Speaking of Exercise Gimmicks… Shoes!
Tara Parker-Pope has an appropriately skeptical post in the NYT about those Reebok “Easy Tone” shoes… here’s the money quote:
But the claim that the shoes offer muscle toning is backed by a single study involving just five people, not published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. In that study, done at the University of Delaware, five women walked on a treadmill for 500 steps wearing either the EasyTone or another Reebok walking shoe, and while barefoot. Using sensors that measure muscle activity, the researchers showed that wearing the EasyTone worked gluteal muscles an average of 28 percent more than regular walking shoes. Hamstring and calf muscles worked 11 percent harder.
28 percent? Well, whoop-ti-doo. Does the increased muscle activity actually lead to any observable changes to one’s derriere?
Reebok says it has collected 15,000 hours’ worth of wear-test data from shoe users who say they notice the difference. “They definitely feel something in their muscles after they’ve walked in the product,” Mr. McInnis said.
One of them is Carol Vanner, 51, an executive assistant in Atlanta who had tried the larger-soled FitFlop shoe and was skeptical she would notice much difference with the EasyTone.
“I thought there was no way they would work, but I tried them and I felt like I had worked out,” she said. “Do I look like I’m 20? No, but I feel like when I wear them for periods of time that I have exercised and worked those muscles.”
Shay Gipson, 31, an apparel product manager in New York City, said she tried the shoes after hearing a friend rave about them. She immediately felt the balancing effect, she said, and she likes walking in the shoe.
“I can definitely feel the muscle groups in my legs working more than I would in regular shoes,” she said. “I feel more toned.”
“They feel something in their muscles;” “I feel like… I have exercised and worked those muscles;” “I feel more toned”…
Does anyone feel like something’s missing here? Like some, y’know, objective measurements? I don’t know about you, but personally, I feel like knowing if the shoes perform as advertised, BEFORE I drop $110+ on it (not to mention, spend time teetering around the neighborhood in them). Will they actually perk up my boo-tay or not?
I’m guessing not. I suppose there could be some small, initial benefits, but these will decline once wearers adapt to walking in the shoes on a regular basis. BFD.
I suspect the main benefit of these shoes is that they’ll get some women to walk more – which is certainly a good thing (for overall fitness, if nothing else). But if they’re looking to get their butts in gear (pun intended), they’ll be much better off with conventional glute exercises, like the ones recommended in this ACE “Glutes to the Max” study.
December 8, 2009
Speaking of Exercise Gimmicks… – http://blog.ultimatefatburner.com/2009/1…
December 9, 2009
It’s not like most people walk around the neighborhood barefoot as with the control group of this experiment.
December 9, 2009
Again, human nature will prevail. I can just put on a special pair of shoes and walk my way to a better body. No exercise needed, no sweat, and above all no work.
Problem is, it comes with no results.
December 9, 2009
ROTF LMAO!
Maybe the study was published in the “Journal Of Research”?
December 10, 2009
LOL!
I’ve seen a range of other (somewhat snarky) comments about the shoez, but I think Will Brink’s was my favorite.
“If you are going sell a shoe that (supposedly…) shapes up your gluteus maximus, shouldn’t you use a model that has one?! Holy Flat Backsides Batman! This gal has virtually no butt. Now I’m not hating on her; she’s a very pretty girl – and for a typical TV model type – in great shape, but she has no ass! I mean really, is that the behind most women really want today? Or put more succinctly, is that what the general non-athletic public considers a well developed booty?!
I see that commercial on TV and I want her to ditch those goofy sneakers and find the nearest squat rack!”