Cheap shoes prevent injuries?

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

I've just read an interesting article in the local rag about cheap running shoes. It seems several studies have been done which all yield the same result: runners have fewer injuries when they run in cheaper shoes. There seems to be two schools of thought as to why this might be: the first is that running without shoes is actually the least risky method and that cheaper shoes are closer to au natural running; the other idea seems to be that expensive shoes are softer, and it's this softness that causes the injuries, apparently because the soft landing deceives the body into an unnatural action, whereas the shock of a hard landing forces the body to adapt properly and provide protection where it's needed. Something like that, anyhow.

The reason I found this interesting is because since I switched to cheaper shoes about 18 months ago for purely economic reasons (I use Brooks Vapors on road and Nike Trails off-road, both of which are well under half the price of Asics Kayano, for example), I have had no injury concerns whatsoever.

Coincidence? I wonder.

Anyone else have experience of this?

[glaconman]

Mrs G did 10 road miles at the weekend on Nike Frees. She's found her injury problems have reduced now the cushioning has been taken away from her ride. I seem to be able to run in anything without much problem other than the odd niggle. Am intrigued by the vibram five-fingers but haven't had the time to get down to Shefiield and pick some up.

[Sweder]

I've not run in the 'gloves' for a while but can report that, offroad at least, they felt great.
Funnily enough I've popped out a couple of middle-distance runs here - mostly on hard standing - in my old Mizuno roadies. I'd inserted Sorbothane insoles for extra padding to see if this helped with my old friend Knee Pain, but after no discernable change I reverted to original (pretty worn-out) insoles. Both outings here have been pain-free. Incidentally due to chilly conditions I've also donned the winter leggings. I find leg muscle pain almost non-existant in these; Stevio (JSJers) is an advocate of compression socks (as are some of the faster runners) for reducing cramp, so I guess there's something to all that.

Ten road miles eh? Good stuff Mrs G.

[El Gordo]

Noticed a few people on Sunday wearing compressions socks. I'm going to try some out before the cold weather hits in the hope that they will minimise the risk of another calf strain.

Interesting info re cheap shoes, though sort of depressing as well though as it just makes me more confused than ever. I've been wearing Asics Foundation 8s since last winter along with Sorbothane insoles to ramp up the support and cushioning even more. Man, these suckers make lurve to my feet.

But now I learn that perhaps I'd do better to just tie some cupboard round them instead. What's a chap to do?

[marathondan]

We debated this a while back. The Daily Mail article linked seems to completely misunderstand the research, but I just noticed that the picture in that article (of Arnulfo Quimare and Scott Jurek) perfectly illustrates the difference between flats and cushions - look at their strike angles.

From my experience, I can only say that if you're running in heel-strike mode, you do need good cushioning (obvious, but my experiment of one backs it up). I'm generally extremely injury-free (probably because I never train...) but the one time I took a pair of shoes up to 700 miles I started to get back pain. New (identical) shoes, back pain gone.

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

...but the one time I took a pair of shoes up to 700 miles I started to get back pain. New (identical) shoes, back pain gone.

Fair point, and I wasn't really looking to re-open the debate; I was just curious whether anyone else had the same experience as me, i.e. change to cheaper shoes and have fewer injuries as a result.

I well remember being in a shoe store once and trying on the A$260 Asic Kayanos - pretty much the most expensive shoe in the store - and being shocked when the sales guy said the Kayanos were easily the best-selling shoe despite the hefty price.

And I thought then that surely that did NOT mean it was necessarily the bestest shoe, but that people were buying it on reputation or some other nonsensical reason. Probably half of the buyers were not even going to use them for running. Or maybe I'm just too cynical.

As an aside, I have tried running in Dunlop Volleys (super-cheap canvas shoes with a rigid flat sole) and found them awful. However I've also heard Ken Rosewell on the telly say that in his day they were the only shoes tennis players used, and they caused no particular injuries.

If you think about this too much, you might just end up playing cards or chess in your socks instead.

[El Gordo]

I play chess in my socks. It's a bit dark in there, but intimate.

Regarding expensive trainers/Kayanos -- well, it's one of those human nature things, isn't it? Certainly I tend to think that if shoe A is much pricier than shoe B, it must have more good stuff in it, be better made, longer-lasting, cleverer, etc. And this may be the case -- but I suspect that a lot of the time, I'm simply following a well-established consumer foible. It's a well-known fact that the more expensive Champagne has become, the more it has sold. There is obviously a limit to this tendency but within reason, many consumers mistakenly presume that higher price = higher quality.

Even though I'm a slave to this instinct, I do sense that the running shoe industry has become a bit too clever for its own good. Whether 'less is more' developments like the 'foot glove' and less cushioned shoes are a reaction against this trend, or whether they are themselves just yet another clever twist in the never-ending urge to shift product, remains to be seen.

[Mid Life Crisis Marathon Man]

I play chess in my socks. It's a bit dark in there, but intimate.

Why don't you play in just one sock? And do you have your opponent in there with you?

My mind has gone a-boggling.