We (ASICS) are now working on asics fuzex rush a training shoe that is less structure and lightweight, but still offering stability and holding true to a rearfoot srike pattern design. I have based this on the premise that, no matter what is being said about technical running footwear, there is no evidence that it really aint broken, so we will tweak, but no need to fix. The minimalist movement works on the premise that by reducing heel height, i.e. the overall gradient, by maybe 6 mm, it induces a midfoot or even forefoot strike pattern. I have not been able to identify one single piece of credible evidence to support this.. so.. we will stick to our guns. Once more the ether is thick with unsupportable nonsense. pose, chi, toning, barefoot, minimalist& .when will it end?
Firstly, your photo caption erroneously states if Asics had its way, all runners should be perfectly content to continue as over-striding heel-strikers." Not sure where that came from, certainly not me. I beleive some runners should forefoot strike. for example, if one has less than 10 degrees dorsiflexion, which many runners do, that runner cannot achieve heel asics gel lyte v mens srtike. But you know what.. humans are very varied, and lots of runners heel strike and run well and efficiently.There is no problem midfoot striking or forefoot striking in an ASICS shoe.. I recommend it all the time, especially if I think a change in form will help. But not to everyone ."
And yes, runner's will always get injured, and we will do so asics gel lyte womens because we are often dumb and run more than we should and when we should not. However, in the absence of clinical trials, which ASICS has not published in a peer reviewed journal to show that their own shoes reduce injuries, we rely mostly on anecdote. Anecdotes suggest that some runners benefit from a barefoot or minimalist approach. Why ignore this? If you believe that humans are variable, why is the 12mm model so ubiquitous in the ASICS shoe lineup. Where's the evidence?
How about the series of studies by the military ( Knapik et al., 2009; Knapik et al., 2010b ) which showed that when assigning shoes based upon arch type, recruits (thousands of them were included in these studies) were just as well off being assigned a asics gel nimbus 20 mens stability shoe by default as they were being put in the correct type of shoe for their arch type. So much for that wet test ASICS!
I think I've said enough here. My position is and has been that each runner is an individual, and I agree with Bartold when he states that. Given this, different runners have different preferences and needs. Some may want a 12mm lifted shoe, but others don't. Some of those who don't might have made the switch to escape a long term injury, and it's clear that in many cases switching to minimalist shoes has helped. Some (like me) switch simply because we enjoy running in minimalist shoes more than in big heavy clunkers (and yes, I have run in Asicsa Kayanos as well as the 2100 series). I was never injured seriously in bulky shoes, and I haven't been injured seriously in minimalist shoes. I may or may not be faster now, it's really hard to tell. But I will say that I am enjoying running more, and that's all that really matters to me, and I really don't care if that gets published in a peer reviewed journal.
*You mentioned before about a 12mm heel height being ideal? Why is that the standard? *Well, that's a very interesting question because it hasn't been settled on at all. With ASICS we've always worked on a 10mm gradient. That's the difference between the height of the forefoot and the height of the rear foot, so if you've got a cushion type shoe it might be 24mm and 14mm off the ground. A racing flat might be slimmer at 10mm and 20mm. We've done a lot of research on this and we asics gel nimbus 20 review understand that it actually puts your foot in a mechanically better position, makes it more stable, takes a load off the Achilles tendon& so there's a lot of positives. There's a lot of myths and all that sort of crap and the problem is that every time you add a little raise, people are going to say oh but you're removing the foot from the ground therefore you're going to make it more unstable and you're more likely to sprain an ankle', which is complete nonsense. That's scientifically
unsustainable. There's no evidence to say that happens at all.*