Ah, my point was a bit more rambled than it should have been. I actually had several thoughts that I blurred all together into one.
First thought was that you likely just got good shoes. Something surprisingly few people have.
That led to the thought that the sales people probably did give you attention, and did do well and suggest the correct shoes. However, my thought is that the correct shoes for most people probably align more often than we give credit.
My point about the effectiveness of paying for something was a complete aside that would only explain additional efficacy. I did not mean it accounted for the entire effect. (So, yeah, I should have left that out entirely.)
> However, my thought is that the correct shoes for most people probably align more often than we give credit.
Let me spell out very clearly why I do not think this is so:
1. As I alluded to before, a big axis when choosing shoes is whether you have a tendency to over-pronate, under-pronate, or neither. Shoes that correct over- or under-pronation have different properties. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand why someone who underpronates wouldn't do well with shoes designed to correct overpronation. Assuming (dubiously, I guess) that these traits are all evenly distributed, and ignoring any gradation within these categories, already you only have a one-in-three chance of getting the right shoe.
2. Some people have wider feet than others; different shoes are appropriate depending on this.
3. There are other complications: for instance, I wear orthotic inserts, which further narrows the number of shoes I can wear. Anything with little space on top or with elaborate built-in arch support is out.
4. Anecdotally, every time I am recommended a similar style of shoe which represents only a small percentage of the inventory of the store. When I watched my wife be fit, they gave her a different style.
If you visit Web sites about long-distance running (for natural reasons most of the people who really care about their sneakers are runners) you can find a lot of information about what shoes are right for what people and I guess probably what models are currently available with certain properties. But then again, you could also, you know, skip all that, and visit a specialty store (i.e., not Foot Locker), and have them tell you. I personally also discovered that I had been buying shoes too small for me because my ideas about how a shoe "should" fit were not quite right.
I suppose for a certain definition of "most people" you may be right: most people don't walk or run that much and won't experience any discomfort no matter what shoe they wear. But for anyone putting a heavy load on their legs or experiencing discomfort I have no doubt whatsoever that a visit to a specialty store is worthwhile.
I think you won me over on this several posts ago. :) I should have made that clear. I do think I was somewhat misunderstood, but I fully concede I think I am wrong, as well.
I'm probably still more amenable to the argument that most people just don't wear shoes that fit. But, I think I would have a hard time quantifying that.
First thought was that you likely just got good shoes. Something surprisingly few people have.
That led to the thought that the sales people probably did give you attention, and did do well and suggest the correct shoes. However, my thought is that the correct shoes for most people probably align more often than we give credit.
My point about the effectiveness of paying for something was a complete aside that would only explain additional efficacy. I did not mean it accounted for the entire effect. (So, yeah, I should have left that out entirely.)