I'm starting running again after years of just biking but am a bit skint. I don't want to be spending silly money on the latest in quark-gel super-dooper anti-g float-tec slim-whilst-you-jog running-optimisers.

What's the minimum I should be spending and what techs are actually worth having?

Rock n' Run are doing free running assessments so I was going to pop there next week. There is also a Sigma Sport near by that I could use as it is probably a bit more clued up. Thoughts?

My knees are a bit jiggered from years of 'over-dominant quads' or something like that, so the NHS physio has given me arch supports. …If that makes a difference to your answer.

Lots of Regards, Scott.

I don't run, but my missus does. I think around £80 will get you a decent pair of running shoes. As you've intimated though, go to a proper running shop where they can analyze your run on a treadmill and give you some proper advice on a brand that suits you specifically. My wife uses New Balance which is a pretty popular make with a lot of runners.

A cheap pair of flat plimsoles will be fine for running in, a dangerous game that cushioning/support lark! Pay more attention to your running form than your shoes. Good luck. 🙂

Ps check out flea bay for some good deals on inov8 running shoes

Blah, blah, blah, barefoot is the only way, you need to asses your gait and posture and then embrace your inner athlete, blah, blah, blah.

Go to a good running shop (Runners Need, Run and Become and the Sweatshop at the top of Harrods are three which spring to mind) and get a good look at what they tell you.

🙄

There are loads of cheap proper running shoes on the net .you just need to spend time looking and about 40quid should do it

Proper running shop and be prepared for 60-100, but it's very much going to depend on your foot, running style, how often you run, terrain etc….. I never have a price in mind when getting running shoes and have spent between 50 and 95 on each pair… So….. It depends 🙂

I never spend more than 35 quid, saucony shoes fit my feet well.

Sportshoes unlimited … or so I think its called always has good deals

Abebe Bikila managed to win two Olympic marathons, with his tootsies as nature intended Flash.

Run like an Ethiopian scotster.

If you're using arch supports, otherwise known as orthotics, you want a neutral shoe as the support is doing the work. Asics do some great shoes, I'd say 60 to 80 quid will get you a great pair. Make sure you get something fit for purpose, don't buy a race shoe for distance training, it'll be dead in no time. A good running store is well worth a trip

Ernie, my running coach at school was not only a hugely successful athlete but also a very early and very strong advocate of barefoot running. I have tried it and to be honest, a trip to Run and Become for some good gait analysis made me realise that it was far better for me to get some shoes which worked with me.

To add, there are some bargains on the web, but unless you know exactly what you're looking for I'd try on instore.

How much running do you intend to do, over what distance. Most importantly, how long before you say "bollocks to that", and fling them into the back of the cupboard like most folk do?

To begin with, spend no more than £50 max

if you go to a shop that does gait analysis (and if you've got orthotics probably should) think i'd budget around £80 – depends on staff and store give / take £20
plenty of good shoes around for £30ish in sales but need to know what works for you if you've got problems already the extra is a lot cheaper than injuries

If you're using arch supports, otherwise known as orthotics

No they aren't , orthotics are orthotics, arch supports are arch supports and will normally aggrivate the sh1t into your feet. First thing is bin them. Go to a recommended running shop who have a look at how you run and get a shoe that fits your foot then start slowly and do 5mins of barefoot on grass 3 times a week as well, then build up to 10 and keep doing it, it stregthens the musclature in the foot and will help to avoid injuries. Watch your calves though. And stretch like a bastrd.

I'm always amazed at the people i see who pronate and are given arch supports then end up with fckd and sore feet. You don't have to be a biomechanical genius to work out why thats a bad thing. You have to start a bit further back in the foot to fix most thing like that 🙄

You only need to spend as much as you need to. Set yourself a budget but good shoes are worth the money.

a Pair of £100rrp shoes are alot better then £35rrp pair, Similar with bike £2.5krrp is going to do the same job as £500rrp one but the £2.5k will get you there easier and more comfortably.

There is alot of technology in running that can help you run faster and eaiser especially if you are recovering from an injury.

I started running after a broken leg and could manage about 3k before the pain set in (wearing a pair of cheap nikes from sports direct)

I went to a sweatshop with a lass i know who does alot of running, They did an analysis and i bought the Brooks shoes they recommended and it has made a massive difference even just walking round the shop they felt so much more comfortable. I paid around £100 for them.

a Pair of £100 shoes are alot better then £35 pair

Depends really doesn't it?

I suit Mizuno Wave Inspire shoes
The current 2010 model [V6 – I think] is ~£90, a 2007/8 V3 or 4 can be had for ~£35
Pretty much the same shoe in a different colour

Yes in some terms I should have said RRP.

Another recommendation for Saucony and Sportshoes Unlimited here. £35 – £50 should get you a good pair, IMHO.

Abebe Bikila managed to win two Olympic marathons, with his tootsies as nature intended Flash.

Yes Bikila was brought up running on soft (ish) paths and was too poor to buy shoes. At that time the only options were plimsolls and runners in the 50's used to go through a pair a week. They had no cushioning to speak of and only provided protection against abrasion. In effect most runners of the day were running in footwear similar to barefoot!

I dont buy the marketing speak of the major companies but the fact of the matter will be that if you try to run in a pair of shoes that are not reasonably cushioned and flexible you will almost certainly get injured quickly. Look to spend about £50 on a pair of Asics/Nike shoes and build up slowly.

I think around £80 will get you a decent pair of running shoes

A cheap pair of flat plimsoles will be fine for running in

I never spend more than 35 quid

if you go to a shop that does gait analysis (and if you've got orthotics probably should) think i'd budget around £80

Welcome to the world of runners and their shoes…It's worse than Imelda Marcos…

😀 😆

Abebe Bikila managed to win two Olympic marathons, with his tootsies as nature intended Flash.

He ran the 2nd one in shoes actually – Asics.

Scot – might be better for your knees to run off road only. I recommend Ascis Kayanos for road and Inov8s for off road but only because they fit me.

If you have arch supports (I do) then you want to stick them in a "neutral" shoe. Kayanos have high arches for the pronator so either leave out the support or look at other shoes.

It's a bit of a minefield but worth the effort!

"Runners wearing top-of-the-line trainers are 123 per cent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap ones. This was discovered as far back as 1989, according to a study led by Dr Bernard Marti, the leading preventative-medicine specialist at Switzerland's University of Bern.
Dr Marti's research team analysed 4,358 runners in the Bern Grand Prix, a 9.6-mile road race. All the runners filled out an extensive questionnaire that detailed their training habits and footwear for the previous year; as it turned out, 45 per cent had been hurt during that time. But what surprised Dr Marti was the fact that the most common variable among the casualties wasn't training surface, running speed, weekly mileage or 'competitive training motivation'.

It wasn't even body weight or a history of previous injury. It was the price of the shoe. Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in shoes that cost less than $40."

Ok, its from the Daily Mail website, but I had read this else where previously.

scot – you don't mention any injuries or foot oddnesses, and i will assume that you'll be running for about 20mins, twice a week, on pavements or easy offroad trails.

i reckon you'll be fine with some cheap shoes – about £40 would probably do it.

you say

Rock n' Run are doing free running assessments

– i'd be amazed if after their free assessment they didn't recommend you spend upwards of £70.

FunkyDunc makes a good point; companies like Adidas, Nike, Reebok, etc. would love to be able to show us a graph, produced by scientists, proving that we'll get few injuries if we spend more money on their shoes. Unfortunately, whenever actual scientists look at running shoes, it seems that simpler shoes really are better for you.

Well this thread really hasn't "helped" the OP very much has it?

Spend over £80, spend less than £40, etc.

My Inov8s (mudlaws for fairly extreme trail running) were around £50-60, my Asics were both £80-100 (Trail sensor 2 for light off roading, Kayanos for road) – all three do their job brilliantly but would be useless if they didn't fit.

I'd go to a decent shop with a good range and ask them – independent shops often do smaller brands like Inov8 and are staffed by enthusiasts. Big chains are the "PC World" of running shops with half witted gimps for staff that don't know running from grunting.

IMO.

*skips to the end*

I always get my trainers in the sale…..find a pair you like and buy several.

For the record I have some Inov-8 F-Lites 230s and Roclite 295s and both cost £50 each.

Jamie – how do you find the Roclites? Got some mudclaws for serious mud and like them although they are pretty brutal.

My Asics Trail Sensors are a bit heavy for Summer running though and looking at th Roclites – shame no one down here sell them!

Second the buy several pairs (assuming you are going to stick with it) as models change/stop being made, which is s bummer if it's your fav pair!

I got my gait etc looked at, and now buy my shoes from pro direct running, whichs saves approx £20ish. But I reckon for your first pair, go to the shop and buy from them with gait analysis etc. Tell them the kind of running and distance you want to do – my first pair cost £50 as I wasn't keen on spending loads and didn't think I'd run mote than 10km. But I've got the bug and run three times a week, and found that when training for a half marathon o needed more support and cushioning so I've got up three models in my asics so looking at roughly £80 now.

It wasn't even body weight or a history of previous injury. It was the price of the shoe. Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in shoes that cost less than $40."

There is so much to challenge in your post however even this assertion may only indicate that runners who spend more on their training shoes actually are more serious athletes with more intensive training programs which consequently may make them more risk!
It may even be argued that without the highly cushioned shoes their injury risk may even be higher! Without a control group (which is almost impossible to construct) then its all simply speculation.
There are so many variables that its almost impossible to say if this study is valid.

Second the buy several pairs (assuming you are going to stick with it) as models change/stop being made, which is s bummer if it's your fav pair!

This is what I do however I wouldnt buy too many as I suspect the EVA midsole degrades slightly with age meaning in 6-12 months when you pull on a new pair from the cuboard they have hardened a bit.

Back to the OP's question, £80-90 in-store, but if you're really strapped, get an assessment in-store, note down the model numbers and then look on that there interwebs and you should be able to knock £10-20 off the price. Or go back and try to get them to price match, although many don't seem interested.
It's a bit cheeky given that the shop has taken the time to size you up, but sometimes a (wo)man's gotta do what a (wo)man's gotta do.

There is so much to challenge in your post however even this assertion may only indicate that runners who spend more on their training shoes actually are more serious athletes with more intensive training programs which consequently may make them more risk!
It may even be argued that without the highly cushioned shoes their injury risk may even be higher! Without a control group (which is almost impossible to construct) then its all simply speculation.
There are so many variables that its almost impossible to say if this study is valid.

I don't have the book, you could buy a copy here if you want to read the controversial bits:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shoe-Sport-B-Segesser/dp/0723415145/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278341245&sr=8-1

Looking at earlier descriptions of the study that he published (they're on the pubmed database), he had taken into account all of the factors you described (being a person who studies these things professionally I guess he would). In fact the headline fact from the study was roughly what you say, that the thing that most increases your risk of injury is running a lot, and that frequent runners are much more at risk of injury than those who train less. I can't read the stuff about shoe prices, as that was in a follow up analysis, which as far as I can find is only in that book (or might be around in German somewhere), but like most peer reviewed university work, it certainly isn't completely invalid / stupid. And as for a 'control group', you're kind of missing the point here, you have two groups already – one who "does have the treatment', and one who "doesn't have the treatment".

Having said all that, I've never seen anything that argues whether or not runners are faster with or without shoes, just that they may well have less injuries. Which is an interesting question for people who are focused on running speed rather than just going for a run for fitness or fun or whatever.

Joe

And as for a 'control group', you're kind of missing the point here, you have two groups already – one who "does have the treatment', and one who "doesn't have the treatment".

Am I? I assume you mean a group who have injuries and a group who doesnt? if so then thats not a control group as there may exist 000's of potential variables! A control group should focus on changing a single variable or at least a controlled few.
Given this sample there may be 50 questions asked of 10000 runners each with a different answer.
Runner A runs 120 mpw in well cushioned shoes and runs 29:00 for 10km
Runner B runs 15 mpw in less cushioned shoes and runs 65:00 for 10km

Runner A gets injured and B doesnt. Where is the control group, what can we conclude from the above?

I assume you mean a group who have injuries and a group who doesnt? if so then thats not a control group as there may exist 000's of potential variables! A control group should focus on changing a single variable or at least a controlled few.

No, the treatment is 'wearing expensive shoes', vs 'wearing cheap shoes'.

It's an epidemiological study, not a clinical trial, for obvious reasons (for a start how do you hide the fact of how cushioned their feet are from your participants!). How they work is you get a large group of people, and you run statistical tests on your large sample. This allows you to do things like test whether the change in a single dependent variable (such as expensive vs cheap shoes), actually has an effect on a dependent variable (such as injury rate), or whether other variables in your dataset actually are responsible for the change. This is pretty basic a-level statistics, not rocket science. It's also how we find out about tons of medical things, and is the obvious way to do large population studies, which arguably have more validity than a small scale clinical trials for research in an area such as injuries during long term activites.

Also, you'll note that all the things you've suggested above might screw it up (miles per week, intensity/speed etc.), are things that they quite clearly did take account of and control for in their statistical analysis.

Joe

So we agree, on the face of it its pretty meaningless.

Jamie – how do you find the Roclites? Got some mudclaws for serious mud and like them although they are pretty brutal.

I've been using the 295 for a few months and they're becoming my favourite off road shoe. Much more versatile than the Mudclaws, sacrificing a bit of grip and gaining just the right amount of cushioning for me. Won't complain at the odd bit of hardpack or road. Wore them on the 3 Peaks, no problems.

Back to the original post – I usually buy cheap, but tend to know roughly what I want. I've moved to more lightly structured neutral road shoes (used to be a light pronator). I think running offroad helps iron out gait issues and makes you less fussy. Lightweight, non-race neutral shoes are actually fairly thin on the ground though. Race shoes don't really have the lifespan. So, err, it depends 🙂

Stever – cheers. I found my Asics a bit heavy on my last race but it had some tarmac sections so mudclaws were no good. Got 15th out of 120 but reckon I could have done better with lighter shoes and a bit more training.

Think I'll get some for the next race. Dartmoor… uh oh…

TBH, I've just ordered a new pair of conventional running shoes but am increasingly interested in the whole barefoot running philosophy and the effect that excessive cushioning has on foot strike and running style. Surfer, do innov8 do a road running shoe, as those look interesting? Also has anyone else tried a "barefoot shoe" for an extended period?
sorry for the hijack!!

hitman – they do several "urban" running shoes.

Like this one:

Inov8

Bit of a sucker for lots of padding for the road though.

hitman – they do several "urban" running shoes.

Like this one:

Inov8

Bit of a sucker for lots of padding for the road though.

do you reckon these would be ok for trainig for a road 10k?