Generally I'm against the whole orthotic/controlling motion stuff. But my form isn't good, and I think it's coming from my hips/feet. So I was wondering if maybe orthotics would change that? Any experiences on this?
Generally I'm against the whole orthotic/controlling motion stuff. But my form isn't good, and I think it's coming from my hips/feet. So I was wondering if maybe orthotics would change that? Any experiences on this?
Dontlikemyform wrote:
Generally I'm against the whole orthotic/controlling motion stuff. But my form isn't good, and I think it's coming from my hips/feet. So I was wondering if maybe orthotics would change that? Any experiences on this?
I did a research project on this topic as an undergrad a few years ago. In terms of running, the use of orthotics is a debatable subject. Yes, they do "work," in that many people with certain chronic biomechanical issues find relief, are able to train at much higher loads without injury than previously. For example, people with chronic shin splints, achilles problems tend to find relief from custom orthotics. Success with other issues can be hit or miss depending on how good the clinician who makes them is at what they do (which can depend on where you live, regulations for practicing etc.).
The reason for this is that some of the science that forms the basis for how orthotics are designed isn't entirely correct (do a quick google on Root, he did a lot of the initial research that is still used today). However, although the theories that the design principles are based upon are not entirely correct, the result is still good most of the time, especially if you have a problem that results in excessive pronation, as is often the case with people with shin/achilles problems. If this is not your problem, you may be SOL unless the person making the orthotics is experienced (ie. enough trial and error to have figured out what works for certain problems). More current research suggests that the real mechanism of orthotics' functionality is through changes in proprioception as opposed to improved structural posture, which adds to the confusion (since we don't totally understand how to control this).
Now, my opinion on the matter is that orthotics can in some cases be used like training wheels by guiding you to learn how to run "properly" without the risk of hurting yourself in the process. I for example, was heavily dependent on orthotics for the first few years of serious running I did. If I forgot my orthotics for a workout or run, I could tell - I could feel myself running differently and I would start to get noticeable shin/foot pain towards the end of the session and afterwards. I could not handle any proper amount of mileage without getting super injured unless I wore orthotics.
I now do not wear orthotics ever and am not especially injury-prone. Nothing has really changed except that I've run a heck of a lot of miles in those years. I think what happened was that when I started running seriously, many of my stabilizer soft tissues that are essentially only used heavily when running were either not holding things together correctly or unable to do so properly for the period of time/intensity my running brought about, resulting in chronic injury.
The orthotics I assume, cued/physically assisted some subtly improved/less injurious motion pattern. As this motion pattern became the default neuromuscular pattern and the various soft tissues required to perform it became stronger/timed better in the new pattern through continuous, consistent mileage, I found that I no longer needed my orthotics as much and slowly phased them out with good results. I had tried this a few years earlier and it went disastrously, so I'm guessing at that point I had not "re-wired" or strengthened myself adequately to be able to handle running "properly" without the external cue/support.
Though I know a few people (all sub-elite types with generally good form) who've had a similar experience, I also know people at the same level who are not capable of running without orthotics at all. I do not think this is because they have "not developed proper strength because of over-reliance on motion control" or whatever minimalist dogma might say, but rather because they are for some reason not capable of achieving this improved motion pattern without the orthotics. This may be because they have some critical structural/functional deformity (bunions, wild Q angle, joint laxity) that prevents them from running unassisted regardless of strengthening or better neuromuscular patterns.
So to answer your question, uh, maybe. Make sure you go see a proper clinician who has experience with athletes and is ethical*. Any "mail away" service is garbage, as is anybody who gets your foot impression by having you stand on an ink pad. Best of luck.
*an ethical clinician will tell you if you don't need orthotics at all or if OTC solutions might be an adequate solution (different shoe suggestions, Superfeet insoles etc).
Thank you very much, biomech!
If you were a 'BIOMECH RESEARCHER' you'd know that the correct word for those pieces of crap you put in running shoes is orthoses, not orthotics. Orthotics is the name of the 'science'.
If you were a 'BIOMECH RESEARCHER' you'd know that the correct word for those pieces of crap you put in running shoes is orthoses, not orthotics. Orthotics is the name of the 'science'.
Actually cant be true, the correct term is pedorthoses or in this case, sports pedorthoses.
Orthoses refer non-specifically to a device that could be used on another body part (eg. corrective back orthoses for scoliosis). Pedorthoses are for the feet, and can also be used for patients with diabetic neuropathy or other structural deformities unrelated to sports applications. Sports pedorthoses are pretty niche, which is why using the word orthoses is about as incorrect as using the word orthotics to describe them.
But, I mean... if you want to split hairs.
I used the term orthotics because this is the term that is most commonly used in casual speech, which is what this forum is.
Orthotics are useless. Instead, strengthen feet and lower legs. They are worse than a placebo; they distort the kinetic chain. I used them for years, belIevIng the cant of podiatry.I think they weaken the feet and lower legs, causing hips and f lexors to bear too much burden. The only time peOple need arch support is to work through PF.
Orthotics have made it possible for me to get in shape to run. I was prone to shin splints and problems with bunions. I couldn't get in shaoe because i was always injured. I run at a DI school now.
Only get custom made orthotics. Premade orthotics are useless and a waste of money.
Some insurance covers orthotics, so definitely check. But even if not, think about how much a pair of running shoes cost. Then think about how many pairs you go through a year. Orthotics can last well over a year even with decent mileage (my experience has been at 70-80 mpw). It's cheaper than each pair of shoes you buy.
I have tried different brands/kinds of off-the-shelf orthodics. None have done any harm, but the best are the least expensive--Dr. Scholl's Sport insoles. They are about $10 a pair, seem to do a good job, and were recommended by my orthodpedist. They are pretty simple: some arch support, and some gel (front and rear, similar to what Asics does with most of their shoes).
With regard to my stride, I will have to get back to you. I have settled on a shoe/insole combination, and will continue to see what happens. So far, my Altra Torin/Dr. Scholl's combo seems to be providing a nice, smooth, natural stride. Both the shoes and the insoles feel very good.