63 replies to this topic

[Vurt]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...5005961,00.html

Quote

'No evidence' on running shoe safety

By Danny Rose

March 11, 2009 03:36pm

AUSTRALIAN joggers are being warned there's no hard science underpinning what they wear on their feet.

Scientists at the University of Newcastle wanted to find independent studies on the safety of sneakers that have cushioned heels and other features to prevent the ankle rolling in.

Dr Craig Richards said an analysis of the global pool of sports medicine research turned up nothing relating to the commonly used, and recommended, sports shoes.

"Since the 1980s, distance running shoes with thick, heavily cushioned heels and features to control how much the heel rolls in, have been consistently recommended to runners who want to avoid injury,'' Dr Richards said.

"We did not identify a single study that has attempted to measure the effect of this shoe type on either injury rates or performance.

"This means there is no scientific evidence (the) shoes provide any benefit to distance runners.''

Dr Richards said Dutch researchers had previously found between 37 and 56 per cent of recreational runners become injured at least once each year.

These injuries mainly affected the runners' legs and feet, and Dr Richards said the standard preventative recommendation was to wear what was called a PCECH shoe - a sneaker with pronation control to prevent the ankle from rolling in and an elevated cushioned heel.

"Not only can we no longer recommend a PCECH shoe, but the lack of research in this area means that we cannot currently make any evidence-based shoe recommendations to runners.

"To resolve this uncertainty, running shoes need to be tested like any other medical treatment, in carefully controlled clinical trials.''

Dr Richards' findings are published in the latest edition of the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

I think that most of us know that the right shoes make a difference. COnsidering the size of the market it is interesting that there has been no research into it.

[SlimDJ]

"Dr Richards said Dutch researchers had previously found between 37 and 56 per cent of recreational runners become injured at least once each year."

The other 44-63% are soft.

Good article but.

[eastodlux]

ha! all it basically says is that there have been no 'scientific' studies on the topic. sadly, they discount the experience of millions of runners and the ability for us all to determine what we look for in a running shoe and, through trial and error, find what works for us. i bet everyone on this forum has a 'tried this shoe and it was wrong, started using this one and it was perfect' story.

i'm dubious that any tests under 'scientific conditions' are going to recreate my own personal experiences running (my exact demensions, geography of where i run, personal running goals etc) and be able to tell me what will work better than i can tell myself. i'm not surprised by the injury statistic... bloody hell, running can be tough!

[FakePlasticTrees]

eastodlux, on Mar 12 2009, 08:00 AM, said:

ha! all it basically says is that there have been no 'scientific' studies on the topic.

No it says

Quote

"We did not identify a single study that has attempted to measure the effect of this shoe type on either injury rates or performance.

Maybe they're just crap at their jobs and didn't look in the right places for the studies. There could be studies done that they haven't found, they may have fallen asleep whilst reading other studies and missed the most important bits etc...

[run2work]

A case for barefooting??

rtw

[undercover brother]

eastodlux, on Mar 12 2009, 08:00 AM, said:

ha! all it basically says is that there have been no 'scientific' studies on the topic.

exactly.
(i think the exact quote was independant studies)
in their defense however part of evidence based medicine is pointing out when there is none - to try and encourage those to look into it further.
it wouldnt be hard to do some biomechanical studies looking at pronation control shoes then another to look at injury rates with/without.
maybe we should sort out the stretching issue first tho
edit: and yes as FPT as said you would need to look at the actual methods of their search: i am sure asics will do that

Edited by undercover brother, 12 March 2009 - 08:57 AM.

[DistanceRunner]

I think it's a interesting article.

The point is, we have simply become accustomed to wearing shoes with thick soles and other paraphenalia.

But would we be just as happy if we grew up running in dunlop volleys? Maybe.

I do know, however, that shoe manufacturers make far more money selling complicated running shoes than simple ones.

[Leofisio]

The interesting thing is that a definitive answer for this question would come by undertaking a randomised controlled trial... the methodology itself is extremelly simple, the sample is widely available (runners)... but maybe the problem would be the costs associated with the study (i.e. the researchers should provide shoes to everyone)...

Biomechanical studies answer just a part of the problem as the data is mostly collected cross-sectionally, but it is a good starting point.

I would love to run a RCT on this topic.

UCB, our reseach team is analysing the data from a RCT of stretching and prevention of musculoskeletal injuries... the sample is quite large (more than 1000 active people) and the results will be available soon. This study will help a lot about the understanding of stretching benefits in msk injuries.

Leo

[k_run]

This was a topic for a lot of discussion on here previously.
http://www.coolrunning.com.au/forums/index...amp;hl=evidence

There is as much evidence for running shoes as there are for many accepted medical procedures. That does not mean that there is not a need for more and better designed research .

Craig also has a patent for a shoe designed to mimic barefoot running.

Edited by k_run, 12 March 2009 - 09:30 AM.

[undercover brother]

Leofisio, on Mar 12 2009, 09:08 AM, said:

UCB, our reseach team is analysing the data from a RCT of stretching and prevention of musculoskeletal injuries...

i know thats why i said it
will be pleased to hear the results.

[Colin]

k_run, on Mar 12 2009, 10:18 AM, said:

Craig also has a patent for a shoe designed to mimic barefoot running.

I have run barefeet, did first few marathons in Adidas Palermo's (similar to Volleys) and the first 'real' running shoes I ran in (the Noakes designed SA Runner) was a blessing. Around the time Bowerman was doing his stuff.
Now if you look at the progression of Bowerman shoes, not much has changed structurally.i.e. most are still neutral.

However some people thought "how can we differentiate shoes", after all neutral is neutral, just change level/type of cushioning.
And they took a natuarl factor, pronation, found that people disperse shock differently i.e. pronate more or less, and said "lets control that" .
Hence the support and stability shoes which come out with new features of control all the time..most of it unnnecessary.

Rather the debunk the whole shoe industry - there is some truth in article, because injury rates have not improved- look at why people need these stability shoes at all.

imo, most should just go out and buy a neutral shoe, if your running style, feet are that bad that you need control, then customise it with orthotics.

A little family story to round it off:

My dad (born 1920) rocked up to enlist(conscript) for WW2 and was told, "sorry , flat feet, you won't be able to march or run far".
He went on to become SA bantam weight champ (46-47) by running 16-20 km in boots every morning at 4:30, riding bike to work, gym/boxing after work and bike back.
No anti pronation shoes required.

cheers

[BEN-HUR]

k_run, on Mar 12 2009, 10:18 AM, said:

This was a topic for a lot of discussion on here previously.
http://www.coolrunning.com.au/forums/index...amp;hl=evidence

There is as much evidence for running shoes as there are for many accepted medical procedures. That does not mean that there is not a need for more and better designed research .

Craig also has a patent for a shoe designed to mimic barefoot running.

Dr Craig Richards has been on this issue for quite a while. He also has a blog & a website:
Blog: http://barefootrunni...e.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.barefooto...s.com/index.htm
Dr Richards is also a member (or has been) of CoolRunning. As cited by K_run - the person who started this thread ( http://www.coolrunning.com.au/forums/index...amp;hl=evidence ) & posting under the profile of BOG (which is actually the acronym of Barefoot On Grass) is Dr Richards.

As seen in the above links Dr Richards does have a vested interest in this area & is developing his own variety of shoe (to mimic bare foot running). He does tend to have a condescending attitude towards the major shoe companies (see blog) & maybe they deserve it to some degree.

I tend to agree with Dr Richards to some extent as described in the following post: http://www.coolrunning.com.au/forums/index...st&p=300633 ... but I do believe that some of the running shoe structures do help the biomechanically challenged continue to partake in running whilst reducing (offsetting) their chance of meeting their injury threshold to some point.

I also know that K_run has done (& I think is doing) research in this area (footwear) as well... & do believe in the following:

k_run, on Mar 12 2009, 10:18 AM, said:

That does not mean that there is not a need for more and better designed research .

Colin, on Mar 12 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

Hence the support and stability shoes which come out with new features of control all the time..most of it unnnecessary.

Rather the debunk the whole shoe industry - there is some truth in article, because injury rates have not improved- look at why people need these stability shoes at all.

imo, most should just go out and buy a neutral shoe, if your running style, feet are that bad that you need control, then customise it with orthotics.

Good points Colin. I am not sure if this is the cynic in me coming out... but I feel the genesis behind the many varieties of shoes & associated gimmickry is money based not science based. I am sure this is true to some extent. In other words, in theory these shoe additions may have 'intentions' - but do they actually work... & to what extent??

I wonder if BOG (Dr Richards) would like to add to the discussion.

[Leaf]

I think when it comes to choice of footwear it is a personal decision. While I'm all for evidence-based practice when I'm at work, it's not like you can do a randomized double blind study on a topic like this because people would go into it with preconceived ideas (and they'll kinda know if they're wearing shoes or not!). I guess you could get the manufacturers to mask the type of shoe so that it would be harder to tell if they're pronation control or whatever...

I'm so much happier running now that I don't wear shoes, but maybe that's the hippy side of me coming out. I do know that my knees no longer hurt and that I'm more aware of my whole body, which is a good thing. Having said that though, it's definitely not for everyone and I'm certainly not trying to convert anyone - there's already an entire separate thread for that

[Leofisio]

Tiz, on Mar 12 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

I think when it comes to choice of footwear it is a personal decision. While I'm all for evidence-based practice when I'm at work, it's not like you can do a randomized double blind study on a topic like this because people would go into it with preconceived ideas (and they'll kinda know if they're wearing shoes or not!).

This is not an issue if the number of people with 'preconceived ideas' are equal in both groups... that is why we call this as randomised CONTROLLED trial...

Another solution could be by excluding these guys pre-randomisation , but I don't think this would replicate a pragmatic study...

I am getting to technical here, sorry I just want to make a point that most of the questions raised in this website could be answered by scientific research which is less biased than expert opinions (which is also important).

Cheers,

Leo

[k_run]

[quote name='Vurt' date='Mar 12 2009, 05:20 AM' post='437039']
[url="http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25171370-5005961,00.html"]http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...5005961,00.html[/url]


Remember the only conclusion from this paper is that randomised controlled trials have not been done. Not that shoes increase or decrease injury.

This needs to change and is.

[twosheds]

I think it is going to be very difficult to "prove" because injury prevention would involve matching shoe to biomechanics. SOme practitioners would be better than others at doing this. If you put everyone in the same type of shoe -eg pronation control- you may well cause injury in those that dont need it. You would have to be very clear about the design of the study- what exactly are we trying to find out? Do shoes shoes prevent injury- is not enough. I think the margin for error in the study would be high- that maybe why its not done.
Two sheds

[Leofisio]

twosheds, on Mar 12 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

I think it is going to be very difficult to "prove" because injury prevention would involve matching shoe to biomechanics. SOme practitioners would be better than others at doing this. If you put everyone in the same type of shoe -eg pronation control- you may well cause injury in those that dont need it. You would have to be very clear about the design of the study- what exactly are we trying to find out? Do shoes shoes prevent injury- is not enough. I think the margin for error in the study would be high- that maybe why its not done.
Two sheds

two sheds,

I have to disagree with you, the study design is not a problem at all... the problem here are two: 1) conflict of interests, 2) insufficient funds to cover a study like this... I doubt that the NHMRC would fund a study for runners... it is not a public health priority, unfortunately...

An independent-qualified researcher with suficient funding would clarify this issue easily.

Completing, different research questions request different studies and therefore, it is unlikely that 1 RCT would answer all questions...

margin of error of any good study can be measured, that is why most of the good studies adopt not only the size of the effects but also some measures of variability for the generalisation of the results.

Like my boss say. give me the money and 2-4 years... and I will give you the study results.

Leo

[KevH]

There was a story on ABC radio last night about the same subject:

http://www.abc.net.a...08/s2513592.htm

[Swaggers]

'no Evidence' On Running Shoe Safety, are we being sold a lie ?

This could just as easlily read: 'no evidence' On Running Barefoot Safety, are we being sold a lie?

While I agree that motion control etc is not all it is cracked up to be, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there that suitable shoes for the biomechanics of a runner can and, dare I say, must work. You just have to look at the statistics and results of all the distance runs and races around the world to see the ancedotal evidence that heaps of runners achieve great results and run solid races using shoes with certain control features. Sure some get injured and but overall the ancedotal evidence suggests that runners of all levels are able to enjoy long-distance running because of the various developments in running shoes.

I will suggest that another possibility is that most problems occur when shoes are mis-matched to the runner. Also, given that nearly all runners wear shoes of some sort, it only stands to reason that it is easy to posit the 'no evidence' of scienctific proof and blame shoes rather than overtraining, keeping shoes too long, poor bio mechanics , overweight, etc., and as already mentioned selecting the wrong shoes. There is no evidence that shoes themsleves are to blame for injuries.

I will suggest that if all runners now using shoes tried to run barefoot at any sort of pace for any sort of extended period the figures of 37 to 56 percent of shoe-using runners injured each year (for many reasons) would skyrocket and those injuries would be far more serious than a blister (which counts as an injury?) and the race times, quality and enjoyment of running would fall markedly. Moreover, I think that if runners who need motion control disregard the current emperical evidence that support assists with certain injuries will also find themsleves helping raise the figures for shoe-using runners with injuries.

Quote

... but the lack of research in this area means that we cannot currently make any evidence-based shoe recommendations to runners.

"To resolve this uncertainty, running shoes need to be tested like any other medical treatment, in carefully controlled clinical trials.''

Yes I agree. But until that happens, let us not completely disregard the research and evidence of the shoe manufacturers. Most importantly, lets not disregard the ancedotal evidence of shoe-using runners.

Edited by Swaggers, 12 March 2009 - 01:13 PM.

[BEN-HUR]

Leofisio, on Mar 12 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

An independent-qualified researcher with suficient funding would clarify this issue easily.

This would be a very interesting research to do. I would think one that would create a lot of interest in the sports industry (if not, running alone)... research much needed & well overdue.

However, I don't think it would be an easy research to obtain adequate data on. When you (at least I) think about it deep enough, the subject matter is potentially multifactorial i.e. individual biomechanical traits (& gaits) of various runners, proprioceptive feedback, subjectivity associated with the 'feel' & even the look (structure) of a particular running shoe (despite having names & logos removed), training load/intensity of the runner etc. There would be many factors to keep in mind during the research... but well worth the study.

[HillsAths1]

Firstly, this reeks of someone who has a vested interest trying to get someone to up the money so that the research will be done.

If this guy is serious he can start to do the research himself, and I am sure that he will get many participants from CR who will gladly be his subects, hell he can even include barefoot running for all I care.

Personally, when I was a lot younger and a lot sillier I used to run in a shoe called the Converse Oxford racer. This was pretty much the closest you could get to having a Dunlop volley or barefoot. Within 6 months I had a strained the tendons on the outside of my knee and was not able to run for a number of months. The only way that I was able to run after a number of failed attempts I sourced a pair of shoes from NZ (which I think were called Kiwi Flyer) which had called pronation support. These allowed me to get back to training and I have now being running for about 25 years using pronation support shoes.

I for one will not be giving up my shoes with support lightly, so this scaremongerer is going to have to come up with something better than "there is no current independent studies " I dont believe there has been any independent studies that say that jumping off the Harbour Bridge is bad for you, but I dont think I will be trying it soon, and I suggest that all CR's follow my example.

If I knew how to start a Poll on whether you thought pronation shoes were effective I would, but I dont so I wont.

[twosheds]

And the range of shoes is very broad with subtle differences- some neutral shoes are firm, some flexible, some are in between, some have different rearfoot forefoot ratios etc etc than others- and each of these shoes seems to be right for a particular person- I dont think it is as simple as it may appear. I think there would be a lot of confounding factors in a study like this.
twosheds

[Leofisio]

BEN-HUR, on Mar 12 2009, 02:19 PM, said:

This would be a very interesting research to do. I would think one that would create a lot of interest in the sports industry (if not, running alone)... research much needed & well overdue.

However, I don't think it would be an easy research to obtain adequate data on. When you (at least I) think about it deep enough, the subject matter is potentially multifactorial i.e. individual biomechanical traits (& gaits) of various runners, proprioceptive feedback, subjectivity associated with the 'feel' & even the look (structure) of a particular running shoe (despite having names & logos removed), training load/intensity of the runner etc. There would be many factors to keep in mind during the research... but well worth the study.

I agree with you Ben,

What I don't agree (as a researcher) is that because is multifatorial problem, a lot of people say that is impossible to carry out a study. As I said before, It is amazing such important research field without ANY RCT!

I think that it is possible to do a series of RCTs on the topic answering some relevant questions...

Most of the confounders can be controlled by inclusion/exclusion criteria, randomisation and of course by statistical methods.

I work in back pain research and in this field the most difficult thing is to get patients... I doubt that this would be a problem in a study with runners...

Leo

Edited by Leofisio, 12 March 2009 - 02:57 PM.

[DistanceRunner]

Human being are made to run and for the vast majority of our evolution this has been without running shoes.

I suspect that if we ran enough from an early age most of us would not need biomechanical fixes.

[Lost Boy]

DistanceRunner, on Mar 12 2009, 05:15 PM, said:

Human being are made to run and for the vast majority of our evolution this has been without running shoes.

We are? I think you might be misunderstanding how evolution works.

DistanceRunner, on Mar 12 2009, 05:15 PM, said:

I suspect that if we ran enough from an early age most of us would not need biomechanical fixes.

This seems to be a fairly reasonable opinion which is shared by many. I use a support shoe but I am pretty certain that if I had been running in neutral shoes from a younger age and not standing around for long periods on concrete floors in business style shoes I might not need to wear support shoes now.

[twosheds]

Totally agree with this Swaggers. That was my point- it is matching gait to shoe- not just shoe/no shoe and that at this stage is an art not a science. But from working at Intraining for a long time I see the anecdotal evidence all the time. I think it would be very hard to separate the shoe/ no shoe difference from the right shoe/ wrong shoe difference. When we get people to try a shoe they might try 5-6 different shoes- all of the same "type" but in some they slap loudly as they run, in some they are silent- the stiffness of the shoe as well as other factors makes a difference for each individual.

Ive got nothing against bare foot running - I would love to be abe to do it. I ran a lot barefoot as a teenager and developed severe shin pain which only subsided when i got into a decent pair of shoes. Anecdotal evidence and largely due to my horrible running style- but I dont think we are all born runners.
two sheds

[djbleakman]

DistanceRunner, on Mar 12 2009, 05:15 PM, said:

Human being are made to run and for the vast majority of our evolution this has been without running shoes.

I suspect that if we ran enough from an early age most of us would not need biomechanical fixes.

A very interesting thread and I heard about this study. I have to say that I am 100% in agreement with the above statement. Here's a quick test for people. Next time you go for a run, take your shoes and socks off and run, and see what you do. I bet most of you will run on your forefoot. You might start on your heels, but it will be uncomfortable and much easier to run up on your forefoot. We were born to run without the need for chunky heels. I moved from heel strike to forefoot strike a few years ago... best thing I ever did - I have calfs like rocks now

Has anyone seen the five fingers running shoes? How long will it be before Nike and Asics have these commercially developed? They're probably already developing them because it's all about evolution of trainers right? It will be interesting to see just how much the five fingers takes off - it challenges the norm about how you run... remember Cliff Young? I seem to remember he did that

[RunBare]

very interesting

[Sabre]

Agree, I get injured if I wear the "cushioned" shoed. My foot can't move properly. If you pronate, just correct it.

The shoe I look for is

(a) No cushioning
( No heel
© Flexible
(d) Little support, maybe only the heel counter
(e) No arch, because your arch is supposed to move

I like running with waffles, five fingers or really minimal flats, and I do 100km a week. I've never been so injury free in my life since I started doing it!

You need to learn to run properly, not put a space boot on your foot and think its going to save you from injury...

[Sabre]

PS I don't know about "barefoot on grass shoe" it looks too much like the nike free, which I don't like either because the sole moves around too much when you land. You want something thin but not something that opens up when you land.

[walker1st]

well, if ford, general motors, and such are allowed to colaps, so should asics, adidas, nike...

[milov]

I love running in minimalist (7oz) racing flats on a hard surface for up to 4 hours.

I have happily run in light weight (9 oz) trail shoes on trails for up to 30 hours

But for long runs on hard surfaces I do appreciate the support of my cushioned road shoes...

I don't think we will be seeing anyone run coast to kosciosko barefoot (unless they are some sort of a freak).

horses for courses

milov

Edited by milov, 12 March 2009 - 06:08 PM.

[BEN-HUR]

DistanceRunner, on Mar 12 2009, 05:15 PM, said:

Human being are made to run and for the vast majority of our evolution this has been without running shoes.

Lost Boy, on Mar 12 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

We are? I think you might be misunderstanding how evolution works.

Red flag, red flag - I see a red flag! Please don't get me started on this .
In short, keeping to the lower limb - the anatomical structure (bone shape, alignment & positioning) of the foot/lower limb in association with the origin & insertion of muscle & tendon attachments (i.e. Tibialis Posterior, Peroneus Longus), as well as Comparative Anatomy (study of similarities & differences between species) clearly indicates (to me anyway) that we were designed... & designed (Created, if you will) to run... bipedally.

This can potentially be an exhaustive topic - but in short we should not inhibit the naturally designed function of the lower limb, otherwise muscles can be taxed too much, or not enough; joint alignment & ROM compromised & running economy reduced (just to name a few) - which can contribute to injury. What makes this topic difficult to discuss in a general sense is that there isn't a 'one solution fits all' answer... as some are biomechanically efficient & some are not. As stated before, it is the ones that are not biomechanically efficient that require help (for want of a better analogy - a crutch) if they are to continue to partake in the sport they love. This often requires footwear characteristics (i.e. straight last shoe, large medial posting) that would be unsuitable to the more efficient runner as the shoe would be too restrictive, bulky & 'heavy' for optimal running.

I believe in all (inefficient & efficient biomechanics) cases, the height of the heel should be reduced in the majority of running shoes. I also believe that runners that don't have severe (or potentially adverse) biomechanical faults should gradually adapt to a more 'neutral' shoe or a form of footwear that protects the skin from the environment (heat, sharp objects) & aids in reducing ground reaction forces (particularly in races - especially the marathon) to some extent. Exercises in the form of Plyometrics for example should be performed to condition the muscles & tendons from the stresses of running (i.e. eccentric loading forces).

Whenever researchers have an unsubstantiated premise (i.e. evolution, origins) as the basis of their research/hypothesis (or part thereof) they will undoubtedly eventually come to the wrong conclusion, or in some cases need to take another direction to try & make it (hypothesis) fit the equation. This leads to in most cases a lot of time wasted, limited 'results' & a lot of money (i.e. CERN).

[Colin]

djbleakman, on Mar 12 2009, 06:18 PM, said:

I moved from heel strike to forefoot strike a few years ago... best thing I ever did - I have calfs like rocks now

But how fast and effecient are you? Serious question. Its all related to what you want to get out of your running.

In response to the Podiatric surgeon on Current Affair tonight who said "you don't have to do lots of running for fitness, the best running is barefeet on the beach" , I said to my wife, 'maybe , but what sort of marathon time on the road would I have"?

[Lost Boy]

BEN-HUR, on Mar 12 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

Red flag, red flag - I see a red flag! Please don't get me started on this .
In short, keeping to the lower limb .. clearly indicates (to me anyway) that we were designed... & designed (Created, if you will) to run... bipedally.

If we ever meet in person we will be having a very interesting conversation.

[djbleakman]

Colin, on Mar 12 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

But how fast and effecient are you? Serious question. Its all related to what you want to get out of your running.

In response to the Podiatric surgeon on Current Affair tonight who said "you don't have to do lots of running for fitness, the best running is barefeet on the beach" , I said to my wife, 'maybe , but what sort of marathon time on the road would I have"?

I think it's been said, but I understand and appreciate that a lot of it is personal preference. I moved from heel to forefoot strike after suffering 3 years of cronic shin splints. I tried everything to get rid of them. Rest; stretching for hours; acupuncture... I was at my wits end because I couldnt play rugby. As a last resort my physio suggested that I look into it. I did, and I've never looked back.

As for how fast and efficient I am? Well running on my forefoot means I lean forward slightly when I run. This means that gravity pulls me forward and I'm working less than if I heel strike, which if I'm honest feels like driving a car with a handbrake on. But that works for me. I dont it expect it to work for everyone and that I can understand. As for what I want to get out of running, for me I love the challenge that running presents to you and the how you cope with that challenge. That's what running is for me... if I achieve that by running on my forefoot or heel, it doesnt matter. Of course I also want to improve my time over all distances, from 5km through to 100mile... so just a few things

I just feel that we're naturally meant to run like this, and that the millions companies spend on making and marketing their trainers in such a way means that we're supposedly meant to conform to that because that's how they've made the product. Again, everyone has their own personal opinion on the matter... and of course it's whatever works for you that counts.

Edited by djbleakman, 12 March 2009 - 09:44 PM.

[undercover brother]

Colin, on Mar 12 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

In response to the Podiatric surgeon on Current Affair tonight ...

someone actually watches that show?
i find that disturbing.
that is all i have to say

[Bellthorpe]

DistanceRunner, on Mar 12 2009, 04:15 PM, said:

Human being are made to run and for the vast majority of our evolution this has been without running shoes

Can you support your assertion that human being are made to run (my emphasis)?

[OldeRunner]

DistanceRunner, on Mar 12 2009, 10:08 AM, said:

I think it's a interesting article.

The point is, we have simply become accustomed to wearing shoes with thick soles and other paraphenalia.

But would we be just as happy if we grew up running in dunlop volleys? Maybe.

I do know, however, that shoe manufacturers make far more money selling complicated running shoes than simple ones.

Outspoen 5-time world record holder Gordon Pirie held that running shoes were to heavy and bulky especially on the heels, impeding running technique and speed. He took to new shoes with a knife, and says he had virtually no injuryies in 45 years. Heres his posthumous book which is also critical of LSD:

www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Pressbox/2204/Gordon_book_040104.pdf

Sorry if it doesn't load up here...

Makes for interesting reading. I reckon Gordon was made to run Bellthorpe!

Edited by wombatoutofhell, 13 March 2009 - 06:40 AM.
Fixed link

[Colin]

undercover brother, on Mar 12 2009, 10:44 PM, said:

someone actually watches that show?
i find that disturbing.
that is all i have to say

You'd prefer to hear it if the guy posted anonymously on CR?

Actually their preceding story on generating Australian jobs and identifying companies who are putting on people was interesting and a lot more than the government was doing (talking economy down) and what other media were doing.

But go ahead..read the Mad magazine instead.

Edited by Colin, 13 March 2009 - 09:25 AM.

[Colin]

HillsAths1, on Mar 12 2009, 02:55 PM, said:

I for one will not be giving up my shoes with support lightly, so this scaremongerer is going to have to come up with something better than "there is no current independent studies " I dont believe there has been any independent studies that say that jumping off the Harbour Bridge is bad for you, but I dont think I will be trying it soon, and I suggest that all CR's follow my example.

If I knew how to start a Poll on whether you thought pronation shoes were effective I would, but I dont so I wont.

If you went from Converse 'volleys' to an anti pronation shoe, then didn't get injuries , does that mean you actually need an anti pronation shoe?
Would a neutral shoe not have worked?

If someone took panadols every day for ten yrs and never got a head ache, does that mean he would have got a head ache without the panadols?

That is why "independent studies" are better than anecdotal evidence and belief.

cheers

[Leofisio]

Colin, on Mar 13 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

That is why "independent studies" are better than anecdotal evidence and belief.

Ditto!

[HillsAths1]

Colin, on Mar 12 2009, 05:25 PM, said:

If you went from Converse 'volleys' to an anti pronation shoe, then didn't get injuries , does that mean you actually need an anti pronation shoe?
Would a neutral shoe not have worked?

If someone took panadols every day for ten yrs and never got a head ache, does that mean he would have got a head ache without the panadols?

That is why "independent studies" are better than anecdotal evidence and belief.

cheers

I am all in favour of independent studies, but just because an independent study does not exist does not mean that in the absence of an independent study that says running shoes are good does not mean that the reverse is true. I refer to my previous comment about the lack of an independent study about jumping off the Harbour bridge, I still maintain that it is not a good idea to do.

[Swaggers]

Colin, on Mar 13 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

If you went from Converse 'volleys' to an anti pronation shoe, then didn't get injuries , does that mean you actually need an anti pronation shoe?
Would a neutral shoe not have worked?

If someone took panadols every day for ten yrs and never got a head ache, does that mean he would have got a head ache without the panadols?

That is why "independent studies" are better than anecdotal evidence and belief.

cheers

When does the empirical evidence become so irrefutabe and so obvious that science accepts it as proof? I draw you back to my original assertion that there are hundreds of thousand perhaps millions of runners who wear shoes to counteract the damage of road surfaces. Yes I can't see any reason why CC runners need to wear shoes. CC are short races on soft surfaces and that is what we have perhaps evolved to deal with - or are capable of dealing with. We have, apparently, not evolved (or whatever) to run on bitumen for extended periods at near maximum pace - we need good shoes to do that. The empirical evidence sugggests that millions know this to be true. It is not a mere belief but empirical knowledge.

I say good luck to those who want to run barefoot. Nevertheless, I would love to see a comparison between the injury rates of say 100 barefooter and 100 shoewearers at the various paces. I will even suggest that those with pronation control (that they don't really need but have been lead to believe they need by those evil shoe companies) will even remain less injured than the barefoot brigade. I'll concede that maybe the slower runners could handle the pounding and the surface better.

Do pronation shoes assist or would the runners feet and biomechanics adapt to shoes without motion control? Well the current thinking is that a runner with biomechanics that lead him or her to say ITB nightmare needs motion control shoes. I too would like to see that tested with independent studies. I think motion control and all the other stuff with shoes is over prescribed and can cause more harm than good. The thing is those questioning the use of motion control and so on aren't factoring in the advice from shoe stores. They are just focussing on the sales pitch from a manufacturers. This is a weak link in the chain. You need to match the shoe to the runner. For instance: I always thought my son needed motion control. He runs on his tippy toes and has a lot of forefoot movement. He had problems. Steve suggested he use a firm shoe with no motion control and he hasn't looked back. I don't buy my shoes from Steve so this isn't a matey thing.

I am leg weary on my long runs, I train in motion control shoes otherwise an old ITB flares. This isn't belief but empirical knowledge. My reps etc are done in lightwieght trainers or racers. The faster the session the lighter and less supportive the shoe. My ITB flares when I run long without motion support. The scientists could try to correlate hundreds of individual "scientific" experimental processes like mine to prove that those processes are wrong or right or inconclusive. They could just repeat or examine in detail the testing that shoe manufacturers have done and see if their testing was sufficient to back their propaganda. A peer review of sorts.

Edited by Swaggers, 13 March 2009 - 01:28 PM.

[walker1st]

Colin, on Mar 13 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

If someone took panadols every day for ten yrs and never got a head ache, does that mean he would have got a head ache without the panadols?

male or female ?

as far as the Harbour Bridge goes, would study on Westgate be aplicable ?

[Colin]

HillsAths1, on Mar 13 2009, 12:37 PM, said:

I am all in favour of independent studies, but just because an independent study does not exist does not mean that in the absence of an independent study that says running shoes are good does not mean that the reverse is true. I refer to my previous comment about the lack of an independent study about jumping off the Harbour bridge, I still maintain that it is not a good idea to do.

No-one actually said that Steve, and definitely not me. What I did say was the anti-pronation shoes were overprescribed to 'cure' something that mostly has a benefit (pronation) and that those (minority) that have biomech problems may be better off in a neutral template with specific orthotics.

Swaggers also quoted me incorrectly when talking barefoot vs shoes, which I didn't raise.

As for the harbour bridge analogy you are comparing a definite suicidal act against something that is not 'fact'...i.e."I do not get injuries in my anti-pronation shoes therefore they must be necessary for me..and for everyone who wears them"
There is more data that supports the opposite i.e. that injury rates have not fallen since the advent of these shoes.

Who's going to be the first to test the Harbour bridge jump?

walker1st, on Mar 13 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

male or female ?

Colin, on Mar 13 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

,....does that mean he would have got a head ache without the panadols?

Of course male...you know the ladies have head aches at the most inconvenient times for men.

[Swaggers]

Colin I not sure where i quoted you incorrectly. Maybe I needed to highlight the last sentence which I addressed and the sentence on pronation. I think we generally agree that some people think they need pronation control when all they need is a good neutral training shoe. I quoted all what you said in the quote box but I guess I addressed other stuff such as the barefoot issue and that wasn't in your quote. I thought people would work that out. Sorry if that is the case.


edit: The reason I bring up the barefoot issue up at all is because it is at the other end of motion control. It is where the foot acts with zero support. Also when I was kid we used to go everywhere without shoes. My school used to allow it back then. Indeed, I used to race the bus home (six k). I used to keep the bus money. So I like talking about it.

The Steve I was referring to was Steve the Footman.

Cheers.

Edited by Swaggers, 13 March 2009 - 04:53 PM.

[Colin]

OK, no worries.

Certainly won't be running 6ft barefeet tomorrow.

Swaggers, on Mar 13 2009, 05:39 PM, said:

The Steve I was referring to was Steve the Footman.

I referred to HillsAths...too many Steve's ...almost as many as Colins

[Freesoul]

milov, on Mar 12 2009, 07:07 PM, said:

I don't think we will be seeing anyone run coast to kosciosko barefoot (unless they are some sort of a freak).

Milov

Hey, what a great idea!
Is that a red rag to a bull? Runbare? Tim? Let's do it one day!

[Steve 'The Footman']

The incidence and prevalence of running injuries has not changed since the seventies. Many studies then and now place it between 40% and 60% of runners having an injury each year that is severe enough to cause them to stop running.

While you may expect that the improvements in running shoe technology would reduce injury risk in runners there is not that big a correlation between the two. You need to consider the causes of injuries and their contributing and confounding factors.

I do a causes of injury lecture that includes the following factors:
• Overtraining
• Training Errors - Change in Training Environment or Activity
• Trauma and Accidents
• Structural Abnormalities
• Pathological Gait Patterns
• Footwear
• Life Stress

By far the biggest cause of injury is overtraining and training errors. Structural abnormalities and pathological gait patterns have a big influence on the type of injuries experienced but less on the frequency of injury.

Footwear can be a direct or indirect cause of injury. However there is a fairly weak link between footwear and injury. In cases where footwear is a direct cause it is likely that an injury will occur within a few weeks of using the shoes. This occurs when the fit, support or type of shoe is incompatible for the individual characteristics of the runner. The other main footwear cause of injury is when runners use their shoes for too long and they no longer offer adequate shock attenuation or support. They may also become deformed increasing the stress on the tissues.

A good way of thinking about injury is to think of it as being a threshold of stress that must not be crossed. There are different things that you can do to raise that threshold like gradually increasing training stress, fixing biomechanical issues and running in footwear that is in good shape. Regardless, a certain percentage of people will continually run past their threshold and get injured.

To blame footwear for being a major cause of injuries or a panacea to avoid them is disingenuous and not backed by the reality of the causes of running injuries. I think this is a major flaw in the conclusion of this paper.

There is an international association called the International Society of Biomechanics that has a sub-group that focuses on footwear biomechanics. There have been many studies each year published by the research members of this group that have found a link between footwear design and various causes of injury. Most of the shoe company research is focused on producing new forms of performance enhancement rather than injury reduction. Many of the innovations that shoe companies release are produced in the marketing rather than the research department. While some research is funded by footwear companies that does not automatically make them worth writing off as evidence. Bias can exist in any research as I think it does in this paper when the study is designed to prove the researchers contention that people should chuck out their shoes and run barefoot.

It is called a straw man argument when you try to say that someone else's position is wrong so that makes yours right. When the original position is neither relevant or valid then the whole argument is a fallacy. This is what HillsAth1 was trying to say about the study I think.

As an aside, I agree with Colin and think that pronation has a bad rap and that too many people are put into control shoes because it seems like a logical thing to do to stop pronation. There is an optimum level of support that each person needs. Some people can even run barefoot without injury. As a generalisation too many runners have excess control for their needs. However the Brooks Beast is still the best shoe for some runners.

The human body is very complex and doing research that is valid and statistically strong is difficult. Like swaggers I think the single person case study can be very relevant. If you have been running in a certain type of shoe and became injured, and then changed and avoided injury - then it is likely that the previous footwear contributed to the injuries and the new footwear is partially protecting you from them.

While I have done so many times before I would just like to repeat my own personal conflict of interest as a running shoe proprietor and podiatrist.