Posted on 10/11/2007 6:56:12 PM PDT by blam
Expensive trainers 'a waste of cash'
By Stewart Payne
Last Updated: 6:31am BST 11/10/2007
Expensive trainers do not give more protection to runners' feet than cheaper ones and are not worth the money, according to research published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
The study will come as unwelcome news to the 1.5 million runners in the UK who deliberate long and hard over their choice of footwear, believing that the more they pay the better protection they will get.
Worth their weight in gold?
Researchers examined nine commonly available trainers, ranging in price from £40 to £75, and found those at the cheaper end of the market were just as good, if not better, for overall comfort.
Dr Rami Abboud, of the Institute of Motion Analysis and Research in Dundee, who conducted the study, said: "In the light of this research the best advice I can give is to buy trainers that fit you best, irrespective of the price tag."
He refused to name the brands tested but said: "It is a common perception that the more you pay the better the shoe will be, but this is not supported by the evidence."
He said that the dictates of fashion and the cost of advertising and promotion are the main reason why some shoes are priced higher than others.
Researchers asked 43 participants to test the shoes without telling them how much they cost. The shoes were made by three different manufacturers and were in three different price ranges.
The cheapest were priced at £40 to £45, a middle range priced at £60 to £65 and the top range at £70 to £75.
The study found there were no major differences in the way the trainers reacted. Runners were also asked to rate the comfort of the shoes from "least" to "most comfortable imaginable," using a validated graded scale.
Comfort ratings varied considerably, but there were no obvious differences among the shoes and price was no indicator of comfort score.
Elizabeth Hufton, of Runners' World magazine said: "I am not surprised by the findings because most recognised manufacturers put the same research technology into their shoes in all price ranges. But one might expect greater durability in the more expensive shoes."
She pointed out that many trainers retail at more than £100 and these had not been tested.
Nicola Okey, from the London Marathon, which asks participants to name the shoes they are wearing when they register, said she, too, was not surprised by the study. "Most running shoes these days are good. For the ordinary runner we advise people to choose shoes that fit well and feel comfortable."
Dr Abboud said running produces sizeable shock waves to the bones of the foot, which radiate to other bones in the body. The force of the impact increases with speed and distance.
Consequently, runners are prone to knee pain, stress fractures, muscle tears and osteoarthritis.
The type of cushioning in the soles of running shoes aims to prevent this damage, with expensive trainers deemed to be the most effective.
Just my opinion, but I don’t think ‘price’ has ever been an indicator of ‘best’.
Price is an indicator of ‘prestige’.
I have found that the lowest end shoes are indeed uncomfortable and don’t last. But there are some really comfortable and long-lasting mid-range athletic shoes. I’m too cheap to buy expensive shoes.
I agree, there is a ‘happy medium’ there. The fabric and other materials, plus wear and tear, determine how long they will last.
Remember, kids have been killed for their high prices hightops!
True, absolutely true. Here’s what the cat has been doing for the past several decades. It (the cat) started out running in real cheap ThomMcAn (are they still around?) running shoes (cynical from the start.) Mistake, bad injuries. The cat went to mid priced shoes, at the time $20-35. No mo injuries for the kitty. Then the kat got smart and started watching sales at big sports equipment stores, as well as their deep discount racks where they dump leftover sizes.
Running shoes, believe it or not, have yearly model updates just like automobiles, and from year to year they are worth as much (goose egg.) At the end of the model year the manufacturers and the retailers dump their leftover inventory. That is the time to buy $70-80 shoes for half the price. There is a difference between $20 and $40 and $80 (retail) shoes! Over $80, it’s just fashion and show off. And if you are a high mileage runner, you know that they all wear out fast, though that varies somewhat among brands. I have my 3 or 4 favorite brands and models within them and a couple I hate. Personal preferences.
Every runner has to pick his or her best shoes. There’s no standard - only the individual pair of feet, plus the individual stride and running effort.
I hope the people who declared this study to have a generally applicable result suffer MY FEET!
Another thing, although I am flat footed and thus supposedly an overpronator, these shoes are neutral, but have worked quite well for me so far. No more knee pain, shin pain, anything like that.
I trained for the Olympics for a decade and still run seven days a week...I go to my local Kohl’s and buy whichever New Balance running shoes I can get on sale; usually around $45 a pair....never had a problem....
bump
I bought a pair of $20 running shoes to wear at the gym, and when they were new people there asked me where I got them, they looked so good. I don’t run in them (don’t use threadmills) and wouldn’t run in them, they are so hard and provide no support, but for walking around and for lifting weights, they’re just great. Yeah, weight lifting running shoes!
.
“Trainers”
!!!
Duh!
We aren’t runners, but if anyone has lower back issues or foot problems I can recommend a very expensive shoe that both my husband and I have found more than worth the money. They’re called MBT shoes and they are expensive (if you know the style you want and size you wear, you can buy the shoe off a dealer on eBay, and save some money.)
My husband has had a hip replacement and has a leg length difference, I have foot drop from my MS. I read about these shoes on a forum, tried them and they’ve worked miracles for my gait. So my husband tried a pair and now neither one of us could ever go back to regular shoes. They’re ugly (especially the women’s)...but they have made a real improvement in our walking and comfort.
There are products in which price does coincide with quality. There are also instances where quality reaches a point of diminishing returns for the price. And, of course, where you are paying for the manufacturer’s “value added” name recognition.
It’s an adult world. Everyone has to make those determinations for themselves.
Yeah, another name. Don’t you want your widdle twainers?
Sneakers, tennies, keds, hightops and who knows, lol.
Yep, as on clothes, the name tag shows the price.
I can recall when Nike’s were low priced.
.
How did we ever run in KEDS?
I have never been an afficianado of tennis shoes, never wore them when I was young either!
In recent years when I went somewhere that took a lot of walking I have some white leather lowcut Keds that are very comfortable. Never needed hightops and they aren’t very feminine looking, lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.