This is an excellent overview of pronation and the abuse of the term. In the ’60s ,I lived in a waterfront apartment near a large park. Like a lot of residents in this area, I ran regularly along the waterfront and through the park. In those days everyone ran in flats. These were sneakers with thin flat soles and no heel drop (elevated heel). I don’t recall any of my friends ever experiencing knee, hip or back pain. I didn’t. We just ran. As best I can recall, in the late ’60s shoe makers started to offer jogging shoes with features like 12 to 14 mm drop, flared heels and arch supports. Coincidental with the acceptance of these shoes, running magazines were suddenly running feature articles on over-pronation and the myriad of runner’s foot problems that needed interventions like orthotics. Up until then, I never heard of pronation. Things quickly escalated to the point where any and all pronation was bad, implying that we were the victims of an evolutionary fault and that even getting out of bed in the morning without putting on shoes with corrective orthotics ran the risk of over stressing the foot. Things got so bad that an obviously exasperated Peter Cavanagh stated in an article in book, The Shoe in Sport, “Scientists, physicians and shoe manufacturers occasionally suggest that pronation is harmful to the runner. This is certainly not correct.” In retrospect, the fact running injuries started when jogging shoes were introduced should not be surprising. The profile of the sole with its raised and flared heel dramatically lengthened the moment arms acting on the STJ at heel strike. This altered the heel strike pattern and the joint accelerations of the ankle/foot complex. As Bill Clinton might have said, “It’s the shoe stupid!” Do you have a like for Rae Griffiths article?