running shoe technology

some is just gimmicks... some is based on sound research...

depends on the gimmick or the shoe..

Have a read of this.

http://www.quickswood.com/my_weblog/2006/08/athletic_footwe.html

As far as I am aware there is plenty of research that shows that when landing on cushioned material eg Gel, Air, Abzorb etc, impact forces sustained through the legs INCREASE. Also there are studies linkng shoe price with rate of injury, ie the more technology there is in a shoe (and this includes all the motion control crap, so not really quite answering your question) the less good it is for you. Anecdotally, I can say that a shift towards less and less shoe has been good for me; and that most of my more experienced XC running club colleagues always run in as little (least cushioned) shoe as possible all the time. With what would appear to be a lower incidence of injury than 'normal'.

i can see that point but.. i think i am already too far down the road - so to speak- to try to get myself back to a minimalist shoe. dont think my feet could go back to the old old old days.

However much you pay, those shoes are designes to wear out after only 500 miles or so. EVA foam has a very short life expectancy, and that's the way shoe companies like it.

postfontaine wrote:

i can see that point but.. i think i am already too far down the road - so to speak- to try to get myself back to a minimalist shoe. dont think my feet could go back to the old old old days.

well why not? The guy before you just proved without any doubt that running barefoot is less impact on your body that using shoes. The choice is so obvious that Im shocked that everyone hasn't noticed how much less impact there is when the go for their barefoot runs.

quote]factsaurus wrote:

However much you pay, those shoes are designes to wear out after only 500 miles or so. EVA foam has a very short life expectancy, and that's the way shoe companies like it.[/quote]

XXXXXX

They also like it because it cushions better than other materials. What material would you recommend for midsoles?

PU lasts a long time, you could run in danskos.

I really dont think that all the shoe companies are out there just trying to rip us off, i just wonder if there are any shoe companies that design the shoes with some kind of biomechanical research backing the design up. (Nike lowering the profile of the outside edge of the heel to gently guide the foot etc etc..... or adidas "for motion" stuff to do the same thing )

That's just the thing: Those "technologies" would appear, from the little bits of information in the ads, to be from valid science, of benefit to the runner.

But I doubt it. Look at it this way: The lowered beveled heel, the segmented heel, are designed to slow the rate of overpronation by keeping you on your heel, or on the outside of your foot, longer.

How, really, is that part of a natural footstrike?

And further, I don't really believe they are trying to rip us off. They are businesses trying to sell more running shoes.

Nearly all "technology" in running shoes is found in the heel: Air, Gel, Grid, Wave, etc. Yah, I know there's forefoot air/gel in some shoes, but in general.

This is all to protect people who are heel strikers and land in a very unnatural way which causes undue pressure on the legs/joints. Because most shoes have all the heel cushioning the casual runner will continue to run on their heels and need more support/technology in that area.

The foot/leg is designed to absorb impact and the way I see it, the shoe that does the least to hinder the natural movement of the foot is best.

So all that technology is good if you're heel striking your way to 8 minute miles, but for the most part less is more.

So I guess what most people here are saying is the more wear you put on your shoes the better it is for you. Cool! I'm glad I still have many of my old shoes.

I don't think running shoe companies are trying to rip people off, they are just trying to produce shoes that people will buy, regardless of whether they are good for your running. Survey after survey has shown that consumers prefer the shoe that feels softest in the store, even though that shoe weighs more, leads to an unnatural footstrike, and breaks down more quickly. My experience working in a running store in my younger days backs this up. People always wanted that shoe that felt softest and most cushioned.

Not that shoe companies should be considered innocent in this manner. There are plenty of intelligent, knowledgeable people working for Nike, adidas, New Balance, etc. who know their shoe technology is crap. But they also know that if they don't provide clunky, overly-cushioned shoes, someone else will.

Finally, it doesn't help that we have sedentary podiatrists who, instead of instructing patients on ways to strengthen their feet & improve their stride, sell them inserts instead & instruct them to buy shoes with the highest degree of motion control they can find.