I have been meaning to look at this issue in a lot more depth for a while now as my understanding of the preponderance of literature (which I freely admit I have not looked closely at again recently, hence wanting to have a closer look) is that on average, running shoes, specifically ‘motion control’ shoes, don’t control motion. I wanted to have a closer look at the numbers in the various studies from the perspective that maybe on average they don’t affect motion, but what is the more subject specific data looking like. For example do some runners respond in one direction (ie motion is controlled) and some runners respond in the other direction (ie motion is increased), so on average there is no difference (which I think would probably be the current consensus of those familiar with that body of literature).
Before getting to that, the study below just appeared on this very topic. I do not have access to the full text and only the abstract below (and even if I did, I might not be able to read it as it appears to be in French):
Tibiocalcaneal kinematics during barefoot and in barefoot-inspired shoes in comparison to conventional running footwear
Jonathan Sinclair, Sarah Jane Hobbs, Graham Currigan, Marcus Giannandrea and Paul John Taylor
Movement & Sport Sciences – Science & Motricité 83, 67-75 (2014)
Excessive coronal and transverse plane motions of the ankle and tibia are linked to the development of a number of chronic injuries. This study examined differences in tibiocalcaneal kinematics between barefoot and shod running and also between several barefoot inspired footwear models in relation to barefoot and shod running. Sixteen male participants ran at 4.0 m.s-1 in each footwear condition. Tibiocalcaneal kinematics were measured using an eight-camera motion analysis system and compared using repeated-measures ANOVA The results indicate that the barefoot and more minimal barefoot inspired footwear models were associated with significantly greater eversion and tibial internal rotation parameters in running in conventional footwear. The observations of this investigation have potential clinical relevance as excessive eversion/tibial internal rotation are implicated in the aetiology of injury.
The results indicate that the barefoot and more minimal barefoot inspired footwear models were associated with significantly greater eversion and tibial internal rotation parameters in running in conventional footwear.
As always, I go where the evidence takes me until convinced otherwise.