Saywhat2 wrote:
The Russell Athletics thermals for running at walmart rated higher by consumer reports for effectiveness than the new UA stuff.
But peoples gotta brand whore it up over performance.
I've seen that stuff, but it's underwear/baselayer. Something I wouldn't just wear alone.
I've tried ladies tights (reebok, avia, etc), but the inseams are just whack. Believe it or not, the lengths are perfect for my stature, but the inseams are just too narrow/short (for anatomical reasons). It is so infuriating because they are dirt cheap. But what good is it if they don't fit right...?
For some odd reason for anything that is good these days, for a guy, you need to spend $$ on it. I'm beginning to hate running because of it.
It's like they are targeting women for running rather than guys with some of the stuff.
I see a lot of good running gear for women at Walmart and Target, like tights, shorts, vests, and shirts, but all this basketball and other junk for guys. Like basketball shorts down to your ankles and small T's that are down to your knees. Very irritating.
If I was a person from another planet, and I walked into my local Walmart/Target at this point in time, the way I'd interpret it is this: Ladies are supposed to be thin and do more "aerobic" workouts, and men should be thick (maybe borderline fat) and do more "anaerobic" exercising.
To me, that's an example of borderline discrimination -- in this day and age at least.
This year, I spent $260 on 2 pairs of running shoes that I am hoping to stretch 500+ miles out of each of them. I look at the prices of the other gear (shorts, tights, shirts) and it adds up.
Heck, I'm still running in shoes that are beyond ready for the trashcan just to try to get my moneys worth out of the new ones. Which I know isn't good for my running.
My running gear now costs MORE than my everyday clothes I wear to work and normal wear. For the same gear 10 years ago, it was LESS than my everyday clothes, if not equal. For the SAME stuff!