« Cold run? | Main | Draft summer training »
January 29, 2005
Shoes
Last summer my old shoes wore thin. When they got so thin the gravel on the trail bruised my forefeet, I broke down and bought a new pair of ASICS Gel something-or-others that fit my feet but not my way of running. In retrospect, those shoes probably contributed to my soreness and eventual injury.
So I went to buy another pair, Nike Air Pegasus, whose name makes me think I need to lose weight. I bought them because they felt like running on couch cushions, though the shoe is for a wider foot than mine. Have run with them ever since.
The foot doctor told me folks in his profession have observed a positive correlation between shoe price and injuries. In other words, the more expensive the shoes, the more they correlate with injury. That doesn't have to be a causality relationship. It could easily be that runners spend more to get something designed to be wrong for their physique and stride. Cheaper shoes perhaps feature less extreme designs. So if somebody like me buys a shoe for overpronators with low arches, it costs more and ends up being unhealthy. (It could also be that high spenders do higher mileage, which also doubtless correlates with higher incidence of injury.)
Anyway, I didn't think that far before buying my last pair of cheaper shoes at Decathlon. And consequently they're not right for me.
So I've come to the conclusion for my next pair of shoes -- which I need to buy in February if I don't want to run a marathon in shoes worn thin or shoes that just came out of the box -- I'll accept to pay more for good counsel. I'm told the place to go in Grenoble is called Training 7.
In any case, I have several pairs of shoes to show them, plus my orthotics, and plenty of testimony.
Posted by Mark at January 29, 2005 09:35 AM
Comments
I noticed the comment from your foot doctor about the cost of shoes and injuries. I wonder if the observation (it sounded like a comment based more on anecdotal information than hard evidence) is partly based on nonrunners simply shaking their heads at the antics of runners -- all the time, energy, and money those runners spend on the boring, exhasting, and unsociable activity of running around in circles and then those silly guys get injured to boot. These runners must not be very smart so no wonder they fall for all kinds of gimmicks the shoe companies tack on to the shoes so they can gouge more money out of these not very bright fellows. Just imagine these guys spending $100 - 150 on ugly gym shoes.
I suspect there are also logical reasons that the statement could be partly true, that doctors see more running patients with high-priced shoes than low-priced shoes. You mentioned some of these reasons. Runners who spend more on running gear probably run far more miles at considerably high speeds which lead to injuries. I suspect another very significant reason is that runners who have invested more in running in terms of time, emotion, and money are more likely to seek treatment for foot problems -- more casual runners simply give up running. Also, runners who seek treatment for foot problems have probably already tried to treat themselves at home and one way to do that is to try more specialized (and expensive) shoes. The doctors never see the runners who solved their problem by spending more and getting better shoes that work for them though the doctors do see runners who made bad, and perhaps, expensive choices.
Posted by: Dana at January 30, 2005 07:44 PM
Yes, I hadn't thought about the casual runners just dropping out, but you're right. A lot of them probably see injury as a good reason to stop altogether, rather than to see a doctor so they can keep doing what they see as having hurt them.
Posted by: Mark at January 31, 2005 08:36 AM