Good Running Shoes Are Very Impotent For Health

The running shoe model has to be adjusted. Pronation, motion control, cushioning, and stability shoes? Do away with them all.

It is not just barefoot running and minimalism versus running sneakers, the either/or situation many portray it to be. It is much deeper than that. It is not even that running shoe companies are bad and out to earn a profit. Shoe businesses might be attaining the goals they set out for, but the goals that their aiming for aren’t what need to get carried out. The paradigm that running shoes are built upon is the issue.

Running shoes are made upon two fundamental premises, impact forces and pronation. Their objectives are simple, restrict impact forces and prevent overprontation. This has caused a classification system based on endurance, stability, and motion control. The problem is that this system may have no ground to stand on.

I’ll start with the usual statistic of 33-56 percent of runners get hurt every year (Bruggerman, 2007). That’s sort of mind blowing when you consider it. As there are tons of accidents going on, let’s look at exactly what shoes are all supposed to perform.


As said before, shoes are made upon the premise that impact forces and pronation are what cause injuries. Pronation, specifically has been constructed as the bane of all runners. We have become inundated with limiting pronation via motion sneakers. Running shoes are consequently designed to limit this pronation. Basically, running shoes are designed and developed to place the body in “proper” alignment. But do we actually require appropriate alignment?

This paradigm on pronation is determined by two main things: (1)over pronation causes harms and (2) running shoes can change pronation.

Taking a look at the first premise, we can observe several studies that don’t demonstrate a link between pronation and injuries. One by Nigg et al. (2000) revealed that ankle and foot movement did not predict injuries in a large group of runners.

If foot movement/pronation doesn’t predict injuries or isn’t a risk factor for injuries, then one needs to question whether the idea is sound or functioning…

Looking at the second assumption, do shoes change pronation? Motion control shoes are intended to decrease pronation through many different mechanisms. Many elect to add a medial post or some similar device. In a research by Stacoff (2001), they Hier zum Test several motion control shoe apparatus and found that they didn’t change pronation and didn’t alter the kinematics of the tibia or calcaneus bones either. Similarly, another study by Butler (2007) discovered that movement control shoes showed no difference in peak pronation when compared to athletic shoes. Lastly, Dixon (2007) discovered similar results showing that motion control shoes did not reduce peak eversion (pronation) and did not alter the concentration of pressure.

This is sort of a double whammy on motion control shoes. If excessive pronation does not cause accidents to the degree that everyone thinks, and if motion control shoes do not even change pronation, what’s the point of a motion control shoe?


Impact forces are another significant scoundrel of running injuries. The thinking goes like this, the greater the impact force on the lower the leg, the larger strain the foot/leg takes, which could potentially result in accidents. Let us take a look.