This is where I get a bit intimidated. When I started getting back into running, a physio at ESPH in East Dulwich looked at how I ran on the treadmill, and encouraged me to buy Nike Free 5 shoes, but when I went into a branch of Runners Needs, I got the “I really wouldn’t advise that, Sir” treatment, and the next time I saw the physio, a certain amount of indignation about his professional expertise being questioned.
I did buy the Free 5s, but also googled a whole lot about natural running - my physio also got me reading “Born to Run”, which is really interesting, in particular the chapter where the author drops all the human interest stuff, and addresses just the science.
I also tried to talk to some members of my wider family, who are into ultra running, but I got the feeling I was a bit of an embarrassing uncle, who wasn’t worth taking seriously. OTOH, I heard one of them being very dismissive of ‘wedges’, so I guess that’s support for the principle of flatter shoes, without lots of fancy technology to adjust for supposed problems with the foot.
Then, when I started getting injured running again, I worried that it might have been to do with the shoes, but rather than give up, I read up about exercises to strengthen my ankles, which suggested this at least was also a problem - and now I can do 5k without injury, in the Nike Free 5s, I suspect that is right.
However, I also read somewhere else that the length of stride / cadence is more important to think about than all the stuff about whether you hit the ground with your heel or mid foot, because the better mid foot strike happens automatically if you have a high cadence. Earlier this week I calculated what mine was, just running as I would naturally, and it was nice and high - over 190.
Probably too much information there