Running Shoe Myths
The following sections provide details on common myths that you will encounter at other running specialty stores when attempting to determine proper shoe fit.
Video gait analysis on a treadmill
VA Runner is the first running specialty store in Virginia to offer video gait analysis. We are also the first to determine that it does not work.
- Video gait analysis on a treadmill only shows one aspect of the foot, heel movement.
- A true gait analysis consists of observing 13 aspects of the entire body in motion from head to toe which is best done outside.
- People run differently on a treadmill than outside. The narrow and short treadmill deck can cause a runner to tense. The firm yet flexible deck can cause adverse biomechanical reactions. All of these effects can lead to a false assessment.
- There are no technical running shoe stores in Virginia offering video gait analysis by a certified expert. Do not be fooled by self proclaimed experts who say video gait analysis is the best way to ensure the proper fit. Ask them for their expert qualifications.
The Wet Test or Arch type theory
For years now Runners World and Road Runners Sports have been promoting the Wet Test as the best way to determine biomechanics. The theory states that runners with a high arch will need a neutral shoe. Runners with a normal arch will need a stability shoe and runners with a low or flat arch will need a motion control shoe.
In 2001 VA Runner conducted a case study to determine if in fact there is a correlation between arch type and biomechanics. We assessed 2,444 people. We used the wet test to determine arch type and then watched them run to determine what class of shoe they needed. We took that information and extrapolated it across a grid pattern:
- Of those with high arches, 51% needed a neutral shoe, 48% stability and 1% motion control.
- Of those with normal arches, 45% needed a neutral shoe, 50% stability and 5% motion control.
- Of those with flat feet, 26% needed a neutral shoe, 59% stability and 15% motion control.
Although our study conclusively proves that the wet test is a false theory, RW and RRS refuse to acknowledge it. We also contacted the APMA, ACSM, NATA, Johns Hopkins Medical Center and the American Congress Medical Library. We have yet to find any case study or documented evidence of any kind to support the Wet Test. To date RW and RRS have refused to offer any evidence to support their claims.