How can magazines impartially rank running shoes when on the same pages of the magazine there are advertisments from those shoe companies?
A lot of people run in Nike shoes, but are they really that good? For me, they are not. I can't believe they still use the "air" concept in their soles. I thought that would be a fad that would last maybe a year. I think having 100% "rubber" (or whatever soles are made of) material under one's foot is better than having a wobbly air pocket (that is far from soft). I find Nike's shoes to be very uncomfortable. The Adidas Supernova is the best running shoe I've ever used. I know this is just my opinion...
BUT, show me one shoe review that doesn't have a Nike shoe model at the top. There's not one, probably IMO because Nike likely has bought the back of the magazine for ad space.
Whenever I see these shoe rankings in Runner's World or the one I have now from Running Network, I immediately put it in the trash. IMO they are useless and likely corrupted by ad dollars.
A lot of people run in Nike shoes, but are they really that good? For me, they are not. I can't believe they still use the "air" concept in their soles. I thought that would be a fad that would last maybe a year. I think having 100% "rubber" (or whatever soles are made of) material under one's foot is better than having a wobbly air pocket (that is far from soft). I find Nike's shoes to be very uncomfortable. The Adidas Supernova is the best running shoe I've ever used. I know this is just my opinion...
BUT, show me one shoe review that doesn't have a Nike shoe model at the top. There's not one, probably IMO because Nike likely has bought the back of the magazine for ad space.
Whenever I see these shoe rankings in Runner's World or the one I have now from Running Network, I immediately put it in the trash. IMO they are useless and likely corrupted by ad dollars.
Comment