Are expensive running shoes really necessary?

Is it all just marketing hype?

41 to 48 of 48 messages
20/11/2010 at 17:19

I bought a pair of new balance 738 s  after running  around 900 miles on Reebok classics,

they cost me £23 98 the cushioning is out of this world, the cost of these once pricey running shoes are plummeting, if you shop around you can obtain good quality runners at a fraction of the price.

My uncle ran countless marathons, he swore by new balance, his first pair cost £85 in 1985, i have run around 100 miles  in my first pair of NBs and  will be purchasing a new pair when these wear out

Grahame

22/11/2010 at 14:25
moiri wrote (see)
Well I suppose that would make the profit margin on an average pair of shoes at £15 - £25 though it does seem a bit high to me. They may be counting the cost of manufacture, transport, distribution etc but excluding marketing, promotions, customer support etc which are more generic and less attributable to a specific model. And design and R&D costs would have to be paid for before the final line profit figure.

Dont forget that 17.5% of the retail cost goes straight to the government in VAT and not into the pocket of retailers.
22/11/2010 at 20:58

Just to provide a counterpoint: because the biomechanics of humans running is so fantastically complex, I would place more emphasis on your personal experience / gut feeling than anyone in a shop, even if they have gait analysis and all the trimmings. I've had the whole caboodle in specialist shops, and was still sold the wrong shoes. It took several times for me to realise that they were just taking a 'snapshot' at that moment, as opposed to spending 10 miles with me. It's also worth noting that, if these guys in the shops, high-res analysis or not, had real skill in biomechanics, they'd be working for elite athletes at £500 a consultation, not chewing the fat at the counter while reading the latest magazine.

If you speak to anyone into POSE running, they'll tell you many of them run in really cheap shoes. Gordon Pirie says in his book that expensive, cushioned shoes are to be avoided and that a good old fashioned plimsoll does the job well... I'm not suggesting we should follow this advice, as most of us probably would get injured, considering we're not used to plimsolls. I mention all this info purely as a counterpoint. I used to buy into 'expensive is best' and the shop with gait analysis is always right. I still listen to people, but believe my gut instinct is by far the most important factor. Never discount your brain's ability to decide what's right for you. 

23/11/2010 at 09:52
moiri wrote (see)

And in general I think shoes have improved over the years. They are lighter (possibly at the expense of durability) than they were ten years ago and  flexibility and the ride has improved. When I started running in the early nineties you used to see complaints about cushioning as well. You very rarely see that now.


Not completely. I ran for a few months in a pair of Nike Lunarglide, and compared to the Onitsuka Tiger California 78's I wear casually, the Lunarglide are heavier and far less flexible. Lunarglide has more cushioning, but it's that spongy stuff that Nike uses that I don't get on with.

However I normally run in Asics Hyperspeed 3s and Brooks Green Silence at the moment, and both of these are lighter, more flexible and more cushionded than the California 78's. But, as you point out, at the expense of durability.

26/11/2010 at 06:22

For the vast majority of summer 2010 I ran in an old pair of Mizuno Phantom racers (circa 1994-95). I was at one stage weighing over 17 stones.(I also supinate)

 I ran daily 3-5 miles and had no injury problems when wearing them.

28/11/2010 at 18:16
I run in Saucony ultimate stability. Fantasic, no problems. Would recommend for those who overpronate/heavier runner.
Dubai Dave    pirate
29/11/2010 at 08:12

Its my opinion that most runners don't actually need all the support mechanisms built into modern shoes and that most support shoes have too high a heel and the forefoot is not flexible enough. If I run in a "neutral" trainer such as a Saucony Triumph with a high heel I experience heavy wear on the outside of the heel. When I run in a ligtweight trainer such as a Saucony Fastwitch or Kinvara the wear is on the forefoot not the heel, why? Well i put it down to much lower heels and a lot more fexability in the forefoot. The downside my calves get tight if I go beyond 1/2M in them (though it used to be 10K) the plus side their both cheaper than Triumph 7's.  I might add that I'm not the lightest runner in the world either being 80kg.

GM
02/12/2010 at 16:33

What exactly are Evo II barefoot running shoes?

on runningbug they are described as The shoe has no heel, no midsole, no arch support and no gimmicks, developed to help your body move as nature intended. Worth £100.


I'm confused.

I have a Trion:z and a phitern neck band. I was given them. I have not tried the trionz yet but i think the phitern makles me feel ill.

GM

We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member
41 to 48 of 48 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums