Benaldo wrote:
Agree with everything you've stated- I'm familiar with Greg Lehman's nihilistic position on 'no bad biomechanics' and think that this is useful to a degree. People should not carry around ideas about their bodies that could potentially be limiting them, or make them think that they are brittle.
However, she is unable to train due to this pain- and here is some more info-
She has a wide variety of shoes to choose from - she was a devoted Hoka runner - the cushioned shoe with a rocker plate at midfoot, but eventually developed plantar fascitis which caused her to abandon them. Her main road shoe now is from a New Balance 1080, but she's only trail running with shoes from Topo, with a larger toe box and a lower drop from heel to toe. She is only able to run about 2 miles at a time and is in significant pain afterwards.
She's had her running stride filmed - and this is where is gets weedy- and was told her footstrike crosses the median line slightly and that she has anterior pelvic tilt. This assessment was from her tri coach.
Changes that were recommended to her were to increase her cadence from 168 to 180, in order to have her feet land under her body instead of in front of her, ostensibly to reduce heel strike impact - and - for some reason - to try to widen her base stance when running. This is difficult and is done for short intervals when running over a painted road line for reference.
She's seen her regular MD and a physiatrist that were unable to solve or help her with her problem.
So, I'm skeptical of the prescription of cadence increase and base widening, but her problem predates these changes. Any thoughts?
i actually think the cadence change may be based on sound reasoning. i wouldn't focus on cadence, but i do think most untutored runners tend to overstride. if you just follow runners from, say, their freshman years in high school thru to their senior years, and into college - if they become successful in competition - you'll see this tightening up of form, an increase in economy of motion, and the typical thing that changes is the landing spot. first contact is made with the sole of the foot under the knee, not in front of the knee. a faster cadence is the byproduct. the faster cadence isn't the point, but it often tracks with better foot placement.
as to the other thing, this is where i think biomechanics just is what it is. there are macro samenesses among good runners, but a lot of micro differences that causes you to be able to identify a runner just by the nuances in gait, and i think where you land in that particular plane - if you foot crosses the body's median - i don't know that this is a changeable thing.
me, i run in orthotics. i'm very, very particular about my footbeds. i'm a HOKA runner, but not just any HOKA runner. the shoe has to have enough oomph to support my footbed. i guess, depending on her pain, where she gets that pain, maybe a footbed is the trick, so your instinct may be right when you ask about footbeds.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman