Lol... Deine Aussage war ja "Aber 300g - das sind ja 2,5 Wave Universe und 1,5 LunaRacer... " ... das hörte sich so an als ob du damit was vergleichen wolltest, und nicht eine Tatsache darstellen wolltest.

So stimmt es natürlich.

Auch stimmt: 1 Biom = 0,9 Kaffeetasse. Habe ich gerade gemessen! Trinke jetzt meinen Kaffee nur noch aus meinem Biom. :Lachanfall:

Axel

Video gesehen=habenwill=sparen:Cheese:
Bin mal gespannt

Also, das tut mir jetzt schon leid, dass ich mit meinem ketzerischen Zwischenruf bezüglich eines Preises von 50Talern ne so unseelige Diskussion angestossen hab.
Das haben die Puschen echt nicht verdient.

Im Opel-Forum schon.

Axel, toller Schuh. Interessanter Beitrag und ich hätte das sonst nie gefunden :Blumen:


@Fuxx
Du fällst aus dem Raster, deswegen sind Deine Schuh-Kommentare irrelevant :Cheese:

The Ecco BIOM
Friday, December 12th, 2008
The reason for my recent trip to Denmark was the Ecco BIOM, a new running shoe engineered on the principle of natural joint motion. In recent years it has become increasingly accepted as fact that conventional running shoes alter the natural kinematics of the running stride in ways that increase injury risk and reduce performance. Biomechanics experts such as G.P. Bruggemann of the University of Cologne have called for manufacturers to develop footwear that allows the joints to move more naturally during running so that injury risk will be reduced and performance will increase. Ecco hired Dr. Bruggeman as a consultant for the development of BIOM, which emerges a manifestation of his ideas about what a running shoe should be.

Perhaps the most important characteristic of the BIOM is its low heel. Lowering the heel reduces the amount of ankle supination and the degree of ankle dorsiflexion on initial footstrike, as well as the rate of ankle plantar flexion and pronation as the footstrike phase transitions into the stance phase. All of these changes make the stride more like that of barefoot running.

Another interesting characteristic of the BIOM is a shank in the midsole that provides lateral stiffness in the heel and midfoot to facilitate the efficient transfer of forces from the heel to the forefoot during the ground contact phase of the stride. This shank branches and opens up in the forefoot to allow the forefoot freedom of movement for a more powerful pushoff. A wide toebox that permits the toes to spread slightly when applying force to the ground, as they do in barefoot running, as facilitates a more forceful toe-off.

I’ve now run in the BIOM twice. The first things I noticed about its feel were its closeness to the ground and the stiffness and hardness of its platform. Because of the latter, the BIOM is less comfortable than the Nike Free, another minimalist shoe that Dr. Bruggemann had a hand in developing. Yet in this regard the BIOM actually feels more like barefoot running. When I run barefoot on sand, for example, I am conscious of really tensing up the musculature of my lower legs and feet to absorb impact and capture and reuse energy from impact. In the BIOM I have much the same feeling. The soles of these shoes are so hard and stiff that they make a click-clack sound on pavement, but I am also conscious of a lightning-quick forward transfer of energy. Although I’ve never worn them, I imagine that the BIOM is a bit like those stiff sprinter’s shoes that are designed to minimize energy dissipation and ground contact time.

I expect many runners to not like the feel of the BIOM, and that’s their right. But I have a feeling that the BIOM is the kind of shoe that one can learn to love. Its makers at Ecco are very upfront about the need to give the body time to adjust to the feel of running in the BIOM. Ecco-sponsored professional triathlete Torbjorn Sindballe says it took him several months. I am interested to see how I feel about the BIOM after I’ve been wearing it for a few weeks. I plan to add it to my regular shoe rotation with the Nike Free 3.0 and the Nike Lunar Lite Racer. Perhaps the most telling indicator of how much I like the BIOM will be how much I look forward to my BIOM runs versus my Free and Lunar Lite runs.

The one thing I don’t like about the BIOM already is its weight. It weighs nearly twice as much as my Lunar Lite Racers. That’s a consequence of Ecco’s decision to use plyurethane instead of EVA in the midsole. PU is denser, which is what allowed Ecco to get the heel so low to the ground, but it’s also heavier. I’ve already told the Ecco folks how I feel about the weight and I expect that they will be able to reduce it in future versions.

A final note: The upper of the Ecco BIOM is made of yak leather. It’s everything you need the upper material of a running shoe to be–light, thin, comfortable and breathable–but most of all, it’s a conversation starter.

http://mattfitzgerald.org/blog/?p=188

I Must Be a Geek If I’m This Excited about An Exercise Science Study
Monday, December 15th, 2008
David Helter, General Manager of Ecco Performance in the United States, stole a bit of my thunder when he posted a comment Saturday. David mentioned a scientific study involving the Ecco BIOM that I was planning to tell you about today. At least he didn’t share all the details!

I learned about this study during my recent visit to Ecco headquarters in Denmark. Indeed, I learned about it from Running and Walking Product Manager Alex Nicolai :Huhu: mere moments before I would have rasied my hand to ask him whether Ecco had plans to perform a study of precisely the nature of the study he told me about, obviating my need to ask. It’s happening at the University of Cologne and being led by renowned running shoe and biomechanics expert Peter Bruggeman. Two hundred runners are participating. For nine months, half of them will do all of their training in Ecco BIOM’s. The other half will wear their shoes of choice. All of the runners will report on any and all injuries sustained during the intervention period.

The purpose of this study is, of course, to determine whether Ecco BIOM’s, thanks to their natural joint motion design, reduce injuries compared to conventional running shoes. I hope that Bruggeman finds they do, because I already believe that minimalist running shoes reduce injury risk, and I want my belief to be validated! I have yearned for somebody to perform a study such as this one since the Nike Free first hit the market. The obvious reason why Nike has not funded such a study is that Nike only manufactures a few minimalist running shoes and a slew of conventional ones, so a positive finding, while a boon to the Free, would be damaging to Nike Running as a whole.

It takes a newcomer to the running market that produces only minimalist running shoes to dare to undertake such an endeavor, and now we have such a player in Ecco. It’s still a daring move, though. Bruggeman can’t be bought; if he finds a negative result he will publish it. And studies as large and long-term as this one are not cheap. I give Ecco major props for respecting truth and belivieving in themselves enough to take this risk. A few of my beloved readers have posted negative comments about the pricetag of the BIOM. Now you have a better understanding why it’s so expensive. Ecco certainly isn’t pricing it at $250 because the company is greedier than New Balance. The BIOM is probably the world’s most expensive running shoe to make. During my visit to Denmark I was mightily impressed by the company’s very real commitment to quality. And really, $250 is nothing.

That said, I won’t see Bruggeman’s proof that the BIOM reduces injury risk compared to other shoes as proof that only the BIOM does so. Instead, I will see it as more or less validating the entire category of minimalist running shoes, the other existing examples of which are much cheaper than the BIOM.

It will be very interesting to see how the market responds to this study, assuming it comes out in Ecco’s favor. I don’t think it will lead to the death of conventional running shoes. These shoes suit the needs of many runners (and non-runners!) just fine, and one mustn’t underestimate the number of runners out there who just love the marshmallow feel of the Brooks Beast and don’t give a shit if it’s the cause of half of their injuries. My best prediction is that minimalist running shoes will eventually becomie a bona fide category that stands alongside the existing ones (cushioned, stability, motion control, etc.) and that every major brand will make and sell them, blithely ignoring the inherent irony of peddling the problem and the solution side-by-side.

http://mattfitzgerald.org/blog/?p=189

ziemlich arrogant formuliert. Der Autor vergisst den Fakt, dass es genügend Läufer gibt, die erstens keinerlei Verletzungen haben und auch keinen Ehrgeiz, die letzten 10-15% an Leistung durch besonders leicht gebaute Schuhe aus sich heraus zu holen.
Solche Läufer sind mit einem Stabilschuh ala Beast (bin ich auch früher lange im Training gelaufen) bestens bedient.
Und dann gibt's noch eine riesige Gruppe von Läufern mit Fußfehlstellungen oder/und Übergewicht: auch diese Läufer werden mit einem Minimalschuh im Sinne von Ecco biom oder Nike lunaracer niemals glücklich werden.

Ich kann leider immer noch nicht wieder laufen, daher noch keinen eigenen Erfahrungsbericht.

Der Schuh passt auch nicht in meine Langlaufbindung. Eventuell könnte ich ihn zum Schwimmen als Badelatsche anziehen... :Lachen2:

So bleibt er halt vorerst ein Business-Schuh für den Laden.


Axel