Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: If pronation is no longer "bad", how does one evaluate runnings shoes? [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
desert dude wrote:
bigmatt wrote:
How long does it take to "feel" the shoe?


Was just having this convo with a bike brand owner today.

In the 1000's of people I've put in shoes very, very rarely does someone put on a pair of shoes, stand up say "ugh these don't feel good' then take them for a short test jog down the sidewalk and love the shoes. It happens maybe .01% of the time, maybe.

If you put them on your feet and walk to the front door of the store and think nope, turn around and try a different pair of shoes

I ordered Asics GlideRide online (during the Pandemic Lockdown in Australia).
- Walked around the house, felt like the weirdest shoes I have ever worn.
- First run (60 mins), still didn't like them.
- Second run, getting used to them.
- But 50km (~30mi) later, love them.
Quote Reply
Re: If pronation is no longer "bad", how does one evaluate runnings shoes? [bigmatt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
bigmatt wrote:
I've had a couple of ankle surgeries, I overpronate, and I use custom orthotics to control pronation (to some degree). Recently, I saw my podiatrist (excellent surgeon, has saved the careers of some multi-million dollar athletes) about a posterior tib issue, and I asked him if he wanted to see my gait. To my surprise, he said (paraphrasing here) "No. Current research suggests that pronation isn't necessarily bad and we could end up doing more harm than good by trying to eliminate it." But thing is, when I go to a specialty running store, they watch me run and recommend shoes based on how much pronation there is in the slow-motion video. Question is, how should I be evaluating shoes in light of this new info? The last thing I want is to buy a pair of shoes only to find myself injured 50mi later.

Having mutliple different pairs of running shoes can help prevent a new pair causing injury.

Even if the new pair is 'right' for you, if it is different to you previous pairs it will probably put different types of strains on your muscles. Example going from a high ramp to low ramp you will put more strain on your calf and achilles. If you switched completely from one pair to the other - very high chance of injury. But if you slowly introduced the new pair, your body will gradually adapt.

I am an overpronator. Not enough to require orthotics, but the 'experts' recommended (based on slow motion video footage) I switch from neutral runners to Asics Kayanos. Was almost permanently injured for the next 2 years. Switched back to neutral runners and the injuries disappeared. Have since discovered a different (better) running specialty store and they can see the overpronation, but are still happy for me to buy the neutral shoes.

As Slowman mentioned, the Hokas are neutral shoes with stability features. I do find I have less issues in Hokas, if only they had a wider toe box.
Quote Reply
Re: If pronation is no longer "bad", how does one evaluate runnings shoes? [bluntandy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
bluntandy wrote:
I'm with Alice Barnes here. Over pronation is likely to be an issue somewhere in the chain.
It's possible to "correct" pronation with shoes or orthotics or through specific training.
Both have advantages. I've tried both and found stability shoes and orthotics lead me to twisting my ankles frequently.
I'm always somewhat sceptical about claims that a device which provides support or alignment can "correct" an issue. Perhaps shoes or orthotics can mitigate some of these issues, but not correct. And I think this causes problems. Sometimes mitigation is needed just to allow us continue doing something, but mitigation also removes or distorts feedback that is likely essential to resolving the underlying problem in cases where that's possible. So, if you understand the cause of the issue and orthotics or shoes are the only/best way to address it then that's the way to go, but IMO using them without fully understanding why you need them should be a last resort. What I mean is, they should ideally only be used to address a cause, not a symptom.
Quote Reply
Re: If pronation is no longer "bad", how does one evaluate runnings shoes? [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And therein lies my particular problem. I have worn stability shoes and neutral shoes with arch supports on and off for the past 15 or so years, yet I have done very little to address the weakness in my right lower leg. I now have visible atrophy of the muscles in this leg compared to the left and my left hip often is sore from carrying the load of the right side of my body. I also have watched my mother, from whom I inherited my flat feet, grow gradually more and more disabled in her mobility due to the lack of addressing the injuries/weaknesses to her feet.

I am now at the point where I want to do what is best for my long-term physical health, not just what can get me across the finish line.

What has me truly puzzled with this current peroneal tendon flare up is that barefoot is the most comfortable way for me to get around now. Even first thing in the morning, when I always reach for my trusted Birkenstocks, barefoot feels better. With no major racing for me on the horizon until next September in Maryland, I am taking the time to work on figuring out this predicament!
Quote Reply
Re: If pronation is no longer "bad", how does one evaluate runnings shoes? [PattiPepper65] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PattiPepper65 wrote:
And therein lies my particular problem. I have worn stability shoes and neutral shoes with arch supports on and off for the past 15 or so years, yet I have done very little to address the weakness in my right lower leg. I now have visible atrophy of the muscles in this leg compared to the left and my left hip often is sore from carrying the load of the right side of my body. I also have watched my mother, from whom I inherited my flat feet, grow gradually more and more disabled in her mobility due to the lack of addressing the injuries/weaknesses to her feet.

I am now at the point where I want to do what is best for my long-term physical health, not just what can get me across the finish line.

What has me truly puzzled with this current peroneal tendon flare up is that barefoot is the most comfortable way for me to get around now. Even first thing in the morning, when I always reach for my trusted Birkenstocks, barefoot feels better. With no major racing for me on the horizon until next September in Maryland, I am taking the time to work on figuring out this predicament!
Man I had the weirdest peroneal tendon issue then started wearing a brace on that ankle to bed. Within two weeks it was almost completely gone. For some reason I point that foot really bad when I sleep and the brace solved it.
Quote Reply
Re: If pronation is no longer "bad", how does one evaluate runnings shoes? [PattiPepper65] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If barefoot is most comfortable, is it worth staying barefoot, or as close as is practical and see how things progress?
I'm not a high volume runner, just to get that out of the way, but I used to wear running shoes designed to counteract over-pronation as recommended by gait analysis experts when buying them. I was never really comfortable. About 10 years ago I stopped running for a while due to sore knees. I hadn't actually been a runner for very long at that point, maybe 3 years. I couldn't run without pain and every time I tried to resume the pain came back within a kilometer or two. Eventually after a year or more of frustration I decided to go another route and bought some "barefoot" shoes, both for running and general use. I used the Merrell Barefoot range (and still do) but there are others. For me, that was the turning point to naturally developing better leg strength and improving my posture and stride. Eliminating bulky shoes that isolated me from the surface underfoot, made it immediately obvious that I was moving terribly, both walking around and running. It just felt wrong. My calves ached for a while but then I just started feeling better and stronger. I was able to run again, with a rather different style than before, and it was far more enjoyable. Best thing I've ever done.
I can't say the same would be true for everyone, or that it's even advisable in some cases. But perhaps it's worth a little experimentation, especailly if you already find barefoot comfortable.
Quote Reply
Re: If pronation is no longer "bad", how does one evaluate runnings shoes? [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I went from Vivo's to Lems and was able to run faster. Also my legs were fresher after running.

Eventually moved on to more traditional shoes.
Quote Reply
Re: If pronation is no longer "bad", how does one evaluate runnings shoes? [RobInOz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RobInOz wrote:
........
As Slowman mentioned, the Hokas are neutral shoes with stability features. I do find I have less issues in Hokas, if only they had a wider toe box.

Are certain Hokas softer than others? Even though they -look- like they should have lots of cushion, I never found them to be very soft feeling. Bending them in hand they feel quite stiff compared to shoes like NB Beacons, Nike's, etc.
I've tried Cliftons, Mach2, and Arahi, all felt pretty hard to me while running.
Quote Reply
Re: If pronation is no longer "bad", how does one evaluate runnings shoes? [Yeeper] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kenny Bekele had some interesting recent comments on the Alphafly leading up to the London Marathon (before he withdrew):

https://www.theguardian.com/...P=Share_iOSApp_Other

"...admitted that that he would not be wearing the Alphaflys on Sunday because they had given him injuries in training."


"I tried to investigate it with other athletes and most of them had problems"
Quote Reply
Re: If pronation is no longer "bad", how does one evaluate runnings shoes? [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, this is where I am at right now. While working from home I can obviously walk around barefoot in the house. I have a pair of Vibrams Five Fingers barefoot shoes that should arrive tomorrow. I'm going to try it. I found a website online simply called Fix Flat Feet and it is created by a PT who built up his own arches through exercises. I am not sure how much of a distance runner he was/is but I found the site interesting and I have nothing to lose at this point.

If it seems I am on to something with the barefoot strengthening, I will look into brands of minimalist shoes I can wear to work, etc. I find it hard to believe I will ever run in minimalist shoes, but perhaps if my arches are strong enough to function normally I will be able to wear light stability or neutral shoes while running on the road.
Quote Reply
Re: If pronation is no longer "bad", how does one evaluate runnings shoes? [RobInOz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RobInOz wrote:
bigmatt wrote:
I've had a couple of ankle surgeries, I overpronate, and I use custom orthotics to control pronation (to some degree). Recently, I saw my podiatrist (excellent surgeon, has saved the careers of some multi-million dollar athletes) about a posterior tib issue, and I asked him if he wanted to see my gait. To my surprise, he said (paraphrasing here) "No. Current research suggests that pronation isn't necessarily bad and we could end up doing more harm than good by trying to eliminate it." But thing is, when I go to a specialty running store, they watch me run and recommend shoes based on how much pronation there is in the slow-motion video. Question is, how should I be evaluating shoes in light of this new info? The last thing I want is to buy a pair of shoes only to find myself injured 50mi later.


Having mutliple different pairs of running shoes can help prevent a new pair causing injury.

Even if the new pair is 'right' for you, if it is different to you previous pairs it will probably put different types of strains on your muscles. Example going from a high ramp to low ramp you will put more strain on your calf and achilles. If you switched completely from one pair to the other - very high chance of injury. But if you slowly introduced the new pair, your body will gradually adapt.

I am an overpronator. Not enough to require orthotics, but the 'experts' recommended (based on slow motion video footage) I switch from neutral runners to Asics Kayanos. Was almost permanently injured for the next 2 years. Switched back to neutral runners and the injuries disappeared. Have since discovered a different (better) running specialty store and they can see the overpronation, but are still happy for me to buy the neutral shoes.

As Slowman mentioned, the Hokas are neutral shoes with stability features. I do find I have less issues in Hokas, if only they had a wider toe box.

The problem as you describe is that most ‘experts’ in running shops aren’t experts at all. In most cases they look at the feet/ankles, see pronation and want that pronation gone or at least less.
They get you a motion control shoe, in your the Asics Kayano, and probably your ankles/feet pronated less but in the chain above most likely a lot moved differently and likely wrong.
We see that a lot of runningshoe store employees -but not all of them- just lack enough knowledge of what happens if you change something at the feet/ankle with a shoe in the kinetic chain above.

For the last 4 years we are working with MotionMetrix software that shows a complete 3D scan, without markers, j́ust the software and 2 kinect cameras and that gives you a complete look on the how the body/legs are moving, where there are potential red flag areas, differences between left/right side, etc.

Just a few screenshots of what you get. But just like every bike fit tool it is just as good as the knowledge of the one using it.
But is really very helpful in recognizing differences in movement patterns and between shoes.

Jeroen




Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands
Quote Reply
Re: If pronation is no longer "bad", how does one evaluate runnings shoes? [TRIPRO] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This looks amazing! Is it available in the U.S.?
Quote Reply
Re: If pronation is no longer "bad", how does one evaluate runnings shoes? [PattiPepper65] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
PattiPepper65 wrote:
This looks amazing! Is it available in the U.S.?

To be honest, I’m not sure.
It is actually much more then what you see here.
We can see and show so much with this tool that it also shows why some injuries keep returning and more important how to handle to prevent it.

I will ask the developer tomorrow if there is distribution of the system in the US.

Jeroen

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands
Quote Reply
Re: If pronation is no longer "bad", how does one evaluate runnings shoes? [SBRcanuck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SBRcanuck wrote:
RobInOz wrote:
........
As Slowman mentioned, the Hokas are neutral shoes with stability features. I do find I have less issues in Hokas, if only they had a wider toe box.


Are certain Hokas softer than others? Even though they -look- like they should have lots of cushion, I never found them to be very soft feeling. Bending them in hand they feel quite stiff compared to shoes like NB Beacons, Nike's, etc.
I've tried Cliftons, Mach2, and Arahi, all felt pretty hard to me while running.

I have the Rincon & Clifton 6 and also own the Beacon v2. I find the Beacon midsole softer than the Cliftons, it is a different kind of cushioning. To exaggerate the feel, Beacons are like a pillow, Cliftons are like a mattress. Cushioning in Beacons is very soft, but I can still feel the ground underneath, whereas I feel more disconnected from the ground in the Cliftons.

However over time the Beacons have lost a bit of there softness, while the Cliftons may have become a touch softer. Now the Cliftons (215km / 135mi) feel just as soft as the Beacons (340km / 210mi). Still a very different feel, but very similar softness.
Quote Reply

Prev Next