An Underpronator Wearing Running Shoes for Overpronation

There is zero hard scientific evidence that shows that shoes made for 'overpronators' or 'underpronators' reduce injury in such folks compared to using neutral, or even using the complete opposite sort of shoe. It is all marketing sold as pseudoscience. If you doubt me, try and find any scientific reference backing their claims for their shoes. Good luck with that. 

You can literally just ignore all the marketing claims of 'neutral', 'overpronator', etc., and just try the shoe and run a bit in it to see if it 'feels ok' to you.  And yes, it sometimes it takes some trial and error to find a shoe that fits your foot comforably for distance. But you can otherwise ignore the marketing hype, as that really is all it is - marketing hype.

This is what happens when the shoe companies take their claims more than a little too far in terms of the benefits the shoe is giving you. These were just one of quite a few types of recent-gen shoes trying to capitalize on making 'new markets' for shoes, that were recalled at a cost of millions for a false advertising lawsuit.

pronation is normal, that is how humans run.  I wouldn't wear them, I made the same mistake early in my running life, and I ended up with terrible knee pain.

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. 

There is zero hard evidence showing that matching overpronators with specific shoes, or neutral shoes with certain runners, decreases injury at all. It is ALL marketing hype. All the stuff you hear from the shoe reps is pseudoscience regarding the matching of their shoes with feet/gait. 

Don't get me wrong - there are definitely medically proven roles for things like orthotics for those who are specifically tested and measured for them. But the evidence that the nonmeasurement approach used by shoe stores is 100% lacking in scientific backing. And when they go to far, like the fivefingers or the 'energy return' shoes I posted above, multmillion dollar lawsuits do indeed occur. But don't think that just because some shoe store guy saw you walk and said you were a 'overpronator' means that you therefore only should try on heavy motion control shoes - that part of the matching is bunk, based 100% on marketing and pretty much 0% on published peer-reviewed science.

yazmaster answered a different question than you asked.

You're asking if there's a difference between a $20 shoe and a $170 shoe.  The answer is yes... and without question.

yazmaster and others (and I agree with them) are saying there's isn't a ton of evidence saying people should wear stability/control shoes.  Scary thing is I seem to recall the majority of "runners" wear stability shoes.  That's absurd.  I think people who wear stability shoes would be better off just wearing something neutral.

OTOH, I don't think a neutral runner should ever wear a stability shoe.

If you overpronate you wear down the inner side of the shoe toward the big toe, not the outside.  If you wear down the outside edge you're underpronating.

Mark

+1

At the end of the day, over or under pronating is caused by a mechanical issue in your running form.  Address the issue instead of relying on stability shoes to do the work for your muscles. The more you use stability shoes, the weaker you get.

well we all are using the same ground aren't we? And we all have feet adapted to our bodies?

I'm not saying the same shoe, but I am saying that we don't need our shoes to alter our gait if our gait is good without the shoe.

I'll answer your questions:

- Yes, there is def a difference between $20 Costco cheapo sneakers and 'real' running shoes. In particular, the materials used in real running shoes are more durable and often more comfortable. But do those $20 cause 'more injury' than the 'real' ones? Absolutely not. Just because the shoes wear down faster does NOT mean increased injury risk. I actually current run in $30 Target sneakers, after spending 20+ years wearing nothing but 'real' running sneakers. (They're more cheaply built for sure, but I like the less built up shoe.)

- There is no one proper running form, there are difference for everyone. But this is why you have to try ALL the shoes. By going with the marketers suggestions of 'you're an overpronator so you should ONLY try these (expensive) motion control shoes", you are following nonmedically sound advice - they have no evidence to back that claim so there is no reason why you should follow it. To date, there has absolultely not been a rash of injuries because heavy folks incorrectly chose neutral shoes, or other non-motion control shoes, and it's been about a decade of experience now.

- You cannot use the justification that 'the studies just haven't been done' to say that, 'well, they might be right.' If they intend to specifically market shoes with a medical-sounding fit, the onus is on them to provide the REAL evidence to back up their claims. Again, if your claims are too extreme, the watchdogs will bite, and lawsuits like the ones I mentioned/showed above occur. Furthermore, just imaging how much money a shoe maker would make if they had real, hard medical data backing up their claim - they have every incentive to have to data - unless in reality, the truth is that their claims are a lot shakier than they'd have you believe.

I never said 'wear anything', meaning without regard to how it fits you or what your preferences are. Read my post above - I specifically say to try on EVERY kind of shoe, and test multiple makes/models until you find the one that does indeed work for you. It is absolutely true that some shoes just don't fit right on some feet, and some padding just doesn't work well for what some people want in the feel of their run.

I am a serious runner and can be very, very picky about the type of shoe I run in - yes, I currently run in cheap Target shoes, but that's specifically because they are underbuilt (semi-minimalist), lightweight, and feel very good on my feet, for low cost. I came to this decision only after literally running hundreds of miles in many models over years to compare.

However, that is a world of difference from following the shoe company/store advice and saying "I have to stick to motion control shoes because I'm an overpronator." You should ignore that advice, and try on ALL the various kinds of shoes in the store. If the motion controls work for you, great, go with it. But if they don't, there is no reason to feel that you are taking a risk with your running health, as there is no objective evidence whatsoever showing that following the shoestore advice will in fact reduce injury or make you run more comfortably. THAT is what I'm saying. 

In today's consumer age, it's critically important to distinguish between pseudoscience that originated purely from marketing hype, versus actual, peer-reviewed science. In the absence of objective scientific information, you should look skeptically at marketing hype, which almost invariably is meant to sell more shoes, not benefit you as proven by science. The multimillion dollar fraud claim lawsuits I mentioned above fully confirm this as a very real phenomenon that I'm not overstating whatsoever.

You are to a degree.

While there have been some outlandish claims made by some shoe companies, particularly the makers of "fad" designs, there is no question that some stability shoes work better for some people.  I agree with your advice to try many different shoes if you are not comfortable, but it's a stretch to say that some shoes are not better than others for certain people, of course they are.....and design properties certainly have something to do with that. (yes, I know you tried to say that you weren't saying that, but you can't have it both ways)

I'm sticking with my perspective - 

because there is essential zero medical evidence for their claims of shoe matching, you should ignore it completely. If they publish even one accepted article, I'll gladly change my tune. 

What we do know from experience of the history of human running, is that no particular running shoe or model is a magic injury reducer. That's been well established by researchers at Harvard, who in particular debunked the 5-finger 'forefoot' injury reduction hype (which has since turned into a multimillion dollar lawsuit successfully litigated.) 

Ask those knowledgable store clerks where they get their information. I guarantee you 100% it will be from a glossy marketing brochure made to sound medicalesque. They also benefit from the very reasonable-sounding idea that you should seek an expert's help before getting footwear that could potentialy limit or injure you, but unfortunately their expertise is not medical in the slightest.