Best Running Shoes for Overpronation: What the Research Actually Supports (and What It Doesn’t)
Table of Contents
Introduction: Best Running Shoes for Overpronation
“Overpronation” is one of the oldest ideas in running-shoe design: if the foot rolls too far inward, it may contribute to pain or injury, and a shoe with firmer material along the inner side might help control that movement [1]. The difficult part is deciding what that idea means for an individual runner.
I see pronated feet in people with no symptoms, as well as in people who come in with foot or lower-leg pain, including tendon problems, plantar heel pain and Achilles tendinopathy. In those consultations, a reasonable question often comes up: could foot posture be contributing, and would a different running shoe help? Foot posture alone cannot answer either question. That gap between an observation in the clinic and a useful shoe recommendation is why I wanted to examine the research behind this guide.
The evidence does not point in just one direction. A group led by biomechanist Benno Nigg reviewed the injury literature and argued that pronation had not held up as a major predictor of running injuries. Their measurements using markers fixed directly to bone suggested that changing shoes or inserts altered the amount of skeletal movement more than its path. They proposed two alternative ideas, a “preferred movement path” and a “comfort filter” [2]. Yet a blinded trial of 372 recreational runners found fewer injuries with a motion-control version of a shoe, with a statistically significant result in the subgroup with pronated feet [3]. A Cochrane review covering 12 trials and 11,240 participants found that most evidence comparing shoe types was of low or very low certainty [4].
In practice, I would not turn either a pronated foot or a shoe-store assessment into an automatic prescription for a stability shoe. This guide instead examines five situations separately. Where the research gives a reason to consider a shoe category, I include a current product as an example; none of the named models was tested in the injury-prevention studies cited here. Two situations end without a product recommendation. The Tier 2 and Tier 4 labels are my editorial recommendation categories, not a validated evidence-grading system.
One distinction matters throughout: the key studies assessed standing foot posture using the six-item Foot Posture Index, scored by a trained examiner [3][5]. Their definition of a “pronated” foot was not a wet footprint or a few seconds of treadmill video in a shoe store.
Some of the links on this site are affiliate links. If you purchase a product through these links, I may earn a commission. This doesn’t cost you anything, but it helps me maintain this page so I can continue to share free information with the world. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Product links are provided for informational and convenience purposes only. Their inclusion does not constitute medical or nutritional advice or a personalized recommendation.
Best Running Shoes for Overpronation at a Glance
 |  |  |
| Brooks Adrenaline GTS 25 | New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v15 | Brooks Ghost 18 |
| Best for: experienced runners, pronated feet | Best for: Achilles, shin, front-of-knee concerns | Best for: new runners, mild–moderate pronation |
| ✅ Comfortable everyday support ✅ True to size | ✅ Up to four widths ✅ Inner-side biased support | ✅ Comfortable, true to size ✅ Durable outsole |
| ⚠️ Forefoot firms up ⚠️ Little energy return | ⚠️ Few, mixed reviews ⚠️ Runs small or short | ⚠️ Toe-area creasing reported ⚠️ Low rebound |
| Evidence: Tier 2 (blinded RCT subgroup, different shoe) | Evidence: Tier 2 (reanalysis, only 25 injuries) | Evidence: Tier 2 (cohort, not randomized) |
No pick for heavy motion-control shoes or choosing a shoe from arch shape (sections 4–5).
1. Best Running Shoes for Overpronation in Experienced Recreational Runners: Brooks Adrenaline GTS 25
If you have been running regularly for a while and a clinician has told you that your feet sit in a pronated position, this is the situation in this guide to running shoes for overpronation where a randomized, blinded trial most directly points toward extra medial support. The caveats about how far that finding travels are real, and they are laid out below.
Brooks Men’s Adrenaline GTS 25, a current-generation stability trainer with added support along the inner heel and midfoot. It is included as a real, widely available example of the shoe category the trial tested. It is not the trial shoe, which was a de-identified version of a commercial model supplied by Decathlon; its exact identity was not published [3][6].
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Comfort and everyday support, for running as well as walking and long days on your feet, are frequently mentioned in REI, Zappos and Dick’s reviews | At least one reviewer wished for a wider fit |
| Most respondents in Zappos’s fit survey rated it true to size and true to width | Some retailer reviews are labeled as collected as part of a promotion |
| Individual reviewers mention a roomy toe area and foam that has held up well | Expert testers report a forefoot that firms up on longer runs and little energy return |
| Study: Added medial support lowered injury risk in pronated feet in one blinded RCT | Study: That result came from a different shoe and was a secondary analysis the authors called preliminary |
What buyers say about the Brooks Men’s Adrenaline GTS 25: Across REI, Zappos and Dick’s Sporting Goods, the review base is large and skews clearly positive. The praise centers on comfort and dependable support rather than speed: people describe using it for easy runs, walking and long shifts on their feet, and some call it their go-to supportive shoe. Fit feedback leans true to size, with at least one comment, from an older walker, wishing for a slightly wider fit. Two things temper the enthusiasm. Some of the positive reviews are marked as collected as part of a promotion, and independent expert testers are cooler on the shoe, describing a heavy, unexciting ride whose forefoot cushioning firms up over longer distances.
The research behind this category. The trial randomly assigned recreational runners to one of two versions of the same running shoe and followed them for six months, with 372 runners included in the analysis [3]. The versions were identical except that the motion-control version had a rigid thermoplastic piece under the inner midfoot and a firmer foam zone in the forefoot; its inner midsole measured about 15% harder than its outer side, while the standard version showed no such difference. Neither the runners nor the assessors knew which version a participant had received. Overall, 17.6% of runners in the motion-control group were injured compared with 32.4% in the standard-shoe group (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85). When the researchers stratified by foot posture, the benefit was statistically significant only among the 94 runners with pronated feet (HR 0.34; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.84) and was not statistically significant for neutral feet (HR 0.78; 0.44 to 1.37) or supinated feet (HR 0.59; 0.20 to 1.73). Among runners wearing the standard shoe, those with pronated feet were injured at a higher rate than those with neutral feet (HR 1.80; 1.01 to 3.22) [3].
That is a large effect, and it is why this category makes the list. It is also why it stays at Tier 2 rather than a firm recommendation. The pronated-foot result comes from a secondary, stratified analysis that the trial was not powered for, and statistical significance in one subgroup but not another does not, by itself, establish that the effect differed between foot types. The authors themselves describe these findings as preliminary. Only one shoe model was tested, and the authors caution that the results may not carry over to other models or brands. Both study versions were also softer than most shoes on the market, with the authors placing their overall stiffness probably within the lowest 10–15% of commonly available models, and they speculated that pronated feet may simply have been under-stabilized in the soft standard version. The trial was not registered in advance [3]. More participants in the motion-control group left the study early (58 versus 34 before the study ended), and a later reanalysis of the same data noted that this uneven censoring could not be ruled out as a source of bias [6].
The funding matters here too. The trial was co-funded by Decathlon, three of its six authors were Decathlon employees, and a research partnership agreement linked the company to the research institute [3]; Decathlon also supplied the study shoes [6]. None of the products in this article are Decathlon products, but every piece of “motion control helps” evidence in this article traces back to this one industry-supported trial. Pooled across trials, the picture blurs further: the Cochrane review combined two trials with 421 participants comparing motion-control with neutral or cushioned shoes and could not reach a conclusion either way (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.30 to 2.81; very low certainty) [4].
If a runner has been told they overpronate, I think it can be worthwhile to have their feet and gait assessed by a physiotherapist, particularly if they also have symptoms. A brief visual impression alone may not give a clear picture of how the foot moves during walking or running. The assessment can help clarify whether pronation is actually present and how it might fit into the broader clinical picture, although it cannot by itself identify a shoe that will prevent injury.
2. Pronation-Related Injury Types (Achilles, Shin, Front of Knee): New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v15 (Example)
This category is defined by injury type rather than foot shape, even though it grew out of the same trial as the first category of running shoes for overpronation. A reanalysis of the same trial found a lower risk with the motion-control version for injuries that have frequently been cited as linked to pronation, but no clear difference for other injuries, and that analysis included runners of every foot posture [6].
New Balance Men’s Fresh Foam X 860v15, a stability trainer that combines a softer upper foam layer with a firmer lower layer and a medially wedged plate; one expert tester describes the firmer layer as more prominent on the inner side. That is a loose structural analogy to the trial shoe’s harder inner midsole, not an equivalent: the sources cited here do not establish material or clinical equivalence between the two shoes, and no injury-outcome study of the 860v15 was found for this article.
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Most written reviews at Fleet Feet describe it as comfortable and stable, one specifically mentioning eased foot pain | Few written reviews exist so far at the US retailers checked, and they are mixed |
| Sold in up to four widths, with a roomy toe area in lab measurements | Several reports that it runs small or short, and RunRepeat’s reader vote leans “slightly small” |
| Expert testers describe its support as clearly biased toward the inner side of the foot | Some buyers find it too soft and too tall for a stability shoe; one expert lab doubted it is supportive enough for many overpronators, and one expert tester found the heel counter harsh |
| Study: The tested feature type lowered “pronation-related” injuries (HR 0.41) | Study: Only 25 such injuries occurred in the whole trial, too few to split by foot type |
What buyers say about the New Balance Men’s Fresh Foam X 860v15: Honestly thin. At Fleet Feet the number of reviews is in the single and low double digits, and they are mostly positive: comfort, stability, and one mention of foot pain easing, alongside a complaint that the narrow width is not really narrow and a reviewer who disliked the sole thickness and found it greater than in their previous pair. The handful of reviews at Running Warehouse run negative, describing the shoe as too soft for flat feet, too tall, and short and narrow in fit. Its Amazon review text was not accessible for this article. Treat this as a lower-confidence buyer picture than the other two picks.
The research behind this category. A 2021 secondary analysis took the 372-runner trial above and reclassified its injuries into two groups: “pronation-related” injuries (Achilles tendinopathy, plantar fasciopathy, exercise-related lower-leg pain and anterior knee pain) and all other running injuries [6]. Twenty-five runners had a pronation-related injury, 18 in the standard-shoe group and 7 in the motion-control group, and runners in the motion-control shoe had a lower risk of these injuries (HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.98). The shoe made no significant difference to other injuries (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.10), and the result held in a model adjusted for previous injury (HR 0.411; 95% CI 0.171 to 0.986) [6].
Three details keep this at Tier 2. First, 58.6% of the runners in this analysis had neutral feet, foot posture itself was not a significant predictor of pronation-related injury (HR 1.702; 95% CI 0.696 to 4.163), and there were too few injuries to test whether the shoe’s effect differed by foot type [6]. The finding applies to the trial population as a whole, not specifically to “overpronators.” Second, the injury breakdown was 10 Achilles cases, 7 lower-leg pain cases, 6 anterior knee pain cases and only 2 plantar fasciopathy cases, so the result says very little about plantar heel pain in particular. Third, the classification of which injuries count as pronation-related rested on theoretical mechanisms, the authors acknowledge misclassification was possible, and they describe their results as preliminary. The funding ties are the same as for the original trial: Decathlon co-funded it and supplied the shoes, although the reanalysis authors declared no personal financial involvement [6].
Worth noticing in the same data: a previous injury was associated with a much higher risk of a pronation-related injury (adjusted HR 4.976; 95% CI 2.241 to 11.046) [6]. The injury-specific framing also fits a systematic review of 21 prospective studies with 6,228 participants, which found strong evidence that a pronated standing foot posture is a risk factor for medial tibial stress syndrome and very limited evidence for patellofemoral pain, both with small effect sizes (0.28 to 0.33), but did not show a link with foot and ankle injuries, bone stress reactions or lower-limb overuse injury in general, although the authors note that the evidence behind those null findings was only very limited to limited [7].
In the clinic, I find “pronation-related injury” a difficult label to apply to an individual patient. I see feet described as overpronated in people with and without symptoms, and it is rarely possible to isolate how much foot posture contributed to a particular injury. Looking back, pronation may be one factor worth considering, but I would be cautious about treating the injury categories used in a research study as an explanation for one person’s pain.
3. Best Running Shoes for Overpronation in New Runners (Mild to Moderate Pronation): A Neutral Shoe (Brooks Ghost 18)
If you are just starting out, with little or no running over the past year, and your feet are mildly or moderately pronated, a large one-year study of new runners found that moderately pronated feet did no worse than neutral feet in a conventional neutral shoe. For this group, the best running shoe for overpronation may not be a stability shoe at all.
Brooks Men’s Ghost 18, a conventional neutral daily trainer. The study below gave every participant an Adidas Supernova Glide 3 [5], the neutral model in use when the study began in 2011, which has since been replaced by newer Supernova models with different midsole foams. The Ghost 18 is included as a current example of the same broad category, a traditional neutral cushioned trainer, not as the studied shoe.
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Reviewers describe it as comfortable, and several say it fits true to size | Long-time Ghost owners report upper changes that bother them: toe-area creasing, stiff fabric near the bunion area, no ankle padding |
| Fleet Feet’s product description and at least one reviewer describe a slightly roomier toe box than earlier Ghosts | Lab testers measured a slightly tapered toe box, a long-standing Ghost trait |
| Used for walking and gym work as well as running; one expert tester reports a durable outsole | Lab testers describe low rebound, a dependable rather than lively ride |
| Study: In a neutral shoe, pronated novice feet had fewer injuries per 1,000 km than neutral feet | Study: Very pronated feet trended the other way, in very small numbers |
What buyers say about the Brooks Men’s Ghost 18: The review base is large and mostly positive. Buyers describe the shoe as comfortable from the first wear, true to size, and versatile enough for walking, gym classes and daily runs, and Fleet Feet’s product description and at least one reviewer describe a slightly roomier toe box than earlier Ghosts. Examples of criticism come from reviewers who describe themselves as long-time Ghost users: extra upper material creasing over the toes (including one blister report), stiffer fabric near the big-toe joint, and a lack of ankle padding. As with the Adrenaline, some reviews are labeled as collected as part of a promotion.
The research behind this category. The DANO-RUN study followed 927 novice runners (1,854 feet) for a year [5]. “Novice” meant running less than 10 km in total over the previous 12 months. Every participant received the same neutral shoe and a GPS watch, and foot posture was scored with the Foot Posture Index. After 250 km, pronated feet showed no significant difference in injury risk compared with neutral feet (BMI-adjusted risk difference −8.1 percentage points; 95% CI −17.6 to 1.3; p=0.09), and neither did highly pronated feet (9.8 percentage points; −19.3 to 38.8; p=0.51). Measured per distance run, pronated feet actually had fewer injuries than neutral feet: 0.37 fewer injuries per 1,000 km (95% CI 0.03 to 0.70 fewer; p=0.03) [5].
This stays at Tier 2 because it is an observational cohort, not a randomized comparison of shoe types, and every runner wore a neutral shoe, so it cannot say whether a stability shoe would have done better or worse. The highly pronated group was tiny (18 feet), and its injury rate per 1,000 km trended higher than for neutral feet (3.25 versus 1.00; difference 2.25; 95% CI −0.35 to 4.85; p=0.09); the authors say it remains unclear whether highly pronated feet face a higher risk, and note that 72 people who used insoles were excluded, possibly removing many of the most pronated feet [5]. The study was funded by hospital and university research units and the Danish Rheumatism Association; Adidas and Garmin sold the shoes and watches at a reduced price, and the authors state that no funder had a role in the design or analysis [5].
These results point in the opposite direction from the first category, where pronated feet in the soft standard shoe did worse. The 2016 trial authors pointed to different populations (experienced regular runners versus novices) and different shoes as possible explanations, and called for more research [3]. The DANO-RUN authors suggested that for healthy new runners, comfort may be a more useful basis for choosing a shoe than foot posture, while stressing that motion-control shoes might still be reasonable for runners who are already injured, a question their study did not test [5].
For someone new to running, it can be difficult to predict which aches or injuries, if any, they might develop. That uncertainty is one reason I may consider a comfortable neutral shoe a practical starting point, even when the runner has been told their feet are pronated. It is a starting choice, not a prediction that a neutral shoe will prevent injury or suit every runner.
4. Heavy Motion-Control Shoes: No Recommendation
Why there is no pick: the one randomized trial of a heavily built motion-control shoe found for this article linked it to more pain, not less, in both neutral and pronated feet. It tested a single, older model, so it does not prove that every heavily built shoe is harmful, and given this limited and conflicting evidence, I do not recommend a heavily built motion-control model in this guide solely for pronation management.
The research. The trial analysed 81 female runners, grouped by foot posture into 39 neutral, 30 pronated and 12 highly pronated, who had been randomly assigned to a neutral shoe (Nike Pegasus), a stability shoe (Nike Structure Triax) or a motion-control shoe (Nike Nucleus), and who were followed through a 13-week half-marathon program [8]. The motion-control shoe produced the most missed training days (79) and the stability shoe the fewest (51). In both neutral and pronated feet, runners in the motion-control shoe reported more pain at rest, during daily activities and while running than runners in the other two shoes, and among pronated feet the stability shoe was associated with more running pain than the neutral shoe. The highly pronated group was too small for statistical conclusions, although all five highly pronated runners assigned the motion-control shoe missed training because of pain, compared with two of five in the neutral shoe. By the clinical-significance threshold the authors applied, only the motion-control versus neutral difference in pronated feet was large enough to be clinically meaningful [8].
This trial has real weaknesses. It was small, the weight and other structural properties of the shoes were not measured, the motion-control group was heavier than the others among neutral-footed runners, injuries were not assessed by independent clinicians [8], and the runners were not blinded to their shoes [3]. It was funded by Nike, which also supplied the shoes, and one author was a Nike employee [8]. The 2016 trial authors also pointed out that the “neutral” Pegasus in this study had features they would count as motion control, including a thermoplastic midfoot shank [3]. Still, it remains the most direct test of a heavily built motion-control design found for this article, and the Cochrane review’s single comparison of motion-control with stability shoes (one trial with 56 participants: this same Ryan trial, not an independent replication) leaned against motion control (RR 3.47; 95% CI 1.43 to 8.40), although the certainty of that evidence is very low [4].
The terminology trap is worth spelling out. The “motion-control” shoe that performed well in the first category had a midfoot plastic piece and a firmer forefoot foam zone [3]. The shoe that performed badly here stacked more stability elements, including a thermoplastic-reinforced dual-density midsole and a broader sole plate [8]. The two trials differed in runners, shoes and outcomes, so they cannot settle how much support is optimal, but they do show that the label “motion control” can describe very different shoes.
To me, these contrasting trials are a reminder that more control in a shoe does not automatically mean a better outcome. Footwear may influence how a runner moves, but I would be cautious about trying to manage every aspect of movement through the shoe alone. When someone has symptoms, I also consider their own movement pattern and the role of rehabilitation rather than expecting footwear to resolve the problem by itself.
5. Choosing a Shoe From a Wet Test or Arch Shape: Not Supported (In-Store Gait Analysis: Not Evaluated in These Trials)
Why there is no pick: the largest randomized evidence on matching shoe type to foot type found no injury benefit. Based on current evidence, choosing a shoe category from your arch shape is not recommended as an injury-prevention strategy.
The research. Three randomized trials in US Army, Air Force and Marine Corps basic training (2,168 men and 951 women; 1,955 men and 718 women; 840 men and 571 women) compared recruits who selected or were assigned motion-control, stability or cushioned shoes according to their plantar shape (low, medium or high arch) with recruits who all received a stability shoe regardless of foot shape [9]. Pooled, injury rates barely differed between the matched and unmatched groups for men (rate ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.06) or women (0.97; 0.85 to 1.08), and no clear difference between specific shoe types was seen. The Cochrane review rated this comparison, covering 7,203 participants, as moderate-certainty evidence that prescribing shoes from static foot posture probably makes little or no difference to lower-limb running injuries (rate ratio 1.03; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13) [4].
The main limitation is the population. Military recruits carry heavy training loads from activities other than running, so the findings may not transfer neatly to recreational runners [3]. These trials also classified feet by static plantar shape, not by dynamic assessment [9]. No controlled trial with injury outcomes for in-store treadmill video analysis turned up in the research for this article, so that method was not tested in the studies reviewed here, rather than disproven.
In my practice, I would not choose a running-shoe category in advance based on arch shape alone. I see people whose feet have been described as overpronated but who run without symptoms, and the finding may never become a problem for them. If pain does develop, foot posture is one factor I would consider as part of a broader assessment. I would not treat it as the explanation before there is a problem to explain.
Comparison Table: Best Running Shoes for Overpronation at a Glance
This table of the best running shoes for overpronation is a navigation aid, not a ranking. The categories answer different questions for different runners, and the products are category examples that were not tested in these studies.
| Situation | Editorial tier | Strongest evidence | Product | Main caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experienced runner, pronated feet | Tier 2 | Blinded RCT subgroup, HR 0.34 [3] | Brooks Adrenaline GTS 25 | Secondary analysis; one shoe model in a Decathlon-co-funded trial |
| Concerned about Achilles, shin or front-of-knee injuries | Tier 2 | Reanalysis of the same RCT, HR 0.41 [6] | New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v15 | Only 25 injuries; thin buyer reviews |
| New runner, mild to moderate pronation | Tier 2 | One-year cohort, 927 novices [5] | Brooks Ghost 18 (neutral) | Not randomized; highly pronated feet unresolved |
| Heavy motion-control shoes | Tier 4 | Small RCT, more pain [8] | None | Small, Nike-funded, unblinded |
| Shoe chosen from arch shape | Tier 4 | Three military RCTs, moderate certainty [9][4] | None | Military population; static arch only |
FAQ: Choosing Running Shoes for Overpronation
Is overpronation actually bad? There is no standard accepted threshold for when pronation becomes “excessive” [1]. A pronated standing posture appears to be a small risk factor for shin pain of the medial tibial stress type and possibly for kneecap pain, while the limited evidence available did not link it to lower-limb overuse injury in general [7], and in new runners wearing neutral shoes, the study did not detect a statistically significant increase in injury risk for moderately pronated feet [5].
What is the difference between “stability” and “motion-control” shoes? There is no agreed classification of running shoes [6], and one study’s “neutral” shoe can contain features another study calls motion control [3]. The shoe that lowered injuries added a midfoot plastic piece and a firmer forefoot foam zone [3]; the one that increased pain stacked many stability elements [8]. Look at the construction, not the label.
Do I need a gait analysis before buying running shoes for overpronation? Matching shoe type to arch shape did not reduce injuries in the largest trials [9][4]. In-store video analysis has not been tested against injury outcomes in the studies reviewed here.
Is picking the most comfortable shoe good enough? There is some supporting evidence, though it is indirect. In Nigg’s comfort work, different runners preferred different constructions, some liking medial support and others not [2]. In a 2025 secondary analysis of 527 runners, those who perceived the heel of their shoe as moderately or highly cushioned had lower injury risk than those who perceived little cushioning (subdistribution hazard ratio, SHR, 0.35 and 0.24 in the authors’ main model), and this association held when the shoe-perception measures were analysed together. Those who rated the shoe most highly overall also had lower risk in the main model (SHR 0.47), but the association was no longer statistically significant after that mutual adjustment (SHR 0.60; 95% CI 0.33 to 1.09) [10]. The ratings were given once, at a randomly determined point during the six-month follow-up, so some runners could already have been injured when they rated their shoes; the study was co-funded by Decathlon, two of its authors were Decathlon employees, Decathlon provided the standard running shoes, and it shows an association rather than proof that choosing by comfort prevents injuries [10]. A 2022 clinical review concluded that, absent a clearly supported paradigm, the best general advice is a lightweight, comfortable shoe with minimal pronation-control technology; two of its authors reported consulting and research funding from footwear companies [1].
I already have shin splints or Achilles pain. Which shoe should I buy? The trials in this article tested injury prevention in healthy runners, not shoes as treatment. The DANO-RUN authors thought motion-control shoes might be reasonable for injured pronators but did not test it [5], and in the trial data a previous injury was strongly associated with a new pronation-related injury [6]. An existing injury is worth having assessed before you change shoes.
What This Means for Buyers
The best running shoes for overpronation depend on which of these situations fits you.
Experienced runners with pronated feet (Tier 2): One blinded trial found a large drop in injuries with added medial support, but it was a preliminary secondary analysis of a single shoe model in a Decathlon-co-funded trial. A mainstream stability shoe such as the Brooks Adrenaline GTS 25 is a reasonable example of that shoe category, but the Adrenaline itself was not tested in these studies.
Runners concerned about Achilles, shin or front-of-knee injuries (Tier 2): The same trial’s reanalysis found a lower risk with the motion-control version for a combined group of Achilles, lower-leg, anterior-knee and plantar-fascia injuries, in runners of all foot types combined, based on only 25 injuries; it did not establish an effect for each diagnosis separately. The New Balance Fresh Foam X 860v15, with its firmer lower midsole layer and medially wedged plate, is a loose structural analogy rather than an equivalent, and its buyer reviews are still thin.
New runners with mild to moderate pronation (Tier 2): A large study of novices found no statistically significant extra risk for moderately pronated feet in a neutral shoe. A conventional neutral trainer such as the Brooks Ghost 18 is consistent with that evidence. If your feet are markedly pronated, the question is genuinely unresolved.
Heavy motion-control shoes (Tier 4): No product recommended. The one randomized trial of such a shoe found for this article linked it to more pain, not less.
Choosing from a wet test or arch scan (Tier 4): Not recommended as an injury-prevention strategy. It did not reduce injuries in large military trials. In-store gait analysis has not been tested against injury outcomes in these studies.
My practical starting point is simple. If your foot is pain-free, I would not choose a shoe with extra pronation support solely because your arch looks low or someone has said you overpronate. A comfortable neutral shoe may be a reasonable place to start. If symptoms develop, a physiotherapist can assess your foot and the way you walk or run; that assessment may offer clues, although it may not identify a single cause. If excessive pronation appears relevant to the symptoms, a shoe with added support may be worth considering as one part of the plan.
References
- https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2022.815675/full
- https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/49/20/1290
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4853529
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9394464
- https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/48/6/440
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33306927/
- https://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13047-014-0055-4
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.069849
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25155917/
- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ejsc.70063
