Red shoe, blue shoe, which running shoe is right for you? – Montreal Gazette

Every spring I wait for the sales and buy a new pair of running shoes. And every spring I ignore the wall of choice and buy the same model as the year before. It’s not that I lack a sense of adventure or style, but I like to think that I learn from my mistakes. And when it comes to shoes, I’ve made a couple.

First, I changed brands based on a recommendation from a salesperson who suggested a narrower fit would allow for a more comfortable run. She was right, the shoes felt great. But soon after I changed shoes, I started to experience a cascade of small but nagging injuries. And as much physiotherapy as I received and as gentle a reintroduction to running I took, the injuries returned. It was only when the osteopath suggested changing back to my original brand that the injuries disappeared.

All was good until the idea was floated that we need to rethink the amount of cushioning in running shoes. So I switched to a minimalist shoe that decreased the distance between my foot and the pavement, which was supposed to improve the sensory feedback needed to produce biomechanically sound movement. The problem was 10 minutes into my run I got calf cramps strong enough that I had to turn around and walk home.

“When people tell me they want to change shoes, I ask them why,” said Chris Napier, clinical assistant professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of British Columbia and the owner of Restore Physiotherapy in Vancouver. “It’s usually because they read something that promised to change their foot strike pattern, but it’s not going to do that for them.”

Napier made a case against trying to match certain types of shoes to certain types of runners in a recent editorial in the British Medical Journal. Not only did he suggest there’s no science behind the practice, he stated that, “runners should be instructed to choose a certain type of shoe over another type of shoe no more so than a blue shoe over a red shoe.”

Studies regarding the ability of shoes to correct imperfect biomechanics have been ambiguous. Some noted no changes in foot strike while others reported early changes that disappeared within six months as runners’ own natural biomechanics overrode those dictated by the shoe.

Yet, runners are just as susceptible to a good marketing campaign as the next person — maybe even more so given that we expect a lot from our shoes. And it doesn’t help that shoe manufactures know just what promises to dangle, which is fewer injuries, better performance and more efficient running. Yet injury rates in runners haven’t changed in decades and we now know that researchers have yet to replicate the type of changes in biomechanics promised by shoe manufacturers.

It’s worth noting that before entire stores were devoted to selling shoes for runners and sales staff were trained to prescribe shoes based on running style, the function of a running shoe was pretty straight forward; to protect feet from the harsh outdoor environment. Unforgiving pavement, hot sidewalks, icy conditions and debris aren’t friendly on the feet.  The solution was a shoe with a basic rubber sole and a utilitarian upper. Cushioning, stability control technology and a raised heel didn’t arrive on the scene until the late 1970s. Lighter minimalist shoes debuted in the early 2000s and its antithesis, the cushy maximalist shoe with two-and-a-half times more cushioning than a traditional running shoe, debuted several years later. Now runners are faced with decisions on design options like stack height, heel to toe drop, zero drop, heel or forefoot rockers and midsole density, all of which adds to the confusion of what to buy and why.

So do any of the bells and whistles touted by shoe manufacturers make a difference, or is the primary role of a good shoe still to offer basic protection?

There’s no doubt that today’s running shoes offer a more comfortable ride than they did years ago. And they’re lighter, which has allowed runners to get faster. The technology in the Nike Zoom, for instance, has shaved seconds off the times of the world’s top marathoners. But if you’re buying a shoe to help make you a more efficient runner or to ward off injury, you’re likely to be disappointed.

If the benefits of shoe technology are overstated, is it worth investing in an expensive shoe with an impressive list of features? Napier says the most expensive shoe isn’t necessarily the best shoe. Comfort, not price tag, should lead your decision. After all, a comfortable shoe will make your time in the shoe more enjoyable, which at the end of the day is what most runners want.

So, if you’re tempted to try something new during spring’s annual running shoe sale, keep in mind the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” philosophy, which suggests the best type of shoe for your feet may be the ones already in your closet.