Painful feet/knees/shins!

   I started running at the beginning of October.  I started with running just 3km and have increased to 12km. It still feels so very hard, but am trying to be patient!   I went to have my gait analysis done the other day and the man in the shop has got me so worried.  Basically, he watched me run and immediately said im overpronating. I tried on some trainers for this, but when he watched me, he said "oh, you really do overponate a lot" and said my knees go inwards when I run.  He said over time, I will develop knee and hip problems as by body is compensating for my odd running technique! Im confused over my over pronation, as when I am tired at the end of my run, I feel I am running on the outside of my feet and not the inside.  I mentioned this, but he said i probably wasnt, but I went out for a run today (with new trainers that were recommended) and am convinced it the outside of my feet I am running on! But then sometimes, my knees knock together, so maybe im doing at bit of inside and outside.  I get pain on the arch of both my feet (before and after new trainers) and also painful knees, which I get after my run.  Also, I now have painful shins, which I only developed after my new trainers.  Also, I was recorded running in the shop and my right foot kicked outwards for some reason, which i am now self conscious about!  

So basically, I am asking if I should be worried about any of this? Or if I need to be doing anything to change my strange way or running etc?

Thank you so much 

didnt you ask  what to about it  whilst you were in the shop? would be a bit of a contortion act to run on the outer edge o your feet AND have your knees knocking!.....either the gait analysis was poor as was the shop or you need to go back and ask more questions...........and maybe change / alter your forum name.

Thanks for your reply loulabell (sorry about similar forum name!).  

Well I did ask in the shop and was told I wasnt running on the ouside of my feet.  To be honest, I probably wasnt as it normally happens when I am tired at the end of my longer runs.  He told me there was nothing I could do about any of it and was simply my style of running, but could potentially lead to problems in the future. He told me that I needed trainers for severely over pronation and that was it really!  Maybe I will give it a few weeks using my new trainers and see how I go.  The gait analysis involved running up and down the shop a few times and then being recorded whilst running on a treadmill.. not sure if thats normal or not.  

always difficult to get true picture unless running where you normally do id say.

if your gait is changing towards the end of your long runs, then maybe your long runs are a little too long, or you are running them too fast? 

if you have started getting pains you didn't have before, then might be worth going back to the shop/getting a second opinion about the shoes. Which shop did you go to?

The knee falling in problem could be caused by weak glutes - I didn't realise my knees fell inwards, only found out now that I have a knee problem and am having to fork out for a physio! Might be worth looking up some glute strenthening exercises.

if you are really worried, you could go the whole hog and get a gait analysis done by a sports physio/podiatrist, but it would be worth getting a recommendation for someone rather than just going to the first one in the phone book, and this would be expensive. 

There's evidence to show that wearing gait analysed training shoes does not help prevent injury.  They've done studies in the US using soldiers and there were no differences in injury rates between those who wore gait analysed training shoes and those who just wore a nuetral shoe.

It's quite a big subject, but there is a point of view that the people who're telling us we need to wear gait analysed over engineered training shoes are the people who're making money out of it; and in fact these shoes can do more harm than good.  They support the foot so much they weaken it; a bit like wearing a permenant kneck brace.  They may also change our running gait which also increases the risk of injury.  

http://sock-doc.com/2011/03/orthotics/

Just an alternative view!

Just to clarify a few things that you have stated EDI.  If you are referring to the research that I think you are, it should be made clear that there were 2 groups within the study.  The experimental group were not given shoes based on a gait analysis as you state, but instead based on foot posture/arch height as per the historical 'wet foot test' paradigm.  The control group were not all given neutral shoes as you state, but instead all given stability shoes.

That aside you are absolutely right that there was no significant difference in injury rates between the 2 groups.  What makes this even more statistically 'powerful' is that it was prospective in design (following them all through their basic training) and that there were approx 700 individuals in each group studied.  This is huge in research terms.

It does very much suggest (and I agree with this wholeheartedly) that the current model for recommending shoes is not evidence based.  I have gone on the record on this forum more than once saying that the wet foot test should be abandoned.  I may have even referred to it as nonsense.

However, be careful with the other claims you have made.  There is no research (currently) which suggests road running shoes "do more harm than good".  There is also NO data within the scientific literature that shoes weaken feet.  That should be made 100% clear for all reading.  It is often stated by those with an agenda (i.e. selling more minimalist shoes) but it is not evidence based.  

The neck brace analogy is also hugely inappropriate, as shoes do not immobilise feet.  There is published work which clearly shows feet can and do move within a shoe. 

Sir David of Brent wrote (see)

Just to clarify a few things that you have stated EDI.  If you are referring to the research that I think you are, it should be made clear that there were 2 groups within the study.  The experimental group were not given shoes based on a gait analysis as you state, but instead based on foot posture/arch height as per the historical 'wet foot test' paradigm.  The control group were not all given neutral shoes as you state, but instead all given stability shoes.

That aside you are absolutely right that there was no significant difference in injury rates between the 2 groups.  What makes this even more statistically 'powerful' is that it was prospective in design (following them all through their basic training) and that there were approx 700 individuals in each group studied.  This is huge in research terms.

It does very much suggest (and I agree with this wholeheartedly) that the current model for recommending shoes is not evidence based.  I have gone on the record on this forum more than once saying that the wet foot test should be abandoned.  I may have even referred to it as nonsense.

However, be careful with the other claims you have made.  There is no research (currently) which suggests road running shoes "do more harm than good".  There is also NO data within the scientific literature that shoes weaken feet.  That should be made 100% clear for all reading.  It is often stated by those with an agenda (i.e. selling more minimalist shoes) but it is not evidence based.  

The neck brace analogy is also hugely inappropriate, as shoes do not immobilise feet.  There is published work which clearly shows feet can and do move within a shoe. 

Fair one; I'm not going to argue; you appear to know your stuff.

Blame Christopher McDougall, author of Born to Run, Scott Jurek of Eat and Run, and that Panarama program, The Truth about Sports Products.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rul7XbM844

Those are my sources and I realise they're 'pop' rather than cold hard scientific papers.

As an afterthought, is there any evidence that gait analysed training shoes reduce the risk of injury?

Good evidence, not running shoe manufacturer paid for type evidence?