Expensive or not, sneakers performed equally in
high-tech tests
By E.J. Mundell, HealthDay
Reporter
WEDNESDAY, Oct. 10 (HealthDay News) -- When it comes to picking
footwear, runners should follow Prince Charming's lead and consider
a shoe's fit, not its price tag, new research suggests.
Using high-tech methods, a team of Scottish scientists found no
differences in either comfort or shock absorption between $80 pairs
of running shoes and pairs made by the same companies costing more
than $150.
"My advice to runners is to make sure that, first, the footwear
fits your feet, and that if you are paying more, that doesn't mean
that you're getting something better," said lead researcher Rami
Abboud, director of the Institute of Motion Analysis and Research
at the University of Dundee.
His team published its findings Oct. 10 in the online edition of
the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
Over the past few decades, the lowly sneaker has been transformed
from a humble canvas-topped loafer to something that, according to
advertisers, uses space-age technology to protect and enhance the
human foot. Those lofty claims often come with lofty prices,
however.
"What we wanted to check was, are you really getting value for
money?" Abboud said. "Or are you just paying for
advertisement?"
In their study, the Scottish researchers had 43 men, averaging
about 29 years of age, try on nine pairs of running shoes -- three
models each from three of the world's leading manufacturers. The
men were sizes ranging from 8 to 10 (considered average male foot
sizes) and had no foot or gait abnormalities.
The retail price of each of the three shoes within each brand
spanned in price from $80-$90, $120-$130, and $140-$150,
respectively. The men had no way of knowing the brand or cost of
the shoes they were testing.
Participants were asked to test out the footwear and give the
researchers a subjective assessment of each shoe's comfort. They
also ran in the shoes while wearing high-tech sensors that gauged
pressures at various points on the foot, including plantar
pressure, the force generated by the impact of the sole hitting the
ground.
"I believe that sports manufacturers are using similar, if not the
same, equipment for measuring pressure inside the shoes," Abboud
said.
Tabulating the results, the researchers reported no significant
differences in comfort between the shoes, regardless of their
price.
When it came to shock absorption, some shoes performed better than
others on different areas of the foot, but no clear pattern
emerged. In fact, plantar pressure was actually lower for the
cheap-to-moderately priced footwear compared to more high-end gear,
although this difference did not reach statistical significance,
the researchers said.
"The perception is that if you pay more, you might end up having
something more protective within the shoes, but that's something
that we just couldn't find," Abboud said. "From what we found, [the
difference] seems to be pure advertisement."
Efforts by HealthDay to reach shoe manufacturers Nike and Adidas
for comment were unsuccessful.
Podiatrists and footwear experts have their own views on the
findings.
"I don't think there's anything shocking in this article -- to find
out that maybe some of the high-end running shoes really aren't
necessary for the average person that's running," said Dr. James
Christina, a podiatrist and director of scientific affairs at the
American Podiatric Medical Association. Big-name companies "come
out with a new model [of running shoe] every year," he said. "How
much of an improvement has really been made?"
But he also pointed out that people who buy sneakers are paying for
a shoe's longevity, not just its comfort and protection.
The Scottish study is just a "snapshot of the cushioning ability of
that shoe in time," Christina noted. "It would have been
interesting to have the subjects run a certain length of time, a
certain schedule of months or a year, and then compare how the
cushioning held up."
Another expert agreed, and added that fit -- not price tag --
should remain the most important consideration when selecting
shoes.
The study's methodology "didn't tell me if the shoes are
appropriate for a particular runner," said Dr. Gerard Varlotta,
director of sports rehabilitation at the Rusk Institute of
Rehabilitation Medicine, part of New York University Medical
Center.
"You have to not look at the price but look at the sneaker itself,"
he said. "Is someone who runs 300 miles a week the same as someone
who runs 3 miles a week?"
Bruce Wilk is a physical therapist, a former board member of the
American Medical Athletic Association and owner of the Runner's
High, a Miami store catering to avid runners. He said too many
runners just try on a few sneakers in a store without giving them a
"test run."
They "often spend money on something that just doesn't fit," he
said. "New shoes always feel 'comfortable' -- if it doesn't dig in
or squeeze my foot, then, hey, it's comfortable. But when they have
a real good run in it, and you teach them what to look for, that's
a whole other thing."
To that end, Wilk has customers run in a variety of sneakers on a
treadmill before they pick the shoe they think is right for
them.
As for cost, Wilk agreed that "at $80 versus $200, there really may
not be a big advantage at all. It's just how the shoe feels to the
beholder."
Varlotta agreed. "You don't have to go to the most expensive [shoe]
to get something that's adequate for your needs," he said, "just
like you don't need a Bentley to get a nice smooth ride."
http://health.msn.com/dietfitness/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100171755
