I ran track in high school and I wore traditional running shoes with arch support because like many others I considered myself to “over-pronate.” These running shoes did “correct” my over-pronation as they were advertised, but I still wouldn’t have considered myself injury free. I experienced pain in my knees and plantar fasciitis that wasn’t incapacitating, but that never seemed to go away and I grew to believe that pain was just a part of running.

I agree that the foot type that over-pronates, or in other words “pes planus,” is a perfectly healthy foot type in my opinion. I myself am a relatively tall and perhaps lanky individual, but I have always been athletic and well coordinated, and people who are tall and lanky seem to also have long feet (in fitting proportion to the rest of their body) which predisposes them to “over-pronation.” When comparing example images of feet that are “pes planus,” versus those that are “pes cavus” (arched to a great a degree), the “pes cavus” feet immediately appear to be unattractive and disfigured, while the “pes planus” appear healthy, well-formed, and attractive on an aesthetic level. This perceived fitness of “pes planus” feet would make sense given the large percent of the population with “flat feet.” Suppositionally allow me to venture that all people, not limited to just specialists or doctors, have the ability to accurately judge the fitness or attractiveness of other people for the purpose of one day selecting an attractive mate, and this is profound because it implies that “flat feet” must have been chosen by our ancestors through natural selection as being desirable, and ultimately there must be some functional reason or advantage that explains why we have “flat feet.”

The problem, and subject of great controversy, with traditional running shoes is that I find that they do not allow for full activation of the windlass mechanism. The windlass mechanism is so important for people with flat feet because it brings the foot into a rigid tight-locked position, which then acts as a lever arm and effortlessly supports the entire wight of the body. If the windlass mechanism is not engaged, and the arch remains flat and pronated as the foot propels the body off the ground a tremendous stress is placed on the plantar fascia. The shape of the mid-sole of shoes with arch support creates an artificial arch by forcing the foot to constantly be in an arched position, and while this may alleviate plantar fasciitis, it is problematic because the shape of the arch eventually wears down which then requires the purchase of another pair of shoes, and it creates an un-ideal position for the foot to land. When the foot lands while running barefoot it is actually supposed to be flexible and pronated in order to absorb shock, so in order to compensate for this the bottom of running shoes is very heavily padded, which is not completely effective because so many runners still have knee problems from excessive shock, and because the plantar fascia of the constantly arched foot is always in a lax position, it never has the opportunity to become strengthened by small amounts of repeated stress like that which occurs during barefoot running. This also explains why the transition form shoes to barefoot often takes relatively long because the runner needs to gradually strengthen and develop their plantar fascia. Essentially, when running barefoot the foot is both pronated when landing, and then supinated as it propels you of the ground, as compared to the single position it is constrained to when running in shoes. Additionally the padding of running shoes has given birth to the unique phenomena of the “heel-strike” which seems like a completely detrimental habit in my opinion and is impossible to do while running barefoot because it would be too painful.

I have tried running in nearly all types of footwear. I recently bought a pair of Vibram five fingers, but, like traditional shoes, they too limited my range of motion to a degree that was uncomfortable. I have also tried making my own huarache style sandals, which were essentially a thin strip of rubber secured to my foot by a shoe lace. These did allow my foot the same degree of movement as barefoot running but they made an obnoxious clapping sound when running in the neighborhood. Barefoot running however has been completely discrete, pain-free, and much more enjoyable than every other option. Only running barefoot on soft grass is a misconception and I enjoy to run on all types of surfaces and I prefer smooth road or sidewalk. I have been running barefoot for nearly a year now and I have no complaints. I believe that the reason shoes still persist and barefoot hasn’t become mainstream is because shoe companies want to continue making a profit by selling expensive running shoes. Take what I say with a grain of salt, I am no expert however, I have just been very interested in running, and have done many hours of personal research online, and I couldn’t help but give my two cents worth.

I did not, the fit was way too narrow on my feet.

I bought a pair but honestly have not run in them. I think they are going to go on Ebay unused.

Pretty ugly shoe!

Scrap that, just found a pair of Super J to try on at a local store, no way I’m buying those…

Thanks for the comment BJ! Those arch scanners are complete BSand have been debunked by science. Any store using them to assign running shoes with such certainty is not doing its job. Glad you have found what works!

As for Newton, check the clearance selection at Running Warehouse.

I second what Sam is saying. I have used some Asics shoes in the past and really liked them (e.g. Hyperspeed 4s felt great, Fuji racers great for mixed trail/road runs, and Piranha are still my favorite 5k/10k race shoe). I’ve been struggling with metatarsalgia and decided to try the Super J33 and just like Sam I found these to be the most bizarre, pointy shaped shoes I’ve ever seen. Certainly they are NOT the shape of any human foot. And they made my feet hurt even worse. Just a complete non-starter…

yep.. that duck was dead in the water years ago.. time for a major revamp of the whole story.. some facts and a bit of science would not go at all astray!

I agree Simon. I think looking at things like initial pronation velocity as it is affected by heel firmness, sole flare, etc. is important. I also think that looking at things like caving of the midsole at the medial forefoot as the foot pronates and how it influences resupination is important. And I think excessive pronation can be something we might want to modify in some injuries.

But what I think we also agree on is that assigning someone a shoe from a particular category based on what the arch looks like or based on a subjective assessment of a rear video of the feet (or worse, by eyeballing it) is a dead paradigm. Marketing has a way of twisting and misusing science to sell shoes, and that’s not a good thing. Pronation has almost been used as a scare tactic to sell shoes, and that has to stop.