Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Modern Shoes and Injuries
Quote | Reply
I went to see a very well known sports podiatrist today after a long battle with ITBS. I have tried strenthening, ice, ART, foam roller, bands, acupunture, ect. I thought he was going to tell me to get orthotics, after a long talk with him he decided to give me a cortisone shot. But in the process he told me the modern shoes of today are not good to the athlete with the high thick heel. He thinks one should be doing all ones running in a racing flat and that modern shoes are the cause of many running injuries. He told me to get a pair of Asic Gel Magic's, and just ease into them to get use to them. He went into the entire thing about the African runners being the best and wearing little in the way of shoes. I was not big on the shot but was told this should hold be over as I have a 1/2 Ironman in Kona at the end of the month, and he thought once I made the transition to the flats I would feel much better. It was a very interesting conversation. Here is some more info that confirms some of his beliefs.

______________________________________________________________________

Really good running technique is a complex business and requires the balanced co-ordination of many features. Top runners pay as much attention to developing strength in the core of the body (abdominals, lower back, gluteals, etc) as they do to ensuring correct head and shoulder alignment and arm balance. But the most fundamental of the body's movements in running concerns the feet. While this may be an obvious statement, most photos of runners feature their upper bodies - and grimacing faces. Important features such as footstrike, range of leg movement and overall posture are difficult to identify.

Rich Clarkson spent several years of his life as a photographer following the training and racing of a young Jim Ryun (pictured below), who became the first high school student to run under 4 minutes for the mile and then broke the world record for that distance on 17 July, 1966. Time and again, Clarkson's photos of 40 years ago reveal the secret of fast but relaxed running technique: landing on the front of the foot (not the heel), keeping the body upright (not bent forward), and driving up and down with the arms (not side to side). And all accomplished in the simplest and lightest of shoe designs, rather than today's large, cushioned shoes.

These photos were scanned from The Jim Ryun Story by Cordner Nelson - we can't find anyone to ask permission to use them so, hopefully, nobody will mind too much... You can find the whole book online at the Track and Field News website.

Modern shoes don't force runners to land on the heels, but with the heel slightly (and in some cases considerably) thicker than the forefoot area they certainly encourage it, particularly among slower runners. Landing on the heels isn't simply a question of asking the rocket science of today's shoe to absorb three to six times the body's weight - realistically, they can't. Landing on the heels requires the foot to remain in contact with the ground far longer. Apart from slowing the runner down, this form of footstrike makes little use of the important shock-absorbing arch muscles in the foot and in very many cases leads to problems of over-pronation. In the early years of a runner's life over-pronation is "corrected" (as the shoe giants would have it) by expensive stability shoes. In later years your podiatrist will be charging even more for custom orthotics.

Gordon Pirie, a world class runner in the 1950's, wrote about these features instinctively in his book Running Fast and Injury-Free. In more recent years Romanov's 'POSE' method has given a more scientific explanation for the same features, showing what the precise biomechanical benefits are and getting a group of trained runners to run on a treadmill and measuring how hard their feet hit the ground compared with 'normal' runners of a similar standard. Romanov's approach includes a progressive set of drills intended not just to teach the method but to help the runner achieve the soles of the feet the awareness needed to implement it properly.

Australian podiatrist and consultant to a shoe company Simon Bartold reckons sports shoes may do more harm than good. Anything, he reckons, placed between the foot and the surface it is hitting interferes with normal proprioreceptive feedback, the conversation going from the foot to the brain. "So you completely alter the way in which you run, the efficiency and the function with which you run. The research now is looking at enhancing the foot rather than trying to control it or contain it."

This is not new research. The information that harder midsoles attenuate shock better than soft soles has been public since 1987. "We've known about it for a long, long time," said Mr Bartold. The problem, he says, is that many sports shoe manufacturers have spent considerable amounts of money marketing certain products and are unwilling to change their marketing focus. "What you are dealing with is a very unusual crossover between hard-core science and a commercial product, and it's an unholy marriage."

Even with the best posture, running with a heel strike puts a greater loading on the quads and the iliotibial band, whereas forefoot running spreads the loading more evenly, encouraging muscle elasticity in the hamstrings, calves and foot flexors in absorbing shock and generating elastic rebound: calf and thigh muscles work together to absorb the body's weight. This relieves the knees, iliotibial band, hips and lower back and results in a far lower incidence of training injuries.

Runners looking to adopt this running technique need to make changes gradually and carefully. Some runners may even need a complete reconstruction of their running style, something best started at a time of year when training workloads are low and during a recovery/transition phase of a traditional periodised programme. That way, the runner has the time and inclination to learn and focus on something new before building up workload incorporating the new technique. It would be folly to introduce it during the racing season.

In making the change, runners who currently land on their heels will find themselves using their achilles tendons, calf muscles and those in the arch of their foot much more than before, and there will be some initial soreness, the cure for which is to rest before doing more. Anyone completely new to this technique should begin with simple drills and non-running exercises, such as running on the spot, running backwards, or skipping with a rope. Over time, runners should consider adding a short amount of barefoot running to their weekly routine in order to work the full range of the calf and achilles muscles - but again, this should be done gradually.

As runners let their feet learn to feel the ground and land properly, modern cushioned shoes will quickly begin to feel more like boots, and runners will feel more comfortable in racing flats. Changing shoe type is again something to be done gradually and initially for only shorter training runs because racing flats offer less support and the runner's arch muscles take time to develop.

But back to Jim Ryun. Many of us marvel at most top runners, especially the Kenyans, when watching their running gait and one thing that really makes an impression is the way their feet come up so high after leaving the ground, almost touching their backsides. This is more evident in the shorter events, but even some of the 10km runners show this. What's at work here is the simple principle of leverage. It's easier to move a shorter lever than a longer one, and the leg is easier to bring through if you shorten it by lifting the foot as close to the backside as possible. It can also be brought through quicker and so increases stride rate, in turn making it easier to increase stride length. It takes a lot of strength in the hamstrings to get this kind of lift, but the starting point is to land on the front of the foot and not on the heel.




"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you never take" - Wayne Gretzky
Quote Reply
Give Vitruvian a try [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
http://www.vitruvianrunning.com/

(no connection, etc.)
Quote Reply
Re: Give Vitruvian a try [Max] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Glad to see I'm not the only one who's entering a time warp every time he runs ...

My Proportions absolutely kick ass.

Dre'

-----------
...
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [flytri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
After battling some pains in recent months and years, some as serious as Achilles tendonitis and some just nagging, in the last six weeks I've been running exclusively in racing flats. Here's the kicker: I'm concentrating on running only at the moment and have ramped up to 100 miles/wk. and I am completely injury free. Any pain I've had is the expected ligament/tendon stress that Lydiard mentions as a consequence of increased volume, and soreness is usually due to poor sleep quality.

For me at least, the evidence is in. I believe it was running shoes ("light trainers," incidentally) with a rather high heel that induced my Achilles problems last fall. I didn't go straight into doing all my runs in flats, but now that I'm adapted all I look for is a solid forefoot feel and traction and a stretchy, breathable upper. My favorite shoe right now is the Mizuno Wave Aero, but I rotate among several pairs of flats.

I'm no flyweight, either.

This week is looking to total around 155 km. of running (sorry, 4 miles short of 100) in flats. Trouble free.



Aeromon (Aerobic Monster) - Pokomon's evil endurance junkie twin
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [Aeromon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is very interesting, I heard the same thing from a good podiatrist that is a triathlete also. He said the less of a heal lift in the runnng shoe the better, he also liked the Asic Gel Magic as it fits in this group. He believed it is all about the buck with these running companies and marketing, and that most of the running shoes of today are responsible for most of the running related injuries. It is no different than a good friend of mine that works for one of the major drug device companies. He sells he products to Dr's and is in the OR when they are being used in the patient, he told me he cant believe all the times one of the Dr's will use a stent or something like that when the person does not really use it. He said is he supose to say something and bit the hand that feeds him? I think this forum is right on with regards to modern shoes, and is good to hear that...
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [rundown] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Here is another guy who has the same view....



Running Shoes, by Paul Talbot


I've been thinking a lot about the training shoe question lately. If we look at the shoes from the early 70's and earlier, they were no more than what we today would consider racing flats and people put in 100+ mile weeks in them, no problem (and they were probably faster 100 mile weeks as well). If we look at the days of interval training, we'll find distance runners getting in 100+ mile weeks on the track in spikes!

Gordon Pirie (former 5,000 WR holder) argued that 70% of running injuries today are directly attributable to the poor running shoes of today that force people to run incorrectly (and that correct running is injury free).

In his book, "Marty Liquori's Guide for the Elite Runner," Liquori states that before the market became dominated by shoes aimed at the common jogger, achilles tendon problems were virtually unknown.

Lydiard advocated training and racing in the lightest shoes possible.

Modern shoes force most people to run in a particular way. They are designed to reduce pronation, force a heel strike, "protect" the ankle or achilles tendon, etc. If you run barefoot you will find that a) it is nearly impossible to land on your heel, the natural motion is ball of the foot strike or flat footed strike, and b) there is no noticible pronation.

The heel-strike character of most running shoes is troublesome. First, the heel is not a natural shock absorber. Your arch, and foot are the first areas of shock absorption while the achilles and calf muscles control pronation. Furthermore, landing flat footed allows for the knee to come over the foot and bend more quickly which allows the legs to take up more of the shock absorption. Some studies have actually shown that barefooted running is more shock absorbent than running in common running shoes. Secondly, because most shoes are designed for a heel-strike, they build up the "cushioning" under the heel. While this undoubtedly helps absorb some of the shock that jars your leg bones while heel-striking, the build up of cushioning under the heel also elevates the heel. This can have a shortening effect on the achilles and calf which can make it more prone to injury. The build also reduces stability. This is often compensated for by other gadgets in the shoe which try to hold the heel firmly in place and reduce the pronation (which is a way the body reduces shock). Unfortunately, this places more and more burden on the achilles and calf to control the foot when it hits the ground.

Lets remember that the shoe industry is based on the average, overweight, weekend jogger and not the serious runner. I don't mean to trash the entire shoe industry here, some models are very good, but at the same time lets realize that many of the injuries of today were rare 25 years ago and can be attributable to the shoes of today.

For many -- perhaps most -- a light, simple shoe that tries to do the least may be the best.

Incidentally, the best "cure" for any lower leg injuries has always been, for me, to run a few miles barefoot on grass. This has worked for me for shin splints and plantar fascia problems.

Many are sure to disagree with what I've said here, that's fine, but I thought I'd put forth one perspective for people to think about. Paul Talbot




"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you never take" - Wayne Gretzky
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [flytri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fascinating read. Thanks for posting it. I've spend a lot of time researching every tiny detail about cycling and bikes, but virtually nothing on running.

I run in New Balance 715's fitted with custom orthotics and don't seem to have many problems. These were originally just supposed to be my training shoes but when I swich to my lightweight racing flats (no orthotic) my right knee acts up and my calfs get very tight after a run. Any ideas why this might be happening.
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [cerveloguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It takes some time to get use to the racing flats, as you are using some different mucsles. However after that initial period this is all most runners need, and in the end more benifitial
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [flytri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I had simiar problem three years ago training for first IM. Ended up getting the cortizone (it worked). Don't know about the shoe theory but I found out that my problem was being caused by something as simple as running long on the same side of the road/path. Nowdays I switch back and forth about every 5 minutes, no problems since (thump thump - me knocking on wood).
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [cerveloguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The running shoe companies got the biggest scam on the go. I totally agree that all you need is a bit of rubber under your feet to protect you from stone and hard surfaces. The whole concept of support and all the associaited gimicks are just that: gimicks. The foot and lower leg are SUPPOSED to support you when you run. Not some artificial "outside assistance". If your foundation is weak, your house will break.

Modern running shoes allow people who have not business running 10 to 26 miles to do so. It gives them short term access to running these distances when their bodies have not adapted to it. The end result is other injuries. Most adults start running after something like 10 - 30 year hiatus since they ran in team sports as kids. Suddenly, they think that in a year, they can ramp up to a marathon and most do it without too many issues. After a while though, body parts start breaking down cause the foundation is weak. Much better to go the route suggested in the articles above, and let your body do what it wants to do and gradually strengthen the feet and lower leg. For that, a racing flat or lightweight trainer is ideal.

The Saucony Grid Jazz used to be a nice shoe with just some padding under the feet. Then they started adding lots of plastic shanks and junk that forced your foot to roll a certain way. I had a big debate at my local running shoe store with the local manager. My beef was that the "display" had 95% junk shoes that were creating injuries and there were barely one of two models that were neutral lightweight cushioned shoes with no support and plastic gimmicks. He said that 95% of his clients needed those types of shoe. I actually pointed him to some of these articles and told him that 95% of his clients need to let their bodies gradually adapt to running naturally, with minimal outside assistance. This, I said, is the path to long term injury free running. He basically kicked me out of his store (likely a good thing) saying I had no clue what I was talking about. Over the years, I have converted many of my clydesdale training partners into lightweight shoe users and they have all been injury free and really enjoy "running without boat anchors".



Cerveloguy, ditch the orthotics and gradually learn to run in a lightweight shoe with no gimicks. It may take some time, but your body will thank you in the long run. For starters, you might have to reduce mileage, stop doing speedwork, and long runs for up to 2 months, but it WILL work eventually.
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [flytri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Haven't had any leg injuries since I have been training in flats. Contrary, I had numerous injuries (shin splints, ITBS) with traditional cushioned shoes. Beware though, a shoe salesman will steer you toward cushioned shoes for training because this is the traditional approach.

I say buck the trend and train in flats.
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [flytri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree with running in flats. The only problem I have is they aren't very durable.

I also agree that shoe companies tend to emphasize heel striking. Kinda curious as to when people start heel striking. Now that it's warm I have been observing the kids at my son's elementary school. The vast majority run with either a midfoot or even toe footstrike. Very few are heel strikers. Heel striking seems almost unnatural for kids.

Don
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [devashish paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Do you feel that the sole of your shoe should match the bottom of your foot or just a flat piece of rubber to protect from rocks is all that is needed?

What I'm trying to get at is should a flat footed runner find a shoe that has a flat sole and a high arched runner find a shoe that has a arched sole? Shoes for flat feet seem to have all of the gimmicks and I'm looking for one that doesn't.

Thanks

jaretj
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [flytri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i sell running shoes for a living and couldn't agree with you more. it's person after person complaining of the same injuries- plantar fascia, achilles problems, shin splints, itb problems, and nueroma's. the people who seem to love the current shoes generally fall into the extemely flat footed catagory. a flat foot is usually a flexible foot and, yes, supporting it does seem to offer this person at least a short term solution to any problems they have. what about the rest of us though? why are we adding support to feet that are capable of doing it for themselves? and what happens long term when a shoe does the work for you foot?

but what about all the r&d the shoe companies do you ask? not once in twenty years of selling shoes have i had a sales rep come through the door with a study backing up anything they claim. the most i've seen is some glossy print out about a force plate test that shows there is, yes, indeed force on the foot when you land. seriously, where are the studies? a few of the things i've heard- we found pronation is most severe at the toes off so we've added xyz forefoot system to control it. we found that a wide heel is what really controls pronantion, so here's our new wide heel shoe. our new xyz foot bridge will transfer the energy of the strike through the midfoot to the toes in a more efficient manner. our tests indicate that on this 1/8th of the shoe you'll need xyz cushioning system and on this 4/5th's you'll need zyx support system so we've combined the great taste of both in our new improved flagship model---(which we will change in three months). and my personal favorite- paraphrasing from a major companies catalog; sitting at my desk thinking about shoe design i glanced out the window and noticed a float plane landing on the local lake. i noticed the large pontoons under each wing used to stabalize the plane as it floated on the water and thought "what a perfect way to stabalize the foot". so i designed this shoe with a large medial "pontoon" and smaller lateral "pontoon" .............. that's some solid r&d. finally on the design subject, do you really want springs in the heel of your shoe to return energy when you are actually pushing off with your forefoot? and what are the long term effects of running around with your rear foot a good two inches higher than the forefoot?

one other design flaw that nobody seems to talk about is toe box shape. i challenge every one of you to take the sock liner out of your shoe and stand on it. i'd place money on it that only 1 out of 100 of you find that your forefoot doesn't actually protrude out over the edges of the insole. and now your going to cram your foot into the shoe that cradles that liner. and this has been going on for each and everyone of us since the first pair of baby shoes our parents wedged our little piggies into. i look at my feet and my toes are shaped like a pair of shoes. i'd think a little space between my toes would be a more natural way of functioning. again, a study on some of this stuff would be great. the truth is that even athletic shoes have a fashion shoe heritage. which means they still need to look pretty i.e. narrow because that's what we've all been conditioned to see when we look down at our shoes. i'd have to find a different way to make a living if all i had were shoes truly shaped like our feet to sell. futhermore, that's what we've all been conditioned to feel when we try on shoes. we're all wearing too narrow and too short shoes around. anyone every see a little old ladies foot who wore pumps around for 75 years? it's sad seeing a foot shaped like an arrowhead. and i look at my little toe virtually pushed up under the next toe on my foot. i'm not much different than my grandmother. i'd have to say that our feet all have chronically tight and shortened tendons in the forefoot from this.

i could rant all day because it's easy to point out things that don't seem to work. however, i have to admit that the idea behind running shoes is really addressing what i feel are the biggest problems runners face- 1. pavement 2. lack of fitness/health in the runner him/herself. i'm certain we weren't meant to run on surfaces as hard as we face each day and really have no answer other than what's available to address this issue. as far as the fitness issue is concerned, the one thing some serious ironman training has taught me is how woefully out shape i was five years ago. i was a college athlete and never more than maybe ten pounds "overweight" to boot. but everytime i tried to ramp up my running i'd be injured. wiht my "new" fitness injuries are few and far between as long as i don't push the envelope too far too fast. how the hell can anyone twentyfive or more pounds and out of shape really expect to stay injury free when they hit the road? i don't know.

these are just observations i've made over the years. i'm not smart enough to offer any profound insight into the whole shoe/no shoe/midfoot/forefoot/ heel strike agruement. i do know i'm confused and have a hard time telling my customers i have the answer to their problems. i do tell anybody that listens though, that they are an experiment of one.

as for what i run in- magic racers or zoom waffle racers. with the toes boxes cut open with a razor blade to let my little piggies run freeeee. i've never felt better running. could just be smart progressive training though. your results may vary.
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [cerveloguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
cerveloguy, your achilles and calf are tight/shortened from having a lift under your foot. when you go to a more natural state it stretches them back out causing problems.

just something to consider.
Last edited by: CAT VI: May 7, 04 9:13
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [flytri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I own a running store, where we've fit 1000s of people in shoes. I agree 100% with the article above. With any runner who will listen, we explain how changes in running form can have a far more profound effect on performance and injury prevention than shoes. Unfortunately 90% of the runners we work with don't care. They want shoes that feel "soft" and cushioning underfoot when they run.

The one problem I have with this article and articles like it is that they base their assertions on analyses of the world's top runners, and using those conclusions to steer people immediately towards a low-stability shoe or racing flat. The first article acknowledges this and suggests people do some strength training in addition to switching to flats, but I don't think that's the right approach. The reality is that most americans haven't spent any significant time barefoot since they were young kids, and simply don't have the muscles and fat pads and ligament strength to handle running in anything less than a stable shoe. Those things can develop that over time, but it's several months for someone doing a reasonable volume and several years for someone running a few miles a week a few times a week. You can develop some of that with strength training, but there's no substitute for running in shoes that are matched to your current strength and ability.

A better approach is to gradually step down from more controlling shoes to less controlling shoes. We tend to avoid selling motion control shoes except as a last possible resort, and we tell all of our customers in MC shoes that they are a temporary solution and they they should try to move to "stability" shoes as soon as they can to help develop their feet and lower leg muscles. When they have adapted to the stability shoes, we try them in a less stable shoe, with the idea of eventually moving people down to a lightweight trainer like the Asics Gel Trainer, the Nike Zoom Elite, the Mizuno Wave Precision, the Saucony Trigon, etc. But anyone making those changes also needs to change their form, and it takes someone doing low volume years to take those steps if they get that far at all.

For a fit athlete training more than 25 miles a week, I would avoid training in racing flats. Not because they're bad for you, but because they're not very durable. The shoe companies would love to have everyone running in flats because we'd all be buying new shoes every month. Racing flats are great for technique work where you really need to "feel the road" but for general purpose training a lightweight trainer is going to have the same overall effect of requiring you to run with correct form and use your stabilizing muscles, but will last a lot longer.

Last note: Everyone who is interested in this thread should check out the Nike "Free" when it's released in June. It's a very innovative shoe with a sole that is designed to mimic running barefoot. The sole of the shoe provides protection from asphalt and whatnot, but offers absolutely no structure whatsoever. It's literally as if you were running barefoot. I tried the samples a few months ago and promptly ordered them for the store plus several extras for myself.

Lee Silverman
JackRabbit Sports
Brooklyn, NY

P.S. I personally have changed my form and made the switch to lightweight trainers over the last 6 months. My pace is *just* getting back to where it was before I made the switch, and I'm still not able to run more than 5 miles at a time. I don't have the lower leg stability to handle it yet. But it's coming, and when I get there I'll be running faster, further, and at a lower heartrate.
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [CAT VI] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Are you saying that those with very flat feet should be buying "modern" shoes rather than neutral racing flats? Do flat footed people need the support or not?
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [lsilverman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Great comments, Lee.

From your description it sounds like the Nike Free is designed like a "reef walker" type shoe. Some of the posters on the letsrun.com board have talked about running in some variety of Teva shoe that costs like $25. Is Nike really marketing the Free as a running shoe?



Aeromon (Aerobic Monster) - Pokomon's evil endurance junkie twin
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [flytri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree with these guys.. once I switeched over the the POSE method last year back in October and after months am now running with that style very effectively and more easily. I also recently, about two months ago, switched over to light trainer/racing shoes with no injuries, no soreness, and feels so much better when I run and feels like I am in contact with the ground. I put on my old training shoes and they felt like bricks. I also noticed my ITBs don't become tight, nor to other muscles in my legs become sore or tight after running particularly long, fast, training runs. My times have improved and my heart rate has dropped by a few beats as well due to improved efficiency I think.

thanks

------------------------------------------------

Trying to find ways to pass the time.
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [Renault78law] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DON'T GET ME STARTED on "flat" feet, high arches, low arches, the "wet paper" test, or any of those other gimics. They're not relevant. The primary determiner of whether you overpronate is how flexible your arch is while you're running in shoes. Let me re-emphasize those three points: arch flexibility -- while running -- in shoes. All those other "tests" are designed to be simple enough to understand in a magazine article or a RoadRunner sports catalog.

Arch flexibility: your arch is flexible if it tends to roll inward when you put weight on it, regardless of arch height without weight on it. The initial height of your arch says more about muscle length than muscle flexibility & strength, (although they correlate to a degree). But it's the amount of flex that controls how far you roll. A rigid arch doesn't roll, and so is capable of holding you up without additional support. (Assuming you don't roll somewhere else in your foot like your ankle.) A flexible arch needs some extra help from the shoe to apply the force that the muscles aren't capable of applying. A high arch is also a rigid arch about 50% of the time, but can sometimes be very flexible and need a lot of support. A low/flat arch is also a flexible arch about 75% of the time but can also be quite rigid and not need additional support. I see former dancers all the time with very high but very flexible arches, and football players with low but very rigid arches because they're so strong.

While running: People who land on their forefoot have a more rigid arch while running because they've engaged the muscles in their foot on impact. People who land on their heel don't engage the muscles in their arch & lower leg until the rest of their foot "slaps" down, at which point it's too late for them to offer any control.

In shoes: we used to start each fitting by watching people run barefoot. Problem is, people run correctly when they run barefoot -- that is, they tend to land first on the ball of their feet. Put shoes on that same person, and 90% of the time they hit with their heel first. I need to see how you land when you're in shoes, because that's how you'll be doing most of your running. Most people who land on their heel do it because they instinctively "reach" forward with their foot to increase their stride length. The cushioning in the heel of the shoe lets them get away with it. But try it barefoot sometime on a hardwood floor and see how much that hurts.

A good running store will look at your arch flexibility and use it as a starting point to guess what level of support you need, but they'll always watch you running to be sure. Sometimes a person with a flexible arch can use an insert like superfeet or powerstep in a more neutral shoe. That's a great way to transition from more support to less -- just do some of your shorter runs or tempo runs without the inserts. If your knees or hips or ankles start to bother you, do fewer runs without the arch supports.

Lee Silverman
JackRabbit Sports
Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [Renault78law] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[url][/url][url][reply]Are you saying that those with very flat feet should be buying "modern" shoes rather than neutral racing flats? Do flat footed people need the support or not?[/reply][reply]

renault,

i'd say it depends. how's that? what shoes are you wearing now and are you having any problems? if your very flat footed chances are you've had shin splints or plantar fascia problems in the past and mc control shoes helped. in this case you may want to slowly change over to stability shoe as you gain fitness and specific strength. it's my opinion, and opinion only, that long term we are better off trying to let our feet function naturally. i have several customers who have slowly gotten away from mc control shoes with success. another factor to consider is your running speed- it seems to me that the faster a person is the less the shoe matters. i've seen a couple of young speedsters that had extremely flat feet, but when they started running the noticeable pronation all but vanished. remember, the idea is that flat feet are flexible and over pronate putting stress on the foot/lower leg/ knee. if you kick it in and your stride evens out why attempt to control anything? my two main concerns with modern shoes are the high heels and small toe boxes. long term these things are changing your body. and mc shoes have the highest heel/toe relationship. in effect we are shortening our levers and losing free speed. most of my thoughts are coming from a runner/podiatrist friend who can talk a little more science with you if your interested. his website is:

www.nwfootankle.com
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [Aeromon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
From your description it sounds like the Nike Free is designed like a "reef walker" type shoe. Some of the posters on the letsrun.com board have talked about running in some variety of Teva shoe that costs like $25. Is Nike really marketing the Free as a running shoe?


That's what I thought when I first read the description. But when I tried on the samples the Free turned out to be very different. The sole of the shoe is about as thick as a lightweight performance trainer like the Gel Trainer or the Precision. But it's cut front to back and size to side so the sole has no "structure" laterally. A reef shoe is basically just a piece of rubber under your foot. The Free is much more engineered to provide no structure at all. The story is that it was designed with the help of the track & field coach from Stanford, but I don't know how true that is.

I have to say, Nike does some things that I can't get behind, but the Free is a very good concept, and the samples I tried on were well executed. It's a great shoe for someone who wants to develop their form by running barefoot and developing the muscles we've evolves to use for the past 2 million years.

Lee Silverman
JackRabbit Sports
Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
Last edited by: lsilverman: May 7, 04 10:52
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [lsilverman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 





In shoes: we used to start each fitting by watching people run barefoot. Problem is, people run correctly when they run barefoot -- that is, they tend to land first on the ball of their feet. Put shoes on that same person, and 90% of the time they hit with their heel first. I need to see how you land when you're in shoes, because that's how you'll be doing most of your running. Most people who land on their heel do it because they instinctively "reach" forward with their foot to increase their stride length. The cushioning in the heel of the shoe lets them get away with it. But try it barefoot sometime on a hardwood floor and see how much that hurts.

lee, great responses. something else to consider- the cushioning in the heel not only allows them to get away with landing on the heel it can force them to do it. if the heel is artificailly high it's going to land sooner than your body wants it to. the whole foot strike is happening pretty fast and if that wedge wasn't hitting the ground so soon your foot would be slightly more forward by the time you made contact. once again changing what the body really wants to do.

sounds like your doing a great job. keep it up.
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [flytri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My friend, Ken Saxton, would love this thread. He's been blaming foot problems on shoes for years.

http://www.runningbarefoot.org/

Larry
Quote Reply
Re: Modern Shoes and Injuries [Larry Himmel] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Go Zola!








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply

Prev Next