Do expensive running shoes make a difference?

Much of the cost of a running shoe is related to two things imho. Marketing and Research. If you can find a shoe without much glamour written about it and has almost no super special features in it youll be set. Ones that come to mind are the Pegasus (Not much marketing anymore, sales come from a cult following, no flash) or the Gel 1120 (no marketing, no flash, got some cushioning and support beneath it and hey 75 bucks!). The runnersworld article about the Kinsei stated that the reason for the 165 dollar price was mostly to cover the costs of five years worth of R&D. Theres lots of 75-85 dollar shoes that work great that you should check out.

There's actually a sidebar in the upcoming RT shoe guide on cheap-o shoes. Dave Spetnagel went out and got some shoes from Target, Wal-Mart, etc. and tested them the way he does the models from the major mfrs. Can't recall all of it, but bottom line is, they're not as good.

However, if you're talking about lower-end models from those companies, the major difference seems to be less technology than the top ened models. Myself, I'm partial to the ASICS 1100 line over the 2100 - "less is more" seems to work better for me.

Having worked in a running store for almost two years, I agree completely with RM.

Any runner should be able to buy a good pair of running shoes for around $75 - $90 depending on your special needs. I was never able to find a good shoe I felt comfortable putting people in for less than that, I always looked and asked the reps about it.

I always looked to bring in the lower priced shoe as well as the latest $100 special shoe that all the HS kids would want because it is what Webb or Ritz was wearing.

Side note: lots of people were sometimes suspicious of the $75 shoes becasue they thought that they were not spending enough, which was interesting. Often when I could convince them to try the $75 shoe, they would come back a week later and thank me for not making them buy the $100 shoe that the store down the street was trying to sell them.

Having worked in a running store for almost two years, I agree completely with RM.

Any runner should be able to buy a good pair of running shoes for around $75 - $90 depending on your special needs. I was never able to find a good shoe I felt comfortable putting people in for less than that, I always looked and asked the reps about it.

I always looked to bring in the lower priced shoe as well as the latest $100 special shoe that all the HS kids would want because it is what Webb or Ritz was wearing.

Side note: lots of people were sometimes suspicious of the $75 shoes becasue they thought that they were not spending enough, which was interesting. Often when I could convince them to try the $75 shoe, they would come back a week later and thank me for not making them buy the $100 shoe that the store down the street was trying to sell them.

There's doctor in Montreal at McGill University who researched running shoes in the late 80s and early 90s asking that same question. He concluded that you were MORE likely to get injured if you ran in shoes that cost more than $40 US. Allowing for inflation, you might bump that figure up to $50 or so.

PS, The guy's name is Steve Robbins.

The sweet spot for running shoes is $75-95. There's really no reason you HAVE to spend more than that. Best of luck if you spend less unless they're on closeout or on sale. The quality of materials and manufacturing is just not even close to the same between the running companies and the wal-mart brands.

HRE wrote:

There's doctor in Montreal at McGill University who researched running shoes in the late 80s and early 90s asking that same question. He concluded that you were MORE likely to get injured if you ran in shoes that cost more than $40 US. Allowing for inflation, you might bump that figure up to $50 or so.

I think one of the weaknesses of his paper (see link) is that he was only measuring vertical force. I couldn't see it in my brief scanning of the paper (April 1998) but from memory the protocol was that subjects did repetitive bench steps not actual running.

No, I'm not a shoe compnay employee trying to debunk the research

Personally I'd fall in with the consensus - go for a mid-range shoe without the bells and whistles and then you should be ok

i remember hearing about that study. however, i believe it to be correlational.

the people who drop $100 for a shoe are going to be the ones who put them to use more and are therefore more likely to get injured. i havent heard of anyone getting a stress fracture from watching T.V.

plus as shoes get more expensive they generally become more specific and if improperly chosen may led to a higher rate of injury.

also, i would believe that the $40 price would be more comparable to a $100+ shoe today due to the increase in tech. and advertising.

bottomline: while i do believe you get what you pay for, most people only need to spend around $90 on a shoe. but they should not be afraid to drop $100+ if needed.

The right running shoes make a difference! Fit correctly and support in the right places. I've always bought mid priced shoes, Asics GT's being a particular fave - not interested in the overpriced Kayano or Nimbus models.

Friend of mine bought a pair of Walmart shoes a few months back (He runs a couple of miles about once every 2 months) He said they weren't a patch on the Adidas shoes I gave him 3 years ago, which he still wears, and worst of all they were lethal when running on even vaguely damp ground.

i bought a pair of Trance about 6 wks ago. they are comfy but I don't notice any real diff to account for the price.

I started with Kayanos and then went the less expensive 2070s. I found that they were similar in terms of fit and that 2070 work well for about six weeks but then they started to deteriorate rapidly. The Kayanos are a more durable shoe and have alittle more cushioning and structure. I wore the glycerins b/c i got them free. I felt that they didn't have enough support. For me - more is more, I buy online and save.

JimG wrote:

However, if you're talking about lower-end models from those companies, the major difference seems to be less technology than the top ened models. Myself, I'm partial to the ASICS 1100 line over the 2100 - "less is more" seems to work better for me.

i would have to agree with those who say no, there's not much difference.

in the stores where i've worked over the past decade, my favorite shoes to sell have almost invariably been the lower priced models. higher prices shoes will often feel best right out of the box--which is what the companies want--but they don't perform any better once you're rolling.

unless you like bells and whistles, why spend that kind of money? save it for race entries.

I heard a woman at a coffee shop (who is a casual "runner"(ie jogger) ) tell a customer that to get a decent pair of shoes, he'd have to spend at least $100. I wanted to take him aside afterward and tell him different, but I didn't. She was very authoratative, too, acting the running expert...ugh!

is it possible the people who spend less than 50-60$ on a pair of shoes dont really run enough to get hurt as opposed to those who are going to shell out some extra coin for the 90+?

Actually, there was a study done once that showed that people who run less than a certain number of miles per week (sorry, don't remember the exact figure) were MORE likely to get injured. I think the logic was the people who only run 15 miles a week often run more sporadically, which is more likely to lead to injury.

I think it depends a lot on what type of footfall the athlete has. If they have a light, neutral footfall, there are lots of cheaper shoes that are fine. It also depends, of course, on where you buy them. If you need expertise on what type of shoe to buy and you get that expertise at a running shoe store, then part of your purchase price goes towards the store providing that expertise. If you already know what type of shoes will work for you, then you can get last years' closeout model lots of places at significant discounts.

Sean Nunn

Raytown South High School

I went with minimalism because flats are cheaper and don't need replacing unless you're busting through the upper... Or bottom.

Have you tried virtuvian running shoes?

Be sure you don't have any specific shoe needs before going with a cheaper shoe. I have a list of injuries a mile long and have very specific requirements. With orthotics, I still require a special shoe and since I wear a size 5, that limits me even more because some styles aren't made in that size and some size 5's are too big. I wanted to try the kayano a few months ago because it meets all the criteria and the salesman almost wouldn't sell it to me. He wanted to sell me one $40 cheaper, which is great, but that shoe doesn't have what I need. If I spend $10,000 on my knees, an extra 75 or so a year on shoes isn't that bad. So be sure the shoe has what you need before switching.