Today we're going to talk about running shoes against the backdrop of what I consider a not particularly helpful article in the NY Times about the subject. The theme of the article, and it's take-away, is that there is no dependable correlation between the type of shoe you buy and the anatomy of your foot. I agree with this. But the underlying premise is that the anatomy of your foot determines your footfall, and this is not, in my experience, true.
The problem is as follows: Either the author of the article misunderstands or misrepresents how runners and their prospective shoes are mated; or she's faithfully representing a misunderstanding that exists among both the U.S. Military, and the scientists who've constructed certain newly-released studies.
If you want to know whether footwear protects your feet, it might be beneficial to look at how footwear has, over the decades and generations, protected (or failed to protect) the feet of those who've run a lot of miles throughout their careers. I am happy to be part of a group of runners who still get together regularly, a fraternity of runners and ex-runners who all started their running in high school or before.
We had our annual soiree just two weeks ago, and I came away with a drinking glass ringed with names and times of those of us (I'm not included) who ran two imperial miles in high school in under 9 minutes: seventeen runners in all, from 1965 to 1976, from 8:45.2 (1976) to 8:59.8 (1970).
About 80 of us got together at this last meeting, and most of us have three things in common: We can't run at all, or without considerable difficulty, because of injuries incurred decades ago; we unfortunately had our most productive running years in high school because of those injuries; and we ran back then in what might be considered "free" or "natural" shoes—models like the popular (at the time) Tiger Marathons, as well as our track spikes, offered us no medial support.
So, what I have at my disposal is a rather loosely based longitudinal study of many of the best young runners American has ever produced. We can be guided by the lessons these anecdotes offer us, or we can choose not to.
I think it's instructive to examine the premise of the NYT article; of the U.S. Military's premise while mating shoes to its recruits; and in the study the military either commissioned and/or upon which it relied. That premise is stated in the first sentence of the study upon which the article and the military rested: "Shoe manufacturers market motion control, stability, and cushioned shoes for plantar shapes defined as low, normal, and high, respectively." (Injury Reduction Effectiveness of Assigning Running Shoes Based on Plantar Shape in Marine Corps Basic Training, Knapik JJ, et al, American Journal of Sportes Medicine, June, 2010.)
I don't accept the premise that running mechanics necessarily follow plantar shapes, nor that footwear makers design (or necessarily design) their shoes based on that premise. I, for example, have high arches, if you simply look at the anatomical design of my feet. Yet if you look at me standing barefoot on the ground you'd think I have low arches, because my high arch flattens out. I pronate or, to be precise, I over-pronate. I am not a fleet-footed, 125-pound jackrabbit, nor was I ever. Just after my sixteenth birthday I, then a 156-pounder, reached my high school apex, running 4:19.4 during the season's final meet, and hoped for better things to come.
My relatively heavy weight (carried over a then 6'2" frame), still-maturing body did, in my view, apply too much downward pressure on the bones and soft tissue of my feet. But I did all my running in entirely unsupportive shoes. My running career ending injuries manifested themselves as knee ailments, specifically at the iliotibial band.
"Runners with high arches have been directed toward soft, well-cushioned shoes," writes the NY Times article author. Absolutely incorrect. The industry does not believe this. At least, not the part of the industry to whom I speak. Rather, we look at footfalls—running mechanics. How do you run? Do you overpronate or don't you? If so, you need a shoe that provides for you what your body does not: support on the medial side.
I'll allow that there is, perhaps, a miscommunication based on nomenclature: Are the authors of the NYT article, and the authors of various studies mentioned in that article, talking about the height of the arch as nature originally designed it? Or are they talking about the height of the arch after the vicissitudes of weight, and miles, have flattened it? I don't know, and the articles don't say. In either case, my view is that running mechanics, not any metric associated with a static stance, determine shoe requirements.
I and many of my cohorts are able to run today, but we would not be if we were forced to run in the shoes that were the proximate causes of our short running careers. Today, I run in a Brooks Adrenaline, what we on Slowtwitch call a structured trainer when we categorize shoes. Even then, I can only successfully run in these models with a custom orthotic fashioned for me by Jim Rice of Foot Depot in North San Diego County. The Adrenaline's combination-lasted footbed provides a flat, supportive surface for my orthotic.
I do find myself in agreement with the NY Times author when, at her article's terminus, she writes, "if you’re heading out to buy new running shoes, plan to be your own best advocate." If you feel pain or discomfort, "hand back those shoes. Try several more pairs."
Still, did you not know this already? Have footwear retailers been telling runners to purchase painful or uncomfortable shoes? Not in my experience.
Your proper take-away, in my view, is this: Are you an over-pronator or not? If you aren't, then you will probably do best in a neutral shoe, because, medial posting is neither necessary nor helpful, and only detracts from the shoe's performance. The more your tendency to over-pronate, the more medial support you need built into your shoe.
