Comments

  • 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

  • Some people say that you should run bare feet image 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.
  • 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.
  • 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??
  • 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!

  • Why even bother with their research ?  Sounds pretty pointless to me.  And have they looked at durability ?
  • It looks like the research was sound, but very specific. The bbc just went off half cocked.
  • 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!

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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...

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.........
  • To be fair, it's half an interesting study if he/she could have limited the conclusion to fit the evidence, that impact cushioning varies little across a range of shoes. Inferring anything mfrom that gets you into huge complexity. Though it does get you on the BBC......
  • And the shoes have been tested on a treadmill. Which will also be cushioned. This would of been a lot more relevant to me, and most other runners if the shoes had been tested on tarmac.
  • The implication was that more expensive trainers are cashing in due to a trendy label, but I think it's only really Nike that are coveted by people wanting to be cool - otherwise there'd be a decent choice of running shoes in JJB. There were also some inaccuracies on injuries - basically misinterpreting correlations and citing a load of guff.
  • I managed to read the paper.

    There are significant limitations to the study, and I agree fully that it is not possible to make sweeping generalisations as expensive running shoes are less useful or more useful than cheaper running shoes.

    But there are some useful points. A shoe may not be safer or more useful because its RRP is higher than another model from the same manufacturer.

    It is possible that more expensive models could be concentrating more on comfort which may not be related to shock or impact absorption.

    Authors quote another study "Hazard of deceptive advertising of athletic footwear" which appeared on the same journal in 1997 which again suggest that expensive models does not always mean less injury.

    Or somebody may have to come up with some thing like Euro NCAP's star ratings for new cars image

  • I've always been of the thought that expensive trainers were really no better than medium priced ones. Being new to running I knew that I didnt want (or should wear) a really cheap pair of shoes for obvious reasons.I would normally pay around £30-£40. I have a trusted pair of Saucony Jazz which got me round my first half marathon plus a few subsequent events and loads of training runs and classes, still have them and love them.
    However, I was lucky enough to win a pair of the new saucony progrid paramount and can finally see why people invest so much money in their running shoes. They have given me a totally new experience of running.
    Fashion trainers have always been hit or miss but if your the sort of person to pay £300 for a piece string and elastic then your the sort of person who will happily pay the same amount for a nice looking pair of shoes.
  • A running friend went to buy new shoes and was asked of her old shoes "Are you enjoying them?" which I think is a very good question to ask.  I've been running for the last 18 months in Saucony Grid Tangent and can honestly say that I enjoy them.  That makes them worth the price.
  • Pft just read the article.........................................

    How many  people run the way God intended?

     Or how many  people think that running sith yur heels hitting the ground like a jack hammer is the correct way to run. The last road race I did guy running behind me sounded like he had bricks tied to his feet.  Flat feet and knock knees. There are people who need support to alter physical weaknesses, foibles of their particular physiology.

    As for cheap or expensive trainers...... I  buy last years model in last years colour adn get half price and the same performance, though I can run up behind people flat out and surprise them and walk on rice paper without it tearing  image

Sign In or Register to comment.