Your thoughts please. - Gear

Sacco di Noci

11/10/2007 at 09:34

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7038884.stm

Stump

pirate

11/10/2007 at 09:38

Expensive trainers are no different to cheapo ones

I agree

Expensive "running" shoes are a shed load different to Expensive "fashion" trainers

I can see nowhere in the article where they mention types of trainers.

You can go to a boutique and spend £300 quid on a pair that are useless for running but punch the fashionista buttons.

Sounds half baked to me

paininthefoot

11/10/2007 at 10:04

Some people say that you should run bare feet

or with shoes that have as little support as possible like pose or chi running. At the end of the day I think it's personal preference.

Swerve

11/10/2007 at 10:18

I have long since given up hope that the BBC will ever report a study in any useful way. Unfortunately the study's not online yet, so I can't tell whether it's badly biased (like many sports science papers), or even what exactly they were measuring. Even if it is, as it appears, a measurement of the forces transmitted through the insole (pretty objective), who knows whether they compare cheaper cushioned shoes with expensive motion-control ones (after all, motion control generally costs more as there's more rubber involved).

People think that because a scientist says something (or is reported as saying something) that it's completely reliable. Nope!

Oh, and finally, the point Stump makes is spot-on. You just know that the dafter amongst us will be out buying £5 abominations from the market because 'scientists say they're just as good'.

Irresponsible soundbite journalism. Again.

fat buddha

11/10/2007 at 10:27

not a very good report from the BBC - just not enough info

costing £40 to £45, £60 to £65, and £70 to £75 - made by different brands.

different brands may have different pricing strategies - so a £40 trainer in one could be equated to a £70 trainer in another

£40 isn't cheap to many people - nor is £75 expensive to others

and the study only looks at plantar pressure - errm, what about pronation, supination, toe-off etc - cushioning isn't the only reason to buy more expensive runners

study done on a treadmill - don't all treadmills have some sort of built in cushioning anyway?? they's softer than tarmac!!

etc etc etc

if they want cheap they should have looked at runners knocked out by Aldi et al which come in at less than £15 or so and are recommended for running - I think they'd find big differences then in performance

it's frankly shite reporting from the BBC

anyone got access to the BJSM article??

Try Taffia

11/10/2007 at 10:30

Again jo public will think oh we are being ripped off.

some £80 trainers will have less padding as they are racing trainers and have les padding. Use is for maras etc.

Same for racing flats. I have two pair of NB trainers one has no support or weight as it is for racing in.

Next they will tell us there is no diffrence in aerobars for tri bikes!

cougie

pirate

11/10/2007 at 11:13

Why even bother with their research ? Sounds pretty pointless to me. And have they looked at durability ?

Sacco di Noci

11/10/2007 at 11:38

http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/bjsm.2007.038844v1

Sacco di Noci

11/10/2007 at 11:40

It looks like the research was sound, but very specific. The bbc just went off half cocked.

MikeFrog

11/10/2007 at 11:42

Well, I might take issue with the title that the scientists gave to their paper

even if the rest of it is sound

Sacco di Noci

11/10/2007 at 11:46

Here's the most revealing quote:

"overall,there were no major differences among the shoes, irrespective of brand or price. In fact, plantar pressure was lower in the cheap to moderately priced shoes, although this difference was not statistically significant".

M.ister W

11/10/2007 at 11:48

Who buys running shoes by price anyway? I buy the ones that suit my running style and are the most comfortable. If they cost £40 then I'm happy. If they cost £70 then I'm less happy but it's still less than the cost of a trip to the physio!

Not Greased Lightning (M.)

11/10/2007 at 12:11

True M.ister W, I wear DSTrainers but won't pay the asking price for them. I shop around until I find them at a price I am willing to pay.

Swerve

11/10/2007 at 12:26

Damn - can't get a full copy online.

No mention of whether any distinction was made between styles (i.e. cushioned/control) in the abstract. And only nine pairs were tested. The measurement is probably fine.

Grendel3

11/10/2007 at 12:33

Not sure that I have ever bought running shoes that expensive anyway, I have always bought sale shoes which are cheap because they are last years model/or colour way or whatever, my only need is that they are light and flexible.

Also you have to remember to that it is only really in the last 20/25 that the running shoes have moved on and developed in the way they have, mainly due to the running boom that occured around the start of the 80's thanks to Chris Brasher.

In the past, the road runners did only run in plimsoles etc - but the only people running at the time were serious runners (I know everyone thinks they are a serious runner, but you have to remember in the late 70s a slow half marathon time would have been 69/70 minutes - with the advent of shall we say heavier runners/joggers who spend more time on their feet, the companies saw a market for shoes that provide the support needed.

Womble

11/10/2007 at 12:45

There's just been an item on this on Radio 4. Journalist Sam Murphy who runs and writes said something along the lines of .... you need the shoes that suit you. Go to a specialist running shop and don't go to one of the High St sportswear shops where they look at you like you're an alien if you ask them about running shoes and tell you which look nicest!!

Can't think what she meant.

Veee.

11/10/2007 at 12:57

I read this report and thought that a good pair of trainers does a lot more than look after your feet... knees, hips, back, ankles etc should also be taken into account.

I'm not sure what the purpose of the study was really. Did the also look at how long a pair might last. These cushioning figures would probably change over time. the £70 pair of trainers may last twice as long, and therefore represent better value...

I don't think that the research they did accurately allowed them to judge whether a more expensive pair of trainers gives better value for money...

Shimmy shimmy

11/10/2007 at 13:03

The physios are going to be kept busy in the coming months when non runners try running in inadequate shoes and wonder why they get shin/back/foot/knee ache.

Swerve

11/10/2007 at 13:20

So, it's unanimous then?

The study may have come up with the right answer, but it asked entirely the wrong question. Not that that will worry a newsroom sub-editor.

fat buddha

11/10/2007 at 13:24

I bet Rami J Abboud (To whom correspondence should be addressed) got either a MSc or PhD on the strength of that study - sounds like it's shite enough to form a thesis.........