Last year they wrote about slow marathoners - the 4+ hour folks. They worried that the popularity of marathons for people who run 4, 5, 6 hour marathons were taking away the presige of the event. Remember how angry I got? I'm still angry.
Now they write this article -
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/health/23patient.html?scp=1&sq=running%20shoes&st=cse
The article makes the case that yes, you do need a good fit, but the cheap shoes are just fine. You don't need high cushioned, more expensive shoes. Now, I know what you're thinking, "Geez Charlie, stop talking like a guy who sells running shoes." Nope....this is not about buying high priced shoes. It is about getting the right shoe for you.
Do you need a $180 shoe? Maybe, maybe not. I don't need a $180 shoe. Someone does though, and for that person, that shoe is ideal for them. What if you don't have $180, and that shoe works? Well now that is a different story. If you don't want to pay for the shoe, try to figure out what worked on that shoe, and then find a lesser priced one. By lesser priced, I don't mean the $30 special at the outlet store. That is an old shoe, and it will do more harm than good.
Let's say you like the Asics Kayano. It works for you, but it is $130. The Asics 2100 series is very similar, and is less cushioned, and is $100. Oddly enough I have customers who will tell you the $100 shoes feels better than the $130. Terrific.
Here is another thing which the article mentions which pisses me off. They indicate that the higher priced shoes, with more cushion, could lead to injury. I promise you that most of the people who come in with injuries, and blame the shoes, soon are telling me what really happened, and it wasn't the shoes' fault. One man in particular in the past has blamed the shoe "I made him buy"(you know that is not true), gave him a stress fracture.
The real story was he went on a 15 mile run in shoes he had never run in before, on rocky terrain. Was it the shoes' fault? I think it had more to do with what he did. Still he wants to blame the shoe and me....fine.
If the NYT wants to write about running, that is great. The sport needs the exposure, but not at the expense of writing stuff which makes it sound like they are breaking Watergate wide open. Come on.
Charlie