Controversial running shoes: Thre is a bit in... - Couch to 5K

Couch to 5K

109,537 members141,435 posts

Controversial running shoes


Thre is a bit in the telegraph today. I am looking for a second pair of shoes so that I can occasionally wash the mud off my only pair.


16 Replies

Interesting article, and I guess it depends on your mindset...I know for me when I got proper gait analysis and got my Brooks it meant I could continue running ( I had awful shin pain from my cheapo ones). And now I have just bought my third pair as my bottoms have gone flat and my shins have started hurting again. You could always get a cheap pair as backup, especially if you've never had problems?????? I have only ever had one, but I'd love some trail shoes....

GettingFitterGraduate in reply to ju-ju-

love my trail shoes better than a mountain goat on an icy mountain ;-) and yhey stay on in the mud


I have always spent what i could afford for my feet and depending on what activity i was doing. I would think nothing of spending £100 plus on a good pair of hill walking boots or similar. I have used cheap boots before and ruined my feet and legs (not a good thing when trogging up Snowdon).

I have always bought okish trainers, thirty quid at most. But i never used to run that much and only did 5k once in a while. But as my running becomes regular, i have spent a good amount of money on a good pair of trainers that where recommended to me. I have yet to spend money on having my gait looked at, but i am considering it in the future should i push further ahead. I would say that some trainers are just for fashion, and some are for doing the job they were made for. And not all of them cost an arm and a leg either.

My trail shoes (Nike alvord 10) cost me thirty quid from go outdoors as they were on sale, always a bargain to be had if you don't mind end of stock lines or last years stock.

I would always say get what you can afford, its your feet and legs and they need looking after.

GettingFitterGraduate in reply to Kurama

Indeed they have to last you all your life.


When I first started running, I did LOTS of internet research regarding running shoes. But - being something of a natural skeptic, I am very suspicious of people with vested interests in anything - and the running shoe industry ( and EVERYBODY associated with it ) have a huge vested interest in their own industry. This industry has only existed for about 30 years - before that ( remember the Chariots of Fire movie) people ran in basic running flats. But along came the 70's and a huge number of amateur joggers - the jogging craze was huge - and generated the first design and sale of running shoes to people who had never run before and had week muscles. Many ran ( and still do) with long overstrides and then landing heavily on their heels - causing pain and injury . So the running shoe industry was born and has grown ever since.

I truly don't know the answer to all this - I only know what I know about my own feet - that is that they are wide, flat ( with little arch) , generally point outwards Donald Duck style , I have short legs and am a poor runner!! :) I also know that ,born here in Queensland at the end of WW2 , children did not wear shoes. I do not really remember ever wearing shoes until I went to High School at the age of 14. I also know that at home, all my life, I have never worn shoes - day or night, summer or winter. BUT - there are people who have worn shoes all their life - ever since they were born - AND these shoes all have elevated heels. So, by logic, these people are going to have different strengths in their feet than what I have- neither better or worse, good or bad necessarily - but "different".

So - after my research, I decided that I would purchase "neutral" shoes - lightweight ones , and have been running in NIKE Free 5.0's. These shoes are very light and flexible - and I feel like I am wearing a pair of bedroom slippers . I find that they are not so good for walking - as when I walk , I do heel strike and there is little padding in the heels - and possibly I would not do a long race in them ( although I have comfortably worn them for 15Klm distance) - might look for something that is still very light, very flexible BUT with added material underfoot.

GettingFitterGraduate in reply to Bazza1234

Thanks Bazza a mine of useful info as always. Might take a look at the neutral shoes and try some out. Think my gait is probably too far out for analysis

Sounds sensible to me. Get what is comfortable and fits your individual foot shape, then train properly so your body's strong. It does seem a bit short sighted to just change the way your foot moves and assume that'll make everything better - for instance, my husband has tendon problems in his wrist but does physio for his wrist, elbow, shoulder and upper back because the weakness affects all those areas. I'm guessing the 'right' shoe should really be coupled with ankle, knee, hip and core exercises to really 'injury proof' a runner.

Bazza1234Graduate in reply to the_tea_fairy

Re - "controlling" the feet -- Take it to the extreme - imagine a foot encased in plaster - that cannot move at all. This is essentially what some shoes are trying to do - some 19 YO in a so-called specialist running store tells you that you over/under/hyper pronate and need a stability, cushioned control shoe ( or some such jargon) . What we probably need - at least logic tells me this - is to run with what we were born with - our feet - with some magical stuff stuck to the bottom of the feet to protect the skin from the harsh road surface. Probably what the "problem" really is that modern people don't ever really use their feet naturally - always being encased in high heeled shoes of one form or other .

It's the Telegraph. I would take it with an enormous pinch of salt.

IannodaTruffeAdministrator in reply to Rignold

I say now young chappy with standy up hair.......what are you suggesting??!!!!

GettingFitterGraduate in reply to IannodaTruffe

I used to have standy up hair (actually still do) but have to gel it down now for my professional image ;-)

GettingFitterGraduate in reply to Rignold

I was only googling running shoes but do like to challenge

I don't think that the cost of a shoe reflects its value. Most of the cost of a £120 shoe is profit and marketing. Only 10 years ago it was being marketed that running shoes needed to be thick soled to cushion the force when your feet hit the ground. 10 years on and minimalist shows are the way to go. I do think that shoes can not only influence injuries but also affect your performance. Those really comfortable shows, the ones with a spongy sole, certainly seem to make me run faster and more effortlessly.

GettingFitterGraduate in reply to baronblaze

Probably true. I thought we all needed AIR ones or minimal ones that have individual toes or ones with curves underneath. Got to admit I've just bought a 2nd pair of trail shoes so I can wash and dry one pair thouroughly while using the other pair. Black Friday deal £29.99 lovely ;-)


The minimalist look is definitely 'in' these days. Just last week at the running and endurance sport show I saw chainmaile socks, or that's what they look like, designed to protect your feet while letting you run 'barefoot', not support or padding or anything.

My main concern with shoes is that I get neutral ones, gait analysis said I didn't over pronate, so I don't want ones which have lots of support as they'll hold my feet steady and not let them move naturally. That and a decent amount of width so that the shoes actually fit!

GettingFitterGraduate in reply to Beads

Chainmail - now there's a thought. Just got to feel comfy when you run I think

You may also like...