26 replies to this topic

[Jogger]

I saw this sign in an athletes foot store. It seems a bit overly simplistic.
Is it a good idea or is just so dumbed down to be worthless or worse - cause more issues than it solves ?

 athletes_foot.jpg   34.22K   170 downloads

[Bellthorpe]

Seems more like a 'what type of arch do you have' pic than 'do you 'pronate or supinate' as it implies.

[DontStop]

Well, I guess if they make it any more complex, their staff would be out of their depth. Interesting to see, though, that a person with normal arches doesn't "roll in".

I think they should stick to their magic foot-mat technology. It looks scientific enough for most folk to be convinced they're getting fitted by experts.

[Emrun]

Wow, so insightful, what a shame my high arched feet over pronate.

[halifax]

They give terrible advice in those shops. Most of them are not runners.
They sold me a pair of New Balance once after "assessing" my gate and "arch type", went home put them on and went for a little jog.....about 200 metres down the road I felt a snap on the back of my knee and sharp pain. Hobbled back home and was out of action for 4 months with torn ligament.
Took the shoes back to be told they are for pornators and I underpronate and they have too much stability for me and I should never have been recommended them!

[Cl@rkey]

With all due respect halifax, you could jog 200m in a pair of clogs & not cause an injury.
It does not mean that the shoes were not right for you, but its possible the injury would have occurred anyway.

Please don't tar all Athletes Foot staff with the same brush, some stores have outstanding staff who are very experienced & knowledgeable. Some even have student podiatrists.

I guess its always a case of asking more questions when buying shoes - not only about the shoes but the person making the recommendation.

I've experienced the same person from the same store assessing me in two opposing conclusions (several months apart). This was in a store that is normally very highly recommended.

Buyer beware & buyer do some of your own research.

As for the poster about foot type --- yes, its far too simplistic & could definitely lead to misinformation.

[technicallyfit]

Very insightful! Its a sign showing some very generic info! its called marketing

JoggerK, on Oct 24 2009, 02:41 PM, said:

I saw this sign in an athletes foot store. It seems a bit overly simplistic.
Is it a good idea or is just so dumbed down to be worthless or worse - cause more issues than it solves ?

athletes_foot.jpg

[halifax]

Clarkey of CP, on Oct 24 2009, 08:06 PM, said:

With all due respect halifax, you could jog 200m in a pair of clogs & not cause an injury.
It does not mean that the shoes were not right for you, but its possible the injury would have occurred anyway.

I'm no shoe expert, the guy at the store told me the cause of it was the shoes.

[jaker]

Most of the staff at national retailers (Athletes Foot, Rebel Sport etc.) seem to think that looks are more important than function. Your best bet is to consult a recognised podiatrist and take that advice to a retailer specialising in running shoes. I know it's expensive but you could avoid costly mistakes and even injury.

[luckyguy]

Clarkey of CP, on Oct 24 2009, 08:06 PM, said:

With all due respect halifax, you could jog 200m in a pair of clogs & not cause an injury.
It does not mean that the shoes were not right for you, but its possible the injury would have occurred anyway.

Please don't tar all Athletes Foot staff with the same brush, some stores have outstanding staff who are very experienced & knowledgeable. Some even have student podiatrists.

I guess its always a case of asking more questions when buying shoes - not only about the shoes but the person making the recommendation.

I've experienced the same person from the same store assessing me in two opposing conclusions (several months apart). This was in a store that is normally very highly recommended.

Buyer beware & buyer do some of your own research.

As for the poster about foot type --- yes, its far too simplistic & could definitely lead to misinformation.

Thanks Clarkey, I like the way you think. It is so refreshing to hear someone tell it how it is.

We live in a very competitive consumer market, dominated by gimmicky ploys to get us, the consumer, to part with our hard earned cash. As for the people who work at AF, 1st and foremost they are sales people doing what sales people do best. So when buying running shoes (or anything else for that matter) in order to get the best value, you need to make careful and where possible educated decisions. Shop around, research, ask questions and if possible get a money back guarantee.

Caveat Emptor

[halifax]

luckyguy, on Oct 25 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

Thanks Clarkey, I like the way you think. It is so refreshing to hear someone tell it how it is.

We live in a very competitive consumer market, dominated by gimmicky ploys to get us, the consumer, to part with our hard earned cash. As for the people who work at AF, 1st and foremost they are sales people doing what sales people do best. So when buying running shoes (or anything else for that matter) in order to get the best value, you need to make careful and where possible educated decisions. Shop around, research, ask questions and if possible get a money back guarantee.

Caveat Emptor

Well then they shouldn't hold themselves out to be expert shoe fitters and give advice about what running shoes I should buy, especially with newbies to running. They do more damage than good.
P.S. People on these forums are a tad touchy and can't seem to take criticism even when its warranted.

[luckyguy]

halifax, on Oct 25 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

Well then they shouldn't hold themselves out to be expert shoe fitters and give advice about what running shoes I should buy, especially with newbies to running. They do more damage than good.
P.S. People on these forums are a tad touchy and can't seem to take criticism even when its warranted.

So it seems .............

[halifax]

luckyguy, on Oct 25 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

So it seems .............

Thanks for proving my point. Too easy.

[Cl@rkey]

Yes - you are probably right, some of their advertising spin could easily be contested and shown to be false. Particularly in a case like yours where you feel the wrong advice led to an injury. But, it would take someone with sufficient determination, care, time & money to risk the battle.

To further illustrate the point on doing your own research. Did you seek a 2nd opinion from someone formally trained & experienced in treating running injuries? or were you happy to accept the word of the shoe sales guy who said it was definitely true?

I'm not trying to make an example of you in any way. Its possible these situations can be avoided by runners taking sufficient time to educate themselves & seeking several opinions to determine the correct footwear type. After some time, you can actually do a very good job of finding the right shoes for you without anyone else telling you. You will just know from experience & comparison what will work for you.

IMHO it does not matter who is making the recommendation, they are going to have some slant on it that may make it less than perfect advice. The shoe store may get better margin on some brands than others, the salesperson might like a brand better than others or feel more comfortable with their knowledge of it. Even 'professionals' - pods & physios - may have a better rapore / knowledge of some brands and so their recommendations could be skewed.

Australia is a funny place. It seems to follow the 'me too' pattern of decisions. Asics is (unless things have changed recently) by far the most popular running shoe brand. This is completely different to the US where Asics has a much smaller profile. Is Asics a better shoe for Australian feet or do we just feel comfortable following the decision of someone else???

[swaggerer]

JoggerK, on Oct 24 2009, 01:41 PM, said:

I saw this sign in an athletes foot store. It seems a bit overly simplistic.
Is it a good idea or is just so dumbed down to be worthless or worse - cause more issues than it solves ?

athletes_foot.jpg

Of course it is simplistic. What do expect in the window of a running shop - a ten thousand word dissertation on which shoes fit which feet?

The picture is meant to signify that the staff know shoes and feet. It says: "Come and feel safe in the knowledge that we know which shoes fit your feet." You seen the Dead Pets video in the hijackers thread? Most people think in words. Some will interpret the way intented but you have been around and have, seemingly, interpreted as: "Bullshit." (Kinda glad we do think mostly in words.)

The big problem for customers is that for some staff that message in the window is about the limit of their knowledge. I have a very high arch. It is supposedly means my feet roll out. I can race with no support because my foot strike, movement and contact time is different to training pace. I have a rigid rear foot and a mobile forefoot that wants to collapse on toe off at the slower pace. So when I tell some running shops this it is a bit like asking the guy at Maccas to not put any dressing on my hamburger. Panic, confusion, and I always end up with dressing . But it is Maccas - not a gourmet restaurant (it doesn't pretend otherwise?). In other words, the staff in AF and other franchise stores often have no idea about the complexities of individual feet (and neither do I, which shits me). Anything different is beyond their ken. Having said that, is it fair to expect them to know as much as an expert? The offence is the marketing blokes are hoping you will think the staff are experts. They are not.

Edited by swaggerer, 26 October 2009 - 01:21 PM.

[Emrun]

I've been given the wrong advice at both a chain store (when I was a newbie looking for my first proper pair of trainers) and at a specialist store (where I sort to be reassesed before buying the new release of my preferred shoe). The defining factor was customer service which was far superior at the specialist store.

The chain store measured the length and width of my foot and still put me in half a size too small, back then I was too green to know that you are better of half a size up from your street shoes when you buy trainers. However upon doing the fit print thing they did put me in the correct shoe for my foot and gait type, even recognising that my high arched feet behaved contrary to the way high arched feet should behave. The less said about the over priced and useless insoles they talked in to the better, gave me horrible blisters and ended up in the bin, my fault for being too soft.

After the shoes gave me pins and needles and black toenails I took them back, "too bad so sad" was the attitude, but hey, you can buy a new pair slightly bigger if you like.

So I took myself off to the specialst store and they put me in a shoe half a size up, similar model to what I was sold at the chain store and I merrirly ran about with no pins and needles. When they wore out I went back and asked for something similar but lighter, I got it and was still happy. When they wore out a new release had come out and I went back for a refit and was put in a different brand which gave me a very painful case of PF. Took the shoes back 3 months beyond their advertised 1 month trial period, was reassesed by a more experienced Pod, conceeded that the shoe I was sold was too wide for my feet causing to twist too much in the shoe, was given something else and only had to pay the $30 price difference.

Very happy with that, Specialst Store happy to admit an error in judgement and make good, Chain Store couldn't give a rats.

But just the experience of one person.

[Duffman]

halifax, on Oct 24 2009, 12:16 AM, said:

I'm no shoe expert, the guy at the store told me the cause of it was the shoes.

There is no current evidence to show significant link between running shoes and incidence of overuse injury.
The guy in the store is confusing science with marketing.

[swaggerer]

Duffman, on Oct 26 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

There is no current evidence to show significant link between running shoes and incidence of overuse injury.
The guy in the store is confusing science with marketing.

But there is a link. It is just not significant.

I suggest linking the fitting of wrong shoes to the incidence of injury is like linking the sun to warmth. The link is so significant it is irrefutable.

Edited by swaggerer, 26 October 2009 - 04:16 PM.

[BOD]

JoggerK, on Oct 24 2009, 01:41 PM, said:

I saw this sign in an athletes foot store. It seems a bit overly simplistic.
Is it a good idea or is just so dumbed down to be worthless or worse - cause more issues than it solves ?

athletes_foot.jpg

This diagram makes periodic appearances in Runners' World and other publications.

It is featured on the Runners' World website in a video that even shows you how to carry out the necessary "wet test".

Essential components of the "wet test": tray of water, brown-paper bag and a foot.

It is suggested that the arch formation will point you to the right type of shoe.
The link is here.

[BOG]

The simple answer is that we don't know whether assessing plantar foot type and then prescribing a shoe on this basis makes any difference- positive or negative- to injury rates in runners (see link to article on this subject in my signature).

What we do know is that it makes absolutley no difference to injury rates in military recruits including rates of overuse injuries thought to arise from marching and running. See abstract

[Bellthorpe]

Your signature includes a link to a site, the content of which is:

"If you are the owner of this web site you have not uploaded (or incorrectly uploaded) your web site. For information on uploading your web site using FTP client software or web design software, click here for FTP Upload Information".

[BOG]

Thanks Bellthorpe

[Colin]

BOG, on Nov 25 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

What we do know is that it makes absolutley no difference to injury rates in military recruits including rates of overuse injuries thought to arise from marching and running. See abstract

The first and only response to that post is this:

Quote

This research was a waste of time, money and effort. Everybody in the control group had to run on a stability shoe!

...and that's what I picked up too...is that what's meant by "random" controlled tests??

Why not everyone in control group in neutral shoes...hey why not everyone in control group buy shoes without advice from shops...or is that too obviously testing the effectiveness of shop advice?
Why not everyone waltz into Rebel or Paul's BOGOF (buy one get one free), or even Kmart?

Foot shape is not a predictor, but a bloody good starting point. My wife has a very high arch, stiff foot and bunions. She didn't need a podiatrist to select a shoe, and obviously requires a neutral and cushioned shoe..the bonus is that the Vomero these days has the bunion cells too...all problems solved.

cheers

[BEN-HUR]

JoggerK, on Oct 24 2009, 02:41 PM, said:

I saw this sign in an athletes foot store. It seems a bit overly simplistic.
Is it a good idea or is just so dumbed down to be worthless or worse - cause more issues than it solves ?

Good point Kev. It is overly simplistic & I feel worthless in most cases... thus should not be used by the Athlete's Foot as it gives people the wrong impression as to what is happening with their lower limb in a dynamic fashion. Being that the crux of the exercise should be to determine what is happening dynamically (in movement), the images of foot prints conveyed by the Athlete's Foot, Runner's World (i.e. standing with a wet foot on a paper bag) etc... serves little functional purpose.



The problem is that the above image only reflects an arch contour in a static state (i.e. standing). One needs to determine what is happening whilst walking & running. I see many people who I assess as having excess & out of phase pronation... to the lay person some may appear to have 'flat' feet (as they can see little of an arch)... some may appear to have a 'normal' or 'high' arch foot. However (in a 'flat' foot example), stand most of these people on a computerised sensor pad (static) & in many cases you have what is considered a 'normal' arch... get them to walk across the sensor pad (dynamic) & you see something that contradicts what a so called 'normal' (or a 'high') arch would do. It doesn't compute to what is considered a "neutral" (or supinator) functioning foot should do... but the contrary - a pronating foot that could be regarded as excessive for the individual as well as out of phase in the gait cycle... thus a possible contributive cause of injury.

Why Is It So?
You only need to have the plantar (bottom) surface of your arch 1mm from the surface (i.e. paper bag) & it will not register a mark (thus what would appear a 'normal' [neutral] arch contour)... but in a non-weightbearing position the plantar surface of the same area could be 10mm from the surface. This is a drop of 9mm as a result of pronation when full weightbearing is achieved. Hence, the footprint does not reflect what the foot is doing in movement (dynamically) which should be the objective of the assessment in the first place.

As already mentioned, this is where someone with a 'high' arch can be falsely diagnosed. Their footprint would indicate a high arch (supinator) foot - thus (according to the footprint logic) must be a supinator - thus should be put into a neutral / cushioned shoe... thus the likely chance of injury due to the pronation not taken into account whilst running. Not everyone with a 'high' arch has a rigid foot type - some have a flexible forefoot which will thus contribute to the motion of pronation... this will not be picked up on in a static footprint test.

Solution:
Note the contours of the foot non-weightbearing compared to weightbearing. Then get the individual to walk or run to note again what is happening to the arch & ankle contours. It is quick & simple & gives a far better indication of the functional status of the individual's foot / lower limb than that a footprint diagram alludes to.

[swaggerer]

Bennie. In fairness to Athletes Foot, the AF process is as follows. First, you stand on the pad sensor with feet together. This supposedly picks up any leg- length difference and gives a static reading. Then you walk over it twice, placing first one foot, then the other foot on the sensor matt. This gives a dynamic reading (at walking pace) of both feet.

The first time I tried I was half pissed and listed to the left - so got whacky readings. Excessive supination one leg and extreme pronation the other.

Next time I achieved proper readings (by their standards) which, even though i have a high arch, suggested I need more support. I went to three different shops and all had similar readings (except my first drunken tryst).

I think studying a video of the runner in action, or getting a runner-podiatrist to assess your running action, is probably the best way to work out what kind of shoe suits you the best.

Edited by swaggerer, 26 November 2009 - 10:49 AM.

[BEN-HUR]

swaggerer, on Nov 26 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

Bennie. In fairness to Athletes Foot, the AF process is as follows. First, you stand on the pad sensor with feet together. This supposedly picks up any leg- length difference and gives a static reading. Then you walk over it twice, placing first one foot, then the other foot on the sensor matt. This gives a dynamic reading (at walking pace) of both feet.

Hi Swaggie. I am aware of the FitPrint process & it does seem fairly accurate - so long as the system is calibrated on a regular basis. However it wasn't this I was referring to. I was just referring to the footprint diagrams (posters) & the assumptions they portray to the public. I have seen it on A.F windows, paper/magazine adds etc... It is also described here...

BOD, on Oct 26 2009, 06:32 PM, said:

This diagram makes periodic appearances in Runners' World and other publications.

It is featured on the Runners' World website in a video that even shows you how to carry out the necessary "wet test".

Essential components of the "wet test": tray of water, brown-paper bag and a foot.

It is suggested that the arch formation will point you to the right type of shoe.
The link is here.

swaggerer, on Nov 26 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

The first time I tried I was half pissed and listed to the left - so got whacky readings. Excessive supination one leg and extreme pronation the other.

Next time I achieved proper readings (by their standards) which, even though i have a high arch, suggested I need more support. I went to three different shops and all had similar readings (except my first drunken tryst).

Your dedication to your experiment & the sacrifice you made by consuming a toxic substance should be commended. With the experiment behind you won't need to do this again will you?

All the best.

[swaggerer]

BEN-HUR, on Nov 27 2009, 12:04 AM, said:

Hi Swaggie. I am aware of the FitPrint process & it does seem fairly accurate - so long as the system is calibrated on a regular basis. However it wasn't this I was referring to. I was just referring to the footprint diagrams (posters) & the assumptions they portray to the public. I have seen it on A.F windows, paper/magazine adds etc... It is also described here...



All the best.

I thought that needed clarification. Maybe AF should make it clearererer that the diagrams are backed up with their system. Other shops have similar diagrams. Yes they are a just a guide and don't factor in different traits of individuals . All clear now.

One thought. The AF sensor pad shows the inside of the ball of my foot as the main pressure point. From this they determine that I pronate and need support. In the back of my mind I keep thinking that maybe all those exercises I do,such as toe racing and picking up towels with my toes etc., have strengthened my feet and the pressure is not caused from my arches collapsing and causing my feet to roll in but firm foot control. You,BH, said that the function of the arch needs to the recorded at movement; the AF system doesn't really show how much the arch moves - just which part of the foot records the most pressure . Why i mention this - I train in minamalist shoes and have had few problems and yet AF staff say I need stability shoes such as Kayano and Air Structure. I don't know.

Quote

Your dedication to your experiment & the sacrifice you made by consuming a toxic substance should be commended. With the experiment behind you won't need to do this again will you?

What else does one do whilst waiting for the grals to do their shopping?

Cheers,
Ronnie.

Edited by swaggerer, 27 November 2009 - 09:18 AM.