Cheaper running shoes allegedly better for us ?

Spirogyra

It was in the 'Health' section of either the Irish Times or Independent this week,that (if I understood correctly) that cheaper shoes have less padding,thus less support,which actually causes the foot to fall at a better angle and less likely to cause injury. Did anyone else see this article? Thoughts appreciated, S

RayCun

I don't think there is a simple relationship between cost and amount of padding

weldoninhio

That's an excellent book and sorta goes into the whole sports shoe/injury thing.

Enduro

Basically they were regurgitating the barefoot running philosophy. If you agree with that point of view, then they're correct. I thought the article was reasonable. IIRC they did make the vital point that you just can't rush into belting around in (cheap) uncushioned shoes, as that will probably lead to injury.

Of course there are plenty of really expensive "Barefoot" shoes too. Anyone who buys these must be off their heads, IMO!

FWIW I do my easy runs in a pair of shoes that cost 15 euros. I have won a national championship wearing a pair of shoes that cost 20 euros.

jamule

If your interested have a read if Thread Lightly by Peter Larsen. The conclusion, there is none. What suits your feet,could be anything.

I Got a pair of runners in aldi about 6mts ago for a tenner, best pair ever.

Gael23

A good pair of shoes isn't always an expensive one. Having said that mine were €140 but I feel like as if I run with gloves on my feet. Someone else might hate my runners at the same time.

cjt156

I read that article and it was garbage. Based on a study of 29 people at an institute they didn't mention, quoting a researcher who's qualifications they didn't document.
It was basically an anti-heelstrike piece, but the writers twisted it to imply all expensive shoes are chunky, heavy and padded but all cheap shoes are minimalist and will therefore prevent injury. Utter $hite.

cjt156

linky
Here it is.

The study of 29 joggers found...

Exhaustive study obvs.

This seems to suggest that

Conclusive findings much?

...hundreds turn out every Saturday for Dublin’s parkruns...

Apparently they have also discovered fitness in the provinces recently; ah, those bumpkins will emulate their betters I suppose.

HelenAnne

I remember very early in my running 'career' someone in a running shoe shop said something that stayed with me: they said that your leg muscles / gait etc should be the things protecting your joints, not your shoes (I had probably had some newbie question about needing more padding to protect my knees etc.)

I'd subscribe to that view - it's probably better to do strength work etc than worry about shoes - once they're comfortable and not squeezing your toes or giving you blisters, they're probably fine.

I also used to be nervous changing shoes - I found I liked Brooks Ghost 5 years ago or so and then wouldn't change from the Ghosts or from Brooks racing shoes. In the last year or so I branched out into New Balance and Saucony and even Skechers (won a pair) and they all felt equally fine, so I'm more cavalier now and feel if they fit OK & feel OK they're probably actually ok!

davedanon

you could always just apply the 'anything printed in the Indo is either wrong, clickbait or offensive ****e' rule. Works for me. See: Kevin Myers, Barry Egan etc etc.

lizzylad84

I seen a seller on a popular online auction site selling salomon knock offs? Thoughts?

judeboy101

Didn't the US army publish a longitudinal study on sports injury, they determined that shoe type had no impact on the incidences of sports injury.

Clearlier

I remember reading of a study (25 years ago so no reference I'm afraid) where they found a correlation between the price of the runners worn and the rate of injury. The higher the price, the more likely a runner was to have had an injury in the past year.

Obviously, you should be extremely cautious about reading anything into it. The runner may well have worn cheaper shoes until they got injured for example and then transitioned into more expensive shoes in a bid to prevent the injury from recurring.

I've personally used and benefited from orthotics in the past and have experimented with all kinds of support and cushioned shoes. What I've found is that my body compensates for whatever support I give it, some muscles get weaker, others get stronger. The orthotics helped me get over a chronic shin splints problem by changing my gait but I'm now happiest with neutral shoes and I can't foresee any scenario where I will go back to using support shoes.

davedanon

Clearlier wrote: »

I remember reading of a study (25 years ago so no reference I'm afraid) where they found a correlation between the price of the runners worn and the rate of injury. The higher the price, the more likely a runner was to have had an injury in the past year.

Obviously, you should be extremely cautious about reading anything into it. The runner may well have worn cheaper shoes until they got injured for example and then transitioned into more expensive shoes in a bid to prevent the injury from recurring.

If all they're doing is comparing rates of injury for differently-priced shoes, then it's vastly over-simplifying the issue. How much do the most expensive shoes cost? Close on €200, give or take? If you're a reasonably experienced runner, do you ever pay this kind of money? Of course you don't. If you're running 30-50 miles a week, you're likely to find yourself buying new shoes 3-6 times a year, and that's just your regular kicks. What about racers, track shoes, trail etc? Most will have 3 or more pairs on the go at a time for different run scenarios. You look for the best deal you can get, and that means you DON'T march into Elvery's or Lifestyle every 3 months and plunk down €165 for new Kayanos or whatever. Only an idiot, or a beginner does that, and as we see above, beginners are the sort of people who do get injured, because they don't really fully know what they are doing. The most expensive shoes I ever bought were my first pair, and I was sent out to to get them by the club physio because I was injured.

Now, the cheapest shoes would be the €20-30 jobs that Lidl/Aldi purvey, and again, serious runners avoid these. People with a little running experience tend to pay between €60 and €100 for shoes. I bet if they did a survey examining the injury profile of shoe-purchasers in this price range they'd come to a very different conclusion.

Enduro

davedanon wrote: »

If all they're doing is comparing rates of injury for differently-priced shoes, then it's vastly over-simplifying the issue. How much do the most expensive shoes cost? Close on €200, give or take? If you're a reasonably experienced runner, do you ever pay this kind of money? Of course you don't. If you're running 30-50 miles a week, you're likely to find yourself buying new shoes 3-6 times a year, and that's just your regular kicks. What about racers, track shoes, trail etc? Most will have 3 or more pairs on the go at a time for different run scenarios. You look for the best deal you can get, and that means you DON'T march into Elvery's or Lifestyle every 3 months and plunk down €165 for new Kayanos or whatever. Only an idiot, or a beginner does that, and as we see above, beginners are the sort of people who do get injured, because they don't really fully know what they are doing. The most expensive shoes I ever bought were my first pair, and I was sent out to to get them by the club physio because I was injured.

IIRC the study simply mined a large volume of information provided by marathon runners internationally. They were simply looking for correlations in the data. The correlation between the cost of running shoes worn and the likelihood of injury was the only one they found. They never said there was any causation whatsoever. I'd agree entirely with your guesses as being one highly likely explanation as to what is going on.

davedanon wrote: »

Now, the cheapest shoes would be the €20-30 jobs that Lidl/Aldi purvey, and again, serious runners avoid these.

Any evidence for this? Any evidence that the only thing separating these shoes from more expensive shoes in other shops is profit margins, and the negotiating leverage of the product buyers in the discounters?

TFBubendorfer

Enduro wrote: »

davedanon wrote: »

Now, the cheapest shoes would be the €20-30 jobs that Lidl/Aldi purvey, and again, serious runners avoid these.

Any evidence for this? Any evidence that the only thing separating these shoes from more expensive shoes in other shops is profit margins, and the negotiating leverage of the product buyers in the discounters?

I know 2 or 3 serious runners that use very cheap shoes, Enduro being one, but I don't think there's a lot of them.

I've bought exactly one pair of Lidl runners, years ago, and they were the most uncomfortable pair I've ever had and got chucked out after 150 miles. I buy all my shoes when they're on sale and usually spend no more than €40 on them.

davedanon

It's based on my own experience: that few runners regularly or habitually wear the real cheapo shoes. And I'm not averring that they're necessarily 'bad' for you. I bought a pair of aldi/lidl for €20 a few years back, just out of curiosity. And they were fine, for the price. They wore out very quickly, though.