RW article on "Minority" foot types

Just plain wrong!

1 to 20 of 224 messages
21/01/2004 at 23:22
"If You're A Forefoot Striker…
You… land and push off from your toes when you run, rather than following the normal pattern of landing on the outside edge of your heel and rolling through to push off from your toes. The normal pattern absorbs shock much better."

Absolute nonsense! Can RW produce a SINGLE study to back this up???

22/01/2004 at 09:41
And they go onto recommend a Nike shoe with a massively built up heel! What's more too much cushioning in the shoe seems likely to actually induce instability . Grrr....

The following is quite interesting in relation to this seeing as forefoot running is v.close to barefoot running...

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm

Where barefoot and shod populations co-exist, as in Haiti, injury rates of the lower extremity are substantially higher in the shod population (Robbins and Hanna, 1987)....

Measurements of the vertical component of ground-reaction force during running provide no support for the notion that running shoes reduce shock. Robbins and Gouw (1990) reported that running shoes did not reduce shock during running at 14 km/h on a treadmill. Bergmann et al. (1995) found that the forces acting on the hip joint were lower for barefoot jogging than for jogging in various kinds of shoe. Clarke et al. (1983) observed no substantial change in impact force when they increased the amount of heel cushioning by 50% in the shoes of well-trained runners. Robbins and Gouw (1990) argued that plantar sensation induces a plantar surface protective response whereby runners alter their behavior to reduce shock. The less-cushioned shoe permitted increases in plantar discomfort to be sensed and moderated, a phenomenon that they termed "shock setting". Footwear with greater cushioning apparently provokes a sharp reduction in shock-moderating behaviour, thus increasing impact force (Robbins and Hanna, 1987; Robbins et al., 1989; Robbins and Gouw, 1990).
22/01/2004 at 12:00
Chaos,
There are TONS of studies showing that shoes cause more injuries.
Just got Phil Maffetone's brand new book on feet and he lists loads more.
The bottom line is the more support, cushioning, bells and whhistles you shoes have, the more likely you are to get injured. There are multiple studies supporting this and NONE saying the opposite. The only ones saying the opposite are the marketing wings of the big shoe companies and those who believe their diatribe!
GRRR!
22/01/2004 at 12:09
I say you minority foot types should be shipped back to where you came from. You come over here, taking our prizes, and you can't even be bothered to learn to run like us. It's a disgrace!

(er, I agree, the article's wrong)
22/01/2004 at 12:12
minority?
i prefer the term 'deviants'
22/01/2004 at 12:53
So are you suggesting that we should all run in plimsolls, Pantman? Thought not.

Given that we are not all (nor may wish to become) POSE runners, what do you suggest we wear?
22/01/2004 at 13:11
Minks - I genuinely believe plimsolls would be better in the long run.

Wearing minimal shoes and running POSE are 2 different, if somewhat overlapping, things. None of the ample research that backs up the advantages of minimal shoes has anything to do with Pose running or any other form
22/01/2004 at 13:59
Wearers of expensive running shoes that were promoted as correcting pronation or providing more cushioning experienced a greater prevalence of these running-related injuries than wearers of less expensive shoes (Robbins and Gouw, 1991).

In another study, expensive athletic shoes accounted for more than twice as many injuries as cheaper shoes, a fact that prompted Robbins and Waked (1997) to suggest that deceptive advertising of athletic footwear (e.g., "cushioning impact") may represent a public health hazard.

Anthony (1987) reported that running shoes should be considered protective devices (from dangerous or painful objects) rather than corrective devices, as their capacity for shock absorption and control of over-pronation is limited.

The modern running shoe and footwear generally reduce sensory feedback, apparently without diminishing injury-inducing impact–a process Robbins and Gouw (1991) described as the "perceptual illusion" of athletic footwear. A resulting false sense of security may contribute to the risk of injury (Robbins and Gouw, 1991).

Yessis (2000, p.122) reasoned that once the natural foot structures are weakened by long-term footwear use, people have to rely on the external support of the footwear, but the support does not match that provided by a well functioning foot.

Measurements of the vertical component of ground-reaction force during running provide no support for the notion that running shoes reduce shock. Robbins and Gouw (1990) reported that running shoes did not reduce shock during running at 14 km/h on a treadmill.

Bergmann et al. (1995) found that the forces acting on the hip joint were lower for barefoot jogging than for jogging in various kinds of shoe.

Clarke et al. (1983) observed no substantial change in impact force when they increased the amount of heel cushioning by 50% in the shoes of well-trained runners.

Robbins and Gouw (1990) argued that plantar sensation induces a plantar surface protective response whereby runners alter their behavior to reduce shock. The less-cushioned shoe permitted increases in plantar discomfort to be sensed and moderated, a phenomenon that they termed "shock setting". Footwear with greater cushioning apparently provokes a sharp reduction in shock-moderating behaviour, thus increasing impact force (Robbins and Hanna, 1987; Robbins et al., 1989; Robbins and Gouw, 1990).
22/01/2004 at 14:09
go on minkey, argue your case...


Minkey (2003) moaned about the lack of a good update on the ds trainers, thus forcing him to have to look for another shoe in the first place
22/01/2004 at 14:10
ah-got my minks confused-sorry!
22/01/2004 at 14:24
Does the "shock setting" you referred to every cause either a) over-compensation of running motion and injury for that reason, or b) slowing down times because the runner is too busy compensating for plantar discomfort to focus on running quickly?
22/01/2004 at 14:29
Good question, Rob!
In my limited experience, I have had to slow down since shifting to racers and increasing mileage. It has taken some time (month or so) to start to adapt. I am currently doing 85MPW in VERY light racers.

So (a) injury could occur when not allowing enough time for adaptation (is that what you meant?)
(b) yes, I have had to slow down. But now that adaptation is progressing I am able to run at higher HRs more easily. And now by body is doing the shcok absorption!

All change takes time and this, of all things, is not a quick fix methodology...
22/01/2004 at 14:38
I'll tell you why I asked. I am a mild over-pronator and for the past few years have used ASICS gel 1080's for all my training - excellent shoes in my view.

I have just bought some light racing shoes which I tried out last night in a 5k race. Now, they worked (I got a PB and won!) but I could feel the impact on my legs.

My intention in buying the shoes was to use them in the forthcoming Reading Half marathon (prior halves having been run in the 1080's), but the racing shoes do not have the support that the 1080's do, so my concern is either that there will be pressure on my ITB, or that I will over-compensate and put pressure on another part of my joints and cause injury that way, or run more slowly and not get the PB I am hoping for!

I certainly don't intend to use the racing shoes for training in regularly, although I plan to run in them a few times to assess their half-marathon suitability (which perhaps relates to your answer to a?)
22/01/2004 at 14:42
(Rob - I know you're waiting for an answer from Pantman, but well done on the 5k result! How did the Ekidens feel?)
22/01/2004 at 14:53
Huw,

Very light, and quite comfortable. There seemed to be a bit of give when I was running, but my legs felt quite "impacted" at the end of it - but this might just be because I was running quite fast - I would be a lot steadier in a half marathon.

I still have to decide whether to wear them at Reading - the question I asked Pantman is to help me decide - ie can I acclimatise myself to the shoes so I can run 13 miles in them without getting injures.

This is quite an interesting thread as well!
22/01/2004 at 15:00
This doesn't really answer your question but prior to adopting a forefoot technique I had already found that as I got fitter and faster I was able to progress from heavy high-stability shoes (Nike Air Structure Triax) to lightweight slight-stability shoes (Mizuno Wave Maverick) for training & was quite happy racing in a pair of Fila Flow (lightweights with a small medial post).

Do your racers have any stability built-in since if not then even cushioned racers may exagerrate any pronation (particularly Nikes which tend to have a fattish heel air unit)? Something like the New Balance RC330s are lightweight racers with some stability so may be suitable if you have no plans to adapt to minimalist "flats".
22/01/2004 at 15:03
I'd say maybe not. The soreness you felt tells you how much the 1080s are doing "their job" - i.e. doing the support work for you. Your feet are weak and cannot handle it when that is taken away. As long as you continue in the 1080s you will always be risking it with lighter shoes.

Perhaps, you can make adjustments slowly and start to adapt. i'm sure you can. Timescale? No idea! I just took the plunge when I was injured - threw out the 2080s and orthotics and went down to racers building uo slowly. My only regret is that I didn't go lighter straight away - I started with NB240s rather than 150s - too much midsole creating instability.

FWIW, the Ekidens have too much midsole and heel, IMHO... ;-)
22/01/2004 at 15:04
My daughter used to run in 330s - both my elder kids do most of their runs in surf shoes now.
22/01/2004 at 15:07
The racers don't have any stability built in, and I agree that cushioned racing shoes without the stability would not be any better, because preumably they would be heavier, which defeats the object of buying light racing shoes in the first place!

Is body weight a factor in ability to wear shoes of different amounts of cushioning, or is it just fitness/experience?

22/01/2004 at 15:13
Pantman,

it is also worth noting that I have another pair of racing shoes (heavier, but with a "harder" sole) and I have raced them in races up to 10k with no negative impact, so if there is a process of adaptation to carry out, arguably I'm at lesat part of the way there anyway. (races in these shoes have resulted in tiredness of legs but no hint of injury) It is difficult to judge precisely what impact my racing shoes have, because it is a while since I did a short race in the 1080's, and what the impact is of running hard. I reckon if your legs aren't tired afterwards you haven't tried hard enough!!
1 to 20 of 224 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