Expensive trainers are no different to cheapo ones
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
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!
Well, I might take issue with the title that the scientists gave to their paper
even if the rest of it is sound
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".
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 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.
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.
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...
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |