Both of these shoes are incredibly over-hyped in advertisements. There is no pair of training shoes out there that can motivate you to get up and exercise if you don't already have a little bit of motivation in you already. About the only thing about these shoes that may empower someone to get out and walk a little bit more is the price. When you invest a hundred dollars in a pair of athletic shoes, you naturally want to get the most out of your money. Still, the commercials' claims that these shoes will make you lose weight and tone up your muscles are somewhat unfounded. Increased exercise and physical activity will help you to do both of those, but that is not necessarily the result of the shoes themselves.

The Skechers Shape-Ups hit the market first, and despite some misleading claims, have had a number of rave reviews. Among consumers who purchased these shoes through Amazon, these shoes have a six star rating, whereas the Reebok Easy Tone shoes have only a two star rating among people who purchased them. Many people who have bought the Skechers like the look, and I do as well. However, this is not what made them popular. The sole is a rocker sole design, and while Skechers is eating up the hype from the benefits that this kind of sole can provide, rocker soles are nothing new, and are definitely not proprietary to the Skechers Shape-Up line.

Rocker sole shoes have been used as therapeutic footwear for people that have certain podiatric medical conditions, such as diabetes or arthritis. What was noticed in people that used these kind of shoes was that posture and balance improved, which made it more comfortable for people to stand for long hours or walk longer than they normally would. Based on the reviews that I have read of the Skechers Shape-Up, the level of comfort that these shoes offer is the number one thing that people like about these shoes. Admittedly, someone who has never tried this kid of sole may find it awkward at first to adjust to the different design.

The Reebok Easy Tone shoes do not have this same kind of rocker sole design, and you can easily see that when comparing the two in the photos above, yet Reebok advertisements for this shoe make the same kind of claims as that of the Skecher Shape-Up, leading me to believe that a lot of their research and claims are in fact unfounded (while the Skechers claims are merely exaggerated). From the reviews of this shoe online among people who purchased it, there are a lot of unhappy people who would not recommend this shoe for anyone. Some of the issues with it are quality and comfort. Two of the reviews that I read indicated that the eyeholes where the laces go are pulled to taught and broke easily, and another that I read indicated that the inflating mechanism quit working in the shoe, making the sole completely useless. Nearly all of the reviews indicated that the shoes were very uncomfortable to get on and to wear for any length of time.

I am currently in the market for a new pair of shoes, and I will give the Skechers Shape-Up a try and let you know what I find out. I like the idea that this shoe can help improve posture and balance, sine I am naturally clumsy. I have had an issue with standing and walking on the side of my feet since I was young, so maybe this shoe can help correct that problem. If they really are as comfortable as people say they are, then I would be inclined to walk a lot more also (if only it worked with my Nike iPod Sport Kit).

I haven't personally tried either. However, I've talked to people that have, and I do have some insight.

First of all; look. The Reebok's just LOOK nicer. They're a little bit closer build to the average shoe.. A little bit of a heel, not too much, and otherwise normal. The Sketchers, well, don't they just look silly? They have that HUGE round piece under the heel, which gives the shoes a rather sizeable heel, or even platform overall. I'm told this piece compresses to look flat when you walk, but it's still going to look round and childish when you lift your foot. I also imagine they'd wear down rather quickly, and that extra round piece may cause some tripping when your not used to it scruffing on the ground. The Reebok has a BIT larger heel, but nothing too extreme compared to most people's shoes. It also looks easier to balance in, in my opinion.

Second, the "friend review": A girl I know bought both about a week ago. She works on her feet all day. She said that after wearing the Sketchers all day, she felt nothing different; however, her legs were sore after wearing the Reeboks all day. Generally, soreness is a sign of your muscles being worked. However, it could be a sign that they didn't quite fit right and were doing some damage. My bet would be the first one; they were doing their job. This is only one person's account, so I can't say for sure what the overall population thinks. My thought is that not enough people have bought them to put one over the other.

Third: The commercial disclaimer. I think that many people look at these shoes and think that just by wearing them, it's going to tone their legs. They make it sound as though you can wear them like your normal everyday shoes, running to the store or under your desk at work, and they'll do their job. People love being lazy, so this kind of misconception works wonderfully. No one wants to work for what they want. People who work out don't need something like this, and people who need them generally aren't very active. There are not that many "in between" people that are not inshape but working towards it. When I first saw the commercials, I also thought, hey, I could wear those on a normal day; from my house to the bus stop, from the bus stop to class, and back. Probably a total of under 1/4 mile of walking.
I saw the Reebok commercial earlier, and they claim to do "28% better at toning your legs and butt than walking". Think about that. 28% better. If you only walk 1/4 mile per day, it wouldn't really do a whole lot; it'd be like walking 1/4 mile + 1/16 mile. Thats not going to do a whole lot for your legs. These are for people who walk miles per day for exercise. If you walk 1 mile, these would work your legs the same amount as though you were walking 1.28 miles. Walk 4 miles, and your legs get 5 miles. It speeds up the process by just over 1/4, but you still have to do the work in the first place. These shoes are just another thing targeted to lazy people who want to get in shape with no work, but you still need to put in the work with these shoes. Why do you think EVERY commercial for work out equipment claims things like "you'll lose pounds and inches in just 15 minutes 2x per week!".

Overall, I think both pairs are pretty close to the same, as far as what they do for you. They came out so close together, they're likely the same mechanical design with slightly different visual appearance. My personal choice would be the Reeboks, just out of looks, but I think anyone considering buying these should try both pairs out for a couple laps around the store. See which ones feel better on your feet, and which ones allow you to walk more naturally. You don't want to drop a lot of money on shoes that are going to be uncomfortable that you'll never use. And remember, you still have to do the work. If your not putting in miles per week already, the shoes are going to be junk for you. And buying a pair of shoes isn't going to make you start working out either. I only recommend these for someone who is already an avid walker, or serious and already working on their goals of getting in shape. 28% more than 1/4 mile isn't much, but 28% more than 10 or 20 miles is.

Enjoy!

http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/210x600/race-walking-39928.jpg
http://img4.cookinglight.com/i/2007/04/FL-RaceWalking-0704p46-m.jpg