I ran last night - 3 flat miles on road, 3 hill repeats up the Harlem Hills (1 mile in hills), 4 miles total - @ 38.5 miles this week. I am tired - I can feel it - my body is beat - I decided to not run this morning - maybe will take the whole day off. I doubt I'll go over 60 miles this week now - and of the remaining miles I run - mostly hill repeats to get up my
VO2 Max - with fewer miles. In fact - the way I'm feeling now - I am going to focus on aggressive hill repeats only till the NYC Marathon. Over in the U.K. The Institute of Motion Analysis and Research (those 3 below) has found "
cheap and moderately priced running shoes are just as good, if not better" than those at the top of the range. Their findings, published in the latest
British Journal of Sports Medicine, are based on a comparison of nine pairs of running shoes from different manufacturers and ranging in price. Running produces
sizeable shock waves to the bones of the foot, which radiate to other bones in the body. The force of the impact increases with

speed and distance, say the authors. Consequently, runners are prone to knee pain, stress fractures, muscle tears and osteoarthritis. The type of cushioning in the soles of running shoes aims to prevent this damage, with expensive trainers deemed to be the most effective. The authors measured plantar pressure in three pairs of running shoes tested by each the volunteers. Tested shoes represented low-cost ($56-63), medium-cost ($84-91), and high-cost ($98-105) models from three different manufacturers. The shoes were tested according to cushioning of plantar pressure – the force produced by the impact of the sole hitting the ground. Plantar pressure - the force produced by the impact of the sole hitting the ground - was recorded in eight different areas of the sole, using a special device (
Pedar) attached to the shoes. Different models performed differently for different areas of the foot. There were no major differences among the shoes relative of brand or price. The 43 participants, unaware of prices, were also asked to rate the comfort of the shoes. There were no "obvious differences" in comfort ratings. Associate professor at
Otago University's School of Physiotherapy, Peter
Milburn, said there was no evidence to substantiate the claim design factors in expensive shoes decreased injury. "In the 20 years of modifying running shoes, the incidents of running-related injuries has not decreased. "Cost is not the deciding factor – the person's running style, intensity and intended mileage all need to be taken into account." "The high-quality, athletic brands are made for high-performing, athletic people. Cheap and moderately priced running shoes are just as good, if not better, in terms of cushioning impact and overall comfort, it concludes. In fact, plantar pressure was lower in the cheap to moderately priced shoes, although this difference was not statistically significant. Running produces
sizeable shock waves to the bones of the foot, which radiate to other bones in the body. The force of the impact increases with speed and distance, say the authors. Consequently, runners are prone to knee pain, stress fractures, muscle tears and osteoarthritis. The type of cushioning in the soles of running shoes aims to prevent this damage, with expensive trainers deemed to be the most effective. My opinion on this?
Bullshit & junk science. How so? Running shoes are not a "one-size fits all" - universal cross comparable item. You can't just say in a study, "pairs of running shoes" as if they're all designed to serve the same goal and purpose equally. They're not. There are Motion Control, Cushion, Stability, etc. divisions of running shoes for the basic 20 - 40 miles/week runner. This is only one of the reasons it's a poor study - it assumes the prime purpose of a shoe is universal (cushion), then implies a nexus of value based on a narrow casted and defined parameter (The shoes were tested

according to cushioning of plantar pressure) with no mention to foot striking technique even - and then they did the study on a treadmill. So for clarity - they voided out all sorts of aspects of value in a running shoe in their testing environment. For example, "traction" is voided out when you don't measure a running shoe on road & trail surface. Lots of shoes prematurely have their soles break down with wear-n-tear road impact & trail surface - stressing and
aggressively marginalizing their cushioning value/properties. Declaring "value" sans real world conditions & use is pure and simple
assinine. Thermodynamic Management. A running shoe with no thermodynamic design, engineering, & strategy is a F @%#'ed up shoe. Are we clear? Ventilation is a very important aspect of value in a shoe - your feet swell my friends over time in running and all sorts of injuries are produced from heat generation with your foot whilst running. This study makes no mention of that in evaluating shoes. I can rip this study apart on 10 different parameters quite easily y'all. Suffice it say its
void of the lion's share of value that goes into a shoe and has no credibility to declare or conclude anything - lacks a fundamental understanding of running shoes. It's amazing that this study is being published all over the web. If you have perfect mechanics and an ideal
BMI (weight) you can wear a cheaper shoe & get a way with it - but you still might pay the price down the line in your old age. Shoes are designed to accommodate and enable you to run with your unique foot, striking style, individual characteristics and personal issues (your frame, weight, flat feet, high arch, etc. over
distanc
e - perhaps 1 mile, perhaps 10 miles, perhaps 26.2 miles). Note all my commentary is in mind of the basic every day 25 - 40 mile / week runner. When you get into competitive weekend warrior runners like me? Oh hell - no, there is no shoe with an
MSRP under $89.99 that I would even consider - they're all junk - all of 'em (other than the flats category). I'd really love to get my foot in that shoe on the right, the
$175 Newton shoe - yes I've seen 3 different runners to date in NYC Central Park in that shoe. But as you all know - I am frugal about this - buy last years model this year on closeout - always. I buy about 20 pairs of running shoes / year. The only chance of a decent shoe for under $90?
Virtruvian makes the cheapest tolerable shoe, you can get a pair for $30. I say that based on a good friend's word - I'm dubious but willing to
suggest'em to my readers as an option.
Spira's on-line store is open and you can get a pair of very nice shoes from them for as low as $60 w/free shipping. Other than racing flats - there is not 1 shoe from the big shoe makers with an
MSRP of less than $90 that I would wear. You don't measure a shoe on day one - you measure after you've put 100 miles in it - it's broken in - and still serving you well. Shoes gradually alter and change with every single run - and at a point degrade. Do you want a shoe to hold up in the the elements? (weather), offer traction on slick road/rain service?, comfort and cooling after 1 hour of running? etc. it's going to cost. Keep in mind - buy a shoe you won't regret down the line. It's kind of like the mattress theory - You want to be sleeping on the mattress today - that you're going to be glad you did when you're 80 and don't have a bad back. You buy a shoe that's going to allow you to run for a lifetime (not just that week). Sorry - that's the higher end shoes y'all, not these $50 and $60 skips.