Less Shoe, less injuries (ITBS)

Running Shoes, by Paul Talbot http://run-down.com/images/spacer.gif

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

Running technique This article has been submitted by John Brewer and is copyrighted by him

© 2002 All rights reserved by the author.

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.http://www.triathletes-uk.org/graphics/ryun1.jpg http://www.triathletes-uk.org/graphics/ryun2.jpg

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.

Actually, I think you will find many elite athletes will agree with you. Its the ones that get their knowledge from the monthly RoadRunner advertiser that may disagree. (I hate to pick on RoadRunner. They are a good company and shoe retailer. But, that’s the only analogy I could come up with.)

It is very interesting if you look at the Road Runner catalog and see all the runners with huge shoes on heel striking. This includes a person called the “chief runner” Take a look at Tom D’s website here http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/features/history.shtml the picture of Dave Scott with this heading under it “He was the ultimate Ironman” said Demerly. Look at his foot plant, it is much different. If someone knows how to post a picture it would be great to show this.

Liquori states that before the market became dominated by shoes aimed at the common jogger, achilles tendon problems were virtually unknown.

I think the market became dominated by shoes aimed at the common jogger because the market became saturated by common joggers!!

If we just eliminated all of these people with biomechanical imperfections from the running pool by telling them that they are not allowed to run we could significantly reduce the number of reported running injuries.

I agree that to some extent the running shoe market leans towards shoes with a whole bucket load of motion control. I think that there are a lot of people out there that if they trained for technique and not just mileage they would not need as much motion control in their shoes. It does kinda crack me up that some folks think that just a tweak to the technique will work for EVERYBODY. I don’t care how much she ‘runs on her toes’ (or however you want to describe certain techniques), some people just don’t have the feet for running without support. I have a friend whose feet are so flat that if you did a wet foot test it would look like she was standing on a potato. Even when she has no weight on her feet and she is curling her toes down you cannot identify an arch. No foot flexibility whatsoever. She has done some experimenting with multiple models of shoes and has some great custom footbeds, now she can actually run a half marathon and live to tell the tale.

I kinda view built up shoes like Team in Training. For some people it is good, for some it is bad, but if it gets people off the couch and on the road on average I think it is great. I don’t think you would see 50,000 people in a 10k run like Bolder Boulder if the shoes were the same as back in the 70’s.

Perfect timing for me…

I’m headed the running store this week to look for a new pair of shoes. The soles of my shoes indicate I am serious heel-striker and the hilly area where a I live makes this more apparent running downhill. For the first time in 3-4 years my knees are killing me. I attribute it to trying to maintain 40 mpw while running a hilly route as a heel-striker. 2 out of the 3 I could manage, but all 3 was just too much. Bottom line is that I came to the same conclusion you are claiming. My shoes have too much heel cushion, forcing me to heel-strike. I’m going to look at light-weight trainers and see where that takes me. I have a pair of NB 833’s that I love and have been using just for racing, but I may start using them for training as well. I’ve been using NB 76X’s for the past several years. About 10 pairs total without any trouble, but now that I’ve added the hills, they just might not be the right shoes anymore.

Goddammit, I needed something else to fuck with my head.

As with everything, I am sure that there are as many opinions as there are assholes, but I’d love to hear some more on this. It makes sense. However, is the stress related with ‘relearning’ to run worth what might come out on the back end?

Who can weigh in on this?

It was the late 70’s that I started to notice the increased thickness of the heel in relation to the forefoot. I’m a mid-foot striker, and found it really eliminated any flow I had to my running form when the heel hit before the rest of the foot was expecting to land. For awhile I’d take shoes back and complain but over the years got used to new configuration. This included applying shoo goo to the heels to extend shoe life. In the past few years I have tried to land more on the forefoot and notice very little shoe wear at all anymore. I’m ready to ease into some lighter weight trainers with less heel lift. Suggestions?

Absolutely agree. Short story to illustrate the point: Not twenty-five minutes from me is a store owned by two phsical therapists that teach at very highly regarded University. I went there to buy a new pair of shoes after moving here and they did a very thurough job of “examining” me and the telling me I needed a stability shoe. Ok so I think they know what they are talking about, I buy the recommended shoes, run in them for about two weeks. My knees start killing me. I go buy a pair of “cushioned” racing flats, Adidas Adios Litestrike, and my knees are almost instantly better.

Don’t missunderstand me stores like the one I described, that put me into stability shoes, are probably great for most people. As my example suggests I had a horrible experience and yet my wife had a great experience.

Goddammit, I needed something else to fuck with my head.

As with everything, I am sure that there are as many opinions as there are assholes, but I’d love to hear some more on this. It makes sense. However, is the stress related with ‘relearning’ to run worth what might come out on the back end?

Who can weigh in on this?
Yeah- what he said without the cursing.

I started running more seriously several years ago. When I started, I weighed around 215. Back then, just about every part of my legs from the hips on down would hurt at some time during the year.

Now that I have been running more seriously for several years and I weigh a lot less (in the 170s), my legs hurt a whole lot less. In fact, unless there is a specific reason like twisting something or taking a really big jump in mileage or intensity too suddenly, they hardly hurt at all. This is despite the fact that I also am putting at least 100 miles more on each pair of shoes. And, I’ve been basically wearing the same brand of shoes (Asics 2000 series) the whole time so that is more or less constant.

Now, this is hardly scientific, but I think that the reason my legs hurt a lot less is that I weigh less and my legs have gotten used to running more than I used to run. I suspect that just about everyone running 100+ miles in the 1970s was fairly light and had been running a great deal since at least junior high school. Not many people out there deciding to run a marathon as part of a middle aged crisis of some sort or another.

If you weigh a lot more than you should and are just starting to run seriously, I suspect you are much less likely to have problems if you wear cushioned shoes. As for myself, I have no real problems with the brand and model I use so there is no reason for me to change things.

Agree totally for myself… I run all the time in Saucony Freestyles

Ummmm, that was cussing not cursing.

Like the difference between nekkid and naked.

http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/features/history/lg/12.jpg.

Ummmm, that was cussing not cursing.

Like the difference between nekkid and naked.

Uhh not to parse here but GD certainly qualifies as cursing…

But I agree I like the info Paul posted, it seems to make sense. So now I am even more confused than before, which is pretty hard to do considering the level of confusion I live with day to day.

Taken in context, it was cussing. Not cursing. There is a difference.

Either way, apparently I run the wrong way in the wrong shoes right when I was getting pretty fast. What to do?

Not ALL, but MANY, runners are running in shoes that are way over built for them and their needs. The shoe companies tend to flog, hype, promote the serious motion control shoes because they have a technical story to tell. These shoes also tend to be the top-of-the-line models and the most expemsive Your basic cushioned trainer is pretty straight forward - an upper and something in the midsole to cushion the impact with the ground. Not very sexy. Problem is many people THINK they need the top-of-the-line motion control shoe and MANY shoe shop people are quite happy to sell these shoes to them - even when they don’t need them.

When I started running back in the mid-seventies, the first real technical trainers where starting to come out( The Nike Waffle Trainer, adidas SL 76) Prior to that many runners had been running in what were nothing more than tennis shoes. In fact, the top marathon runner in my club at the time( a 2:12 guy) trained in adidas Gazelles, for goodnes sakes! I still recall my first run in the Nike Waffle Trainers in 1974 and after what I had been running in it felt like floating on a cloud!

In many cases, there is a direct connection between ITB problems and other sorts of knee, foot and leg problems from running in overly supportive shoes when you don’t need that type of shoe.

There are those in this thread who are advocating running in racing flat type of shoes ALL the time. I am not sure if I would go that far. I think there is a need for a moderatly cushioned trainer for running on pavement and for longer training runs. However, for runners looking for higher performance, they should also be using a light weight trainer or racing shoe a couple of times a week for faster paced training and racing.

Fleck

I went to see a local podiatrist in Portland Oregon, that subscribed to this theory. He is in the process of starting a new company that makes running shoes to address this problem. He is a big advocate of running with a mid foot strike with a running shoe without a built up heel. He says buy a racing flat that the heel is not bigger than the fore foot. He went on to say one could run over 100 miles a week with much less problems, and that the shoe companies market all these different kinds of shoes for the $$. I am not knocking people that work at shoe stores ect, or is he. He is a top national runner and Duathlon Champion. He went on to say that Nike developed the free because more athletes are catching onto this, he said they market it as a training aid so it does not cut into other shoe sales. He was not a big supporter of the free however. He also sells orthotics, but only to people that want them, he believes that people don’t need them. Here is his website, I hope this helps. http://www.nwfootankle.com/about_the_doctor.htm

Love those pictures of Jim Ryun running.

That’s what it is all about!

Fleck

Paul and Fleck,

What should I do then. I am the proud owner of two pancakes for feet- I am talking ZERO arch even when sitting with my feet flat on the ground. I am 6’0" and go about 180 now and will get down to about 170 for race season. I tend to be a bit heavy footed when I run, and not that it really matters but I tend to carry a lot of weight in my upper body from my swimming days. I am currently recovering from a broken ankle. At some point early last year I broke my medial maelus ( the big lump on the inside of your ankle), basicaly I sheared the whole bottom half of it off. I ran on it up until mid July, I did about 5 Sprint and Oly dist Tris and couple 5 and 10K’s all with it broken. When I found out in July that it was broken i stopped running flat out and have not run a step (minus about 2 miles in Oct as a test) since. I had to have surgery in late Dec to repair it and now am the proud owner of two pancake feet and a titanium reinforced right ankle. During the surgery I also had a lot of tendon damage to repair as a result of the tendon rubbing over the fracture. I am 7 weeks removed from the surgery was in a cast for 5 weeks and now am in a removable walking boot. I will see my surgeon on Monday and am hopeful he will release me from the this aweful boot and get to start PT. I hope that I will be able to start running again by late March. The odd thing about the break it I really don’t know when I did it, but know i wonder based on the reading Paul posted that it may have been becasue of the wrong shoes.

Before the break I have always been plagued with ITBS in both knees. To the point that I have never run more than about a 10k without having to stop due to pain, and a 10K is really a challenge. I have been running for about 4 yers now, but not consistanly due to injury, of which 95% of the down time is from the current ankle break and ITBS. My ave week when I ran was limited to about a max of 12 miles/week due to ITBS consisting of 3-4 runs/week @ 3-4miles/run. Over the last two years I have ran in the following shoes- Asics Kyanos x2, Asics Gel Koji (full motion control), Saucony Grid MC (again full motion controll) and now have a new pair of Asics 2090 which I have not run in due to the ankle. I also have a new pair of orthotics to go in the 2090s when I start running.

Am I as screwed up as I think I am

Regards,

Tim