Matt Phillips

Written by Matt Phillips

23 COMMENTS

3 Reasons a Gait Analysis at a Running Store May Not Help You Find the Right Shoe

ReduceInjury_VideoGaitIMAGE

Ask a group of runners what the reason for video gait analysis is and one of the most common answers will be “to help you choose the right running shoe.”

It may be closely followed by ‘to have your running technique analyzed’ but even in those cases one of the burning questions is typically ‘so are these the right type of trainers for me?’

A study earlier this year by Saragiotto, BT et al.: ‘What Do Recreational Runners Think About Risk Factors For Running Injuries? (2014) highlighted the popular belief amongst recreational runners that wearing ‘incorrect trainers’ is one of the highest risk factors for injury.

To meet this demand, the last few years has seen an increase in running stores making use of in house ‘video gait analysis’ to help provide customers with the ‘correct type’ of trainer. A quick web search for gait analysis shows most results linking it with some form of shoe fitting service.

Unfortunately, despite the genuine good intention from most running stores, the ‘science’ typically used to translate results from their gait analysis into suitable trainer selection is not science.

In this article, we’ll look at the three main reasons why gait analysis to choose your running shoe is an outdated practice and help you understand how you can use gait analysis more effectively.

The ‘arch-type’ model

Many running stores and websites still promote and use the outdated, non scientific ‘arch-type’ model to prescribe trainers. Runners are still categorized into one of three groups, each of which has a shoe to match:

  • high arch’ runners are labelled oversupinators and given a more cushioned shoe
  • normal arch’ runners are labelled neutral and given a stability shoe
  • ‘low arch’ runners are labelled overpronators and recommended a motion control shoe.

As we discussed here, research has conclusively shown that this practice of categorizing runners into three groups based on arch height is way too simplistic (see Richards,CE et al. 2009: ‘Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence-based?’).

The model provides a very neat, attractive way of selecting a specific running shoe for everyone’s needs but it totally lacks the specificity required to cater for the immensely varied physiological make-up of each and every runner.

The lack of evidence for the arch-type model has seen many websites and stores recently placing less emphasis on the significance of the once popular ‘Wet Foot Test’ in which runners are asked to stand on a heat sensitive foot pad in order to evaluate their arch type.

Statements such as “this will only give a basic indication of your running gait” are now made, as well as the very common “it’s a start and we all have to start somewhere.

But it’s not a start.

The idea that what your arches do when you are standing on a pad will be replicated once you start running has been consistently disproved.

The only ‘start’ a wet foot test provides is that of a slippery slope ending with non-evidence backed footwear recommendation.

One of the biggest problems for some running stores is that science has yet to produce an alternative model that can be used for trainer prescription. As we saw here, the only factor that has stood well in the quest to find shoes that will reduce risk of injury is making sure the shoes are comfortable (see studies by Benno Nigg).

Though the idea of trying on a few pairs, going for a run and seeing what ‘feels’ most comfortable sounds very un-scientific, there is more evidence for that potentially reducing injury risk than prescribing the runner a shoe type based on the arch type model.

Misuse of overpronation

And so we turn to in house video gait analysis.

Having someone look at you actually running sounds like a great way to be recommended suitable trainers, but once again the problem is the model used to prescribe trainers.

It is worth pointing out at this point that recording a video of somebody’s feet when they run is not gait analysis.

It is feet analysis (though I imagine many podiatrists would not be happy about that name either). If movement of the rest of the body is not considered, the only real observation that can be made in an in house ‘feet analysis’ is whether the arch of the weight bearing foot is ‘going too low’, in which case the runner is once again labelled an overpronator, or that the arch is ‘staying too high’, in which case they are labelled an oversupinator.

Sound familiar?

Like the Wet Foot Test, this method of measuring ‘overpronation’ lacks the specificity required to be able to attribute such movement to current or future injury.

Research highlights this e.g. Nielson et al.: ‘Foot pronation is not associated with increased injury risk in novice runners wearing a neutral shoe’ (2013).

Failing that, a quick look at the way in which Haile Gebrselassie’s feet ‘overpronate’ should be enough to seriously challenge the in house overpronation model for prescribing shoes, especially as Gebrselassie runs in Adidas Adizero Adios.

Is overpronation an issue?

Using the term ‘overpronation’ as a diagnosis is where the problem lies.

There are many potential causes for the observed foot mechanics: the most commonly quoted is descending of the inner arch (navicular drop) but the same movement could be a product of the heel falling onto its inner edge (calcaneal eversion) or the forefoot turning outwards (forefoot abduction), or maybe a combination of all three.

Categorizing runner according to what their medial arch is seen to do during slow motion video is not a viable model for prescribing a running shoe.

The Foot Posture Index (FPI) devised by Dr. Anthony Redmond in 2004 uses six quality measurements to assign subjects a score where 0 is neutral and positive numbers signal degree of pronation, negative numbers degree of supination.

Using this system of assessing the foot and giving it a value for ‘overpronation’, a study by Teyhen et al. in 2013 (Impact of Foot Type on Cost of Lower Extremity Injury) linked the FPI definition of ‘overpronation’ to increased risk for injury.

This research has paved the way for future research and highlights the need to stop using the term ‘overpronation’ generically and inaccurately, especially in the prescription of running shoes.

Full-body video gait analysis

Hopefully by now you are realizing that video gait analysis is not about helping you choose the best trainers.

A full body video gait analysis is about looking at the interaction of the whole body and evaluating how movements in one area may be contributing to tissue overload in another.

Research shows the importance of considering the mechanics of the hips and trunk of the body and how they can play a vital role in controlling movement seen distally in the lower limbs (Chuter et al “Proximal & distal contributions to lower extremity injury: a review of the literature. 2012).

In contrast to the lack of evidence supporting a cause-effect relationship between distal contributions to lower extremity injury, an increasing amount of studies are managing to link movements in the proximal lumbo-pelvic hip complex with overuse injuries in the lower extremity, e.g. foot and ankle injuries, patellofemoral pain syndrome, iliotibial band syndrome, anterior cruciate ligament injury.

The message to date is therefore as follows:

Sort out what’s happening up top first.

Full body video gait analysis can help with this. Improving running form can so often lead to resolution of pain in the lower limbs.

Avoid relying on running shoe or trainer ‘prescription’ to sort issues or reduce injury risk.

The current model used in most stores is no more accurate than flipping a coin. Modern running stores should be using their treadmills to help promote comfort for trainer recommendation, not foot mechanics. Let’s leave that for the podiatrists to figure out!

Happy running!

Matt Phillips is a Running Injury Specialist & Video Gait Analyst at StrideUK & Studio57clinic. Follow Matt on Twitter: @sportinjurymatt

Smarter is Better

We’ll help you injury-free and train
smarter to achieve your goals

Here’s what we’ve got for you

Free access to a treasure chest of proven training guides, resources and ebooks. 4 of our best-selling ebooks, 5 in-depth video courses, 6 high impact training resources, and 4 race-specific training guides.

You’ll also be enrolled in our 20-part course that lays out the proven framework for training smarter, getting and staying injury-free, and crushing your PRs, all sent directly to your inbox.

An organized reference guide to the “best of the best” of RunnersConnect, and how to fit it all together to help you train smarter, stay injury-free and run faster.

References

1. Saragiotto et al.: ‘What Do Recreational Runners Think About Risk Factors For Running Injuries? (2014)
2. Richards et al.: ‘Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence-based?’ (2009)
3. Nielson et al.: ‘Foot pronation is not associated with increased injury risk in novice runners wearing a neutral shoe’ (2013).
4. Teyhen et al.: ‘Impact of Foot Type on Cost of Lower Extremity Injury’ (2013)
5. Chuter et al ‘Proximal & distal contributions to lower extremity injury: a review of the literature’ (2012)

Connect with Jeff Gaudette on Google+

23 Responses on “3 Reasons a Gait Analysis at a Running Store May Not Help You Find the Right Shoe

  1. I think this is a poor attempt to have a go at specialist stores.

    So according to your article you would recommend people simply ignore the advice of people who have knowledge about the products they are selling and just go with whatever shoe looks the best and feels most comfortable?

    What do you think happens then?

    Did you ever stop to think that people who work in specialist running stores might actually know what they are talking about? Did you stop to think about the process and why it is actually in place?

    I agree with several points:
    Arch type is not an indicator of suitable shoes.
    Over pronation / supination is not an indicator of suitable shoes.

    I might add:
    Male / female / new runner / experienced runner is not an indicator of suitable shoes.

    However the history of the person, coupled with thier arch profile, foot flexiblity and structure, volume of running all come together to help decide which running shoes will be more suitable than others and thus fit for the intended purpose.

    It is quite disingenuous of you to introduce words like ‘diagnosis’ & ‘prescribing’ as being words that a shoe salesperson would use.

    You might find most running store specialists are runners and have an interest in running and possibly have experienced some of the most common injury issues themselves. You might also discover that they never prescribe anything other than a recommendation to visit a physio.

    Specialist stores are here to serve a function. We help people select footwear that is most suitable for their needs. We do not diagnose or prescribe anything, that’s for Doctors and physiotherapists to do.

    Video playback is quite simply a tool used to help us in doing or job and in my case explain to the customer why one pair of shoes is better for them than another.

    Regards,

    AKW
    http://amphkingwest.blogspot.ie/

    • Hi Sean.

      Thanks very much for your feedback. The points you make are very valid and I know some running stores who have some excellent staff with the knowledge you mention.

      However, if you dismiss the ‘overpronation’ model as you say, I am not sure how much looking at a slow motion video of what the feet are doing helps when it comes to recommending shoes? Though ‘comfort’ sounds far less scientific than the ‘overpronation’ model, it is actually more supported by research and a far more worthy factor to consider alongside the other factors you have mentioned.

      I applaud any running store staff who manage to recommend shoes without mentioning the word ‘overpronation’ as it’s far harder than it sounds!

      Thanks again for the comment. I hope it encourages others to share their thoughts too.

      • Thanks Matt.

        Coming from Twitter I get where you are coming from with the article. I read quite a bit of your blog and generally find an overlap in your theoretical side of things with my instinctive ‘lay’ thinking and as such learn from you too.

    • I really appreciated this article! While it may seem like an attack on the technology, I like the fact that it is challenging the current norm because it is by no means perfect. I also think it can be approved upon, and until it is hopefully an article like this gives readers something to think about when picking shoes.

      I have heard that I was an “overpronater” since my highschool cross country years. The obvious thing to do was, buy a shoe that gives me more support and prevents my arch from falling, right?? I’ve struggled with 5th metatarsal pain, and stress fractures since those high school years. Two years ago I finally switched to a neutral shoe that felt good and didn’t force my arch to stay up. Low and behold, I no longer have those 5th metatarsal injuries, and I have enjoyed running in neutral shoes much much more!

      So while I think the current model does provide a decent starting point. The recommendation can, in some cases possibly even cause injury (I feel like it did in my case, whether I can convince you of that is up to you!). I also wish there were more studies done on support shoes causing possible injuries, it would be nice to confirm what I believe to be true with some good solid scientific study!!

      • Hi Jeff,

        Thank you for your input. It is always good to make sure you have really thought things through before you trust in them completely. As you have discovered, there is always new research coming out that can disprove things we thought to be absolute truth. We are also hoping for more studies, but only time will tell. Keep following us, and we will keep giving you articles on the latest information we get! Happy Running!

  2. Wow, this is really interesting. I have been saying all this for years! I was sold a very expensive pair of shoes at a specialist store, based solely on a video analysis which apparently inidcated I was over pronating. As I was training to marathon distances at the time the sudden change in foot dynamics led to terrible calf injuries identical in both legs which took some time to sort out. In discussions with them subsequently it became pretty apparent that they were not experts on running in any way, they just have a scientifcailly unproven forumula they work to and sell, a little like Snake Oil. Selling a lot of running shoes to people who do little running does not make you an expert I am afraid. Additionally, I don’t know any competitive runners who use these stores. My conclusion was that it was a marketing gimmick. For me the comfort test is the number one way to get a good shoe, if they feel right when you put them on in the store then they probably are right.

  3. Great article Matt! A few years ago, I worked in a high-end running shoe store. Although I didn’t realize it at the time, when I look back on it now, I think it is one of the most *valuable* experiences that I have had in my career.

    Having come into that experience with an extensive background in biomechanics and human performance, within a short amount of time, I was able to figure out what shoes had a negative impact on the chain.

    In other words, I *never* recommended “stability” or motion- control shoes. And very often, I was able to educate runners on why artificially supporting the foot makes the muscles throughout the entire chain (much!) weaker.

    Once they understood that the entire chain is initially driven from the bottom up, they could easily see why limiting motion throughout the entire foot changes how everything above the level of the foot moves.

    Ultimately, human function is about timing. If the running shoe does not allow the foot and the entire chain to move in the right direction at the appropriate time, there will be a significant decrease in performance. Then, it’s just a matter of time before the runner has a setback in their training.

    To say the same thing in a slightly different way, all running injuries come down to the same thing: timing. And a running shoe that doesn’t allow the foot to move properly can have a negative impact on performance.

  4. I have managed a running store for 12+ years and like you am obviously biased to what I believe works best for finding the right shoe. I am a strong believer in the normal gait analysis, selling thousands of pairs of shoes to runners and I do understand that a gait analysis does not work 100% of the time but the repeat customers sticking to the same model or shoe type time after time shows that it does in fact work.

    There are many ways to find the proper shoe and to do a gait analysis, all work in their own way but to discount the knowledge and experience of the staff found at running specialty stores is not fair, especially since you do video gait analysis yourself and are obviously flogging your own cause. Not all stores have as much experience as other stores and store staff but on the whole, the running specialty business has a proven success rate over the years and our gait analysis techniques will continue to stay the same. There is plenty of room for all of us out there, no matter what we believe is correct. You keep doing your thing and I’ll keep doing mine, it’s all for the greater good of running but please don’t discount the knowledge and gait analysis ability of running shoe stores.

    • Hi Ben,
      Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge & experience.
      Like Jeff, I want to stress that this is not an attack on all running stores or staff. It is a sharing of research with runners that consistently shows that use of the wet foot test and/or slow motion video to categorise all runners into ‘overpronators’ / ‘neutral’ and ‘oversupinators’ and then recommend them a corresponding shoe is flawed and no more accurate than flipping a coin.
      Many specialist stores have managed to put the overpronation myth to bed and are working to provide advice that has at least not been shown to potentially injure runners.
      I don’t see it as a case of ‘keep doing your thing and I’ll keep doing mine’ – it’s more about us working together to advance the service we can provide runners by paying attention to the research. Knowledge evolves after all.
      I do thank you once again for the reply though dialogue like this is vital for our understanding to grow.

  5. Ben – thanks for the comment, really appreciate it.

    I can only speak for myself, but I think Matt would agree, this is not meant to be a knock on specialty running stores (at least the good ones, because we all know there are bad ones out there). I personally encourage every runner I coach to go to theirs because there is a wealth of knowledge to be learned.

    However, this article is hopefully an eye-opener to runners and those who work in running stores who believe that looking at pronation and arch type can predict what type of shoe they should be in.

    The more we can understand pronation and how the arch/foot work the better (more accurately) we can help runners.

    Even beyond running stores, dispelling the myths we see in RW about pronation and arch type and shoe prescription can go a long way. Take for example this site: http://www.runningshoesguru.com/best-running-shoes-wizard/ which tries to “fit” runners into the right trainer using pronation and footstike as variables.

    The more we can educate on the right way to look at how the foot and shoes work, the better!

  6. Hi all – I’m late to the discussion but it’s a topic that holds a huge fascination for me so thought I’d add my tuppence (for what it’s worth).

    Firstly, it seems from some of the previous comments that a few readers have taken this piece as nothing more than a cheap shot at the running shoe store industry which was intentionally inflammatory and self promoting. I must say that having met Matt on a few occasions I genuinely believe that was not his intention. He is not “that guy”. He is passionate about critical thinking and I believe was merely hoping to generate discussion on a subject I think we’ll all agree there is lots to discuss.

    If we are to be as evidence based (or “evidence informed”) in our practices as possible – which as health professionals we are duty bound to be – then we have to at least acknowledge the uncomfortable reality that there is a lot more that we don’t know about this topic than there is that we do know. All we really know as far as the body of literature tells us are the following:

    1. Knapik and colleagues have unequivocally demonstrated that assigning footwear based on static arch height/wet footprints does not reduce injury risk any more than just randomly giving runners a stability shoe (interesting that many magazines and stores persist with arch profiling/wet footprints but do not subscribe to just giving everyone a stability shoe – perhaps not enough ‘theatre’ for the punter?)

    2. Nigg and colleagues suggest that a comfortable foot level environment will reduce injury frequency.

    3. Malisoux and colleagues postulated that having multiple shoes and wearing them in rotation may lower injury risk.

    That is about all we currently know about shoes and injury risk if we are to live and die by the evidence based sword. Would it be inappropriate to therefore advise all new runners to buy multiple pairs of different stability shoes (as long as they were comfortable)? Probably not based on the data we have currently available to us. Is everyone doing this? No. Perhaps an interesting question would be as to why? (Just to clarify I am playing devils advocate and not suggesting this is best practice).

    More and more people have now begun acknowledging that static arch profiling is not consistently predictive of dynamic function and as such will state they instead favour gait analysis. Does this help us pick shoes? Given the very poorly understood relationship between lower extremity kinematics and injury risk/prevention (and the less than concrete data on how a shoe may or may not alter the mechanical behaviour of a given foot) it could be suggested it does not. And even if it did, what about the large body of research which consistently shows that we cannot know for sure what the foot is actually doing based purely on our observations of the posterior aspect of the shoe? (references available on request).

    In summary the simple fact is this: we cannot know for sure what the best shoe is for a given individual. We can use our experience (as a runner, store assistant, medical professional etc) and we can have an appreciation of the current state of affairs regarding the science bit, but ultimately we are all just guessing.

    I’ve said it before and am not afraid to say it again – recommending shoes for an uninjured runner is one of my least favourite things to do.

    • Hi Ian,

      Solid reply. The question which no one seems to be asking is “why are there so many different types of running shoes?”

      The reason why companies like Brooks, Saucony et al invest millions in research labs is not to market fancy expensive shoes but to actually try and determine the differences in people’s individual biomechanics.

      There is no one set of rules to determine which suits what. There is no one shoe fits all because we are all individual with individual requirements particular to our running needs.

      It may seem contrary to medical training and even to scientific modelling but the specialist (underline & bold) running stores with trained staff who understand the complexities of the different shoes do offer a service that may be anecdotal in nature but does help the consumer select the footwear appropriate to their needs.

      Great discussion by the way!

      AKW

  7. Hi matt

    I agree I don’t see it as an attack but I do see big ill informed generalisation that is on a par with saying all podiatrists only look at feet, which is also not true. You said in a reply to one commentor that if we are not using the over pronation model then what’s the point in using slow motion capture to recommend shoes? This is presuming that stjn is the only thing they are looking at? How about speed of movement to help with sole stiffness selection, assessing how well someone can come out of pronation and the speed of that moment, how well the hallux works or how mobile the ankles are, why there might be a hip drop beyond just “weak gluets” etc etc etc. I think you are looking at big chain running retail and saying that’s specialiat retail…maybe by industry definition yes but there are independents and small chains up and down the country that do all of the above phenomenally well.

    Can I ask you as someone that may advise on shoes in a clinical setting. How do you go about recommending shoes? You select a category,show some options on the internet and say pick the comfy one? But how do you test the options, how do you know if one is more comfy or if one is fitting horrendously. You need specialist retail for all those things, and your misguided representation of them above will lose them business and ultimately we get left with internet shopping only. I have seen clinicians and specialist retail work phenomenally well together and it means leaving the ego at home and helping one another. It is clear to me you are very intelligent guy and will do great things for the industry but in my honest opinion the above is really poor and misguided but hey least we can all be honest and have a discussion about it.

    All the best

    • Hi Richard, thanks very much for taking time to comment and making some very valid points. However, from what I have seen online you conduct FULL body gait analysis at your store, not the ‘ankle down’ analysis that is offered in many less experienced running stores.
      In an online testimony from one of your clients, they stated that you showed them that they were not the ‘overpronator’ that they had been labelled in another store, via exactly the type of ‘foot analysis’ I am criticising in this article.
      A quick Youtube search for ‘gait analysis’ brings results that show pretty much no mention of anything but references to ‘amount of pronation’ and ‘arch type’.
      The variables you mention such how well someone can come out of pronation (supination resistance) and hallux mobility certainly do not seem to form part of the generic model used in running stores, and of course hip drops are not even being recorded in a ‘feet analysis’.
      Based on what I have read, we need more people like yourself giving advice, not staff trained in a non evidence backed model. How you convert your knowledge into actually recommending a shoe is a tricky one but at least it seems you are not basing it on an erroneous model that in some cases has been linked to causing injury.
      Personally, I still steer clear from basing shoe recommendations on the back of any biomechanical movement. Case history, goals, comfort, these all play more of a part in shoe recommendation than any pre-made model, probably very similar to you.
      Retailers perpetuating models that I believe we both agree are incorrect do not encourage runners to take reponsibility for their own injury risk (e.g. addressing frequency, intensity, duration, form, ancillary exercise, etc.) and instead leads them to rely on ‘technology’ that has no scientific base.
      Thanks again for your comments!

  8. Hi matt,

    Thanks for the reply. I agree a lot with what you say there and i by no means believe what we do is happening everywhere and honestly its perhaps not viable for them but the things you mention above in regards to line of questioning, history etc is one thing these independent retailers do phenomenally well ( again these multi chain national specialist are a separate story!). I was in a very fortunate position late last year to be at a symposium paid for by a brand to bring together independent retailers from around the world and I felt UK and most of Europe (particularly Germany, Holland and Belgium) did prove they give extensive advice beyond the over pronation model very well and certainly a long way ahead of our american counterparts who regularly stated we have “proved” stjn works in our stores so why change. Our problem is our big chains over here take that american model… Its easy and fast to draw a line from the middle of the shoe up and see if it matches the leg, it becomes very visual and tangible for the uneducated consumer, they believe it enough to buy the shoe that looks the “straightest”. Consumer is happy and retailer is happy as they made £100 in 5 mins. This is exactly the type of thing you are discussing in this article but it is some not all retailers. If everybody stayed with simple camera at ankle mechanics it would actually be great for my business as we do so much more but I actually don’t think this is happening everywhere, my perspnal mystery shopping tells me otherwise. Some very good people work in retail and they have a lot of great knowledge to give to the run community, that needs to be remembered. I have some real issues with the advice dolled out by some pods, physio’s chiros etc but its ” some” or “few” never all and a whole sector

    Cheers Matt

  9. And I have only just realised this is an America site…whilst I’m protecting the UK/Europe. I think we are discussing the same thing with small country variations that could/may make a difference in both of our assessments and opinions!

  10. Hi Matt,
    I’m a little late to the party, but i must say that you have written a great article, one that is very informative. I’m a novice runner and the idea of a video gait analysis in a store is very intriguing to me. I live in the US and have had several gait analyses in running shops that, like you pointed out in your article, focus in only on the lower legs and feet during the analysis. I have also had a gait analysis in Germany at a specialty running shop that uses 2 cameras and one of those nice slat belt treadmills, almost identical to what your setup looks like, as far as I can tell.

    Obviously, the more advanced approach that you and this other store that I visited is more fulfilling for someone like me. That being said, I have been to a lot of running stores and have even heard of Physiotherapists back home that use iPads to conduct a gait analysis. Any thoughts on this? Is an iPad capable of delivering comparable results, because you are able to first film full body from the side and then from behind? The videos from iPads often look pretty crappy, but I just wanted to know if you had an opinion on this topic.

    • Hi Oliver! So glad you enjoyed the article. That is very interesting about getting a gait analysis in Germany, they obviously take their running biomechanics more seriously than most running stores do here! It is good to see that you can see the difference between the style we use, and a regular hair analysis.

      There are many apps that can be used on iPads to make the most of the technology advances that we have to assess running gait accurately. It will depend on which software they chose to install, and how experienced the guy behind it (and looking at it) is, but it is possible to use these to assist with assessing running gait. I would say it is preferable to use the equipment we use, as you can move to every angle, and get the runner to do things right there and then that will help you, but it is possible to give a good assessment using an iPad, if done correctly. Hope this helps! Let us know if you need anything else 🙂

  11. Thanks for a reasoned article. I’ve been very sceptical of the shop-type “gait analysis” after my bad experiences. I had been running for a couple of years when I decided to up my mileage (to a marathon) and was offered a “gait analysis” through a local running shop in conjunction with Asics. I actually tried two – both the treadmill type analysis – which both categorised me as a severe overpronator. I bought some very expensive stability shoes and tried easing into them with a couple of shorter runs a week. They were absolute agony, causing a twisting sensation in one leg in particular. I repeatedly twisted my buttock and thigh, and got severe pains down the side of my knee. I would rest for a while, try running in them again, and the pain would return. Noone seemed able to help or advise: just rest and try again. After all, it would be really dangerous with someone with my gait problems to run in anything else, right? They really slowed me up that year, and eventually I binned them and went back to running in adidas from a regular sports shop. However, that was just the start of the problems. My feet now roll around when I’m walking and running, as if the muscles aren’t sure where to put them. I’ve twisted my ankle badly a couple of times – putting me out of action yet again. Certain trainers and even walking boots leave that agonising twisting sensation in my leg. I’m now at a point where I can barely run 5k, have to get the bus back from town/work because I’m limping, and have gained weight. In addition to overpronating, I also have high arches, so according to another brand/shop I saw recently I underpronate – go figure! I’m making some progress in the gym with minimalist shoes, but it’s slow. I would advise anyone to steer clear of these “analyses” – I’m now going to have to source and pay for a podiatrist.

    • Hi Becky, thanks for the comment. Sorry to hear you had a bad experience, but as you have read, that is the case more than people realize. Thanks for your feedback, and hopefully your body continues to adjust for the better. Did you listen to our podcast with Matt Phillips? You will probably enjoy it http://runnersconnect.net/rc43

  12. Personally I think the only way to find the right shoe is to run distance in it. By that time the manufacturers have changed the model so you are back to square one.
    Add to this the fact that a large number of people have feet that do different things when they hit the ground and it would seriously raise the question of should one buy a pair of shoes or a shoe for the right foot and a shoe for the left foot.
    Basically we are dealing with an industry, not a sport. The shoe shops and the writer of this article are both after making money out of runners. Buyer beware!

    • Hi Andrew, thanks for sharing. Actually we are big believers in that too. Maybe not so much distance (as many new runners cannot afford to take lots of pairs home), but we think comfort is a huge part of it. We talked about this a lot in our podcast with Matt Phillips. You may enjoy the topics in this podcast http://runnersconnect.net/rc43 Thanks for sharing your experiences. We try to be fair and unbias with our writing!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Adding new comments is only available for RunnersConnect Insider members.



Already a member? Login here

Want to become an Insider for free? Register here