Should I trust the running store employees?

THE ONLINE stores like roadrunnersports seem to make the assumption that if you have a NORMAL arch you NEED a stability shoe...

Have you seen how exaggerated the wetprint picture for NEUTRAL shoes is on these running websites? It makes me think that no human could possibly have a wetprint that resembles what they say is NEUTRAL lol.

I have a BS in Exercise Science and am finishing my masters in Sports Conditioning/Performance and a DPT. I work at a running store because I enjoy it.

I work at the store Employee does (just a different city, I think, as there are like no others I've heard of that use the term "excessive medial motion"). I work there because I like to put people in shoes that are functionally correct and comfortable, so they can run without problems and I don't have to see them in the clinic because some idiot sold them beasts or they picked a cool nike looking shoe off the shelf at target. Now, if a customer comes back with problems from a particular shoe that the customer and I thought would work, then we work together to figure out what else could be the possible problem. It happens. We are not perfect.

A video of gait on treadmill in stores is practical, but not particularly indicative of true gait, unless you are being filmed out on the road or track, and can see the affects of time, fatigue and can have somebody filming from different angles. This of course would be ideal, but not exactly what you can get from a strip mall running store. Since generally stores will either focus treadmill videos on the foot/ankle or on a further away view of the whole body (all from the rear view) this can give deceptive results. Treadmills themselves have been shown to cause substantial kinematic differences versus running on roads, leading to conclusions (at least in one study) "that individual assessment of running kinematics on a treadmill for shoe or shoe orthotic assessment may possibly lead to inadequate conclusions about overground running". (Nigg, BM. 1995. A kinematic comparison of overground and treadmill running. MSSE).

Granted that study was 15 years ago, and there are probably numerous others that support/negate that kind of conclusion but from my experience there is not a substitute for a truly trained professional's eye watching a person run/walk naturally, looking for discrepancies/weaknesses/tightness along the whole body, and then fitting a shoe that would help with that to that person's foot type, arch type, width, personal comfort, etc. To do that second part requires knowledge of the differences between running shoes and which running shoes at this particular time are actually doing what they should. That second part is something that only good running store employees should know. You will not get that kind of information from the internet or from doctors, who generally know a couple of brand names and very few models and will tell you you should get those, because they either worked for them, or they heard they were "good", and especially not from the shoe companies themselves, who would want to make you believe that shox are the best or sketchers can make you run fast.

This guy (the source of this thread) is cracking me up. He doesn't know if he should trust running store employees but he wants to post a video of himself running on Letsrun for people to analyze??

bingo! wrote:

Post the link here.

A couple of pointers for the video- Try and film it on level with the treadmill you're running on, so you're looking straight at your heel (not above or below). Also, if you can edit at all, do a 15 second clip running at an average pace, and then paste on the end the same clip slowed down to 1/2 speed. Lastly, make sure you wear a neutral shoe when you make the video.

What about zoom? Should I just have the feet/ankles in the picture so it's easy to see where the toe off point is, or should I get the whole legs in there?

Also, I'm going to have to find some neutral shoes.

What's the easiest place to upload videos? youtube?

I hope others are finding this as helpful as I am. I thought threads like this no longer existed on LR.

To "Employee" and "Hoss":

Seems like video gait analysis still exists as the best way to fit someone for shoes. Although it is not without flaws, it is A LOT better than any other alternative. Unless you are wearing some sort of binocular-type device, it is impossible to effectively analyze a gait by watching someone run on a sidewalk/street outside the store. By the time they are out of their acceleration phase (which can be drastically unrepresentative of their true gait)they are too far away to get a good look at them.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but most running shoes are developed on the treadmill, so using one to analyze footstrikes is not so mis-leading as you make it out to be. AND, I'd even argue that a large percentage of the population does the bulk of their running on a treadmill on a daily basis.

Finally, as someone who works in a shoe store, I can honestly say that footstrike analysis is a pretty simple process. Some stores like to fancy things up with scientific jargon and disguise their fit process as a medical study. As someone mentioned earlier, video gait analysis takes the BS out of the equation, as it allows you to watch yourself run while the shoe salesman talks you through what they're looking for. Why make things more confusing than they have to be?

I was in a running store a few months ago, and the clerk told me to stand on one leg, then bend down at the knee. Based on this, she said I had strong ankles and didn't pronate much. Is this legitimate?

I've worked in a running store for two summers. Before I worked at the store I am speaking of, I had been to three other places to be fit for shoes. This is what I have noticed.

- People who know what they are doing will take 5 minutes to talk to you about your running/any injuries etc.

- The shape of your foot is just as important as how much you overpronate. How high your arch is and how wide your feet are will determine a lot. Some shoes run pretty narrow (Zoom Elite) some run wide (Nimbus). Some have an intrusive arch (Wave Rider) some are designed for people with flat feet (Dyad). Some shoes are good for heavy people, some shoes are designed for lighter people (almost all mizunos).

- A treadmill/camera setup helps, but you get the best idea from actually watching the people run. If someone just takes 15 seconds of tape and plays it back on the camera, be leery. They should stare at your feet for awhile and then use the camera to explain things to you.

hope this helps

hoss wrote:

That second part is something that only good running store employees should know. You will not get that kind of information from the internet or from doctors, who generally know a couple of brand names and very few models and will tell you you should get those, because they either worked for them, or they heard they were "good", and especially not from the shoe companies themselves, who would want to make you believe that shox are the best or sketchers can make you run fast.

Also how not all shoes within a stability given category are created equal, and which models are true neutrals and which ones try to slip a mild support function into the mix.

I'm the rare freak who is not only a true supinator but has hyperflexible ankles from 15 years of competitive swimming. As long as my feet can move naturally, the rest of my body is happy. The problems I've had happen when the alleged neutral shoe actually has some sort of stability thing going on, and then both hips and knees are hurting within the first 100 miles, leaving me with a $100 pain of shoes only suitable for yardwork .

I wish I could get away with training in flate, but I'm just too big for that.

Shoe fitting can be a very easy process, I agree. Sometimes it takes a few minutes and can be very simple. Sometimes there is an underlying issue with a client that requires time to find something that would work to fit their needs.

I disagree with the idea that video makes a more gait analysis, outside the realm that I previously described ( multiple angles, full-body, time/fatigue views, ie 3D kinematics), especially when that video is placed primarily on the ankle/foot from the posterior aspect. Though, I agree it would be helpful to have video to help clients gain a better understanding of what we see. The better educated they are, the greater the possibility that they can stay healthy. I also does not require binoculars to provide an adequate gait analysis, it just requires a trained eye and a knowledge of proper mechanics.

As to whether or not most running shoes are developed on treadmills, I am not totally informed. But, if companies, like mizuno, do not use human subjects in testing and produce a shoe, should we then sell it under the assumption that it would actually work for a human? Should we also fit shoes under the assumption that people are completely stuck on treadmills and therefore design shoes, and test gait on treadmills alone?

unfortunately for you, they're not:

supination is the active "rolling" of the foot to the lateral side.

"under-pronation" would conceptualized as the foot passively not rolling medially, or pronating.

not the same.

Many employees are novice runners and trained to say whatever the shoe rep tells them to say.

Just because someone is a good runner, does not mean they are very knowledgable about the build of a shoe or midsoles etc.

And many of them are fairly decent runners who have studied biomechanics, listen to their customers and realize that it isn't an exact science and they are trying to help their customers as much as they can.

I'd trust the ones who ask you about your running habits and history more than the one who don't ask, but throw aroung lots of shoe technology terms.

Wow there's a lot of good information here. I like that.

Fitting someone in an appropriate running shoe is as much an art as a science. I go shoe shopping a lot with novice runners. One of the things that I tell them is that if a shoe feels as if it flows with your body as opposed to feeling as if you are carrying the shoe with you it will usually be a better choice even if it's design does not necessarily match observed motion or foot strike. So yes fit and feel are extremely important.

The other thing that I like to do is listen to the sound of the footstrike. A quieter strike is often an indication of a shoe flowing better with an individual as they move.

Those are just a couple of other considerations for you shoe guys out there. Keep up the good work.

And to the original poster sure trust the shoe store employees but also trust yourself.

Rick

Last time i checked running in modern day running shoes never helped anyone get any faster. Nor did it decrease their incidence of injuries. The science is not behind running shoe companies. I would love to see a study published by any running company that showed their shoes decreased or prevent injuries. Running shoes dont have to be complicated just get the lightest and simplest shoe you can find. Go minimalist, nuff said

VIDEOS HERE

Neutral-cushion shoes: BROOKS LAUNCH

http://www.runningwarehouse.com/descpageMRS-BMLNCH.html

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNPtK2Mjwt4

Stability-shoes: NIKE STRUCTURE (what I'm running in now, these have 350+ miles on them)

http://www.runningwarehouse.com/descpageMRS-NST12R.html

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07sIzaxNSEc

I started at 7mph and went to 8.5 mph in about 20 seconds. Then at 1/4 speed.

Shoe recommendations? I'm open to all opinions here.

launch:

left foot has midfoot overpronation and a touch of forefoot overpronation or late stage overpronation, whatever term you prefer.

right foot has midfoot overpronation.

st triax:

the lighting on the shoe was kind of bad? not sure if anyone else was feeling the same way but it is harder to see what is happening with this shoe. anyway the right foot looked good other than the side wall having a bit of inward collapse. left foot still had a touch of midfoot overpronation.

you have to take this with a grain of salt. remember this is 30 seconds not 60 minutes of running. lots of things can change. the ultimate test is just putting time/miles into a shoe to see if it works for you.

other shoes? if you haven't had problems in the structure stick with it unless you really want to change. you could try several other stability shoes in different brands. if you are wanting to go minimalist maybe start in an elixir, ds trainer, tempo, etc and work your way down. lets see what everyone else has to say.

.

eojtlc wrote:

First of all, there is no such thing as "under-pronation". There is Pronation, (which is more commonly referred to as neutral) over-pronation, and supination, which is exceedingly rare. A lot of people think they supinate, but they don't, and even people who are neutral pronate to a neutral position. Shoe wear is very deceptive, I wouldn't focus on it too much.

.

talk about having no clue. Actually under pronation is the correct term. supination is nearly impossible

actually pronation, according to dictionary.com is:

1. rotation of the hand or forearm so that the surface of the palm is facing downward or toward the back (opposed to supination ).

2. a comparable motion of the foot consisting of abduction followed by eversion.

Note the parenthesis, pronation and supination are opposites. There is no such thing as under pronation, unless of course you call subtraction under addition, ace.

I'd agree with sjc. I'd like to emphasize his point about how the video will only give us a mild idea. An hour-plus into a run, the foot will tire, and you'll likely start to pronate more. Stick with stability. If you've had success with the Structure, great. If you want something different, I'd suggest trying Asics 2150, Brooks Adrenaline, Mizuno Inspire, New Balance 1225, or the Saucony Hurricane (from my store wall). If you want something more minimal/lightweight, add onto sjc's list the New Balance 905, or Saucony Tangent.