.

The stark fact about Nike wrote:

Almost without exception, Nike shoes are for biomechanically perfect young people at or below LR accepted body weight.

If you have a shred of stability issues, or are above the age of 32, or could drop a size or two before feeling good going shirtless, you can't wear Nike shoes. Every other running shoe manufacturer makes a shoe that is more stable than anything Nike makes. And you're not fast anyway, so why are you tempting fate?

Everything you say here im proof you're wrong.

Age 34

About 143 need to drop about 10lbs

I supinate like crazy...

I love nike shoes...So far ahead of the others in terms of technology..And for those that say 4% is cheating well hell yeah I'm going to use something that doesn't make me as tired.

Agree with OP. I decided to try a bunch of brands a few years ago and kept going back to Nikes cause they felt better and better quality.

The worst I tried were Hokas (who can wear those thick clown shoes on trails without rolling their ankles?), Altra (zero drop doesn’t work for everyone), and Skechers (wear down too fast). It was very obvious too. I can’t for the life of me understand how others can wear these inferior brands.

Most surprisingly good was 361. I don’t know why these aren’t being marketed more heavily in the US. They’re supposed to be extremely popular in China.

I would lump the other namebrands (Brooks, New Balance, Adidas, Asics, Saycony) into another tier below Nike. They are good quality, but not as good as Nike. I’d wear them if Nike didn’t exist.

The stark fact about Nike wrote:

Almost without exception, Nike shoes are for biomechanically perfect young people at or below LR accepted body weight.

I'm 50 and over-pronate (but am BMI 19) and Nike Zoom Structure 21s are absolutely perfect for me.

Excepting the cheater fly 4%s, I find Mizuno to be one of the best running shoe brands, they have nice, well made trainers that don't break down too easily. I usually get 600 or so miles out of a Mizuno shoe and I have never had problems with their wear, mostly replacing them because the foam wears out. Nike, while they do make a good racing shoe, I don't find puts of the quality necessary for shoes to last a long time to pound out miles. Sure, fast guys wear Nike for racing, but unless they are getting the shoes for free, they turn to other brands for everyday training shoes.

*You're.

People who can't use correct grammar are almost as bad as pronaters. Nike deserves better than to have someone with your grammar promoting their products.

I look down on (amateur) runners in those cheater 4% shoes.

The main problem with Nikes are how crappy their shoes are and how a disproportionate percentage of fat couch to potato 5kers wear them. Otherwise they're okay.

Brooks ghost 9.

The antithetical running shoe to Nike. ?

I bought Brooks specifically because Symmonds had a campaign against Nike.

Nike has had some great shoes that got me through a couple of years but I do not think you can classify them as real running shoes. In fact my local running shoe store says the same thing. The main problem I see is the protection from the ground and stability of the foot. Look at a Mizuno shoe, any Mizuno shoe, and you see that the shoe was made for running. Look at a Nike running shoe and you see that it could almost be for casual wear. I think Nike follows and/or creates trends. The real running companies stay tried and true to the biomechanics of running. They do experiment but it all falls under best practices for running.

This isn't true. I run mega mileage, and testing brands as mentioned I could tell right away what was good and what was crap. Nike is head and shoulders above everyone else. Better materials, lighter, better ride. I would only trust going with a namebrand shoe. I tried Mizuno a few years ago-- having so many pieces to those shoes with the embedded wave plate, if any part of it is off/defective it messes with your mechanics. You're at the mercy of how well the shoe is put together. No other companies have the funding to innovate like Nike.