Gait analysis, as waste of time?

61 to 80 of 210 messages
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 12:37
Ben- you can't have it both ways. You say that those who disagree with you can not ignore older studies that support your argument, so likewise you can not ignore the bigger and more up to date studies that dispute your evidence. As I stated earlier, there is no undisputed evidence so therefore anyone claiming that they have the answer is simply being dishonest unless they state that it is only their opinion and not supported by any meaningful scientific evidence. The industry gets around facts by saying that shoes are designed for overpronators instead of saying that their shoes will correct over pronation and prevent associated injuries.
It is all marketing spiel and means nothing if you actually look for absolute statements of fact.
Wearing what feels most comfortable is about the best guide you will get because your foot knows better than any salesman when it comes to what it needs.
Edited: 26/12/2013 at 12:38
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
26/12/2013 at 17:16
Just ordered a new pair of Omni 12's will now have raced in every model since the 4's came out...

... Don't read running research, just go with what my body tells me is working
26/12/2013 at 18:46
 

 

Flob wrote (see)
Ben- you can't have it both ways. You say that those who disagree with you can not ignore older studies that support your argument, so likewise you can not ignore the bigger and more up to date studies that dispute your evidence. As I stated earlier, there is no undisputed evidence so therefore anyone claiming that they have the answer is simply being dishonest unless they state that it is only their opinion and not supported by any meaningful scientific evidence. The industry gets around facts by saying that shoes are designed for overpronators instead of saying that their shoes will correct over pronation and prevent associated injuries.
It is all marketing spiel and means nothing if you actually look for absolute statements of fact.
Wearing what feels most comfortable is about the best guide you will get because your foot knows better than any salesman when it comes to what it needs.

Let me be clear about this.  I am not claiming to have all the answers here.  I have already said that a lot more research non this topic is needed.  I don’t expect any sort of consensus to emerge within the field for some time.

I think that the people making absolute stamens against the methodology, or claiming that minimalist running shoes are the solution, are in effect claiming to have the answers. 

The reason the papers I put forward reflected one position, was because some people had claimed that there was no evidence to suggest that pronation causes running injuries, and this clearly had to be challenged since there is such research. 

Edited: 26/12/2013 at 18:46
26/12/2013 at 18:48

Can't argue with that!!

26/12/2013 at 18:49
Shoes smell like horse piss wrote (see)
Ah, so it all went wrong since tarmac was invented

I suspect that it is a significant part of the problem.   

I don’t have any research to back this up, but we all know that running 20 miles on tarmac can hurt more than running 40 on trails. 


 

26/12/2013 at 18:52

Dear me, what a kerfuffle!

26/12/2013 at 19:03

 

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

 

I guess you're only playing devil's advocate, but some do seriously put forward this argument, and it is just SO bereft of intellectual thought.

26/12/2013 at 20:45
Gait analysis done in running shoe shops just look at the over pronation issue which is totally pointless when the important issue is ignored. it's where the foot lands in relation to the general centre if mass that has the greatest inluence on injury risk ( not to mention efficiency). who cares if a shoe slightly straightens the ankle if the runner thumps down on his heel 2 feet in front of his knee.
26/12/2013 at 22:30
Ben Davies 15 wrote (see)
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. 

 You are confusing life expectancy at birth with life span.  Up until recent times most people died in childhood, depressing average life expectancy.  However if you survived childhood living to 70 plus would not be that unusual.

 

26/12/2013 at 22:50
Surrey Runner wrote (see)
 You are confusing life expectancy at birth with life span.  Up until recent times most people died in childhood, depressing average life expectancy.  However if you survived childhood living to 70 plus would not be that unusual.

 

Eminently valid point. 

I will give you one counterpoint.   

Life expectancy in say Victorian England takes child mortality into account. 

In the fossil record it is based on the age of adults at the point where they died. 

For example we know that a Tyrannosaurus rex, almost never lived past the age of 30. 

 

26/12/2013 at 23:39

Ben. It time for you to realise das spiel is aus for your little gimmick at sweatshop. Sweatshop is good enough and doesn't need this bit of nonsense.

27/12/2013 at 00:03

You have made two mistakes there. 

  • Sweatshop     is not good enough, they couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery. 
  • It      does need this bit of nonsense as you call it. 
  • If you want to give a customer the best service that you can, then this is an important tool at your disposal. 

     

    27/12/2013 at 00:24
    Let me be clear about this?? What are you- a bloody politician?

    My earlier comment:

    As I stated earlier, there is no undisputed evidence so therefore anyone claiming that they have the answer is simply being dishonest unless they state that it is only their opinion and not supported by any meaningful scientific evidence.

    By this I mean that companies selling products using unproven data are being dishonest. Unless you are such s retailer then I am not commenting about you because you are just giving an opinion and not selling it to the public.

    Nike paying for and not burying a study that questions the industry wide sales pitch is an interesting development. Hopefully, one day there may be a double blind study that is large enough and balanced enough in numbers to provide a clear answer about injuries and shoe types which takes in gait analysis as a contributing factor.

    I had gait analysis today and according to the salesman, metal gaits are best! Boom!
    27/12/2013 at 09:18
    I'm sure we all agree the some running shoe shops provide pronation analysis. that's it. nothing more
    61 to 80 of 210 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 Forums