Today in the Daily Mail you will find their “Good Trainer Guide“. Based on the one quality of cushioning they have reviewed 8 running shoes. The findings are below:
Ransacker Rant!!
Now don’t get us wrong we don’t profess to being experts, just avid runners (who ask experts for their opinions) who know their running shoes and want to encourage others to take up running. Hence it’s infuriating when incorrect advice is given by trusted publications. The journalist has ignored the fact that all runners are different and has simply based her case on; if the shoe is cushioned it’s good and if it isn’t its bad! This simply isn’t true and is like comparing cars based on top speed and having a Ferrari and a Range Rover in the same category!
For example the adidas adistar Control 5 is very much a support running shoe designed to lessen pronation and control the foot during impact. Therefore it has been designed with less cushioning. However on the other hand the Asics Nimbus 10 is a cushioned running shoe, designed for neutral and efficient runners. So it is obvious that the Nimbus 10 should score far higher than the Control 5 in this test!
We are surprised that the Kayano 14 showed the greatest amount of cushioning but its difficult to know how this was classified. Although we can’t disagree with the fact that the Kayano 14 is a great running shoe!
To find out more about the shoes on test please click on the links below:
- Reebok Premier Road KFS RRP £65 Ransacker Price: £59.99
- Asics Kayano 14 RRP £115 Ransacker Price: £74.99!
- Adidas adistar Control 5 RRP £100 Ransacker Price: £88.99
- Nike Air Pegasus+ 25 RRP £75 Ransacker Price: £54.99
- Nike Air Zoom Structure Triax 11 RRP £80 Ransacker Price: £54.99
- Asics Gel Nimbus 10 RRP £100 Ransacker Price: £69.99
- Adidas Supernova Sequence RRP £80 Ransacker Price: £59.99
- Reebok Premier Verona KFS RRP £65 Ransacker Price: £54.99
Carl, a pretty flaccid piece of journalism. The Reebok Premier, for example, is best suited to lightweight and experienced runners… no, wait, it’s best for fit but infrequent runners. I wondered at first if the author did much running; now I wonder if they do much writing.
The review of the Pegasus is my favourite however. The tester found them to be clumpy and rigid, which apparently recommends them to runners with bad technique; well, those gimps don’t deserve anything better.
But it turns out that the testing of the trainers was carried on a ‘specialist force platform’ in a science lab – the equivalent, really, of judging the performance of a car by how well it stands up to a mandatory crash test. Too little damage? Not enough power!
Daily Mail and poor journalism, what a surprise there! Article is ridiculous from start to finish and it wouldnt surprise me in the slightest if the ‘ex-international’ runner was Asics sponsered!