UKC

I'm after close fitting lycra shorts and leggings and struggling to find anything bang on.

What I want/need is something tight enough that I don't need to wear anything else underneath so something that will stop me jangling around too much... and something that doesn't have pockets/zip compartments etc.

I am small... 28" waist and 5'6" so issue I have is that when running with a backpack/hydration system because it covers my entire back I'm super sensitive to the lower part of pack rubbing on wastebands/zippers/clothing layers. Hence I try to combat that issue by minimising number of layers (doing without underwear) and avoiding zips.

But I'm struggling to find many that don't have a zip pocket at the back and those that I have found that don't, havn't been close enough fitting.

Any recomendations or how are other people dealing with jangly bits and a desire to minimise layers and chaffing etc....

In reply to Ferret:

Cantebury compression leggings - excellent support, provides the compression element which is useful for longer stuff, has no pockets and never had chafing from them (personal experience have found them ideal especially in mudrunner type scenarios - no sagging/movement even when upto thighs in mud!!) Sportpursuit usually have them on offer at about £25-30

Duncan

In reply to Ferret:

Under Armour?

In reply to Duncan Turner:

thanks - will try to find a local stockist so I can try some... struggling a sthe 2 local running shops and one nasty sports shop don't have much in.

In reply to altirando:

Hadn't thought of that, mostly as I know nothing about compression stuff.... quick glance however and teh only pair that seem to be billed as 'shorts', ratherthan as an under grament has a zip pocket. If possible I want to avoid underwear as it seems like an unnecessary extra layer which cretaes yet another wasteband in the area that suffers a bit of rubbing.

In reply to Ferret:

I deal with the dangly bits with normal running shorts with inbuilt briefs - no underwear needed.

However, these aren't the close-fitting lycra-type shorts you seem to be after. How about these:
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/adidas-response-short-tight-ss14/
The back pocket is on one side, so the chafing issue shouldn't arise.
Similarly:
http://www.run4it.com/shop/clothing/mens/shorts/trail-twin-short-ss2013-2/

or these ones don't have a back pocket:
http://www.run4it.com/shop/clothing/mens/shorts/pursuit-lycra-short-ss2014-...

In reply to tony:

Thanks - wasn't so convinced by the ones with inbuilt briefs but those look interesting - the 2 others also look exactly what I was after... annoyingly the local run4 it doesn't have them in - web presence far bigger than retail presence I guess.

May just have to order and return if fit isn't right - I've tried a few on but have found that even if legs and waistband are tight fitting, the crotch isn't necessarily so.

Appreciate the links - have largely lost will to live trawling e-sites and looking through 150 pairs of shorts one by one trying to find ones without rear pocket....

In reply to tony:

I'd second the suggestion of going with bog standard running shorts. The plus side is that you get loads to choose from.

Suppose the OP could order a load online and send back most of them? Or it could be worth a trip to a good sized store somewhere?

I used to run a lot in a pair of tiny Raidlight shorts with mesh side pockets. They were definitely not for wearing in the pub (or really anywhere with other people), but they were brilliant. I also got on particularly well with really cheap decathlon running shorts too.

In reply to Ferret:




Shouldn't be too much to jangle around then!

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

I was waiting for the first comment along those lines....

In reply to hamsforlegs:

Ah, I was wondering about those... they are cheap on sportpursuit at present. Is the sizing really as small as they suggest? i.e their charts put me solidly in Medium territory. What was your experience on sizing?