so we were at the store the other day and my wife noticed asics sells a ‘kids’ version of a few flagship shoes (cumulus, i think) for much cheaper than the adult version. assuming it fits, is there any reason not to get the kids’ version? are they otherwise identical in terms of structure/ride/etc?
The kids’ versions are designed for lighter runners. You’re not going to get the same bang for your buck cushioning or support-wise. Unless you weigh like 65 pounds.
I’ve watched a woman with small feet run in the women’s and children’s versions of the Brooks Adrenaline. The kids’ version was not nearly as effective at controlling her pronation.
Why not? The pair of toddler sized Saucony’s I boguth my daughter are holding up a lot better than the cheap unbranded sneakers. I think they fit better too.
Plus depending on your “beliefs” you can get you kids into a more minimal 0 offset style shoe early on. I sometime think my daughter runs better in her sandals than her shoes.
So yes, once she’s up to size 13-1/2 in little kids sizes, I’ll probably get her some Kinvara’s or Virattas like I have.
I think we’re thinking of two different things. I interpreted the question that he was looking to buy the kid’s version for himself, not for his kids.
I missed that too.
Ooops. I agree with a bove, that the cushioning and overall durability is intended for a lighter person. I think there’s also some cost cutting, since in reality most won’t be used by runners, and they don’t need to last quite as long, or last for as many miles. A lto of kids outgrow shoes within 6 months. SO overall probably not a great idea.
A gal I work with was talking about this. She buys kid’s versions of shoes b/c they’re almost half price. I’ll have to highlight the possible down side. Why don’t we have a “Super Dave” type on this board who works for Nike, Asics, Adidas, etc…