Last month, we wrote about Nike's "revolutionary" new shoe, the LunarGlide+, which promised to be all things to all people: a stability shoe when you needed the extra support, and a cushion shoe when you don't. The difference is a sandwich of new kinds of high- and low-density lightweight LunarLite foam in place of the typical hard "post" that keeps your foot from rolling excessively inward.
I've been testing out my mostly neutral stride in the Nikes the past few weeks, and my conclusion is: They're fine. I don't feel any more or less pain, or any faster or slower, than I do in my other shoes. Which is not to say there aren't differences: They are remarkably light, yet I found myself clomping along like a Clydesdale, because, I suspect, the shoes are pretty stiff (and because I tend to clomp). Also, they have a very bright orange sole that made me feel like I was cheerfully running on a layer of Orangina (but just made my girlfriend laugh out loud). But I didn't feel a lick of difference in the pronation support as compared to my Saucony ProGrid Guide2s or Mizuno Wave Creation 11s.
And frankly, I sort of doubt most people could, despite the glowing reviews I found of this shoe online. I take shoe reviews, like insole tech, with a grain of salt. I'm sure there are elite runners who can feel the differences among various foams or outsole patterns, and I know a lot of smart people work hard on these innovations. But every foot, every stride, every style is so unique, that even if reviewer #22 found the shoe a little stiff, what does that tell me? The good folks at Runner's World put shoes on machines that measure certain characteristics empirically -- data that'd be useful if you know you like a more flexible or softer shoe. But the central dilemma for runners remains: The right shoe (even if it's no shoe at all) is crucial for injury-free running. But there's no way to tell if a shoe is really the right one for you without running miles in it. Anyone who claims running is a cheap sport doesn't have a closet of shoes abandoned after 100 miles.One new company says it's solved that problem with a shoe that's customized to your foot at the store. More on those next time.
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
Share links with friends, comment on stories and more
In our December issue, Popular Science names the 100 best innovations of the year: bombproof wallpaper, self-parking cars, the fastest helicopter, and 97 more. Plus inventor profiles and videos.
Check out the best of what's new here.

from Cartersville, Georgia
I've found that the best shoe is, indeed, no shoe at all... Provided one learns how to run properly barefoot. The human foot evolved without shoes, and it evolved the way it has for a reason. I run in watershoes, strictly for the fact that I don't wish to grind glass into my feet. The soles on these shoes are laughably thin, just perfect for "barefoot" running.
Alice Reilly
Department of Biology
Mercer University
They are hideous. Aesthetics are equally as important as comfort when it comes to shoe apparel. Crocs are the perfect example.
Aesthetics is only important because of the culture one grew up in. In today's day and age, people seem to care more about looks than functionality, but whatever makes ya happy.
I would run barefoot but the problem is that I am 250lbs and I'm flat footed I would end up hurting my self more running around without good arch support
Hey dopplerthesexybeast, Do you Like younger men!? ;)
Nike's store sells them in Blue or Grey, if you don't like the Orange.
And Dane, please stop hitting on doppler. You're pathetic.