Seems quite likely that cheaper trainers will be made from cheaper and possibly softer material. Did they test the trainers as new only, or also after 100 miles, 300 miles, etc. A £45 pair that lasts 1/3 as long as a £65 pair and starts collapsing after a few long runs might not be such a bargain.
Does the same apply for fell shoes? I read all the Inov8 criticism, never been too impressed by Walshes. Can I pick up a cheap pair of shoes off the market, get out on the fells and save a fortune?
Not as fat as I used to be but still Cumbrian
http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/content/abst...urcetype=HWCIT
Full report from British Journal of Medical Science, if not already posted up somewhere else....
Why walk when you can run.
Oh yes. But not any old research.
In the newspaper Rami Aboud who led the study is reported as saying "Our advice when you are buying trainers is try them on decide which seem to fiit the best and don't look at the price tag".
I was going to read the full article but it costs £7.05 to download it.
I think it is fair to say that we are very fortunate at the improvement in quality of running shoes over the past 30 odd years as anyone who ran in plimsolls as a kid will know. I know I sound cynical about this bit of research but it's what we all know anyway!
1. Cushioning isn't the only criterion to be taken into account in a pair of running shoes.
2. Doing statistical analysis from only 43 participants is worthless.
Anyone of the forum tried the Icebug range?
I only know of one and he likes them
http://www.icebug.se/ShowDocument.asp?id=131