Right now there's a big debate going in in the athletic footwear industry regarding what considers proper suitable training shoes. Traditionally, athletic footwear, such as cross trainers, has always had a lot of cushioning, a lot of arch support, and an emphasis on shock absorption. However, the current "trend" (see Reebok's and Nike's current lineup for examples of this) leans more toward training/running shoes with minimalist soles that offer next to nothing in the way of support or cushioning/shock absorption. They claim that current scientific research states that emulating the way you run and move while your feet are bare is better.
So, which do you prefer? Which do you think makes more sense? Personally I lean more toward the traditional route.
Most Helpful Girl
i enjoy l/d running myself and footwear is extremely important. I think the type of footwear comes down to the type of workout one prefers. plus there are different shoes for different feet too. I love my asics and they're more the traditional type. they might be a bit pricey but well worth it in the end. I'm also skeptical about the marketing strategies used in getting people to purchase footwear. I don't believe in all the "new and improved" footwear that will guarantee faster and better results. it really just comes down to doing your workout.1