Mating feet to shoes
Written by: Dan Empfield
Date: Fri Jul 23 2010
Today we're going to talk about running shoes against the backdrop of what I consider a not particularly helpful article in the NY Times about the subject. The theme of the article, and it's take-away, is that there is no dependable correlation between the type of shoe you buy and the anatomy of your foot. I agree with this. But the underlying premise is that the anatomy of your foot determines your footfall, and this is not, in my experience, true.
The problem is as follows: Either the author of the article misunderstands or misrepresents how runners and their prospective shoes are mated; or she's faithfully representing a misunderstanding that exists among both the U.S. Military, and the scientists who've constructed certain newly-released studies.
If you want to know whether footwear protects your feet, it might be beneficial to look at how footwear has, over the decades and generations, protected (or failed to protect) the feet of those who've run a lot of miles throughout their careers. I am happy to be part of a group of runners who still get together regularly, a fraternity of runners and ex-runners who all started their running in high school or before.
We had our annual soiree just two weeks ago, and I came away with a drinking glass ringed with names and times of those of us (I'm not included) who ran two imperial miles in high school in under 9 minutes: seventeen runners in all, from 1965 to 1976, from 8:45.2 (1976) to 8:59.8 (1970).
The problem is as follows: Either the author of the article misunderstands or misrepresents how runners and their prospective shoes are mated; or she's faithfully representing a misunderstanding that exists among both the U.S. Military, and the scientists who've constructed certain newly-released studies.
If you want to know whether footwear protects your feet, it might be beneficial to look at how footwear has, over the decades and generations, protected (or failed to protect) the feet of those who've run a lot of miles throughout their careers. I am happy to be part of a group of runners who still get together regularly, a fraternity of runners and ex-runners who all started their running in high school or before.
We had our annual soiree just two weeks ago, and I came away with a drinking glass ringed with names and times of those of us (I'm not included) who ran two imperial miles in high school in under 9 minutes: seventeen runners in all, from 1965 to 1976, from 8:45.2 (1976) to 8:59.8 (1970).
About 80 of us got together at this last meeting, and most of us have three things in common: We can't run at all, or without considerable difficulty, because of injuries incurred decades ago; we unfortunately had our most productive running years in high school because of those injuries; and we ran back then in what might be considered "free" or "natural" shoes—models like the popular (at the time) Tiger Marathons, as well as our track spikes, offered us no medial support.
So, what I have at my disposal is a rather loosely based longitudinal study of many of the best young runners American has ever produced. We can be guided by the lessons these anecdotes offer us, or we can choose not to.
I think it's instructive to examine the premise of the NYT article; of the U.S. Military's premise while mating shoes to its recruits; and in the study the military either commissioned and/or upon which it relied. That premise is stated in the first sentence of the study upon which the article and the military rested: "Shoe manufacturers market motion control, stability, and cushioned shoes for plantar shapes defined as low, normal, and high, respectively." (Injury Reduction Effectiveness of Assigning Running Shoes Based on Plantar Shape in Marine Corps Basic Training, Knapik JJ, et al, American Journal of Sportes Medicine, June, 2010.)
So, what I have at my disposal is a rather loosely based longitudinal study of many of the best young runners American has ever produced. We can be guided by the lessons these anecdotes offer us, or we can choose not to.
I think it's instructive to examine the premise of the NYT article; of the U.S. Military's premise while mating shoes to its recruits; and in the study the military either commissioned and/or upon which it relied. That premise is stated in the first sentence of the study upon which the article and the military rested: "Shoe manufacturers market motion control, stability, and cushioned shoes for plantar shapes defined as low, normal, and high, respectively." (Injury Reduction Effectiveness of Assigning Running Shoes Based on Plantar Shape in Marine Corps Basic Training, Knapik JJ, et al, American Journal of Sportes Medicine, June, 2010.)
I don't accept the premise that running mechanics necessarily follow plantar shapes, nor that footwear makers design (or necessarily design) their shoes based on that premise. I, for example, have high arches, if you simply look at the anatomical design of my feet. Yet if you look at me standing barefoot on the ground you'd think I have low arches, because my high arch flattens out. I pronate or, to be precise, I over-pronate. I am not a fleet-footed, 125-pound jackrabbit, nor was I ever. Just after my sixteenth birthday I, then a 156-pounder, reached my high school apex, running 4:19.4 during the season's final meet, and hoped for better things to come.
My relatively heavy weight (carried over a then 6'2" frame), still-maturing body did, in my view, apply too much downward pressure on the bones and soft tissue of my feet. But I did all my running in entirely unsupportive shoes. My running career ending injuries manifested themselves as knee ailments, specifically at the iliotibial band.
"Runners with high arches have been directed toward soft, well-cushioned shoes," writes the NY Times article author. Absolutely incorrect. The industry does not believe this. At least, not the part of the industry to whom I speak. Rather, we look at footfalls—running mechanics. How do you run? Do you overpronate or don't you? If so, you need a shoe that provides for you what your body does not: support on the medial side.
I'll allow that there is, perhaps, a miscommunication based on nomenclature: Are the authors of the NYT article, and the authors of various studies mentioned in that article, talking about the height of the arch as nature originally designed it? Or are they talking about the height of the arch after the vicissitudes of weight, and miles, have flattened it? I don't know, and the articles don't say. In either case, my view is that running mechanics, not any metric associated with a static stance, determine shoe requirements.
My relatively heavy weight (carried over a then 6'2" frame), still-maturing body did, in my view, apply too much downward pressure on the bones and soft tissue of my feet. But I did all my running in entirely unsupportive shoes. My running career ending injuries manifested themselves as knee ailments, specifically at the iliotibial band.
"Runners with high arches have been directed toward soft, well-cushioned shoes," writes the NY Times article author. Absolutely incorrect. The industry does not believe this. At least, not the part of the industry to whom I speak. Rather, we look at footfalls—running mechanics. How do you run? Do you overpronate or don't you? If so, you need a shoe that provides for you what your body does not: support on the medial side.
I'll allow that there is, perhaps, a miscommunication based on nomenclature: Are the authors of the NYT article, and the authors of various studies mentioned in that article, talking about the height of the arch as nature originally designed it? Or are they talking about the height of the arch after the vicissitudes of weight, and miles, have flattened it? I don't know, and the articles don't say. In either case, my view is that running mechanics, not any metric associated with a static stance, determine shoe requirements.
I and many of my cohorts are able to run today, but we would not be if we were forced to run in the shoes that were the proximate causes of our short running careers. Today, I run in a Brooks Adrenaline, what we on Slowtwitch call a structured trainer when we categorize shoes. Even then, I can only successfully run in these models with a custom orthotic fashioned for me by Jim Rice of Foot Depot in North San Diego County. The Adrenaline's combination-lasted footbed provides a flat, supportive surface for my orthotic.
I do find myself in agreement with the NY Times author when, at her article's terminus, she writes, "if you’re heading out to buy new running shoes, plan to be your own best advocate." If you feel pain or discomfort, "hand back those shoes. Try several more pairs."
Still, did you not know this already? Have footwear retailers been telling runners to purchase painful or uncomfortable shoes? Not in my experience.
I do find myself in agreement with the NY Times author when, at her article's terminus, she writes, "if you’re heading out to buy new running shoes, plan to be your own best advocate." If you feel pain or discomfort, "hand back those shoes. Try several more pairs."
Still, did you not know this already? Have footwear retailers been telling runners to purchase painful or uncomfortable shoes? Not in my experience.
Your proper take-away, in my view, is this: Are you an over-pronator or not? If you aren't, then you will probably do best in a neutral shoe, because, medial posting is neither necessary nor helpful, and only detracts from the shoe's performance. The more your tendency to over-pronate, the more medial support you need built into your shoe.
Articles related to this one
Tech footwear demystifier
We write about running footwear here a lot. It seemed appropriate to tell you how to read and interpret these articles. What is a "pronator?" What is a "last?" What is an "outsole," and a "medial post?" 2.05.10
We write about running footwear here a lot. It seemed appropriate to tell you how to read and interpret these articles. What is a "pronator?" What is a "last?" What is an "outsole," and a "medial post?" 2.05.10
Technical aspects of running
Perhaps (I thought as I ran) it would be good to write about the technical side of running. 9.16.01
Perhaps (I thought as I ran) it would be good to write about the technical side of running. 9.16.01
Run injury free
Take care of yourself, and don't get pushed around by anybody who sells you anything that goes on your feet. 9.25.01
Take care of yourself, and don't get pushed around by anybody who sells you anything that goes on your feet. 9.25.01
Comments
The truth is coming
Reviewed by: Less is more, Aug 24 2010 7:22AM
To anyone saying that running shoes today are amazing, I'd like to know if you've ever had a running injury and then tried to correct it by running WITHOUT your beloved running shoes?
There's a brilliant article at:
http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2010/01/why-running-shoes-do-not-work-looking.html
I think everyone who's ever worn shoes, who's ever ran, needs to go read this. You don't have to be converted instantly, but I urge you to just read it, with an open mind, and then take a couple of minutes to think about it. I think that if you really devote some time to it, you'll be surprised at the conclusion you reach.
The only reason running shoes of today feel better is because our running techniques have gotten so bad that we can almost not call it running anymore. Plodding around slamming your heel into the ground is not running. I also used to go looking for the shoe that "best fit" my foot and my gait. That was hard, because I'm an over-pronator with a high arch. I've also always struggled with knee pain, shin splints, weak ankles and eventually a groin hernia that needer an operation to fix (and another that we were lucky to catch in time to avoid surgery).
Finally, a couple of weeks ago, I read the article above and decided I'd had enough. I've been running barefoot, little bits at a time, and I'm starting to feel better. My calves were sore after the first few runs, but I realised that it's only because running shoes make you so lazy, and teach you to run so badly, that you never use those muscles like they're meant to be used.
Trying to mate shoes to feet, in my opinion, is a waste of time. Strengthen your feet, work on your technique, and anyone with a 'normal' foot (by that, I mean anyone who's not disfigured) can run in shoes no more cushioned than flats.
If you honestly believe that people for millions of years before the 70's suffered while running, and it all got better in the last 30 years, then you're living in a dream world.
There's a brilliant article at:
http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2010/01/why-running-shoes-do-not-work-looking.html
I think everyone who's ever worn shoes, who's ever ran, needs to go read this. You don't have to be converted instantly, but I urge you to just read it, with an open mind, and then take a couple of minutes to think about it. I think that if you really devote some time to it, you'll be surprised at the conclusion you reach.
The only reason running shoes of today feel better is because our running techniques have gotten so bad that we can almost not call it running anymore. Plodding around slamming your heel into the ground is not running. I also used to go looking for the shoe that "best fit" my foot and my gait. That was hard, because I'm an over-pronator with a high arch. I've also always struggled with knee pain, shin splints, weak ankles and eventually a groin hernia that needer an operation to fix (and another that we were lucky to catch in time to avoid surgery).
Finally, a couple of weeks ago, I read the article above and decided I'd had enough. I've been running barefoot, little bits at a time, and I'm starting to feel better. My calves were sore after the first few runs, but I realised that it's only because running shoes make you so lazy, and teach you to run so badly, that you never use those muscles like they're meant to be used.
Trying to mate shoes to feet, in my opinion, is a waste of time. Strengthen your feet, work on your technique, and anyone with a 'normal' foot (by that, I mean anyone who's not disfigured) can run in shoes no more cushioned than flats.
If you honestly believe that people for millions of years before the 70's suffered while running, and it all got better in the last 30 years, then you're living in a dream world.
I think it's sorta like building a house, there's multiple angles going
Reviewed by: John Schubert, Aug 5 2010 10:56AM
Firstly, I played soccer for 20 years. I never had a foot injury beyond just a minor sprain that I usually played through. My knees and everything else were completely injury free. Then enter the Air Force PT test. If I couldn't run a 1.5 mile in 14 minutes, then I must be out of shape. My running was always fast twitch bursts. Even in my height of youth and athletics, I could play a 90 min soccer game at the competitive level, but could not run an entire 1.5 miles. My AF official run when I was 20 was just a series of sprints, with rests.
As I entered my late 30s, these sprints didn't work. So I stopped running 10-min mil pace runs of 4 miles a day, 5 days a week, and started sprinting. Instantly, my feet fell apart from 3 day a week, 2 mile interval sprints (jog 100 yards, sprint 100, repeat).
Enter excruciating pain from running, cortisol shots and really useful foot doctor suggestions, such as, "Some people just aren't meant to run." Nice, my commander won't go for that excuse. So, I stopped training until the Plantar Fasc and Sinus Tarsitus subsided.
First, I had to ditch the Nike's I'd bought right before starting sprints. Even wearing them 10 minute on carpet became painful. I went to Road Runner and they analyzed my gait, pressure, and arch. I put on some Asics GT-2130, and ran pain free for close to a year. Then I decided to start working on speed again, and I'd lost 50 pounds at this point. Once I hit sub 8 min pace on my 5 mile runs, my PF flared. I'd put about 1500 miles on my Asics, so I tried the same. Bought new 2130s and Superfeet, and changed my runs to all train/grass. Once again, sub 8's hurt.
So, do shoes alone solve all issues? No, but I believe it starts off your biomechanics on a good foundation. As soon as I get back from Afghanistan, I'll sport my own $$ to have Rehab United analyze my gait. The Air Force did destroy my feet with their sole (pardon the pun) emphasis on speed (as opposed to endurance). It sickens me to see these overly obese @holes who can sprint 1.5, yet I can run 9-11 miles just fine. The USMC "study" really seems disingenuous and looking for a reason to avoid the real issue: every runner has a different gait, and the shoe can make the problem worse. Besides, most Marines I talk to say their knees are destroyed from humping 5 miles a day with 60 pound packs on their back. I doubt they're humping packs in running shoes.
As I entered my late 30s, these sprints didn't work. So I stopped running 10-min mil pace runs of 4 miles a day, 5 days a week, and started sprinting. Instantly, my feet fell apart from 3 day a week, 2 mile interval sprints (jog 100 yards, sprint 100, repeat).
Enter excruciating pain from running, cortisol shots and really useful foot doctor suggestions, such as, "Some people just aren't meant to run." Nice, my commander won't go for that excuse. So, I stopped training until the Plantar Fasc and Sinus Tarsitus subsided.
First, I had to ditch the Nike's I'd bought right before starting sprints. Even wearing them 10 minute on carpet became painful. I went to Road Runner and they analyzed my gait, pressure, and arch. I put on some Asics GT-2130, and ran pain free for close to a year. Then I decided to start working on speed again, and I'd lost 50 pounds at this point. Once I hit sub 8 min pace on my 5 mile runs, my PF flared. I'd put about 1500 miles on my Asics, so I tried the same. Bought new 2130s and Superfeet, and changed my runs to all train/grass. Once again, sub 8's hurt.
So, do shoes alone solve all issues? No, but I believe it starts off your biomechanics on a good foundation. As soon as I get back from Afghanistan, I'll sport my own $$ to have Rehab United analyze my gait. The Air Force did destroy my feet with their sole (pardon the pun) emphasis on speed (as opposed to endurance). It sickens me to see these overly obese @holes who can sprint 1.5, yet I can run 9-11 miles just fine. The USMC "study" really seems disingenuous and looking for a reason to avoid the real issue: every runner has a different gait, and the shoe can make the problem worse. Besides, most Marines I talk to say their knees are destroyed from humping 5 miles a day with 60 pound packs on their back. I doubt they're humping packs in running shoes.
Running shoe article
Greg
Reviewed by: Greg Swanson, Jul 27 2010 1:35PM
"I used to run alot and was kinda fast as a kid, therefore I am a shoe expert." Really? Kind of analogous to "I'm a triathlete, let me tell you about your bike fit." Dan's built a whole FIST industry around this breach of logic. How about we hear from podiatrists, physical therapists and others with scientific credentials in the field and let Mr. Empfield go back to designing stack and reach tables. Perhaps the point of the military's effort is to prevent new recruits from posting "my bad shoes broke my feet" stories like Mr. Empfield's in 20 years. As for Dr. Waddel's amazing recovery, I am glad you are running better, but to suggest that new shoes (or running style) will remove a bone spur (bunion) without surgery is a bit disingenuous. Pain and ligament changes? Sure. Repairing bone deformations? No way.
[Editor's note: I queried a shoe designer about this topic. He answered yesterday. Here's what he said:
"First I'll answer flat out that no, running shoes are not designed around the arch of a foot. Every shoe company has a last or two that we use to shape shoes for fit. That's a known entity and it essentially equates to our identity. After that all shoes are designed around biomechanics. The arch plays a role in the mechanics of running but not as much as running style and body weight. Motion and force. Just like you asked about arch height standing or arch height weightless. Now put that arch height under 2 times your body weight, what happens then? Therefore we in the shoe industry create shoes for all the different varieties of motion and force. That's what the running store is looking for when they put you on a treadmill or watch you run down the sidewalk. Yes, there are many (mostly in Europe I might add) who use the mirror box. But they don't use it exclusively. They use the box to narrow down the selection then put shoes on feet and watch them run. Only after watching and listening to the runner do they make a suggestion. Back to your example, if that arch is really strong and stays strong during running, the running store expert sees that and probably puts you in a neutral shoe. But if that arch like most begins to collapse then they know that some form of stability is better.
"In my history of working with shoes and runners I learned early on that the best shoe is the least amount of shoe you can get away with. In other words the worst thing we could do is over-correct your running. So we always went with less. That is confirmed to me over and over as I travel the world and watch the best in the shoe business sell running shoes. They watch you run and regularly put you in the least amount of control for your foot.
"By the way, that is a sweet glass Asics made. I'm going to have to talk to my friends to get me one of those."]
[Editor's note: I queried a shoe designer about this topic. He answered yesterday. Here's what he said:
"First I'll answer flat out that no, running shoes are not designed around the arch of a foot. Every shoe company has a last or two that we use to shape shoes for fit. That's a known entity and it essentially equates to our identity. After that all shoes are designed around biomechanics. The arch plays a role in the mechanics of running but not as much as running style and body weight. Motion and force. Just like you asked about arch height standing or arch height weightless. Now put that arch height under 2 times your body weight, what happens then? Therefore we in the shoe industry create shoes for all the different varieties of motion and force. That's what the running store is looking for when they put you on a treadmill or watch you run down the sidewalk. Yes, there are many (mostly in Europe I might add) who use the mirror box. But they don't use it exclusively. They use the box to narrow down the selection then put shoes on feet and watch them run. Only after watching and listening to the runner do they make a suggestion. Back to your example, if that arch is really strong and stays strong during running, the running store expert sees that and probably puts you in a neutral shoe. But if that arch like most begins to collapse then they know that some form of stability is better.
"In my history of working with shoes and runners I learned early on that the best shoe is the least amount of shoe you can get away with. In other words the worst thing we could do is over-correct your running. So we always went with less. That is confirmed to me over and over as I travel the world and watch the best in the shoe business sell running shoes. They watch you run and regularly put you in the least amount of control for your foot.
"By the way, that is a sweet glass Asics made. I'm going to have to talk to my friends to get me one of those."]
Rx Shoes
Reviewed by: Dr. Les Waddel, Jul 26 2010 9:13PM
This is funny! If I had read this 9 months ago I'd agree with you...I owned a specialty running store, I Dx and sold shoes to fit the foot. As a Chiropractor for the past 15 years I've prescribed and made orthotics to 'correct' a persons poor biomechanics.
I've been running and competing in triathlons for over 30 years. I wore the best shoe for me. I used orthotics. BUT... as I moved past 50 years old my feet and legs began getting worse.
UNTIL I threw them away and changed my running form. I read McDougals book 'Born to Run'. Physiologically THERE IS A RIGHT way to run. After 9 moths of transitioning over to the 'natural' way to run I now have no cramping, bunions are almost gone, hammer toes gone, metatarsal pain gone. July 4th I ran a 10k three minutes faster than the previous year with less training! I SEE A MOVEMENT COMING!
I've been running and competing in triathlons for over 30 years. I wore the best shoe for me. I used orthotics. BUT... as I moved past 50 years old my feet and legs began getting worse.
UNTIL I threw them away and changed my running form. I read McDougals book 'Born to Run'. Physiologically THERE IS A RIGHT way to run. After 9 moths of transitioning over to the 'natural' way to run I now have no cramping, bunions are almost gone, hammer toes gone, metatarsal pain gone. July 4th I ran a 10k three minutes faster than the previous year with less training! I SEE A MOVEMENT COMING!
Mating feet to shoes
Reviewed by: doug in co, Jul 24 2010 10:26AM
"I and many of my cohorts are able to run today, but we would not be if we were forced to run in the shoes that were the proximate causes of our short running careers."
This is what I find very puzzling. Anyone who ran in those horrible shoes of the 70s knows that we have marvelous shoes today. But all the painfully-gained knowledge of those years is now thrown out in some vain attempt to regain a illusory state of nature? Bizarre. The question of running shoes has become a religious one, fatwas and all.
This is what I find very puzzling. Anyone who ran in those horrible shoes of the 70s knows that we have marvelous shoes today. But all the painfully-gained knowledge of those years is now thrown out in some vain attempt to regain a illusory state of nature? Bizarre. The question of running shoes has become a religious one, fatwas and all.
