The COST of running shoes.

Largely two factors:

A larger and more affluent running consumer base willing to pay higher prices for running goods. This has spurred development of $100+ models.

The devaluation of the dollar's worth over the past four decades due to inflation. Your $15 Tigers in 1965 would cost roughly $83 in 2005 dollars. Most good trainers fall into the $80-90 range and are just keeping with inflation. Realistically, shoes are not more expensive in four decades ago in constant dollars.

Quit whining. It's still a dirt cheap sport compared to most.

Is there a sport cheaper than running?

Out.

You need to stop buying those overpriced injury giving shoes anyways. Get into some flats and the price drops. I just got a pair of Nike Vapor IV's for 49.99 on Eastbay. Not to mention they have about 5 pairs of flats under 40.00 right now on the site. Stop buying those 150.00 Asics Kanyona are however you spell those devil shoes. Even the Nike trainers are really overpriced and cause injuries. So get some flats and then stop worrying about the price. I have two pairs of Nike Waffle Trainers,two pairs of Nike Traix TC's, a pair of Brooks ST Racers and the Vapors. If you rotate your shoes they will last alot longer. None of my shoes have signs of wear on them and the Waffles and TC's are pretty old. You will have better stride, be more efficient, and wear your shoes at their minimal.

What I love is the retro thing. If, say, Nike or Puma puts out a Waffle Racer type of shoe meant for RUNNING, it's a $45 price point (or there abouts). The second it is reissued as a FASHION, retro item, suddenly essentially the same shoe is a $79 shoe. And both cost, I'm guessing, about $7 to make.

A $130 running shoe costs the store/dealer about $68. That shoe cost the manufacturer to bring it here from a production plant in Asia about $36. And that same shoe cost about $17-$18, tops, to manufacture in the first place. Everyone along the pipeline has to make a buck.

Id say possibly ping pong (if thats a sport) would be cheap

Okay, I seriously defy anyone who has been running in trainers with the occasional race/workout in flats/spikes to go out and start running in flats. Injury-causing indeed.

A gradual transition to flats is good, but like any muscle group, you can't start running mileage on flats and it's best to have a cushioned trainer for when you need it.

Kilgore wrote:

Is there a sport cheaper than running?

CHESS

Out.

kilbill wrote:

CHESS

That's a game not a sport - there is no advantage by being physically fit.

Currently running 140mow in flats.

Not spent over $50 on shoes since I made the switch.

walking

What do you consider expensive?

Vitruvian Running's shoes are $30 with free shipping in the US.

Eastbay sells track spikes for under $20 if you want to do all your training on a track or on x-c courses.

There are options.

what models are you wearing and what are your current pr's for 5k, 8k, 10 miles and 15k, please?

When I was younger in High School I us to spend 120-140 to have the ''BEST'' running shoes. Was only putting in around 35 miles, the winter and 50 in the season to boot!

Well anyway early in college, I was really broke. And as I did not like program I was in. I did not get the free nike gear that most D1 programs give there runners. So I got the only shoes I could afford. These flimsy little asic road racing flats, that where on sale. Frist week running in these suckers, the soles of my feet hurt, the all my leg mussles hurt. Then at around two weeks, I noted and I had a good deal more spring in my step. And my legs where a hell of a lot stronger then they had ever been. I don't run in these boots most people do anymore. I have one leg about half inch shorter then the other. And I don't where orthodics. And I have no problem getting 20 or so miles in each day at a brask pace. Last flats, I trained in had well over 1200 miles on them.

Runners world, and all those other mags. Are really just an outlet for shoe co's. Anyone who say's that they can produce a product that makes the function of a foot that has deloped over 3 billion years is full of crap.

Intresting fact, Romans would on a day after day baisis run 20 miles, at around 8 min pace. In sandles!

Bump

haha, you are honestly claiming to know as a fact at what pace the Romans were doing their running?

Bullsh*t. At least on your "Interesting fact." (A) Where the hell are you pulling that 8 minute mile bull? (B) The typical Roman would not run your "20 miles on a day to day basis"--you might be confusing that with the 25-30 mile marches (per day) typical for the Roman armies.

Bump