arch injury, tiger paws

yes, get out of the flats and into something more substantial

that sounds like plantar fascitis to me

i wore tiger flats in training and got it bad

T-Paws could be to tall/too soft. What has worked well for you in the past?

Slip your shoes off and run barefoot.

Do all of the requisite stretching/icing/excercises to get rid of the plantar, then work on strengthening the feet. Walk around barefoot. Even work in some barefoot running eventually (on grass of course). If possible though, stick with as little shoe as possible. Man, I wish I had another pair of Tiger Paws right now.

Trackhead,

I read in another post from you on another thread where you stated something like if a person is barefoot there will be no signs of overpronation. I'm not sure if this is exactly what you said, but just wondering, when you go to a specialty running store and they have you take off your shoes and walk, aren't they looking for overpronation? Don't they determine what type of shoe you need by watching you walk and looking at your arches? I'm not disagreeing with you or saying your wrong or whatever, I just want to hear your take on this.

Asics 1100 shoes helped this problem for me.

Also you could try Mizuno Wave revolver, a flat with a bit more support.

Very good question.

In my experience, most stores associate low arches, flat feet, and/or high level pronation with having bad feet and needing lots of correction. This is how it goes:

-Because most humans pronate to a noticable degree, they will say that they need to stability/support/control in their shoes or they're going to have problems, and possibly a Superfeet too, for an extra $29.95.

-And then the people that have rigid arches/minimal subtalar joint movement are told that their foot has very little pronation and consequently very little "natural shock absorbsion" and therefore needs lots of cushioning because their foot is so stiff.

Often they'll just have you take off your shoes, squat in plact and see what the subtalar joint does. Then they'll bring out either neutral, stability or motion control shoes and have you try them on you tell them which feels best. You'll probably run in them, but will be lucky if they actaully watch you run. The funny thing that 90% of RSA employees (most of them are probably HS or college students. You get some who are adults who know a thing or two, btu often what they know is so intertwined with believing that the technology is everything thatyou'll just get the "this shoe is what you need" speech) will see you do your squate and will be looking at your feet, but not realize that your pronation, whatever it is, is allowing your knees and toes to line up just right -- that's what it's there for.

They think that your foot is incapable of running on it's own without problems -- whether your a higher level pronator (and need lots of control and support) or a low-end pronator (and needs lots of cushioning).

My approach is that your feet are generally fine on their own and it takes a shoe to screw them up. My job is to get you a shoe that doesn't cause any problems and allows your foot to ride the same in the shoe as it would if it were barefoot.

Last night I had a kid from Mt. SAC that I was working with -- fast kid (21.x for 200m) who was picking up someo spikes but was having terrible shin splits when he was doing his general running. I tried him in some shoes, and the 900 and Nike Free felt best because they weren't interfering with his foot -- his old shoes were clunkers. Most stores would hear "shin splints" and either automatically start with the Adrenaline/Addiction, and/or bring out the orthotic. Guys, there's probably nothing wrong with his feet, and everything wrong with his shoes.

So that's your explanation in a nutshell.

Thanks for the reply!

I work in a running store and it seems like if I were to bring out the Nike Free (if we carried them) to someone who was really overweight, and who overpronated it would be hard to sell the shoe to them. Unless I told them the shoe was completely filled in on the medial side and was going to offer a lot of stability, they would be very hesitant to go for it. I mean this is pretty much totally opposite of what these people have always been told.

Also, I am pretty sure I understand your philosophy on shoes and pretty much agree with it, but I mean why do shoe companies make all these "clunkers" for overpronators (could just be a money thing). I mean why don't they just make all minimalist shoes or flats that are very low to the ground?

Sorry to get off topic on this thread, but I just like to hear what trackhead has to say.

Excellent trackhead, I have never met a shoe salesman who knows his stuff like you do.

I know what you're saying.

There is this one guy who runs for my friend's running club -- he's probably close to 50 years of age, about 6'1" and about 220 lbs -- guess what are his two favourite shoes?

The Free and the 900. He came into the store wearing the Kayanos, say the Free on display, asked me about, I explained that instead of compensating or trying to correct overpronation, it is trying to prevent it from happening in the first place; remove the possbility of the shoe casuing overpronation. He slipped them on, loved them. He even bought the neon green colour. Then he wanted a second shoe to switch off on, and tried the 900. Loved it. I told them that they were cancelling the shoe soon, so he bought a second pair.

You really have to beleive in this stuff if you're going to sell it. I can't count the number of people who've come in with orthotics and habitual problems and I've gotten them to ditch the orthotics, go to something more minimal and they come back and say how they love it.

1) They sell their product on the platform that lots of shoe is necessary for protection because your feet/legs are uncapable of running on their own. Some shoe designers beleive this, others know that for most entry level runners it applies, and that it's a harder sell to go the other route.

2) It's like the RATM song, "Fear is Your Only God" -- fear of injury, breaking down, etc. is what gets people into expensive shoes and gets them into new ones 400 miles later. It's a selling point.

3) Back when shoes were generally more minimal (pre1980s) runners were very different: if you were a marathoner, you were liekly a serious athlete with a history of sport behind you. Playing around as a kid (probably in not a whole lot of shoe anyway) teaches efficiency, endows strength and makes a more capable runner. So they slipped on their Ultimate 81s or Mexico 66s and went running. That was it. Today, however, the majority of marathoners have no athletic background. They were/are couch potatoes who lack that learned strength and efficiency, and are trying to go from 0 to 26.2 miles in 24 weeks -- that's a big jump.

My approach is to minimize what's on your foot -- shoes, I think, are inherently bad because they interfere with how your foot rides, so I want to minimize the amount of shoe I have to put on your foot. For some, that's an Adrenaline, because of how bloody weak they are. For others, it's a Free or 900 or road flat. I bring out the shoes, watch them run, pull the ones that look bad and let them decide.

Do you carry the "motion control" shoes?

Another thing too, in my experiences, people like to feel that arch support. They feel much more comfortable if they're feeling that arch support because they think it's what they need. I think many think this because it's what they've been told by PT's and podiatrists and other docs (people who are supposed to be at the top level of their profession and I guess in general are supposed to know what they are talking about). I get many people in the shop who have been sent to us by the people mentioned above and they'll have a little piece of paper saying they need motion control shoes or shoes that offer a lot of stability.

I guess like you said, you have to really believe in this stuff to be able to sell it. It's really hard to tell someone-who has just come from a doc and has been told they need a shoe that is really built up-that "No what you really need is....

Of course we have the MC shoes because that's what does it for some people. I can't try to change the minds and thinking of everyone, or for many, they're happy, they've found their balance so if they just want a new Addiction, fine.

With the docs, there's a balance to be struck. If someone's coming in from someone on their own (no recommendation) and they have their problems, and I doin't know their doc, I have no problem telling them that this is the opposite direction I would go. If it's a doc that I know that is refering the person to me, and I feel that the shoe is wrong, I'll give them as much of my speech as possible, and just ask them to take it up with the doc. Because it's not as if I don't have info behind what I'm saying.

In terms of the feel, I tell them that instead of looking for something being done to your foot in terms of support, look for nothing being done to your foot in terms of interference. You want to put your shoe on and feel nothing -- the best shoe is the one that doesn't feel like a shoe; it becomes an extension of your foot (as best as possible) and is causing the least amount of problems.

I had a chiro that came in and was really pleased with my service and said that hse would start sending her patients in -- Great, I said. And then she was suprised when it came up in conversation that my tattered H Streets were my full-time road trainers. Huh... she said. She asked me a little about them and explained the whole adaptation, and engaging the ankle and she left with a little more perspective.

Thanks for the replies trachhead!

no prob

So when can we expect to see Nipponese market shoes of the minimalist variety in the States?