Expensive Running Shoes Are Not Better Than More Affordable Running Shoes (Study)

Plus, how funny is it that this article is published right after the Berlin Marathon shoe debacle!

As someone who sells running shoes, I find this offensive.

I have never heard anyone (salesman, vendor rep) claim that a more expensive shoe is "better"

Further, the adrenaline is $120. That is at the very low end of this report's price range.

Don't read this garbage.

Leonard seems hurt and scared by this. In the article, it states that the average cheap shoe is $61. That makes the Adrenaline double that. I'd love to spend half that much! READ THE ARTICLE!

And another thing!

How many true running stores even carry the top-10 most expensive models listed on this report? maybe they carry 2 or 3 of the 10.

So it is likely that those purchasing these models are either getting them from:

1. A mall or big-box store (Dick's, etc.)

2. Online

So they are more or less just purchasing blindly based on the price tag, and likely not trying them on.

ANNNNNNNNND,

Don't forget that racing shoes cost less than the average trainer. Their inclusion in this report skews the numbers quite a bit.

If a shoe feels good when you first put it on and jog around, it is normally a good shoe regardless if it is $60 or $200.

There are shoes listed there that sell for $50-$70. Where do you get the idea that the Adrenaline is at the low end of their ratings?

All you really glean from studies of how runners rate shoes is how runners rate shoes. All we are seeing from this is the variation in each shoe-buying demographic. e.g. skechers-buyers are gullible nutjobs, and reebok-buyers are grumpy misers.

You would need to double-blind to get anything meaningful from such a study.

$120 is only $70 more than the least expensive shoe, yet it is $105 cheaper than the most expensive

Oddly enough, RunRepeat doesn't even have reviews for the Brooks Adrenaline, the #1 selling shoe in running specialty.

I filtered RunRepeat.com's ratings by overall rating:

Average Price: $116.50

1. Saucony - $60

2. Brooks - $110

3. Mizuno - $160

4. Saucony - $150

5. Saucony - $130

6. Reebok - $60

7. Asics - $150

8. Hoka - $130

9. Nike - $90

10. Nike - $125

The original point of the article seems to be: Buy based on our ratings, not on price.

Their ratings indicate that the average cost of a superior shoe is around $110-120, and that 9 times out of 10, it will cost you more than $90.

What a stupid study.

Want to know how dumb it is? Two of the shoes on the "cheapest" list are spikes: Adidas Arriba and Puma Haraka XCS.

Also, there doesn't seem to be any control for other factors such as mileage, experience, etc. Someone new to running who buys a pair of Nike Darts (cheap shoes) for his 10 mpw might be perfectly happy with that pair of shoes since he doesn't know any better. He has no basis for comparison.

But someone who buys a pair of expensive Glycerins may be more critical of the shoes when doing a review because he compares it (either consciously or subconsciously) with other shoes he's worn in the past.

There also doesn't seem to be any control for the number of reviews a pair of shoes receives. A popular shoe like the Adrenaline has over 2000 reviews, while the Reebok One Guide (one of the cheaper shoes) has a total of 14 reviews. Only 14! Think that might make a difference?

correlation ≠ causation

endurestrong wrote:

research shows that there is no correlations better the quality of a running shoe and its price.

This has generally been the case since the early 80's when New Balance created the first $100 running shoe -- an over-built POS.

+1

Used to be Rono wrote:

endurestrong wrote:

research shows that there is no correlations better the quality of a running shoe and its price.

This has generally been the case since the early 80's when New Balance created the first $100 running shoe -- an over-built POS.

1) Read the article and didn't see any indication of the criteria for ranking. As near as I can tell, one reviews a shoe by filling in a blank text box and giving it 1-5 stars, that is, there is no objective criteria for the rankings.

2) They don't compute significance on their cost vs ranking trend line, but from the spread in rankings the result wouldn't be close to significant even if the rankings meant anything.

Also, how crappy is that review site? This is the review page for the Pegasus:

http://runrepeat.com/nike-air-zoom-pegasus

They have some vintage Nike Pegasus as the image. And they don't differenitate between the Pegaus 30, 31, 32, etc. The 30 and 31 were substantially different. But it's all the same to Run Repeat.

Cheap shoes at places like Ross, marshals, Burlington coat factory. $20 shoes.

Ok, some good points are brought up about the research itself. At the end of the day, I think there is some truth to the article and I think the site is cool. Yes, it's not perfect but holy cow, why so much negativity! The website exists to help runners avoid buying crappy running shoes.

endurestrong wrote:

The website exists to help runners avoid buying crappy running shoes.

Well if that's the goal of the site, it's worthless. I actually spent some time browsing around just to see what it's about. In looking at the top-rated running shoe (Saucony Cohesion), i found this gem:

Among the top shoes that you can say similar or close to what the Saucony Cohesion could offer, you can check for Adidas Adistar Boost, Asics GEL-Hyper Speed and Brooks Ravena.

So the Cohesion, an entry-level neutral shoe, is similar to:

1. A top-of-the-line, highly cushioned support shoe (Adistar Boost)

2. A lightweight neutral racing flat (Hyperspeed)

3. A mid-range mild stability shoe (Ravenna)

It looks like they're putting a lot of effort into this site, but it's a complete joke. As much as it pains me to say it, the Letsrun shoe review site is streets ahead.

I agree 100%

I'd say a a third of my shoes are low end --- things like the Nike Dart or whatnot that I can get on sale for $30-35/pair at Kohl's. A shoe is a shoe is a shoe is a shoe.

I've run 90+ miles/week in them and been just fine. Hell, my 2nd and 3rd fastest marathons (243, 244) were ran in $15 K-Mart shoes that were Nike Free knockoffs. If it's comfortable when I put it on, them I'm all good.

"Only $70 more?" That's quite an "only." $70 is about as much as I'll pay for a pair of shoes.