Overpronation and Normal Arches

Hi,

I've been slowly coming back after a long injury and want to ensure I get the right kind of footwear to prevent future problems.

Having been for a few gait analysis, they always video my running and it shows me over-pronating. Hence I was recommended to go for some motion control trainers.

I did some research and came across the Wet Test on the runnersworld website. I found that i have a normal arch, and according to the runnersworld, its natural for someone with normal arch to pronate.

Now I'm confused, should i go for Stability shoes with moderate control features (for normal arches) or the Motion control shoes, or high stability shoes (for flat arches, over-pronaters)

thanks in advance

The wet foot test is nonsense - old fashioned and out of date.  Research has shown it has no bearing on injury reduction.

When it comes to choosing footwear comfort is king.  If you weigh less than 14-15 stone then you may find stability shoes better, as some motion control shoes are quite bulky and feel like you're running with ankle weights on.

This isn't black or white, much as we'd like it to be.

SDoB

Which research? do you have any links?

Why would the website hosting this forum submit such information if it was nonsense?

See http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/shoes/choosing-a-shoe-the-very-basics/481.html

Testa12,

This research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19387413?dopt=Abstract

And this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20117594?dopt=Abstract

Why would the website hosting this forum submit such information if it was nonsense? Well that is something you'd have to ask them.  Do you really believe everything Runners World tells you??

Well I dont believe everything they tell me, at least not now

 It just seems odd they would publicise incorrect information on their website. I would have guessed other folks accessing the site would regard it on face value as a reliable and independant source of information.

It would be nice if there WAS a reliable and independant source of information on this some place

Thanks for the links, interesting to know!

Testa12,

Don't beat yourself up about it - you certainly aren't the first, nor will you be the last.  This is just one of many things that is promoted to the lay running public as a whole and done so incorrectly.  And not just this website - many websites.  And not just websites - magazines too.

Why do they continue to print these things then? Habit? Ease? Laziness? Ignorance? There should be no excuses for any of those in my opinion.  But I gave up being too bothered about it a while ago when I realised how fruitless it was (following correspondance with a RW journo and editor).  They didnt seem too bothered about what I considered to be their educational responsibility given where they are placed within the running community.

But thats probably another story...

They have incorrect info because they don't know what they don't know.

They do not evaluate current evidence-based research to substantiate such information.

If they read the forums they would realise certain posters know what they're talking about when giving advice, like SDoB.

Edit: that was to Testa.

Yes I agree, I think the wet foot test was a very simplistic approach that may work for some people and not others. Similar in fact to BMI measurements. I take a lot of these things with a pinch of salt.

That said, gait analysis didn't work for me because I seem to run very differently on the treadmill to on the road. Also you don't want to totally remove pronation because that brings it's own problems. Comfort is the key, and unfortunately you don't really find out if a shoe is right for you until you've done a good few runs in it.