The new Kayano weighs the same as the 2110 and is much plusher. Frankly, I think an ounce difference in the shoes is overrated as a selection characteristic - especially for trainers, IMHO. With two repaired knees you should run in the shoes that work for you and protect you for the long-distances you are running.

I think you're asking for a lot. Lightweight, stability and cushioning all in one shoe, you are going to have to sacrifice one of those to really get the other two.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

BTW, here is an article from Running Times magazine: Shoe Guy: Sweating the Ounces When Weight Matters - and When It Doesn't
By J. D. Denton[/url] As featured in the April 2006 issue of Running Times Magazine




"We tried to get it under 12 ounces."

It seems I hear that line a lot when looking at samples of new training shoes months before they land on dealers’ shelves. The word "tried" is often replaced with "planned," "managed," or "expected." Product managers and shoe designers seem to always be obsessed with shoe weight.

Fine. I suppose it should matter to someone.

Weight is frequently one of the specs listed in shoe descriptions, whether in a catalog, promotional brochure, or magazine review. While some may consider it to be a critical factor in shoe selection, it’s really meaningless crapola, with very little bearing on whether or not the shoe will give you 400 miles of good service.

Okay, shoe weight matters in some situations, racing flats being the best example. They should be all about speed, staying out of your way, and not holding you back. That’s why the best flats are typically firm and ultra flexible to promote quick turnover and, yes, lightweight in order to not weigh you down.

Almost all racing flats weigh in the single digits of ounces, and almost all trainers tip the postage scale well north of ten ounces (usually the 12- to 14-ounce range, occasionally higher, hence the obsession with "trying to get it under 12 ounces"). While the weight differences between racers and trainers are easily discernable to the casual observer by bouncing one of each in the hands, being concerned with fractions of ounces in training shoes is a waste of time for most of us—for several reasons.

First, advertised shoe weights usually refer to a men’s size nine. Of course, one man’s nine is another man’s nine-and-a-half; the weight edge here going to the model that fits the smallest. Since we often find that different sizes fit us in different models, if you’re going to compare the weight of different shoes as part of your selection process, a fair comparison is weighing the size that fits you best in each.

Second, advertised shoe weights are often fantasy. Unless every postage scale I’ve owned over the last couple of decades was defective, most shoes are weighed with somebody’s thumb underneath. Okay, maybe not, but if the advertised weight is inaccurate, it’s never higher than the reading on my scale for some reason.

Third, actual shoe weights can vary from pair to pair of the same size of the same model. Yeah, the manufacturing standards are good, but we’re talking about mass produced shoes here, not 24-karat gold. When the day comes that shoes are sold by weight down to the hundredth of an ounce rather than quality of materials and assembly, there will be more consistency in the weight department. Meanwhile, perfection is not part of the deal.





So if you’re just looking for good training shoes that will be comfortable, supportive, and reasonably durable, the weight of the shoes should be one of the last things to consider, right in there with brand name and color. Biomechanical support and fit should reign. When you whittle the choices down to two or three models in your price range, go ahead and consider weight. Pick the one that feels lighter if you wish, all other things being equal.

That’s most of us. There are those who have a different philosophy, a more minimalist approach to shoe choice that justifiably puts shoe weight high on their priority list. Simply put, they believe the less shoe you wear, the better—the stronger your feet and legs will become, and the more efficiently you will run.

Shoe weight matters to these folks because less weight almost always means less shoe, and less shoe is better. No argument there. I’ve always been a strong supporter of a runner’s right to choose shoes. If you want to wear slippers when you run, fine. If you want to wear army boots when you run, fine.

Most minimalists I’ve fitted over the years prefer racing flats. Occasionally, they will go for a lightweight trainer (one that weighs around 10 ounces in that mythical men’s nine). They love to feel the road when they run, and the freedom of having shoes that stay out of the way. And they have very sturdy feet and legs.

Most are also fairly lightweight individuals with reasonably efficient biomechanics. Whether they are that way as an accident of birth or they have created it by avoiding overly supportive shoes is a good subject for debate. I suspect there’s some truth to both sides of the argument.

Should you be interested in joining their movement, run forth with caution if you’ve spent the last few thousand miles in more supportive shoes. Step down one notch at a time over a period of months, if not years. The human body is a great adapter only if given time and controlled stress.

Whether or not you should go minimal is another discussion. It’s not for everybody. A good chunk of the continuing growth of running is fueled by larger runners who just want to run in comfort, and more body usually requires more shoe.

Which brings us back to that "We tried/planned/ managed/ expected to get it under 12 ounces" mantra. With a running population that is growing in girth as well as numbers, training shoes need to be designed accordingly. Chasing the holy grail of less shoe weight while trying to serve more runner weight is a formula for increased injuries

     

Brooks Adrenaline GTS 6. Best shoe made period.



Also for race flats with a medial post (super light) try the ST racer.


brooksrunning.com

Construction

Combination

Weight

Men’s: 11.8 oz

Women’s: 9.75 oz

Sizes

Men’s: 7-13,14,15 B, D, 2E widths

Women’s: 5-12 2A, B, D widths

Platform

Universal™

SEASON: Fall 2005 (launches 9/1/05; SRP $90 USD)

PROFILE

Mild to moderate pronators, prepare to get your blood

pumping. The Adrenaline GTS™ 6 is the latest advancement in

the most versatile running shoe out there. Now featuring

progressive posting for ultra-smooth transitions through the

gait cycle, this is the shoe for adrenaline junkies, cushion

lovers and stability freaks alike.

UPPER

Microfiber upper materials wrap and support the foot.

Simplified lacing system provides a secure fit.

Comfort collar design, with soft, microfiber collar and tongue

linings, keeps softest upper materials on the foot.

360 degrees of 3M Scotchlite® reflectivity increases nighttime

visibility.

Internal thermoplastic heel counter helps stabilize the rearfoot.

Element™ air mesh provides excellent ventilation and moisture

management to keep the foot comfortable on the run.

Internal Support Sleeve (ISS) helps the upper "wrap" the foot.

S-257™ Cushsole provides unsurpassed cushioning and

durability to the foot.

OUTSOLE

Sponge rubber forefoot offers extra cushioning.

Engineered Stable-Pod technology maximizes support without

compromising responsiveness.

Brooks HPR Plus™ in the heel strike area represents the

ultimate in outsole durability.

Crumple Zone configuration creates a smoother heel strike and

allows a more natural gait.

MIDSOLE

Substance 257™ midsole offers unsurpassed

cushioning and durability.

Heel and Forefoot HydroFlow®: High performance

cushioning system absorbs shock, stabilizes the foot

and returns energy back to the foot stride after stride.

Engineered Stable-Pod technology maximizes support

without compromising responsiveness.

Dual Density DRB Accel™ is a high density molded

TPU engineered into the midfoot for torsional stability.

A softer density is placed on the lateral for a smooth

ride, and a firmer density is placed on the medial for

added stability.

Crumple Zone configuration creates a smoother heel

strike and allows a more natural gait.

Progressive Diagonal Rollbar (PDRB™): A dual density

post is bio-mechanically engineered to allow for

progressive pronation control as the foot rolls inward

and creates a smoother transition from the midstance

phase into the propulsion phase.

Adrenaline GTS™ 6

---

http://www.mountainmettle.com

NB 901

---

_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts

The NB 901 is an awesome shoe, definitely lightweight and a decent cushioning, but no support.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

Agree with Spindogg here the Adrenaline is a great shoe. I don't wear it but my wife swears by it!

---

http://www.pbmcoaching.com
USA Triathlon Level 3 Elite Coach
USA Cycling Level 1 Elite Coach

You mention stability control shoes and I am going to offer some info on a light weight motion control shoe (11oz) which may or may not be what you would be interested in. I recently bought the Nike Air Cesium. The only place that sells them that I am aware of is Roadrunner Sports. I really like them so far for the following reasons:

1) They feel (with my flat feet) like I have custom fit orthotics but they aren't as rigid as most orthotics, offering more cushion.

2) they are really light for a motion control shoe or a shoe that had orthotic inserts.

Now there are some things that are different about them and some sizing issues to be aware of. I like one and two above so much that I am hoping the below won't turn out to be negatives (I only have about 30 to 40 miles on them so far).

They fit looser by design than any shoe I have worn. My foot moves around the shoe more than normal which necessitates a larger shoe fit to avoid toe friction at end of shoe. (not sure my current size is going to be large enough).

They run extra small...at least one size and maybe one and a half sizes small. I am wearing a 11.5 and usually my running shoes are 10.5. 10 is my dress shoe size. I started with a 11 and returned them for an 11.5.

Below is cut and paste info on them and includes a "shoe critique".

The NEW Nike® Air Cesium is a revolutionary new shoe that features unique technologies which challenge the conventional, bulky and rigid motion control construction that many are used to. How?

• The 3 degree varus wedge inside the shoe is an anti-pronation device, replacing the rigid, dual density posting and acting as an internal orthotic.
• The Cesium features an integrated stabilization system in the surface material of the heel as well as the midfoot.

More Features:

• Deep flex grooves (inspired by the Nike® "Free") give incredible flexibility
• Lateral crash pads help slow rate of pronation
• 270 degree medial arch wrap for a custom fit
• Extremely lightweight at 11.0 oz.
• Air technology provides outstanding shock absorption
• Waffle sole provides exceptional traction

Expert Review

NEW Shoe

What's NEW: Leave it to Nike to build a cult-like type of shoe that wear testers have been madly posting feedback about on our website. The most obvious point is the weight. It's so light that we were afraid to note the weight in our product description because Control shoes aren't supposed to be light, right? The ride is also something new. Motion Control shoes are generally controlling and this shoe doesn't feel like that. The pronation correction built into the shoe works with your foot rather than against it. Nike states that the correction in this shoe is equal to the average correction you'd get from an orthotic. The key is that the hard orthotic isn't there, so the design makes the shoe really smooth. The biggest complaint about this shoe has been about the lacing, which is hard to adjust for a unique fit.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to try ther Brooks Adrenaline and the Nike Cesium today at Roadrunner.