Article about running shoes in Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0802/1224301713065.html

basically saying that if you are a midfoot / forefoot runner that dunnes stores runners will do as good a job as Kayanos!

Krusty_Clown

Everyone’s biomechanical structure is different. If you suffer from over-rotation of the foot during running, shoes like Asics may help correct this,” says Daly

Shudder. I hope the newspaper paraphrased her incorrectly.

Ruu_Old

My "over-rotation" is not a disease! :mad::mad::mad::(

donothoponpop

Without getting too technical, the test measured rates...

Yawn. Can someone please explain to me what the boffin's said. Either in terms of how many times to fill Wembley Stadium, or distance to the moon.

Because it looks like an interesting study, couched in a badly written article that has more to do with opinion than science.

*PS That is one crazy looking Reebok shoe at the back, the black and yellow one!

RacoonQueen

glasso wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0802/1224301713065.html

basically saying that if you are a midfoot / forefoot runner that dunnes stores runners will do as good a job as Kayanos!

She'd be right from the way I see it. Though if you're a midfoot/forefoot runner you shouldn't be wearing kayanos anyway!

If you're running on your forefoot you're not using all the fancy cushioning and motion control that a lot of shoes have, you don't need it. Hattoris are litterally like the oldschool plimsolls. With the minimal drop in all the new fangled shoes it's obvious people can run in any oul shoe without a problem. Fashion runners would do any geunuine forefoot/midfoot runner - only they're mega heavy.

I still won't buy a pair of dunnes runners. :pac:

RacoonQueen

donothoponpop wrote: »

*PS That is one crazy looking Reebok shoe at the back, the black and yellow one!

Thats they're stupid 'ReeZig' range. Each shoe weighs about a stone.

BeepBeep67

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I still won't buy a pair of dunnes runners. :pac:

Even if they have your colour

911sc

donothoponpop wrote: »

Yawn. Can someone please explain to me what the boffin's said. ......
*PS That is one crazy looking Reebok shoe at the back, the black and yellow one!

Busted, you should have read the article:rolleyes:

IrishTimes wrote:

The shoes chosen ranged from a low-cost Dunnes Stores shoe called Timeport (retails at €18), to the costlier Adidas Uraha 2 (€50-€60) and Reebok Reezig (€100) and the top of the range Asics Kayano (€140).

donothoponpop

911sc wrote: »

Busted, you should have read the article:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: yourself, of course I read the article.

Any scientific data is overlooked in favour of:

Shoe companies don’t help matters by indulging in some spurious claims about their footwear and, for the most part, resist independent scrutiny of how their cushioning technologies are tested.

Most reputable shoe companies go to great lengths to publish science behind their footwear, why wouldn't they? I don't know if the experiment discussed in the article makes any reference to cushioning materials that dissipate impact forces, or if the experiment just compared the "bounce" rate of several shoes. It's unclear from what is written, there's little offered in the way of evidence to support the conclusion:

What’s becoming clear in the running shoe debate is that the mechanics of running, and in particular what happens to our lower legs when we run, is less than obvious. There is a lot to learn.

This seems to my eyes a lazy article that pulls together several strands, and presents them in a scientific way that is unwarranted.

Scholesy1981

"...There is a lot to learn..." well talk about the pot calling the kettle black, after reading that article :eek: it becomes quite clear who the person that needs learning is....

RacoonQueen

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Even if they have your colour

They'd still be dunners runners, I might consider marks and sparks. They're more upmarket. :pac:

Scholesy1981 wrote: »

"...There is a lot to learn..." well talk about the pot calling the kettle black, after reading that article :eek: it becomes quite clear who the person that needs learning is....

I read a few paragraphs then skipped to the end and it seemed like a load of crap. I assume the rest followed suit. Looks like it just regurgitated the chi running ethos - which basically says you can run in any shoe if you're a forefoot/midfoot striker?