Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Are expensive running shoes really necessary?
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Hey Guys
I spent £103 on two pairs that is asicsgt gels, road run and nike pro for trail running, that to me is enough spent..
of coursre both on sale prices!!!
got them both from sports direct website
Skinn102: All the main retailers flog off last season's (sometimes they replace them more than once a year) shoes cheap and as they get older they generally get cheaper still.
Most manufacturer's replace at least some of their shoes in the Spring and Autumn but a successful model may last a couple of years if it is selling well
Typically you'll get 30% off last year's model but a two generations old shoes you'll get 50% off. Obviously the shoes become scarcer and you may find it difficult to find your size.
The big retailers like Sportsshoes.com tend to have the best selection of older shoes because they hold much larger stocks in the first place.
As far as the 'new technologies' or 'plastic inserts' (take your pick), most manufacturer's have a description of what they're meant to do on their websites. Some are better than others in this respect.
Asics Sky Speed -
"I.G.S.
The Impact Guidance System (I.G.S.) is an ASICS design philosophy. It aims to make shoe components from rear to midfoot and forefoot to work together effectively to allow the body to perform in a natural manner. ASICS designers strive to compliment, not correct, how the legs and feet move."
What does this bit of plastic do exactly ?
"Have you got a link of somewhere to buy last years gear?"
If you're happy with the running shoes you have, try Googling the model from time to time. As the model gets older, the price, at least for some sizes, may come dowm. I recently got a second pair of Asics 1150s half price from Field and Trek by this method - size 7 only though.
Ie it doesn't actually do anything. If it did, they wouldn't use "aims" or "helps" in the description. No shoe company uses absolutes when discussing 'tech' in shoes because they haven't got any data to back up their claims
There's two ways to look at that.
You've taken the cynical approach that they are only marketing gimmicks.
The other approach is that they cannot give absolute statements because everyone is different biomechanically and runs differently.
In general I believe that the truth is somewhere in between.
Yes they need unique selling points for their shoes to differentiate them from their competitors (marketing). And sometimes they will give a fancy name to a piece of moulded plastic which is very similar to many competitors piece of moulded plastic (plastic arch supports spring to mind)
But they also need to compete with competitors to produce shoes that people like to run in otherwise people will change brands.
And in general I think shoes have improved over the years. They are lighter (possibly at the expense of durability) than they were ten years ago and flexibility and the ride has improved. When I started running in the early nineties you used to see complaints about cushioning as well. You very rarely see that now.
Finally they do spend a lot of money developing and testing these technologies. I read somewhere that Asics spent 8 million dollars developing the Kinsei. I suspect the manufacturer's profit margin on a shoe is probably no more than ten dollars so they need to sell a lot of shoes to recoup that R&D.
Found this re mark up for shoes. Dunno how accurate it is though.
http://www.fashiontrending.info/apparel/what-is-the-mark-up-or-profit-margin-on-running-shoes-andor-apparel/
I bought a pair of new balance 738 s after running around 900 miles on Reebok classics,
they cost me £23 98 the cushioning is out of this world, the cost of these once pricey running shoes are plummeting, if you shop around you can obtain good quality runners at a fraction of the price.
My uncle ran countless marathons, he swore by new balance, his first pair cost £85 in 1985, i have run around 100 miles in my first pair of NBs and will be purchasing a new pair when these wear out
Grahame
Just to provide a counterpoint: because the biomechanics of humans running is so fantastically complex, I would place more emphasis on your personal experience / gut feeling than anyone in a shop, even if they have gait analysis and all the trimmings. I've had the whole caboodle in specialist shops, and was still sold the wrong shoes. It took several times for me to realise that they were just taking a 'snapshot' at that moment, as opposed to spending 10 miles with me. It's also worth noting that, if these guys in the shops, high-res analysis or not, had real skill in biomechanics, they'd be working for elite athletes at £500 a consultation, not chewing the fat at the counter while reading the latest magazine.
If you speak to anyone into POSE running, they'll tell you many of them run in really cheap shoes. Gordon Pirie says in his book that expensive, cushioned shoes are to be avoided and that a good old fashioned plimsoll does the job well... I'm not suggesting we should follow this advice, as most of us probably would get injured, considering we're not used to plimsolls. I mention all this info purely as a counterpoint. I used to buy into 'expensive is best' and the shop with gait analysis is always right. I still listen to people, but believe my gut instinct is by far the most important factor. Never discount your brain's ability to decide what's right for you.
Not completely. I ran for a few months in a pair of Nike Lunarglide, and compared to the Onitsuka Tiger California 78's I wear casually, the Lunarglide are heavier and far less flexible. Lunarglide has more cushioning, but it's that spongy stuff that Nike uses that I don't get on with.
However I normally run in Asics Hyperspeed 3s and Brooks Green Silence at the moment, and both of these are lighter, more flexible and more cushionded than the California 78's. But, as you point out, at the expense of durability.
For the vast majority of summer 2010 I ran in an old pair of Mizuno Phantom racers (circa 1994-95). I was at one stage weighing over 17 stones.(I also supinate)
I ran daily 3-5 miles and had no injury problems when wearing them.
Its my opinion that most runners don't actually need all the support mechanisms built into modern shoes and that most support shoes have too high a heel and the forefoot is not flexible enough. If I run in a "neutral" trainer such as a Saucony Triumph with a high heel I experience heavy wear on the outside of the heel. When I run in a ligtweight trainer such as a Saucony Fastwitch or Kinvara the wear is on the forefoot not the heel, why? Well i put it down to much lower heels and a lot more fexability in the forefoot. The downside my calves get tight if I go beyond 1/2M in them (though it used to be 10K) the plus side their both cheaper than Triumph 7's. I might add that I'm not the lightest runner in the world either being 80kg.
What exactly are Evo II barefoot running shoes?
on runningbug they are described as The shoe has no heel, no midsole, no arch support and no gimmicks, developed to help your body move as nature intended. Worth £100.
I'm confused.
I have a Trion:z and a phitern neck band. I was given them. I have not tried the trionz yet but i think the phitern makles me feel ill.