Is all that biomechanics analyses mumbo jumbo at running stores hogwash? Yes it is.

Thanks for keeping me in business!

Your local physical therapist wrote:

Thanks for keeping me in business!

You're quite welcome!

I guess the shoe companies should just make one shoe for everyone!!! hmmmmmm......maybe not

Do some more research Mcfly!!

As a coach of new runners, I can't tell you how often I've had kids with injury problems solve those problems by getting 'properly fit' for their suggested shoe type.

Typically, it's a kid who pronates quite a bit, who is running in 'cushioned' shoes, and complains about knee pain or arch pain or IT band tightness. After repeated suggestion (by me) to get a pair of stability shoes, when they eventually DO get a pair of stability shoes, their injury problems either completely disappear or are reduced dramatically.

I'd like to believe that everyone, whether they have flat arches or high arches, can 'adapt' to cushioned shoes without support, but experience has shown me otherwise.

On top of that, I have high arches and prefer cushioned shoes. Running in anything close to a stability shoe has always resulted in injury for me. So, from my own personal experience, and observation as a coach, I have to conclude that, in general, the mainstream method of putting high arched runners in cushioned shoes, and flatter arches in stability-oriented shoes, makes a lot of sense.

I cringe when I see a thread like this, and think about all those heavy-duty pronators who might rush out and buy 'cushioned' shoes, thinking they're revolutionaries. I've seen too many runners' injury problems solved by the right shoe type to put much stock in this idea that shoe companies are part of some conspiracy. Besides, what have they got to gain? You're going to buy a pair of running shoes one way or another - what difference does it make to ASICS whether you buy a pair of Cumulus or 2140s?

And personally, I like a shoe without a lot of heel lift. Lower heel heights do seem to perform better for me than shoes with high heel heights. Being a midfoot striker probably has something to do with my preference on that end.

I have an anecdotal story that could counter yours, but does your situation, or mine, or your kids, matter? No. Peer-reviewed research trumps anecdotal evidence, and there is no research evidence to back up what shoe stores and shoe companies spout. Each person has to figure it out for themself, whether that agrees with the shoe guy or not.

everybody's foot is different. i have extremely flat feet. i overpronate. blah blah. i was hurt a lot in stability shoes, i switched to flats and neutral shoes and have been running great and injury free ever since.

Well, you may be somewhat right based upon "biomechanics analyses..." There may be little or no evidence that supports the integrity of a specific shoe to offer balance, control, or alignment of the kinetic chain that occus when the foot strikes the ground. Where you miss the point completely is the comparison to what existed before.

A a competitve collegiate runner of the 60's & early 70's, we had little choice of available training shoe models. Most were either canvas or leather with little or no cushion. The break-in time for shoes was approximately 10 - 14 days, in which time, blisters, arch, achilles, and knee pain were common. Most athletes just ran through the pain as a rite of passage in breaking in new shoes. I'll never forget the feel of my first pair of Lydiards, Tiger Onitsukas, Adidas SL 72's, and nylon Nikes. They were truly gifts to my feet and ultimately enhanced my training. Were they biomechanically perfect? Maybe...maybe not. What I experienced personally, was a progression of running footwear that reduced break-in time, provided comfort, and allowed me to focus on my training.

What more do you want from training shoes?

an honest view wrote:

I have an anecdotal story that could counter yours, but does your situation, or mine, or your kids, matter? No. Peer-reviewed research trumps anecdotal evidence, and there is no research evidence to back up what shoe stores and shoe companies spout. Each person has to figure it out for themself, whether that agrees with the shoe guy or not.

Well, peer-reviewed research also can't decide whether or not stretching helps runners remain injury-free, and as you know, there is a cross-section of runners who swear against stretching. I don't like stretching, but I know it helps me when I do stretch as I should. My chronic left calf problem is helped immensely when I stretch it regularly, and acts up when I don't. I have less soreness, overall, on days after I've stretched well. Anecdotal? Sure, but I don't need a research paper to tell me that sitting in the sun all day will give me a sunburn. I have personal, anecdotal evidence that it does.

But what does any shoe company stand to gain from coming up with 'bad' shoes? Whether you buy a cushioned model or stability model, you're still going to buy a pair of shoes, right? Each company has a vested interest in producing the best possible shoes, to win customers away from companies that produce inferior shoes.

I don't understand who stands to gain from this 'conspiracy' of needlessly differentiated running shoes, but I do understand who stands to gain from producing great shoes that people find useful - the company that produced the great shoe.

wow, this is unbelievably idiotic. I don't need "research" to tell me I should wear stability shoes....you know why? I'VE WATCHED FOOTAGE OF MY FEET LANDING WITH BOTH STABILITY AND NEUTRAL SHOES WHILE RUNNING AND I PRONATE MUCH LESS WITH STABILITY SHOES THAN I DO WHEN WEARING NEUTRAL SHOES. that's all the "evidence" or "research" I need.

I'm curious how you know what *my* local shoe store tells me. I find I get pretty sound advice from a guy who used to race.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, a strong shoe makes a weak foot. Stability shoes, while preventing injury during running, may end up making a mild foot problem worse.

I did read that a lot of research behind "shoe technology" is kept secret by the shoe companies, for market competitive reasons, therefore making that research difficult to verify or comment on.

I've also read that injury rates have not improved since the specialization of running shoes. This could be for other reasons besides the shoes, (i.e. people wearing the wrong shoes for them).

I'm intrigued by training in racing flats, and bare-feet, but to date, I've gradually migrated to select lightweight trainers.

cross bluntry wrote:

wow, this is unbelievably idiotic. I don't need "research" to tell me I should wear stability shoes....you know why? I'VE WATCHED FOOTAGE OF MY FEET LANDING WITH BOTH STABILITY AND NEUTRAL SHOES WHILE RUNNING AND I PRONATE MUCH LESS WITH STABILITY SHOES THAN I DO WHEN WEARING NEUTRAL SHOES. that's all the "evidence" or "research" I need.

Who decided that pronation was bad?

an honest view wrote:

I have an anecdotal story that could counter yours, but does your situation, or mine, or your kids, matter? No. Peer-reviewed research trumps anecdotal evidence, and there is no research evidence to back up what shoe stores and shoe companies spout. Each person has to figure it out for themself, whether that agrees with the shoe guy or not.

Actually most people have it reversed...

Results trump research. If a study shows me that the best way to pee is to actually turn around and NOT face the toilet I will still face the toilet because 30 years of experience has taught me the best way to pee.

Runner A gets hurt a lot because he is naturally not meant to run (ie: overpronates across 3 lanes of traffic).

Runner A buys shoes to correct these problems.

Runner A no longer gets hurt just by stepping outside.

Typically there will be a result or success on the field, that result or success is then reported, that result or success is then tested a few (or hundreds) of times, that result or success is finally (some eons later) put into textbooks.

Alan

cross bluntry wrote:

wow, this is unbelievably idiotic. I don't need "research" to tell me I should wear stability shoes....you know why? I'VE WATCHED FOOTAGE OF MY FEET LANDING WITH BOTH STABILITY AND NEUTRAL SHOES WHILE RUNNING AND I PRONATE MUCH LESS WITH STABILITY SHOES THAN I DO WHEN WEARING NEUTRAL SHOES. that's all the "evidence" or "research" I need.

I bet you land on your heel in both shoes, but you aren't supposed to land on your heel. SO YOUR STABILITY SHOES ARE CORRECTING A PROBLEM THEY CREATE.

I land on my heels while running barefoot.

Here we go! More fads in running shoes. I work in a running store, and have seen a major increase in lateral load knee injuries in minimalist shoe wearers. I also coached one who can barely run anymore. Protect your feet and joints, dummies!

The original research paper that was presented in the original post is not saying that you shouldn't choose shoes based on the problems you have.

In fact, it's saying that that is EXACTLY what you should do.

The research paper is saying this:

Runner A gets hurt a lot because he is naturally not meant to run (ie. overpronates across 3 lanes of traffic).

Runner A goes to shoe store, gets tested by 'experts', and is given a shoe to correct these problems.

Runner A could no longer get hurt, or could get hurt even more, or could get hurt the same amount.

The article is saying that the people in SHOE STORES are not always the most well informed people to make the decisions. Yes, they may have an idea of what overpronation or supination or heel striking or ankle weakness and all that is, but they may not know exactly what is wrong.

Imagine if one leg is shorter than the other by a relatively significant amount (not noticable just by watching someone run. That would DRASTICALLY affect the stride/foot landing/everything. Maybe they give you a shoe to prevent pronation, but the pronation is naturally happening because the legs are imbalanced.

The article is saying go by feel, not by what gurus say. If you have a shoe that is working, wear it. If you get INJURED a decent amount, then get new shoes. If they don't work, try again. And I emphasize the word injured because if you are getting hurt and not running, it means you are a wimp and new shoes won't help you. Being hurt is something that won't, 99 out of 100 times, lead to an injury (shin splints, sprained ankle, blister, cramp) and no matter what shoe you wear, you're going to get them.

HighSchooler wrote:

The article is saying go by feel, not by what gurus say. If you have a shoe that is working, wear it. If you get INJURED a decent amount, then get new shoes. If they don't work, try again. And I emphasize the word injured because if you are getting hurt and not running, it means you are a wimp and new shoes won't help you. Being hurt is something that won't, 99 out of 100 times, lead to an injury (shin splints, sprained ankle, blister, cramp) and no matter what shoe you wear, you're going to get them.

So... shoot blindly until I find something that works (and will probably be discontinues within the year)? That makes a lot of sense...

Wanna Know Bro wrote:

cross bluntry wrote:

wow, this is unbelievably idiotic. I don't need "research" to tell me I should wear stability shoes....you know why? I'VE WATCHED FOOTAGE OF MY FEET LANDING WITH BOTH STABILITY AND NEUTRAL SHOES WHILE RUNNING AND I PRONATE MUCH LESS WITH STABILITY SHOES THAN I DO WHEN WEARING NEUTRAL SHOES. that's all the "evidence" or "research" I need.

I bet you land on your heel in both shoes, but you aren't supposed to land on your heel. SO YOUR STABILITY SHOES ARE CORRECTING A PROBLEM THEY CREATE.

like the other guy said, I land on my heel regardless. and I'll take heel-striking (which I can't avoid anyway) over excessive pronation any day.

moloradocudstuffin wrote:

So... shoot blindly until I find something that works (and will probably be discontinues within the year)? That makes a lot of sense...

This is basically what I did w/ minimalism.

There is truth here, to a degree. But so many variables are included that it makes it difficult to say with absolute certainty, one way or the other.

Having worked in running stores for more than a decade, and having loitered, picked brains, listened to stories and tall tales in them for much, much longer, I feel very comfortable saying that the following things are true:

Most employees of running specialty stores mean well, but do not have the knowledge base necessary to be considered authorities about running shoes, injuries, etc. This is in no way a slam on them. This is the case, almost universally, in every running store I've ever visited. It is to be expected. It is this way in just about every area of our lives. Some people know more about certain things than others do.

We have a treadmill, with video, in the store. But we tell people that it won't give a completely accurate idea about how they move, unless all of their running is on a treadmill. And, we tell them that the video is to show them what we see. We can determine what they need without it. And most people think any sort of inward roll to the foot is a biomechanical failure and should be addressed.

Pronation ain't all bad. If tissues can be strengthened, as we know they can, then why cast them up with rigid shoes or orthotics? Unless there is an acute congenital issue or the like, then we usually suggest a range of stretches and exercises that will pretty much take care of whatever issues you have with the "ills" of pronation.

Running shoe companies make shoes to sell, first and foremost. The marketing teams carry much more weight than the engineers. I've had more conversations than I can count with long time engineers at some of the big ones who have said that the marketing dept. gets final say over what goes into, or doesn't, shoes that make the wall.

(At Nike, I listened to a gentleman who said, and had a line drawing to show, the best shoe that the body can run in would be little more than a Keds. Immediately afterward, a marketing dept. fellow talked about all the bling, tech, bells and whistles, etc., essentially ignoring everything the first man had said.)

The talk now with running companies is how to market the new wave of shoes--tending toward minimalism--alongside the first generations of running shoes. It will be interesting to see.

I look at it like this: All those over the counter (and prescription) cold and allergy medicines that are supposed to rid you of runny nose, watery, red eyes, etc., MIGHT do the job, or might not. And quite often the side effects are exactly what they say they will rid you of. Go figure.

In the end, our job at running specialty is to sell products that will help people get themselves out the door to find health and happiness. All the other stuff is lagniappe. If someone says with complete certainty that they need to run in a Kayano or their legs will fall off, then probably they should run in a Kayano.

Digression aside, most running specialty employees are not even aware that all this has been going on for years. And how, really, can we expect them to? Their idea of what is truth is told to them, as truth, by people who are trained by the sales and marketing depts., not the engineering depts.