I'm with you on this one. Sadly I suspect the answer is 'never'.
I was recently asked to write a piece for a new running trainer website, and when I submitted the first draft I was contacted within a few days to ask why I had omitted key points such as the 'wet foot test', which shoe was best for an 'overpronator' etc etc as these were required for the site.
I tried discussing/arguing the point with regard to newer terminology/research but the bottom line is that they simply want everything to be put in a nice neat box.
Maybe its a political/financial thing or maybe they just don't like the uncertainty that we don't know all the answers to all the questions.
I don't ever see it changing, but really hope I'm wrong on that one.
I think it is something that is very embedded, and running shoe makers have a lot behind it, if not financially then just by the training they've given to retailers. It takes a lot to turn round and say all that stuff we've been telling you is just wrong.
I spoke to retailer a year or so ago who proudly showed me a colour changing board that people would stand on to produce a footprint. This was branded with one of the major manufacturers.
never say never fellas! At least one major manufacturer is working on eradicating this embarrassing form of "analysis" as we speak. It has been a thorn in my side for a long time, and a major flaw in the desire to be able to match foot type to what presumably is a quite technical shoe.
Watch this space, and hopefully you will never have to read about the wet foot on the brown paper bag again.
First post so don't be too harsh!!! It is unfortunate that the wider population don't have the understanding that we do of the foot mechanics. Ask the local person on the street not even half of people could tell you what pronation is (or even if they have ever heard of it!!!). The wider population rely on the sales person to recommend the right shoe for them, I have been involved with a company that uses a board that reacts to the heat the foot produces to give a footprint. Knowing what i do, i found it amazing that people would buy shoes from a static assessment when the aim of a shoe is for dynamic use. This board was pushed by both the shoes company then by the distributer as an accurate way to fit people into the right shoe. But until the education reaches the masses it's easy money for the footwear companies!!! Great to see the efficacy of these foot type measures tested too!!!
I tend to find the problem is just the opposite - most people have heard of it and think they can tell you what it is.
The trouble is the information they have read or been given is absolute toilet.
Its the myths surrounding pronation (its always pathological, 'overpronation/hyperpronation' etc etc) are the things I'd love the general public to see for what they are. Save me explaining it every 5 minutes...
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who thinks a wet footprint is useless in choosing a suitable running shoe. My question is; what should I be looking for? I'm a marathon runner and a podiatrist in a busy sports injury practice and spend a lot of time watching runners either on the ground or on a treadmill. I'd really like to know which criteria other podiatrists are using for choosing the correct shoe.