Things you should never cheap out on

[Gradstudent78]

Originally Posted by imatlas

This is some of the stupidest advice I've ever read.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with running in chucks, but there is little evidence to suggest expensive running shoes are better then less expensive ones in terms of injury prevention:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008...r-problem.html

And fascinatingly, in 1989, a study found that runners who ran in shoes costing more than $95 actually were twice as likely to get injured than runners who ran in shoes costing only $40

 

[runner-guy]

Well, I never pay full price for my running shoes anyway. There are tons of websites where you can get good deals on running shoes. But more expensive running shoes aren't just for injury prevention. They also provide better cushioning and durability. Sorry, but I'm not going to take chances running 25-30 miles a week in a pair of $20 Nikes.

 

[scribbles]

Originally Posted by Gradstudent78

I wouldn't necessarily agree with running in chucks, but there is little evidence to suggest expensive running shoes are better then less expensive ones in terms of injury prevention:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008...r-problem.html

Sorry but that article pisses me off. First, if the best source for scientific data you can find is over 20 years old, thats pathetic. Secondly, what kind of PhD "publishes" an article (I use the term extremely liberally) without providing the sources of the data upon which the author's claim is based.

Here is some more recent data obtain through PubMed and the New England Journal of Medicine: According to a follow-up study performed in 2008 by orthopedic surgeon Dr. Richard Byrne, head of the Sports Medicine and Kinesiology Institute at Harvard School of Medine, people who run in $40 sneakers run at a slower average pace (4.1 mph vs. 5.2 mph), run fewer weekly miles (6.3 miles vs 14.2 miles), and run less frequently (2.4 vs. 3.9 days per week) than individuals who run in $95 sneakers. When the original data was re-run to include the effects of these confounding factors, individuals running in $95 sneakers were found to sustain slightly fewer overall injuries (11.2 vs 11.7 injuries per 1000 miles run) and significantly fewer serious injuries, those requiring referral to a specialist for treatment (1.4 vs 3.9 significant injuries per 1000 miles run).

Actually I just made all of that up, but it sounds pretty damn convincing especially to someone who doesn't know any better or doesn't work in the field.

 

[Astan]

Before the thread is derailed, Shoes. Number one in my book. A real investment, hands down.

 

[Gradstudent78]

Originally Posted by scribbles

Sorry but that article pisses me off. First, if the best source for scientific data you can find is over 20 years old, thats pathetic. Secondly, what kind of PhD "publishes" an article (I use the term extremely liberally) without providing the sources of the data upon which the author's claim is based.

To be fair, its not really an article, but a short blog post. Anyways, here's a news article that is more thorough in its sources.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...ste-money.html

 

[cptjeff]

Originally Posted by HORNS

I don't know where you got this information, but the last sentence is categorically wrong. As for your first points, yes, it would be nice if everyone could run on their toes, but to do so with just a pair of Chucks and everything the would be hunky-dory is misleading and just plain bad advice.
Pick up a copy: http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidde.../dp/0307266303 written for a popular audience, but it makes the point. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0104122310.htm http://www.biologynews.net/archives/...nd_ankles.html http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Fitnes...nningShoes.htm Most are about the same study, but it was a two second google search. Soft, padded running shoes greatly increase joint damage over even stuff like high heels, for the simple reason that they encourage landing on the heel rather then the ball. Chucks have a single layer of foam and one of rubber. They don't. Ideal is apparently to have people run barefoot, where landing on the heel is immediacy painful and you correct yourself instantly, but chucks (or those 5 fingers things) allow for people to run without worrying about nails. Please don't say I'm wrong when scientific studies back me up and you have no idea what you're talking about because you haven't even bothered to do as much as a simple google search. Simple courtesy.

 

[scribbles]

Originally Posted by Gradstudent78

To be fair, its not really an article, but a short blog post. Anyways, here's a news article that is more thorough in its sources.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...ste-money.html

Thanks for the follow-up response. Not trying to be a dick, I'm just leery of any "facts" that are presented without sources.

Back to things you should never cheap out on... preventative maintenance (house, car, body, etc) and radar detectors.

 

[HORNS]

Originally Posted by cptjeff

Pick up a copy: http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidde.../dp/0307266303

written for a popular audience, but it makes the point.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0104122310.htm

http://www.biologynews.net/archives/...nd_ankles.html

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Fitnes...nningShoes.htm


Most are about the same study, but it was a two second google search. Soft, padded running shoes greatly increase joint damage over even stuff like high heels, for the simple reason that they encourage landing on the heel rather then the ball. Chucks have a single layer of foam and one of rubber. They don't. Ideal is apparently to have people run barefoot, where landing on the heel is immediacy painful and you correct yourself instantly, but chucks (or those 5 fingers things) allow for people to run without worrying about nails.

Please don't say I'm wrong when scientific studies back me up and you have no idea what you're talking about because you haven't even bothered to do as much as a simple google search. Simple courtesy.

Dude, you essentially cited the same interpretation of an article three times. Nowhere do those three links make any kind of correlation between the expense of a running shoe and injuries. Yes, running on one's toes is less stressful, but a person has to relearn how to run to do so, and that can create problems on its own while the re-learning process occurs.

 

[scarphe]

be men go to the beach and run without shoes.

 

[dtmt]

Originally Posted by scarphe

be men go to the beach and run without shoes.
REAL men wear shoes at the beach. With knee-length socks.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later. I AGREE

TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags.

 

[runner-guy]

Originally Posted by scarphe

be men go to the beach and run without shoes.

Kind of hard to do that when you don't live near a beach.

 

[scarphe]

Originally Posted by runner-guy

Kind of hard to do that when you don't live near a beach.

what sane person does nto live near a beach?

 

[henrikc]

Haven't seen this mentioned yet, so here we go.
Contact lenses. Seriously. Buy some decent ones, you do not want to mess up your eyes with low-quality contacts.

 

[Christobevii3]

Originally Posted by Strombollii

Pens (I'm not saying you have to go fountain pen, but I can't write without at least a Pilot)
Condoms

I get free durex condoms at work...

 

[aboutsomeoneelse]

Originally Posted by dtmt

REAL men wear shoes at the beach. With knee-length socks.