Shoe choices problematic for foot docs

The Washington Post

What do foot doctors, who presumably see patients after they've picked the wrong shoe, think about all of the technology shoe companies are touting?

By and large, they think it confuses consumers.

In interviews, several podiatrists offered roughly the same set of guidelines for sneaker buying: The shoe must have a strong sole and mid-sole (the thick area above the sole) to absorb the impact of everyday walking or running, a rigid heel counter (which curves around the heel) to keep the foot stable and a toe box that is big enough and high enough to prevent chafing.

"For the average person, buying any reputable shoe that adheres to these rules is perfect," says Harold Glickman, chief of podiatric surgery at Sibley Memorial Hospital in the District of Columbia and president of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

But who can sell a junior high school student on a stable toe box when he's surrounded by Reebok G Units, endorsed by Allen Iverson, and Nike Air Force Operates, worn by Carlos Boozer? And would the hipsters care if their vintage Adidas Boston Supers didn't offer the proper cushioning?

Still, the podiatrists try.

The APMA puts its "seal of acceptance" on a wide range of sneakers, each submitted by the manufacturer and tested by independent podiatrists. Ten styles of Reeboks made the cut, most of them designed for walking. Nike does not submit shoes, Glickman says - perhaps because an endorsement from the APMA is less potent than one from Serena Williams or Kobe Bryant.

Stephen M. Pribut, a podiatrist and president of the American Academy of Podiatric Sports Medicine, knows how to sort out the good, the bad and the mediocre. To demonstrate, he goes to a specialty footwear store in the District, Fleet Feet.

Pribut favors the Brooks Addiction Walker, which has a strong heel counter, plenty of cushioning and a rigid structure. "For a lot of people, this might be too much shoe," he says. "But it's the ultimate motion control for a walker."

The Nike Free is a different matter. "It deserves that surgeon general box on cigarette packs - 'This could be dangerous to your foot health,' " he says. "It allows the shoe to do whatever it wants to do. Feet need guidance."

Tobie Hatfield, a Nike engineer, says the Free is not designed to "replace any other shoe. We've said all along that Nike Free is a tool" for strengthening the feet, he says, adding that consumers must ease into it over time. "You might wear it two, three days a week. When you get back into your other shoes, you can push yourself that much harder."