Gait analysis, as waste of time?

41 to 60 of 186 messages
24/12/2013 at 21:03

But you crooks call it gait analysis. It's nothing of the sort. If I pay for a service for my car I don't expect you to check the tyres. It's just looking at how your foot falls. Come on Watchdog it's time to send to Matt Alright to expose people like Ben. 

24/12/2013 at 21:11

Have a heart Grinch, I was only a foot soldier for the evil empire. 

No it is not only looking at how your foot falls.  The foot rolling inwards displaces the shin bone sideways, which in turn effects the knee, and even the lower back. A proper gait analysis looks at displacement of the shin bone, and the angle between the shin and knee. 

24/12/2013 at 21:12

For what its worth I think Ben is trying to give a view that is well supported, call it foot fall analysis or gait analysis....I think we all know what we are talking about.

I have had "gait analysis" at 4 different places, the quality at each shop was variable. Recently due to ITB issues I have seen a physio, also qualified in Musculoskeletal. he was very wary of the advice given at shops....my own view is it of course comes down to the individual giving the advice.

 

24/12/2013 at 22:46

Alright Ben. Maybe you are not quite so bad. If I was running a running shop I would seriously consider "gait analysis" because it sells shoes. But the knowledgeable can see through it and the new runners are totally sold by it. Shop assistants are not podiatrists and should try to pretend to be. A bit of hocus pocus goes down well to the most gullible of newbies. It works, that's why they use it.

24/12/2013 at 23:06

I think that you have reached a fairly absolute conclusion far too quickly Grinch. 

This thread started with one question, and it has branched into several. 

Q. Does gait analysis work?

A. The published evidence presents a mixed picture. 

Q. Is pronation a major cause of running injuries. 

A. Yes, that is pretty much boxed off now. 

Q. If we assume that gait analysis doesn’t work, are the running shops cynically conning people, or are they genuinely misguided. 

A. If that were the case, I could tell you with great confidence that they were genuinely misguided. 

Sully made a good point when he said that a lot depended on the ability of the sales assistant.  When you start out in gait analysis you get a lot of 30 day returns, but you learn from your mistakes and they become rare.  The better shop assistants would have no trouble holding an argument with a podiatrist. 

If it was merely a sales tactic, then why spend hundreds of pounds training each member of staff.  If you work as a doorstep seller or charity mugger, they get you doing role play in the office, but never pay for you to travel anywhere or study at any university. 

I cannot say that Sweatshop were particularly fair to me as a member of staff, or that I came away with a high opinion of their organisation and management, but you are making a mistake if you dismiss them as simply using a crude sales trick. 

24/12/2013 at 23:33

Lets not get into deep philosophical arguments Flob. 

I think that the burden of proof is on the person claiming they have the answer, while the person saying that they can do no more than constrain it gets a bit more leeway. 

When I was writing up my Masters thesis, the one thing that my supervisor always beat me up for was cherry picking sources to suit my argument.   He would say “ you have to cite this even if you don’t agree with it”. 

 

25/12/2013 at 03:47

I would blame most running related injuries on stability or motion control shoes.  Over built shoes with their gimmicky devices do not work. Ignore the marketing and the shoe company lingo  the sales assistants try and trick you into buying the most expensive shoes that will correct slight over pronation or supination. Wake Up people minimalist shoes will help you run better times and run injury free.

Stability and motion control shoes with their stiff soles and arch supports act as a band aid solution that does not fix the weakness in your feet. Over time relying upon stability and motion control shoes will lead to your feet becoming weaker and dependent upon stability and motion control shoes. It would be a better idea to switch to neutral trainers and gradually look at minimalist/light trainers for your walking and running. Natural foot motion should not be corrected, it should be encouraged: neutral trainers, light trainers and minimalist trainers help promote a foot motion similar to walking/running barefoot.

I am living proof that stability and motion control shoes do not work. The stability and motion control features over corrected slight pronation and more stress and impact forces were transferred to my knees. Simply removing the stability shoes and donating them to charity and only buying minimalist/light weight and neutral shoes has changed my life and improved my running performances. I ignore the advice of the running shoe sales assistant who try and bombard me with running shoe company marketing lingo.  I have over a dozen pair of running shoes and none of them are stability shoes and they are mainly light weight/minimalist shoes, a few pairs of neutral trainers.

I will never ever buy stability/motion control shoes ever again they were the bane of injuries I endured in the past. I do not believe in gait analysis, static foot test or wet foot test. Pronation(roll in) and supination(roll out) are natural foot motions and they do not need to be corrected or prevented. There is no scientific or medical evidence to prove that pronation or supination leads to injuries. 

 

Edited: 25/12/2013 at 03:52
25/12/2013 at 09:24
+1 for Warrior
25/12/2013 at 13:25

What Warrior writes about mc shoes being wrong and minimalist being right and the way to go is absolutely correct .... for Warrior.

But some of us need the added stability from the shoe or from an insert. I certainly do. Without it I can feel my foot going all over the place. When I started running I was soon plagued by knee injuries, which cleared up after a visit to Sweatshop.

I'm old and ugly enough now to make my own choices but back then I needed some advice and I think I was well advised. Physios have pointed me towards stability as well.

Horses for courses.

25/12/2013 at 16:42

  

Ben Davies 15 wrote (see)

 

Q. Is pronation a major cause of running injuries. 

A. Yes, that is pretty much boxed off now. 

 

 It is?

http://www.runnersworld.com/running-shoes/does-pronation-matter

Also, if you are going to cite Nigg as an example of someone who says pronantion is a major cause of running injuries, then you might want to look at more recent work by the same author who say there is no link.

http://www.footscienceinternational.com/images/stories/Research_Papers/niggnewparadigm.pdf

Oh and if you read the Nigg paper that you quote as evidence for the pronation injury ( rather than cut n pasting from the wikipedia page on pronation) you'll notice it says -

"The belief that runners who overpronate have an initially higher risk for sustaining a running-related injury is still widely held by runners and coaches, although there has been no reliable study supporting this."

Edited: 25/12/2013 at 17:16
26/12/2013 at 00:31
RoadWarrior wrote (see)
I am living proof that stability and motion control shoes do not work.

 

But, by your measure, I am living proof that stability shoes do work. So.. that's a stalemate!.

I'm open minded on all this, but your arguments look terribly biased, based on the fact that you, personally, have had a bad experience with stability shoes.  

So evangelical that, for me, your post detracts from your argument.

26/12/2013 at 02:34

http://nomahealth.com/evidence-against-prescribing-running-shoes-based-on-the-motion-control-paradigm/

So what can we conclude from these findings? Motion-control shoes offered little benefit to the runners in the study, and in fact were more likely to cause pain and injury than any of the other shoe types. The fact that every single severe overpronator experienced an injury in her motion control shoes demands further investigation. In the absence of other evidence, why should anybody wear them for preventing a running injury? The authors themselves conclude, “This study is unable to provide sup-port for the convention that highly pronated runners should wear motion control shoes.”

Second, this study showed that neutral runners did better in stability shoes, and pronated runners did better in neutral shoes. Try to make sense of that finding! This is a complete reversal of what would be expect-ed based on the current pronation-control model. This rather startling result calls into question the manufacturer practice of classifying shoes based on degree of pronation control, and it also raises serious questions about the fitting process employed by many shoe stores—should they re-ally be placing runners in shoes based on their degree of pronation?

26/12/2013 at 02:34

http://nomahealth.com/evidence-against-prescribing-running-shoes-based-on-the-motion-control-paradigm/

“Current conventions for assigning stability categories for women’s running shoes do not appear appropriate based on the risk of experiencing pain when training for a half marathon. The findings of this study suggest that our current approach of prescribing in-shoe pronation control systems on the basis of foot type is overly simplistic and potentially injurious.” This doesn’t instill much confidence in the current system, does it? By allowing publication of a study that openly states that there is no clinical data showing that shoes designed to control pronation do anything to prevent injuries, Nike took a great risk.

It makes one wonder if the whole pronation-control shoe paradigm is nothing more than a giant marketing gimmick whose goal is to scare consumers into buying shoes based on fear of injury. It’s a time-honored marketing tactic—convince consumers of a need, and provide a product that supposedly fulfills it.

In this case, the need is a neutral gait in order to reduce injury risk, and the products are the shoes that promise to correct gait to meet the need. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence showing that running shoes either do or don’t reduce injury risk (or maybe even increase it), why stop making something that continues to sell and has come to be expected by consumers?

 

Edited: 26/12/2013 at 02:44
26/12/2013 at 10:36
Ian M wrote (see)

  

Ben Davies 15 wrote (see)

 

Q. Is pronation a major cause of running injuries. 

A. Yes, that is pretty much boxed off now. 

 

 It is?

http://www.runnersworld.com/running-shoes/does-pronation-matter

Also, if you are going to cite Nigg as an example of someone who says pronantion is a major cause of running injuries, then you might want to look at more recent work by the same author who say there is no link.

http://www.footscienceinternational.com/images/stories/Research_Papers/niggnewparadigm.pdf

Oh and if you read the Nigg paper that you quote as evidence for the pronation injury ( rather than cut n pasting from the wikipedia page on pronation) you'll notice it says -

"The belief that runners who overpronate have an initially higher risk for sustaining a running-related injury is still widely held by runners and coaches, although there has been no reliable study supporting this."

Here is the problem Ian

Even if there is published data that contradicts the idea of pronation causing injuries, you still don’t get to dismiss the published data that says it does, or cherry pick the sources that support your position. 

That isn’t how science works. 

If you do that then you are no different than a young earth creationist who starts with a predetermined position and sets out to find the evidence to support it. 

26/12/2013 at 10:39

8 million years of evolution. Thank goodness shoe manufacturers came along in the early 70s and saved us from our faulty, malfunctioning feet

26/12/2013 at 10:43
RoadWarrior wrote (see)

http://nomahealth.com/evidence-against-prescribing-running-shoes-based-on-the-motion-control-paradigm/

“Current conventions for assigning stability categories for women’s running shoes do not appear appropriate based on the risk of experiencing pain when training for a half marathon. The findings of this study suggest that our current approach of prescribing in-shoe pronation control systems on the basis of foot type is overly simplistic and potentially injurious.” This doesn’t instill much confidence in the current system, does it? By allowing publication of a study that openly states that there is no clinical data showing that shoes designed to control pronation do anything to prevent injuries, Nike took a great risk.

It makes one wonder if the whole pronation-control shoe paradigm is nothing more than a giant marketing gimmick whose goal is to scare consumers into buying shoes based on fear of injury. It’s a time-honored marketing tactic—convince consumers of a need, and provide a product that supposedly fulfills it.

In this case, the need is a neutral gait in order to reduce injury risk, and the products are the shoes that promise to correct gait to meet the need. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence showing that running shoes either do or don’t reduce injury risk (or maybe even increase it), why stop making something that continues to sell and has come to be expected by consumers?

 

 

RoadWarrior wrote (see)

http://nomahealth.com/evidence-against-prescribing-running-shoes-based-on-the-motion-control-paradigm/

“Current conventions for assigning stability categories for women’s running shoes do not appear appropriate based on the risk of experiencing pain when training for a half marathon. The findings of this study suggest that our current approach of prescribing in-shoe pronation control systems on the basis of foot type is overly simplistic and potentially injurious.” This doesn’t instill much confidence in the current system, does it? By allowing publication of a study that openly states that there is no clinical data showing that shoes designed to control pronation do anything to prevent injuries, Nike took a great risk.

It makes one wonder if the whole pronation-control shoe paradigm is nothing more than a giant marketing gimmick whose goal is to scare consumers into buying shoes based on fear of injury. It’s a time-honored marketing tactic—convince consumers of a need, and provide a product that supposedly fulfills it.

In this case, the need is a neutral gait in order to reduce injury risk, and the products are the shoes that promise to correct gait to meet the need. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence showing that running shoes either do or don’t reduce injury risk (or maybe even increase it), why stop making something that continues to sell and has come to be expected by consumers?

 

The problem with the minimalist shoe argument is this Road Warrior. 

Its proponents attack the running industry based on the lack of evidence backing up its position, then they unquestioningly accept something that seems completely bonkers, based on even sketchier evidence. 

They also commit the cardinal sin of assuming that what works for them will work for somebody else.  The one absolute certainty I can give you is that you will not find a universal solution for everybody. 

If the running industry are engaged in some ingenious and elaborate conspiracy to sell people worthless shoes, it begs the question why are they so breathtakingly incompetent in everything else that they do?

Edited: 26/12/2013 at 11:04
26/12/2013 at 11:05
Shoes smell like horse piss wrote (see)

8 million years of evolution. Thank goodness shoe manufacturers came along in the early 70s and saved us from our faulty, malfunctioning feet


Stone age man did not have to run of tarmac, and probably only livedto the age of 35. 

 
Edited: 26/12/2013 at 11:07
26/12/2013 at 11:36
Ah, so it all went wrong since tarmac was invented
Edited: 26/12/2013 at 11:37
26/12/2013 at 12:23

Ten years ago the evangelists were telling us all about Pose and forefoot running. Nowadays it's zero-drop shoes, barefoot or whatever. These things go in cycles.

There's always a group that claims to be referring to research when everyone else is being taken in by a sales pitch

26/12/2013 at 14:30
Ben Davies 15 wrote (see)

Here is the problem Ian

Even if there is published data that contradicts the idea of pronation causing injuries, you still don’t get to dismiss the published data that says it does, or cherry pick the sources that support your position. 

That isn’t how science works. 

If you do that then you are no different than a young earth creationist who starts with a predetermined position and sets out to find the evidence to support it. 

 

 

Ben, My day job is doing science - reading and evaluating existing research, and then implementing it is what I get paid for - I know exactly how it works. Choosing newer research than your examples is not 'cherry picking', it's using up to date research. Research that better reflects our current state of knowledge - that's how science works. Old suppositions get thrown out, new conjectures get proposed.

You citing three papers that you haven't even read isn't science - it's desperate cut n paste floudering and I'm guessing isn't something your master's supervisor would advocate either

Highlighting that the one paper I managed to download of the three you cited doesn't even support your proposition isn't science either, but does demonstrate that you personally should stay clear of trying to use science to support your argument.

Edited: 26/12/2013 at 14:36
41 to 60 of 186 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums