Why Running Shoes Don’t Work

The running shoe display should be settled. Pronation, movement control, padding, and strength shoes? Dispose of all.

It’s not quite recently shoeless running and moderation as opposed to running shoes, the either/or circumstance many depict it to be. It’s significantly more profound than that. It’s not even that running shoe organizations are abhorrent and out to make a benefit. Shoe organizations might be fulfilling the objectives they set out for, however perhaps the objectives their going for are not what should be finished. The worldview that running shoes are based upon is the issue.

Running shoes are based upon two focal premises, affect strengths and pronation. Their objectives are basic, constrain affect drives and forestall overprontation. This has prompted an arrangement framework in light of padding, dependability, and movement control. The issue is that this framework might not have any ground to remain on. Have we been centered around the wrong things for 40+years?

I’ll begin with the standard measurement of 33-56% of sprinters get harmed each year (Bruggerman, 2007). That is somewhat mind blowing when you consider it. Since there are a huge amount of wounds going on, how about we take a gander at what shoes should do.


As said before, shoes are based upon the preface that effect powers and pronation are what cause wounds. Pronation, specifically has been developed as the worst thing about all sprinters. We have turned out to be immersed with constraining pronation by means of movement control shoes. The focal thought behind pronation is that overpronating causes revolution of the lower leg(i.e. ankle,tibia, knee) putting weight on the joints and along these lines prompting wounds. Running shoes are along these lines intended to restrain this pronation. Basically, running shoes are produced and intended to put the body in “legitimate” arrangement. In any case, do we truly require legitimate arrangement?

This worldview on pronation depends on two fundamental things: (1)over pronation causes wounds and (2) running shoes can change pronation.

Taking a gander at the principal commence, we can see a few investigations that don’t demonstrate a connection amongst pronation and wounds. In an epidemiological examination by Wen et al. (1997), he found that lower extremitly arrangement was not a noteworthy hazard factor for marathon sprinters. In another examination by Wen et al. (1998), this time a planned report, he presumed that ” Minor varieties in bring down furthest point arrangement don’t show up indisputably to be significant hazard factors for abuse wounds in sprinters.” Other examinations have achieved comparable conclusions. One by Nigg et al. (2000) demonstrated that foot and lower leg development did not foresee wounds in a vast gathering of sprinters.

On the off chance that foot development/pronation does not anticipate wounds or is not a hazard factor for wounds, at that point one needs to address whether the idea is sound or working…

Taking a gander at the second start, do shoes even adjust pronation? Movement control shoes are intended to diminish pronation through an assortment of systems. Most embed an average post or a comparative gadget. In an examination by Stacoff (2001), they tried a few movement control shoe gadgets and found that they didn’t adjust pronation and did not change the kinematics of the tibia or calcaneus bones either. Thus, another examination by Butler (2007) found that movement control shoes demonstrated no distinction in top pronation when contrasted with padding shoes. Ultimately, Dixon (2007) discovered comparative outcomes demonstrating that movement control shoes did not diminish top eversion (pronation) and didn’t change the grouping of weight.

This is kind of a one-two punch on movement control shoes. On the off chance that over the top pronation does not make wounds the degree that everybody considers, and if movement control shoes don’t modify pronation, what’s the purpose of a movement control shoe?


Effect strengths are the other real heel of running wounds. The reasoning goes this way, the more prominent the effect compel on the lower the leg, the more noteworthy anxiety the foot/leg takes, which could conceivably prompt wounds. To battle this dread, running shoes, specific padding ones, are to the safeguard. How about we investigate.

The principal question is, do padding shoes carry out their employment?

Wegener(2008) tried out the Asics Gel-Nimbus and the Brooks Glycerin to check whether they diminished plantar weight. They found that the shoes did their job!….But where it lessened weight shifted very. Implying that weight lessening shifted between forefoot/rearfoot/and so forth. This prompted the intriguing conclusion that their ought to be a move in endorsing shoes to one in light of where plantar weight is most elevated for that unique individual. It ought to be noticed that this lessening in weight depended on a correlation with another shoe, a sneaker. I don’t know this is a decent control. Fundamentally, this examination reveals to us that padded running shoes diminish top weight when contrasted with a Tennis shoe.

In an audit regarding the matter, Nigg (2000) found that both outside and inside effect constrain crests were not or scarcely affected by the running shoes padded sole. This implies the padding sort does not change affect constrains much, if by any stretch of the imagination. Be that as it may, in what manner would this be able to be? I mean it’s good judgment on the off chance that you bounced on solid versus bounced on a shoe froth like surface, the shoe surface is milder right? We’ll return to this inquiry in a moment.

Effect Forces: The photo gets cloudier:

In any case, it’s not as basic as portrayed previously. In a fascinating investigation by Scott (1990) they took a gander at top loads on the different destinations of likely damage for sprinters (Achilles, knee, and so on.). All pinnacle loads happened amid mid-position and push off. This prompted an essential finding that “the effect compel at heel contact was evaluated to have no impact on the pinnacle drive seen at the perpetual damage destinations,” and prompted theory that effect constrain did not relate damage improvement.

Additionally confusing the effect drive thought is that when taking a gander at damage rates of those running on hard surfaces or delicate surfaces, there seems, by all accounts, to be no defensive advantage of running on delicate surfaces. Why would that be? In light of something many refer to as pre-initiation and muscle tuning which will be talked about underneath.

Supporting this information, different investigations have demonstrated that individuals who have a low pinnacle affect have an indistinguishable probability of getting harmed from those with a high pinnacle affect constrain (Nigg, 1997). In the event that you need to entangle things significantly further, affect is by all accounts the main thrust between expanded bone thickness.

As a mentor or coach this should bode well. The bone reacts to the boost by winding up more impervious to it, IF the jolt is not very expansive and there is sufficient recuperation.

Belittling our Body: Impact constrains as criticism:

Back to the inquiry I asked before: How can affect powers not change in light of shoe sole delicate quality and why isn’t running on hard surfaces prompt more wounds?

The issue is, by and by, we belittle the human body! It’s an astonishing thing, and we never give it the credit it merits. The body adjusts to the surface that it will strike, in the event that you give it a shot. The body adjusts to both shoe and surface altering sway powers by means of changes joint firmness, the way the foot strikes, and an idea called muscle tuning.