You and Brian are right, but why would a SHOE COMPANY want to focus on the RUNNER and his or her technique and biomechanics?  Shoe companies make money by selling shoes, not telling runners how to run better.  These two differences tend to converge only when a shoe company can tell a runner that he or she needs to buy a new pair of shoes in order to improve or correct his or her running technique so that he or she can run faster/longer/injury free.

Sure, Merrell, Vivobarefoot, Altra and Newton (and maybe others) have helpful information about how a runner can or should transition to more “minimalist shoes” (whatever that means — there’s a world of difference between a pair of Vivos and a pair of Newtons), but that is an adjunct to their efforts to sell more shoes.

Most runners get their information from Runner’s World, which makes money by selling ads to shoe companies.  Outside of academics (and hat’s off to you and your colleagues) and elite coaching, there is no natural voice to change the dialogue from “gear fixes” to “form fixes.”  Since 99.9% of runners do not have access to elite coaching, that leaves you and your colleagues to beat the drum.  Thank goodness for the internet.

Keep up the good work.

Brad,

I agree with you – discussion about shoes will always trump discussion about form, strengthening etc (just look at my most popular posts in the left sidebar!). At the same time, academics often are so focused on scientific minutiae that they forget the big picture – what does a given study mean for the individual runner. I think what Brian is suggesting is to broaden the middle ground between a sometimes a narrow scientific focus and the world of practical application. This is what I try my best to do, as does Brian. Others who do this include people like Alex Hutchinson and Steve Magness. It’s taking info from the scientific world and PR from the shoe companies and trying to boil it down to what is most important and practical to helping people run well and injury free.

Pete