xJimx wrote:In my quest for new shoes I've been to 2 specialist shops but had conflicting advice.
The first place told me that based on my limited mileage I'd be perfectly fine in a mid level shoe. However the second told me that with anything less than top-of-the-range shoe, given my weight (90kg) & history of back trouble, I'd be risking injury as the cushioning protection would be much less. To be specific, the first said something like a New Balance 759 would be fine; the second said I'd be wise going for the more expensive NB 1080.
Is the second place just giving me sales bullshit or are they correct?
Personally I don't think you or anyone will regret buying shoes with extra cushioning plus you have a valid reason to buy them.
xJimx wrote:I don't run far as I generally do sprints or a 5k once or twice a week,
The argument here is that injury rates were 70% in the 70s and 70% in the 2000s. So, despite shoe technology, which is hugely different, we still get injured just as much. And sure, this is true, and when viewed together with the other evidence about shoes, I think it's a good case.
But just remember that the people who are running in the 2000s are not necessarily the same as those running in the 70s. When I think of running in the 70s, I think of Amby Burfoot - small, wiry, probably ultra-economical (sorry Amby! Thanks for reading!).
When I think of running in 2011, I think of Oprah Winfrey... sorry Oprah. Simply, the people who run marathons today are not the same kind of runner. They are heavier, slower, and probably do less training but then still run the marathon distance. When viewed this way, it's perhaps not surprising that 70% are getting injured. If anything, it suggests that shoes may be helping, because many of the runners of 2011 are walking/jogging/running injury risks!
baldy wrote:Maybe we should start a Shoe Vs Barefoot running thread and thrash out the right answer?
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest