Best Rated Running Shoes
Best Rated Running Shoes for Best Results
Since at least the early 1970s when the running craze first got started, the magazine Runner's World has been publishing its studies of the best rated running shoes.
I know that I used to buy only that particular issue. I didn't always want to read yet more articles about the latest marathons or tips to reduce dehydration and so on, or even columnist George's philosophy on running. But the shoe issue was a good reason to spend the money for a copy, and then keep it until the next year.
Best Rated Running Shoes are What You Want for Your Feet
Actually, I wasn't that much of a long term, consistent and regular runner. But when I did get that itch to go out running, I wanted the best shoes, even though not too many years ago I ran plenty of track and cross country workouts, and cross country races, in regular tennis shoes -- probably Keds sneakers.
And of course, back in those days before all the extensive research into running, feet and the effects of high mileage on both shoes and feet, and the availability of high tech materials, the best rated shoes for that time would be laughed at now. Not high tech enough for serious runners, and yet manufactured with too high of a quality for Wal-Mart (where I bought a pair of running shoes that fell apart in less than two months, so I didn't get the bargain I thought I did at first.)
And in those days I also wore the running shoes everyplace I went, because they just feel more comfortable than ordinary shoes. When I wasn't running, I'd wear Rockport walking shoes, and those were pretty good, but running shoes are even better, no matter where I go.
The Runner's World staff must now evaluate many more brands than existed forty years ago: Asics, Brooks, Etonic, Fila, La Sportiva, Mizuno, Nike, Pearl Izumi, Reebok, Salomon, Spira, Under Armour, Adidas, Avia, Diadora, END, Karhu, Merrell, Montrail, New Balance, North Face, Puma, Ryka, and Saucony.
Anything But the Best Rated Running Shoes Are Not Worth Your Money
Mmm, the Cheap Junk brand from Wal-Mart isn't on the list. I wonder why? Actually I don't even remember the brand name of that pair of shoes, so maybe it is. And I don't want to put down Wal-Mart too much. I save a lot of money by shopping there. When it has something you know is high quality, and they have it for a cheaper price, then it's good to buy it there.
But I've learned not to buy just anything there, just to get a cheap price. Research what you're buying.
I wish they had the Brooks Beast at Wal-Mart, but instead I have to go to the local running store which has to pay a more in overhead, but the staff are experienced runners themselves who take the time to evaluate my feet and stride and the wear on my existing shoes, to see what kind would suit me best. Or I might not have bought the pair of Brooks the Beast which I'm so happy with. They're certainly not the cheapest pair available.
I also have to admit that in the mid-1970s I paid around $50 for a pair of high quality running shoes, and that seemed extremely expensive then, but I didn't want to ruin my feet. At $140, the Brooks Beast is comparatively cheaper, because $50 in 1975 dollars is probably at least $150 in 2010 dollars -- maybe more.
And it is more possible to buy a shoe that is better suit to your feet and running needs.
When you look for the best rated running shoes you do have to take your individual circumstances into account. Your feet, how much you run, where you run, whether you're going to race or just get in shape, and so on. See the video below:
Next: Best Running Shoes -- choose the running shoes best for you.