19 replies to this topic

[silver fox]

For those interested Choice mag Jan/Feb issue has an article on best running shoes.

I have only had a quick look, but from what I can garner, the article isnt really that useful and appears to me to favour companies that were more 'helpful' in there research, for example Brooks didnt participate and didnt have one shoe that rated.

Also some big name shoes, ie Kayano, were not even mentioned.

[Grey beard]

It would be interesting to know what criteria they used. Seems to me the best guide is to try a pair for a few months. When you find something good, buy them again! Fit has to be a large part of it, along with match to your running characteristics (eg pronation) and shock absorption appropriate to your weight.

One quick and easy litmus test - for the first time in 3 years I have no black toe nails, for which I thank my Brooks Adrenalines.

[Action]

The Choice recommendations are:
1) Nike Air Pegasus
2) Reebock Premier Stability DMX
3) Adidas A3 Twin Strike
4) Mizuno Wave Creation 4
5) Asics Gel 1080
6) Fila FGT 1000
7) Nike Structure Triax
8) Reebok Premier Life
9) Mizuno Wave Renegade
10) New Balance M716 NS

Criteria:
30% Durability
35% Comfort
05% Slip resistance
30% User trial (over 150k)

Reading the article, the outcome stikes me as a typical non expert review of a specialist topic - not worth the paper it is printed on (a personal opinion and not necessarily that of CR ;) )

I will set up a poll of CR's who wear these shoes...

[Action]

User trial: "We recruited 3 runners per shoe and sent them on a 150km run (not a misprint). At the finish line we asked them to assess the shoes for comfort and stability factors. We then combined these results for each shoe to get the overall trial score."
I thought Uncle Dave and Mr G Must have been doing the ultra tests... :D

[JalanJalan]

[indent]quote:

---

given the sea of Asics one would see

---

[/indent]From Asics own lips...

"
Asics Shoe Count Melbourne Marrathon 2003 Percentage (%)

ASICS 56.1
BROOKS 16.8
NIKE 9.0
NEW BALANCE 6.2
ADIDAS 5.5
MIZUNO 2.0
PUMA 0.9
SAUCONY 2.0
REEBOK 0.7
FILA 0.4
OTHERS 0.4
"

[vat]

[indent]quote:

---

Originally posted by Action:
User trial: "We recruited 3 runners per shoe and sent them on a 150km run (not a misprint). At the finish line we asked them to assess the shoes for comfort and stability factors. We then combined these results for each shoe to get the overall trial score."
I thought Uncle Dave and Mr G Must have been doing the ultra tests... :D

---

[/indent]Well, if that was done for each shoe in the top ten (let alone each on the market), that would be pretty impressive.

Nice testing methods - :rolleyes:

[Colin Townsend]

The Woodstock Runners did an internal survey on shoes a few years ago, I think about 60-70% of members wore Asics. This is consistent with JalanJalan's post.

Colin

[pbig]

Just added my vote to the overwhelming OTHER category in Action's poll...

On what criteria did Choice choose the shoes they rated? The most common shoes I see around the place are Asics Kayano and 20xx, with the latter being my favorites (esp. last year's 2080s), so I guess popularity with runners was not the criteria.

Runner's World magazine often has a good comparison and evaluation across a wide range of running shoes, sorted into various categories of running formats and styles, and is far more informative I would think.

Maybe Choice is aimed at joggers rather than runners? Just stirring! :D

[Jogger]

For those interested the poll is here

[vat]

A curious selection, given the sea of Asics one would see at a reasonably serious event like the SMH Half Marathon, or the 1/2 and full Marathons of the Bridge run in September.

Re "30% User trial (over 150k)" - what exactly was the criteria here? How the shoes held up?

[James M]

For those that are interested Choice magazine has a "feedback" line, it might be worth a comment or two, try Choice home page
I believe this sort of advice could be harmful to inexperienced runners and the future of their feet and ankles may be at risk by buying shoes for all the wrong reasons.

[Grey beard]

Action - it might be worth asking voters in your poll to give each shoe a "star rating" (1 to 5). I haven't used the poll system so I'm not sure how possible it would be to set up, but you could even have a star rating for different key aspects of performance (like reviewers do for cars) - eg shock absorbancy, durability, comfort, price.
Over the past 5 years I have used Nike Pegasus (my rating would be 5 stars for shock absorbency but only 3 for durability, 3 for comfort and 3 for price); various Asics in the 10xx range (following the same order: 3,4,4,4) and the 20xx range (4,4,4,3); Asics Kyanos (4,4,3,2); a pair of Reebocks of a variety I have forgotten (they were very forgettable! 3,2,2,3); New Balance 728s (3,4,4,4 - also very light weight) and my current pair of Brooks Adrenalines (4,4,4,2 - probably the heaviest pair of the lot).

[Phantom Strider, retired]

Grey Beard

Having initiated a couple of polls myself, I can tell you that your suggestions are not possible with the kind of database facility that comes with the discussion board software.

Having said that,it would be interesting to know if Kevin would be willing to host more sophisticated surveys on CR if a member were to supply a fully functioning stand-alone application which would allow more in depth collection and analysis of information related to issues and questions that seem to occupy and reoccupy CRs' minds.

[Grey beard]

Thanks Phantom. Was a bit of a long shot. For something like shoes it could be worth setting up a long-term review page with specific questions, but to keep it kosher it would probably also need reviewers to log in/identify themselves. On the other hand it might just duplicate the in-depth annual reviews done by Runners World. What do others think?

[Jogger]

[indent]quote:

---

I can tell you that your suggestions are not possible with the kind of database facility that comes with the discussion board software.

---

[/indent]The software used here is for fairly simple polls. Some of the suggestions require more sophisticated software. We can do multiple question polls, but I am not sure how those answers get represented as I haven't tried one and I don't think anyone else has.

[indent]quote:

---

it would be interesting to know if Kevin would be willing to host more sophisticated surveys on CR if a member were to supply a fully functioning stand-alone application which would allow more in depth collection and analysis of information related to issues and questions that seem to occupy and reoccupy CRs' minds.

---

[/indent]Phantom, if you really knew me, and I believe that you do, you would know the answer to that : If someone can point us to some adequate software we can link to it off-site or (if the price is right) we can install it on CoolRunning.

If someone has a few minutes they can try a dummy poll to see what we can with this software but the best you can get I think is a question eg "how do you rate brooks addiction?" you can then rate it, then get the next question etc so if you have 20 shoes you get 20 sequential questions, which I don't think is what we want.

In a previous thread many moons ago, someone posted a link of some more sophisticated software, and I checked it out and it was very good, but there was only a very limited bit that was free eg under 20 responses, for anything more you paid thru the nose/wallett.

[Action]

Choice are now qualifying their shoe review with... [indent]quote:

---

The article was aimed at the not so serious weekend runner to whom we feel the article provides a good general guide to purchasing a shoe.

---

[/indent]I guess that means we all dip out. :D

[Jimboy]

Where can I buy a pair of Other shoes? :D

[Just tri it]

After seeing the ACA story, I giggled at the Choice report... The shoes that Pat Farmer wears are apparently one of Choice's bottom rated shoes.

Surely a magazine such as Choice would realise that each shoe depends on the person??? I had a pair of Asics 1080's (the "top performers") last year when I started running after getting poor advice from a sub-standard shoe shop. I believe they were one of the main contributing factors to a knee maltracking problem that's kept me out of training for months, as they didn't provide nearly enough support for me. Late last year I got my Brooks Ariel's which are SO much more supportive and provide a lot more stability (love your work Runners Shop in Phillip, ACT!), and are so much better for me.

And of course Brooks barely got a mention in the survey. Pfft.

[PodRunner]

"The article was aimed at the not so serious weekend runner to whom we feel the article provides a good general guide to purchasing a shoe."

If that's the case then where is the DUNLOP KT26!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Should have come first! ;)

[BUOYAJ]

Different Runners have different needs in shoe types for their feet. It is what we feel comfertable with when running that makes them suitable, Surveys are only surveys, but don't suit everyones needs.
Some beginners Joggers/Runners get a perticular type of shoe because it was recommended to them by a friend as been a good type of running shoe.
When I first took up running in the early eighties KT26 were a good pair of Running shoes by recommendation, which I believe that they are still good value for money, but don't last long as the Brooks,Asics,Saucony etc etc as the heels wear out too quick on the KT26.
Happy & safe running in 2004,Joe :) :) :)