[Anchor]

It is time for our Friendly Economy segment on Wednesday, and reporter Han Jiyeon is here with us. Han, what do you have for us today, on the 7th?

[Reporter]

Carbon running shoes have been very popular lately.

Even though a pair costs around 200,000 won, many people are looking for them.

The Korea Consumer Agency compared seven popular products and found that a higher price does not necessarily mean better quality, as each product had distinct pros and cons.

The term carbon running shoes might sound unfamiliar to some.

These are shoes with a thin, rigid carbon fiber plate inserted between the midsole cushions.

This plate acts like a spring, propelling the foot forward to help increase speed and reduce running times.

As running has evolved into a popular culture, interest among the general public has also grown.

There is a reason I brought up shoes this morning.

The prices are not cheap.

The cheaper ones cost 189,000 won, while the most expensive ones reach 279,000 won, making a wrong choice quite painful for the wallet.

To test them, 30 men in their 20s had motion capture markers attached all over their bodies—much like filming for CGI in movies—and ran while wearing each of the seven products.

True to their name as carbon shoes, all seven products excelled in forward propulsion.

However, their other strengths varied by product.

For shock absorption upon landing, the Nike Zoom Fly 6 and Puma Deviate Nitro 4 performed well, while the Skechers Aero Spark was only average.

What about knee strain, which is likely what people are most curious about?

Less strain on the knees relatively reduces the risk of injury.

Five of the seven products put little strain on the knees, while Nike ranked one step below that, and the Adidas Adistar BYD was the most disappointing.

For those who run long distances, the pressure exerted on the soles of the feet is also important.

The more evenly pressure is distributed, the more comfortable the feet feel over long distances, and the Hoka Skyward X performed best in this category.

The test also measured how much the body's center of gravity sways from side to side while running.

Less sway means less wasted energy and a more stable run.

Nike scored the best, while Skechers was average.

Slippery paths are another concern.

The shoes that gripped best on asphalt surfaces were Skechers and the Asics Magic Speed 5.

[Anchor]

Please continue with the comparison.

[Reporter]

The advice when choosing such running shoes is not to just look at the price and weight, but to select them based on your own running skills and purpose.

Looking at weight first:

Asics was the lightest at 198g, while the most expensive Hoka weighed 301g, making it over 100g heavier.

On the bright side, Hoka's outsole wore down the least—about one-third the wear of Skechers, which wore down the most.

In terms of satisfaction after wearing them, Puma scored the highest at 4.6 out of 5.

The best-value product picked by the Consumer Agency was the Nike Zoom Fly 6, priced at 209,000 won.

There were also some absurd labeling errors.

Adidas split the outer material into two categories—61% polyester and 39% polyester—while Puma and 호카 omitted their lining material labels.

Adidas has already corrected the issue, and the other two brands have decided to do the same.

Fortunately, all products met the safety standards regarding harmful substances.

There is something important you must keep in mind.

Because of their strong propulsive force, these shoes can put extra strain on the ankles and calves of beginners.

Also, when buying running shoes, it is best to try them on both feet in the afternoon when your feet are slightly swollen, and fit them to your larger foot.

Leaving about 0.5 to 1 cm of space from the tip of your toes—which I found is about the length of a pinky fingernail—is recommended.

[Anchor]

What is the last topic?

[Reporter]

It is regarding online unit pricing.

Because online products and sales methods vary wildly, sellers have been experiencing confusion, prompting the government to draw up a draft of standardized guidelines around the end of the year.

Unit pricing displays the price per 100g or 100ml so consumers can easily compare products with different quantities.

For example, if a snack costs 1,200 won for 90g, it would be displayed as 1,333 won per 100g.

Originally limited to supermarkets, unit pricing was expanded last April to large online malls with annual transaction volumes exceeding 10 trillion won, such as Coupang and Naver, after sneaky tactics like quietly reducing package sizes while effectively raising prices became a major issue.

However, in practice, there were countless ambiguous situations.

Inquiries flooded in regarding questions such as whether to include the weight of water packaged together when selling clams, or how to calculate prices when selling wine bundled with a glass or tofu bundled with sauce.

As a result, the government has commissioned research institutions to refine the rules.

The draft is expected to include guidelines on which product to use as a benchmark when there are multiple options, and how to handle bundled products or items whose quantities are difficult to measure.