SERVING MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL / MINNESOTA
Donate Now Sustaining Member

MinnPost thanks these major sponsors:




Sponsor of
Second Opinion



Our major advertisers


Our in-kind partners


MinnPost thanks these generous donors:

INDIVIDUALS AND FOUNDATI0NS
Blandin Foundation
Otto Bremer Foundation
Bush Foundation
Sage & John Cowles
David & Vicki Cox
Toby & Mae Dayton
Jack & Claire Dempsey
Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation
Sam & Stacey Heins
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Joel & Laurie Kramer
Lee Lynch & Terry Saario
Martin & Brown Foundation
The McKnight Foundation
The Minneapolis Foundation
The Saint Paul Foundation
Rebecca & Mark Shavlik

(See all donors here.)

This content is made possible by the generous sponsorship support of UCare.
  • Switch to Small Text Size
  • Switch to Medium Text Size
  • Switch to Large Text Size
Email Print Submit a Comment

    There's no scientific evidence for benefits of 'motion-control' running shoes, studies find

    By Susan Perry | Published Tue, Jul 27 2010 9:13 am

    I’ve been snookered (to use one of this month’s words du jour).

    For more than two decades, on the advice of doctors, trainers and shoe salespeople alike, I’ve bought “motion-control” running shoes. My feet overpronate and, thus, I needed (or so I was told) heavy, rigid shoes to avoid injuries.

    I got injured anyway, and gave up running marathons (after two) for that reason. But I’ve kept buying motion-control running and walking shoes, even though I’ve hated wearing them. They’ve always felt too hard, too heavy, too inflexible.

    Now I learn, thanks to an article by Gretchen Reynolds in the New York Times, that those shoes were an unnecessary precaution. In fact, it's possible that they may have contributed to my injuries.

    What’s even more aggravating to learn (here’s where the snookered part comes in) is that all that advice I was given about runners with pronating feet needing sturdier shoes was based on no scientific evidence at all. Writes Reynolds:

    Scientific rumblings about whether running shoes deliver on their promises have been growing louder in recent years. In 2008, an influential review article in The British Journal of Sports Medicine concluded that sports-medicine specialists should stop recommending running shoes based on a person’s foot posture. No scientific evidence supported the practice, the authors pointed out, concluding that “the true effects” of today’s running shoes “on the health and performance of distance runners remain unknown.”

    Reynolds describes two new studies that back up that conclusion. Last June, in the latest of a series of their own studies on the topic, military researchers concluded that “assigning shoes based on the shape of the plantar foot surface [low, normal or high arches] had little influence on injuries even after considering other injury risk factors.” In fact, their research found that military recruits were more likely to get injured when assigned shoes specifically for their foot postures.

    Canadian researchers also reported last month that experienced women runners who engaged in a 13-week half-marathon training program were more likely to miss training days due to injury if they had been assigned a running shoe that “matched” their foot posture than if they had been given a shoe type at random. “The findings of this study suggest that our current approach of prescribing in-shoe pronation control systems on the basis of foot type is overly simplistic and potentially injurious,” concluded the researchers.

    Motion-control shoes may be particularly problematic, as Reynolds points out:

    It’s worth noting that across the board, motion-control shoes were the most injurious for the runners. Many overpronators, who, in theory, should have benefited from motion-control shoes, complained of pain and missed training days after wearing them, as did a number of the runners with normal feet and every single underpronating runner assigned to the motion-control shoes.

    I can't wait to go shoe shopping this weekend.

    Like what you just read? Support high-quality journalism in Minnesota by becoming a member of MinnPost.

    Advertisement:

    3 Comments: Hide/Show Comments

    E-mail address

    Password

     

    Forgot Password? | Register to Comment

    MinnPost does not permit the use of foul language, personal attacks or the use of language that may be libelous or interpreted as inciting hate or sexual harassment. User comments are reviewed by moderators to ensure that comments meet these standards and adhere to MinnPost's terms of use and privacy policy.

    We intend for this area to be used by our readers as a place for civil, thought-provoking and high-quality public discussion. In order to achieve this, MinnPost requires that all commenters register and post comments with their actual names and place of residence. Register here to comment.


    medium_UCareLogo125.jpg

    Health care that starts with you. That's what you'll find at UCare, the fourth-largest health plan in Minnesota, serving more than 225,000 members across Minnesota and 26 counties in western Wisconsin.

    minnpost.com/healthblog


    Susan Perry

    In "Second Opinion" Susan Perry will coordinate coverage to help MinnPost readers make their way through the thicket of health happenings, trends, studies and research. Perry has written several health-related books, and her articles have appeared in a wide variety of publications, including Minnesota Monthly, The History Channel Magazine and Woman's Day. She is a former writer/editor for Time-Life Books and a former editor of Nutrition Action Healthletter, published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Perry can be reached at sperry [at] minnpost [dot] com.

    Recent Second Opinion posts