Today, I am going to get up on my soap-box and talk about gait analysis. Most of you know it because you would have tried it in a running store, administered by a well-meaning shop representative who would then match the results to a pair of shoes presumably perfect for you that will help keep you injury free. Instead of my explaining what gait analysis claims to do, let me quote ASICS:
Gait analysis provides runners with essential information about their running style. This is important however long they have been running, as only through knowing their running style will they be able to select the right shoes. The right running shoes are important as they can maximise both running performance and potential, as well as minimising the risk of injury, such as painful shins and joints.
The major focus of gait analysis is to measure the degree of pronation. Pronation is the natural inward roll of the foot as the outside part of the heel strikes the ground. This roll acts as a shock absorber for the leg and body,
Video gait analysis is simple. It involves running for a few minutes on a treadmill while a video is made of the runner’s feet. -ASICS, Foot mapping and gait analysis
Gait analysis rests on a number of false assumptions and an incomplete methodology. The first assumption being that your foot strike is somehow a natural unchangeable phenomenon that can be fixed by applying the correct shoe. This assumption is wrong: foot strike is a result of the hierarchy of movement – posture, rhythm and relaxation, or in other words – your technique. There’s nothing inherent, genetic or unchangeable about it. Can shoes fix it? A shoe can adapt to whatever striking pattern you see on the gait analysis “at that moment” but here’s the problem: most gait analysis is performed in shoes! Since it is becoming common knowledge again that shoes fundamentally change the foot-strike, because they alter your posture and your body’s ability to react to the ground, analysing someone in a pair of shoes cannot tell you “how they run”. It can only tell you “how they run in that specific pair of shoes.”
Gait analysis does not measure anything “natural”
This assumptions also undermines the statement that shoes are prescribed towards the “natural inward and outward roll” of the foot (pronation) recorded during gait analysis. Sadly, gait analysis cannot measure the natural roll of the feet because a) it is usually not conducted barefoot and b) the majority of runners tested are not adopting a natural running gait anyway.
See example of full-body analysis on our YouTube channel
Then there’s the methodology of gait analysis, which is flawed at its core. Gait analysis only video records your feet not the entire body. This is similar to recording a bowling ball striking the pins but not stance, steps and throw leading into that result. Would you feel confident telling someone how their throw is from just a recording of the end-result (how the ball hits the pins?). I would not.
We also need to accept the raw reality of the current injury crisis: gait analysis and running shoes matched to that gait have been around for a while. Yet the crisis remains and statistics continue to be depressing to read. No matter what your reasons, if you are doing something and it is not effective, it is time to consider a new approach:
Gait analysis out, running technique analysis in
So what to do? The real solution is very simple, and anyone with a portable camera supporting 60 frame per second slow-motion playback can execute the first part of it. You film someone outdoors or on a treadmill, from the side, and you film them both in their regular pair of shoes and barefoot. So why do not all running shops simply do this instead when it’s much less advanced technology than what is commonly set up for gait analysis? Because the second part of the solution is harder – interpreting what you see on the video and prescribing the right corrective actions.
This cannot be done in ten or twenty minutes, nor can it be done beyond the very basic intervention in an hour. It requires great skill and experience on part of the person looking at the video which includes a full understanding of biomechanics, the laws of motion and human movement. But this is the direction the running store industry needs to move towards. Traditional gait analysis has to disappear from running shops everywhere and be replaced by a full video assessment, a basic introductory session to get the runner on the right track straight out of the shop (or as close to it as possible) and then recommendation for follow-up work. Some people will require significant work, four hours or more, before they are technically at the level they need to be at to run enjoyably and injury free in their new footwear (or barefoot if they prefer). As an industry we have to start being honest about this and stop professing to provide magic bullet solutions. This is simply offering false hope. The plaster may be on the wound, and you may not see the bleeding, but it still leaks beneath.
But running shops will be driven out of business!
Enabling runners to run barefoot may seem like a pretty poor sales strategy for running stores out there until they consider that this will happen eventually anyway. But even if 100% of the running community adopts barefoot running styles, it does not have to mean the end of the running shoe industry nor does it have to mean a fatal blow to running stores, for whom shoes are a big money maker.
Given the variety of situations, weather conditions and terrains, there is likely to always be a demand for shoes. Promoting only the shoes we know have the correct attributes to enable optimal running form will be key: 3mm sole or less, wide toe-box, zero-drop profile and a sole that allows for necessary proprioceptive feedback and so on. All the major shoe brands are moving in this direction. Most are still very far away from where they need to be (Nike Frees being a particularly egregious example of misunderstood application of “natural running shoes”) but they will get there eventually and running stores need to be ahead of the game. It’ll be better for consumers, with less injuries and less expenses on shoes, and opens up new business opportunities for running store owners. Happy customers and happy consumers. Sounds perfect, right?
A road-map for a future without clunky shoes and gait analysis
As serious running professionals it is time to stop selling shoes in isolation as if they are a solution in themselves. They are not and, in the case of the majority of modern shoes, they are still a fundamental part of the problem. So, unfortunately, is gait analysis because it leaves a false impression with runners that they are buying shoes individually suited to them and their unique problem. The truth is that the shoes are only individually suited to the problem recorded for that runner in whatever they were wearing during the test. As for the unique problem – there is none! What the gait analysis measures is just a symptom of some fundamental technical errors, often caused by the very shoes being tested or being sold. These technical errors are the root cause that running store professionals need to hone in on in the future or refer on to specialists who can aid their customers with permanent solutions to the real problems. Rather than trying to rush sales staff through running technique courses, running store owners should form alliances with existing experts and use them as a resource to educate and protect their customers from injury.
With the knowledge that has come back to the forefront in the last five years, taking any other direction is irresponsible and, at worst, misleading. Eventually, general running store staff will have access to basic education for initial in-shop analysis, but it will take time for coaching programs to grow to this level of maturity especially as the number of skilled practitioners remains very low and much of the cutting-edge knowledge and practice has not yet made it’s way into the mainstream curriculum for sports professionals.
In the meantime, the solution is still fairly simple: sales staff can provide customers with an overview of the risks of each shoe and explain what steps they need to take to achieve optimal technical proficiency in running so they can run safely. Shop owners can set up relationships with experts to refer their customers on to or they can attempt to build experts into their business model on a contractual, project or full-time basis. Either way, shops can focus on their primary competency (sales, marketing, knowledge about equipment, clothing and gear) while providing their customers with expert guidance on a field usually outside their area of expertise (biomechanics, natural laws, prescription of corrective drills for running).
What are the big shoe manufacturers doing about it?
Every company producing running shoes have addressed the situation slightly differently. Some by appealing to the barefoot or minimalist romantics by offering certain attractive features such as a flexible sole (Nike Free again) while keeping most of the features of the shoe that makes it problematic (high heel, thick sole) and others by answering an over-engineering problem with more over-engineering. An example of the latter are Newton’s who attempt to fix the problem of forefoot landing and heel-to-toe differential in shoes by slapping a lot of rubber on the front of their shoes. These are early attempts that do not address the root cause, but just try to deal with symptoms and these approaches will die out over time. In the meantime, whenever you see a shoe with a big heel or other hi-tech features and advertisement stating “anatomically placed” or “super natural ride” just ignore it and remember it’s a ploy to get you to buy the “same old, same old” while catering to new consumer preferences. Think of these shoes as Light cigarettes.
Some companies are further down the line providing footwear that has most of the necessary attributes for natural running style but they often fail to make proper education a mandatory part of the process, thus driving down the credibility and success of their products and damaging the barefoot technology shoe industry as a whole and the running technique professionals by association. Early steps at creating online barefoot running programs or publishing books are a step in the right direction but this process requires direct intervention and running stores will need to acknowledge this moving forward. A large volume of running drills available online and much of the technique listed in recent barefoot publications is flawed and based on an incorrect understanding of human movement. This will be a great challenge for the industry and shop owners especially who will need to separate the wheat from the chaff, the charlatans from the real deal, to ensure their customers get the correct level of advice.
Inov-8 are one example of a progressive company which has slowly begun correcting it shoes towards the necessary specifications with zero-drop shoes and a widening of the toe-box. Their latest models still have minor flaws to fulfil all requirements but they will follow soon. Like most shoe companies they have not yet founded a dedicated coaching program to go with their shoes but have attempted a transition strategy by moving people from shoes with more heel to less heel over time. This is an ingenious sales strategy and an encourages a slower transition to low-heel footwear (not necessarily a good thing). Such a model still fails to address more fundamental problems with each runner’s technique and leaves high unpredictability of results. Inov-8 seem to be making moves to follow in the footsteps of VivoBarefoot, who designed a barefoot coaching model in collaboration with Lee Saxby. Yet these are still early days. Other manufacturers will follow and running stores need to be ready.
After all that, should I go get gait analysis
Sadly, for all its superficial attractions, gait analysis belongs the same place I would tell any of my runners to put their orthotics: in the bin. But running stores have the opportunity to replace it with something better and that is a prospect for all runners to be excited about.
As a consumer, in the meantime, inform yourself about running technique and natural running anyway you can. Attend the clinics with respected and proven professionals and get advice on your running form and what footwear to purchase. Then use this advice to make a truly informed purchasing decision.
Do you agree with René? Why not post your views here, as this debate is bound to rage on for some time.
René
Latest posts by René (see all)
- Up & Down (Hill workout) - July 13, 2020
- Alternations - June 25, 2020
- Educated Runner – podcast - April 24, 2020
- Mistaking the icing for the cake - October 24, 2019
- Are numbers evil? (should runners quantify their training?) - January 23, 2018
Interesting. Ties in with an article I read today: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/fitness/exercise/fitness-research/debunking-the-myth-of-specialized-running-shoes/article1921657/
“The most telling test of the “pronation paradigm” came in a paper published last year in the British Journal of Sports Medicine by researchers at the University of British Columbia working with the Nike Sports Research Laboratory in Oregon. They studied 81 women enrolled in a 13-week training program prior to a half-marathon, dividing them into three groups based on their foot type and degree of pronation. But instead of fitting them with the “correct” shoe for their foot type, the researchers randomly assigned them to one of three types: neutral, stability or motion control.
“We were a bit nervous, because … if you see someone who is highly pronated, putting them in a neutral shoe may be a recipe for causing more pain,” acknowledges Michael Ryan, the study’s lead author, who is now a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Wisconsin.”
[…] Why gait analysis doesn’t work (and the future of the shoe industry): Learn why you should not trust a gait analysis or invest in an expensive pair of runners based on it. […]
Rene,
I have to say I find the running style/gait analysis stuff on the blog fascinating. I will talk a little from more personal experience in a minute but I agree with the sentiment. Instructing a shop attendant, however well meaning, how to do the most basic gait analysis is a bit like asking the shop assistant in boots to diagnose your illness. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
But like medical advice, gait analysis in the right trained hands, scientifically implemented can be of benefit. This is where my personal experience comes in. When I started running seriously, I came from a cycling background and had no coach for years. Old pics show a horrendous heel strike even in spikes! Not surprisingly I had stress fractures but tried to run through them. Then one day, observing other track runners, I decided to run try run on my toes because it looked fast and gradually over time I adapted naturally to this. I still got injuries but put this down to the strains of middle distance running, hip injuries, stress fracture on my toes after running in Nenagh etc. I took a couple of years out travelled, surfed and thought little more of it,
Then when I hit 30 it all went pear shaped. I had spent a winter doing indoor track work in Cardiff. My ankles gave in, I couldn’t jog without painful spasms or even stand for long periods of time. Depressed and with nothing to lose I went to a physio who got me back on my feet and suggested a podiatrist. Skeptical, I had heard lots of tales of poor orthotics. I gave it a go and I’m glad I did. I had never heard of suppination before then but after a proper gait analysis, over a pressure pad, in shoes, barefoot, with sample orthotics, I could see exactly what was happening with my feet. He pointed out something I had missed all my life, my big toes don’t touch the ground. I was such an extreme case he made sure the student there on placement saw me and took notes. You wont see many like this guy he told him. The result is feet’s my natural shock absorption is compromised. By the time my big toes start to take any weight its too late,all the stress goes up my outside 2-3 toes and up the outside of ankle. My pressure print looks like a narrow line running on the outside of my foot. You cannot see my arch. My orthotics correct this and allow me to spread the stress across my toes, ‘angling’ my foot in. I’ve been warned off shoes with any kind of structure and now run mainly in lightweight racers with my orthotics. When I broke my foot badly in a car accident, it changed my gait in that foot slightly and my orthotic through the same process has been adjusted to adapt to my new shorter and more irregular shaped foot.
I do like to run and walk barefoot, it has helped strengthen my feet after the aforementioned car crash and don’t believe I ever would have easily improved my form without running in spikes, minimal shoes hidden in plain view, on the country and track 2-3 times a week for years. However I know they have their limitations for me, after a while barefoot I can feel the strain on my anterior ankle ligaments. I also know though that maybe fewer than 1 in 10 or fewer people suppinate as extremely as I do and I also have some rheumatism in my toes following the trauma. I get where you are coming from, agree with many of your points but to say no one needs could benefit from a decent gait analysis and orthotics simply is a gross generalisation.
I can’t talk for any pronators out there but for me, gait analysis and orthotics do help. So much so I can’t help wonder how different my running life might have been if I had discovered this when I was 20, not 30, not worn over protective shoes for years etc.
PS as for some sort of racketeering by the podiatrist I have only ever got three pair of ortotics from him in 8 years, each costing much less than a pair of trainers and he doesn’t charge for his time, only the hardware. I have had numerous free check ups and been sent on my way without any updates on more than one occasion. Like a good mechanic, he wont do any unnecessary work.
hi Aidan,
First of all, thanks for writing such a well-thought out comment. I took some time to go through it as your points are challenging (in the good way) as it forces us to be a bit clearer about our methodology and assumptions. I have tried (and hopefully succeeded) to talk to your points below. I think the example of
changing from a heel strike to a toe strike illustrates well one of the current
problems – it’s possible to make this adaptation, physically,(e.g. the body
will adapt, for a time, to almost anything) but without inserting the ideal
movement, it tends to end with one breakdown pattern being replaced by another.
Supination is a bi-product
of the foot’s natural mechanics. Over-supination is an issue but the problem we
see with diagnosing it is that it is not treated for what it is – it’s a
symptom of an incorrect posture applied to the movement of running. We often
correct supination in a mere ten minutes in workshop simply by sorting out the
posture – some cases take a bit longer of course but generally this is a
straightforward problem for us to deal with.
The big toes not touching
the ground is not as uncommon as the podiatrist suggested, although your case
may have been extreme, looking at the people who attend our workshops. In fact,
it’s extremely common and correcting this part of foot mechanics is at the core
of Tony Riddle’s coaching model here with CE. It’s a hardware problem, as you
saw for yourself, but it is not irreversible. I have seen examples of it
reversed. I am seeing it in myself. Even from people with extremely narrow
feet, big bunions and very compromised foot mechanics.
To comment on the hardware
changes made by the car accident we would obviously need to see you. But in
Tony’s experience over many years there are almost no hardware changes that
cannot be corrected. Until we have exhausted the work that we know is possible to
change the foot back towards it’s natural shape we would not support an
orthotic because at the end of the day it does decondition you further and take
you further away from full natural rehabilitation. Are there irreversible
cases? Yes, of course, for instance if I chopped off my big toe, my foot
mechanics will always be compromised no matter what I do. But if Tony was to
see you my guess is the very first thing he would look at is whether your foot
mechanics are within the range that we know can be rehabilitated. Everyone we
see, really everyone so far, has a degree of compromise in their foot mechanics
that ruins their natural shock absorption.
The limitations are you are
experiencing at the moment are not just a result of the foot trauma but also of
your overall movement pattern. Anterior ankle ligament pain for people
experimenting with bare foot is almost a rule as we see it. It’s because the
bare foot without the proper software (natural running style) and hardware (the
ankle flexibility of an African tribesman and his foot too) will not work. Tony’s
methodology rests on the fact he knows how to bring “modern” humans as close
back to this state as is possible.
I think it’s hard to write
an article without a bit of generalisation but if you accept our assumptions
you will see that from our view it is not “gross” because the only people we
believe benefit only from an orthotic are those who have foot mechanical
problems that cannot be altered. We do not accept that bunions, big toe
indention and similar “physical” changes are irreversible (because Tony Riddle’s
and my own experience demonstrate that is simply not the case – my own
calcification for instance is almost completely gone after applying the method
for only 1 year). Gait analysis I call out as being not useful because it does
not address the root cause of the problem – supination and pronation are merely
an effect of posture. If you don’t look at posture, you are not serious about
correcting the problem of
over-supination. I would have liked to write something more
conciliatory, believe me, but I from my vantage point the methodology of
standard gait analysis (feet only, shot from the back) is as I illustrate in my
metaphor “like analysing a bowling strike by filming the pin-fall”.
Our view is that the very industry
that put forward orthotics and over-protective shoes helped put you in the
situation you are in in the first place. We are not saying they did this out of
malice (they just followed a paradigm with fundamentally faulty assumptions –
Rupert Sheldrake writes well about this in his recent “Science set free” or as
it is, unfortunately titled, in Europe, “The Science Delusion”). Where they
influenced by the financial gains in their objectivity. Almost certainly – we know
big pharma has the same effect on our medical profession. But this is
forgivably human – and who’s to say we are not similarly influenced (I’ll
accept that can be levelled against me even if I think that is not the case –
e.g. if I wanted to get rich I’d have picked a different profession!). Wearing
shoes as a kid when your feet were at their most malleable and vulnerable has
undoubtedly been the greatest contributory factor to your current foot
mechanics. The other symptoms you are experiencing follow from issues with your
movement pattern and physiology that we would all generally trace back to
modern lifestyle, especially seated posture and modern stressors.
I accept that there are good and bad doctors, podiatrists,
physios etc. of course and your experience with the orthotics seem to have been
more positive than mine. As you say some a “good mechanics”. My own experiences
were not as positive but that’s not really the reason I have a problem with
orthotics – it’s because, again going back to our assumption that most feet are
perfectly fixable, it’s addressing a symptom by putting a band-aid on it that,
in the long-term, only further damages the patient’s physical and technical
abilities thus requiring even further intervention in the long-term. For us,
this is a vicious circle that needs breaking. Simplified it looks like this:
modern footwear given to children ruin their feet -> lots of seated posture
ruin natural movement patterns -> injuries occur as a result of ruined foot mechanic
and movement patterns -> more corrective footwear/orthotics recommended to
fix problem caused by shoes and intervention in natural movement pattern in the
first place. We simply do not accept that this status quo is acceptable or
necessary except in a few freak cases.
If we could find a time for you to meet Tony at some stage
and “show us your feet”, I’d be only too happy that we could provide you a
reasoned opinion on whether your issues are actually correctible without the
use of orthotics especially since you took the time to write such a reasoned
and lengthy reply. Your case certainly sounds interesting but that being said,
just in the one year this programme has run in Ireland we’ve seen some pretty
extreme cases (runners whose big toes are not touching the ground at all, like
yours). But it is reversible if the proper skills are taught and the athlete
has the desire to follow it to its logical conclusion without compromise.I used to wonder, as you do, what could have been if I had started younger or gotten good advice from the start. Lately I have changed that thought pattern and believe that in my fourties I will be able to compete at an extremely high level as long as I continue my natural movement education and aspire to live as natural a lifestyle as possible. I say this because of the transformation in physical ability I have seen in the first year working with Tony and the transformation I have seen in Aoife’s movement quality (and that of others). Even when it comes to non-running activities, I feel like I have been given an entirely “new body” (doing plyometric pushups tirelessly or falling from over a metre directly into a push-up effortlessly was beyond the pale for me once, now these things are not even exercise – they are fun activities to entertain myself). I think the default model should be to exhaust all options in terms of correcting foot mechanics and movement patterns naturally. Only then should we intervene with “artificial” solutions such as orthotics – as the very last resort.
Hi there,
I have been reading the above comments/article with interest over the past few weeks in addition with other theories surrounding the subject of foot mechanics due to issues of my own.
At present I am a 30 year old runner who used to compete at a strong competitive level. However since injuries and surgery on my left knee and more recent problems I have finally consulted with both NHS Podiatrists and physio therapists to identify the mechanical issues surrounding my feet and the most suitable solution as i aim to help move forward.
My issues at present are four fold
1, my left foot is just under a size 6 right foot just over a size 8
2, my left leg is 1cm shorter than my right.
3, the left and right foot both have entirely different shapes
4, the mechanics of both my legs seem to operate in entirely different ways.
It wont come as a surprise that the podiatrist have recommended me to use orthotics and at present I have come to the assumption that othotics are likely to be a suitable solution in part purely if nothing else as a counter to the initial issue of the length of my legs to allow a more natural posture. However I have now collated an in-depth case study surrounding my problem. This ranges from video footage of running both bare foot and in trainers from all 4 angles (left, right, in front and behind) to allow as much assessment as possible. I have also been to see Asics who have provided me with a laser image of my two feet, a pressure scan and gait analysis, which while they are frowned upon here. I feel when combined with my additional research it has the potential to provide suitable analysis support to appropriate professionals once i identify the next step forward. Allowing people to see exactly how my feet are shaped and the way they have developed independently of each other over a period of time. This is in addition of notes from medical assessments and my knee operation to help provide as much information as possible as a means to try and find suitable solutions to move forward.
I am still unsure where to go at this stage however i feel the ability to communicate with specialists from a range of backgrounds can only help the research into this area. In addition to suitable rehabilitation programmes to finally provide me with a potential platform to move forward. Is this something you can help with i am currently based it the bath region in the South West however I am serious about finding a way forward and any help that can be offered will be greatly appreciated.
(Apologies for the poor formatting, snuck in somehow and I do not have the time to fix it, so hopefully it’s still readable:)
o Glen,
your response reminds me of the key message of a book called “The Signal and
the Noise”. Today we have more and more information but surprisingly it has
been proven that in most area experts get no more precise in their diagnosis
and predictions based on the extra information (only more confident). We don’t
frown on video analysis (just the methodology commonly used and the conclusions
drawn from most) and use it in all our workshops (we shoot the entire runner
running both barefoot and in their regular shoes) but as a tool to extract
information about the quality of their movement and then work from there to
bring it where we need it to be.
o Runners
sometimes bring MRIs and other data to our workshops. Sometimes they can
provide some useful background (but rarely more than we already deduct from
seeing them move and talk to them). The problem is confirmation bias: if you
look for examples of something you will often find it. Most information,
however, is noise – not signal – and does not tell us anything of value. It
just makes the picture more complex or gives a false sense that we “know a lot
about the problem” which is then used to state something with more confidence.
We try to focus in on the key elements of movement (looking at you run): rhythm,
posture, relaxation and foot mechanics and then we begin by fixing them one by
one. It’s not usually of any value to know exactly how your feet are shaped.
It’s enough to see how the landing is and then teach the movement pattern that
attains a correct landing. How you achieve this is the art that you pay a coach
for: he must know what cues and instructions will achieve the behaviours
necessary for you to succeed.
o I was
reminded of this the other day during my honeymoon after doing several hard
trail runs in my VivoBarefoot Breatho shoes in Vancouver. I hit my left heel
bone three times against hard rocks and the bone was sore for a few days after.
Yet I could still run just had to be extra focused on my technique.
o In the
old days, I went to physios and doctors for similar problems (and others) and
this always resulted in some diagnosis in Latin and sometimes an MRI which then
confirmed this diagnosis. Either way the prescription was always the same –
some exercises to keep me distracted and anti-inflammatory measures as well as
rest.
Today, I never go to these specialists, it is irrelevant to me what the diagnosis is or what an MRI shows. What I know is there is a pain likely caused by a temporary
trauma blow (the pain of which we know is partly physical and partly
mental/subconscious). I just heal any pain through a combination of good
movement and some common-sense applying natural methods only as I don’t feel
any modern intervention technique (icing, injections, ultrasound etc.) have
proven to have any benefits (and carry risks on the other hand). Had my foot
been cut open, the logic is different – I would have asked a doctor to stitch
it up and disinfect it and then I would have rehabilitated myself through
natural methods.
o In Tony Riddle’s coaching method we do not see the differences in your foot sizes and mechanics as a particularly big problem. We have treated people with different length of the legs before and this is not a problem in the biomechanical model we apply to running. To test this theory is simple (I do it regularly) – just run on a camber or with one leg on a curb. All you need to do is slightly adjust the cadence of the leg on the camber versus the leg that is not. This is a matter of coordination and practice only.
o Also,
every single runner we have seen. except one who grew up in Africa, has
deformed feet from modern footwear. This is fixable. We cannot make your feet
grow the same size but we can make both perfectly suitable platforms to work
on.
o Currently I am not aware of anyone but Tony Riddle his team in London (and his team here with us in Ireland) with the know-how to apply our method, so I can probably
not be of direct assistance unless you can come to either location. We are
working on an online platform so we can support athletes everywhere in the
world but until then we are restricted to places where we currently operate.
Our team will travel for workshops everywhere but it requires the organiser
secures a minimum number of people (number depends on the scale of the trip).
On a personal note let me add this: if there is ever a hint of anger in our posts or a tone of “accusation’, it’s because I personally do feel angry, not with any particular professional (who would generally be well-meaning), but with this ethereal concept we call “the system” that did this to us – put us in shoes that ruined us, sold us food that is not fit for human consumption, created an educational system where we sit down all day when we should be moving and then gave us solutions that were not solutions but band-aids to further make us dependent. Is it a conspiracy? No, it’s the way systems theory works – systems perpetuate the values that maintain them until someone breaks them. When I see my niece and nephew in shoes that I know will limit their abilities later in life, do I feel a sense of anger? Yes, I do, which is why I am passionate about changing this status quo. Doctors and physios advised me into orthotics that I now know weakened me for a time. They subscribed me drugs that should never be given unless in an absolute emergency. They operated on my father’s knee without considering other options first and then gave him him a rehabilitation training programme that is reinforcing the same movement patterns and posture that created the knee problem in the first place. Am I angry with the doctors and professionals. No. Am I angry with the system that created it. Yes. But the only way to channel that is to challenge it and provide an alternative. Tony has had this vision much longer than me and we’ll do our best. Others are doing the same and hopefully, one day, we’ll have a more natural approach to medical care all-up.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I’m glad you didn’t take it as a debunking attempt, and took it for what it was.
Unfortunately I live in Wales these days, it a few years since Irishtown was a regular haunt but I would be interested if the chance ever occured of having a chat with Tony regarding suppination, posture etc. I don’t see my orthotics as a sticking plaster, merely a tool that enhances my running and has allowed me to do so when I’d have probably knocked it on the head years ago at any level because it’s ‘too hard on the legs blah blah. I am mindful to work hard on my foot and lower leg strength to prevent injury and would be interested in any that work towards correcting suppination. I dont for a second think I most flexible ankles but they are better than they used to be, partly because learning to surf and that kind of thing. I remember my judo playing cousin laughing at meas a teen when i could hardly move my foot in any other direction than up down (I was a keen cyclist at the time as I mentioned earlier). So for me it has value as I see how it works. I see it as a mechanical thing. Other means could also work of course.
Apart from anything else I appreciate the sentiment about the sport shoe industry or general running culture. Of course the notion of conspiracy doesn’t hold up for one simple reason. Who buys running shoes? Runners. What do runners not do when they are injured? Run. What do runners not tend to buy when they are injured? Running shoes. Get injured too often, you quit and so on. That said over engineering is obviously an issue. I recall Asics being the big shoe of choice in Irish circles in the 90s. This was in part to the fact that as suppliers to the Irish team, there were a lot of people with connections and even a relatively novice running squad like mine in UCD could get cost price shoes. The assumption was, you need to do mileage, you need a tank of a shoe, the gel kayano is the best tank you can get. In retrospect i couldn’t have worn more unsuitable shoes! It did occur to me once as to why, the soreness of a hard session aside, why didn’t my legs feel ‘pounded’ after wearing spikes for a track or grass session. But received wisdom at the time was you needed these good shoes. I can only once recall someone criticsing a very talented 800m woman’s coach for getting her to do track sessions in her Asics at Belfied, pointing out how it made her style look heavy even at a fast pace. Other than that I think style was accepted as something you had or didn’t, which made me feel a bit self conscious when I decided to change mine, as if I was putting it on. Of course I realise this is utter nonsense in retrospect once again!
Another aspect of my life has led me to take more notice too. My 4 y.o. son runs and runs barefoot or in plim ole shoes and he has a lovely natural action. He never seems put out by it in the slightest!
Hindsight is an exact science of course but I would have loved for people to have been more aware of this kind of thing 20 years ago,
I remember the “style is something you’ve got” very well when I started running. It’s a terribly limiting dogma for those athletes hit by it. One reason we where so heartened by the feedback for Aoife’s “new stride” after the recent 5 mile. Once people can notice the transformation that is possible, they too will hopefully begin they can do it too.
What’s funny about “I wish we’d known 20 years ago” is that we knew 50 and 60 years ago. Reading Tulloh, Newton, Lydiard, Cerutty and other contemporary sources and they are much closer to where we are moving towards today than we have been at any stage in the intermittent years. They made some errors too, of course, in their observation (Lydiard saw a knee drive) and some parts of their books ARE out-dated (nutrition chapter in Run to the Top) but when it comes to training principles , footwear and insights around lifestyle and preparation, it’s as relevant as ever.
Conspiracies exist of course, we’ve seen them in history, but yes, I never believed in anything as wide-ranging as that. Even “Big Pharma” and it’s effect on the practice of modern medicine is much more easily explained through system dynamics – I like to call it Chomsky’s Law – you’ve a greater chance to be successful in a system if you repeat the established dogmas and operate within the “rules of play”, so because people seek to be successful, they tend to perpetuate existing dogma more readily than replace it. The other side of the coin is that most innovators and ground-breakers operate on the fringes or a ridiculed (often for a time, sometimes their whole life). As Thomas Kuhn pointed out – sometimes a whole generation of bad ideas has to “die out” before the new ones finally win out. I’m hoping we won’t have to wait that long!Hopefully we can find a wayto organise a meeting, if you’re ever in London, let us know as Tony takes appointments there in Gloves Boxing Club. Foot mechanics is one of the areas where the technique he uses is most novel (e.g. I had never and have never since seen the exercises he used employed by anyone else). We’d like to showcase them on the website but at this stage we have to keep a few secrets so people actually come see us. Drills are best learned in person anyway, as it takes very good video instruction to carry it across otherwise and even then you lack the objective observations of the coach to provide feedback (mirrors can do part of this but mirrors don’t know what they are looking for).
It would be disingenuous to say no attention was paid to the running is a skill/old skool stuff when I was starting out. For example I remember my track coach in UCC, an 800m specialist, telling me about Snell’s long runs and the theory behind it and John O’Connor in Crusaders teaching us the Seagrave,i.e. speed is a skill, warm up to improve our form. Just to quote the Alan Webb anecdote in born to run, no one did it from the ground up. I can recall being told many things about my stride, drills etc but never ‘strong feet’.
Of course there is a cultural element to it but it isn’t developed world bad, developing world, i.e. rift valley usually, good. If you have been to Australia and NZ you will have seen going barefoot in day to day life is not unusual, kids play barefoot, surfers run to the breaks barefoot, people walk round barefoot, etc etc. Its not a thought through thing, its just part of life, its more comfortable than hot feet,sweaty shoes full of sand.Northern Europe,North America, thats a bit harder to do so elements of it will get lost or ignored. So its no surprise Ceruty and Lydiard’s athlete’s often went without shoes or had light shoes.
I’m sure plenty of successful coaches have approached the situation much more holistically than “the general view” – brother Colm is nice point in case of someone who is a genuine old school coach but whose methods are not widely publicized.
The curiosity of New Zealand/Australia was one of the things that began the development of the CE Coaching model between Tony and I – because I had tried my best to understand what they did yet felt unable to replicate their methods. It’s when we analysed what the difference in environment and upbringing was that it became clear that Lydiard’s athletes brought natural health, better movement skills, less compromised foot mechanics and a huge low-aerobic base into this programmes from the start. So to undertake a Lydiard-style schedule, a modern runner (without those pretexts) needed to first be brought to that point. This is where we developed the workshops and where we are currently developing the rest of the programme around it – to get everyone back to that “baseline”. Over time we moved away from being “simply Lydiard” because we felt there’s a set of core training principles that transcend his teachings (some older like Shrubb, Newton, Cerutty) and some not directly related to Lydiard (Pilates, Hebert, Morton). Example: if you understand Contrology (the original Pilates method) and practice Hebert’s “Methode Naturelle” you can help recover the exact movement abilities that Lydiard’s athletes (like Snell) had automatically.
I think this challenge will grow. Looking at the problems I had with a reasonably active childhood (compared to today’s children), the next generation could see massive injury problems if we don’t address the root cause of the problem.
I’m no expert but I run for fitness. I had gait analysis done in America a few years ago and they sold me an expensive pair of Brooks trainers, I was told I had a neutral running style. However after a few miles I find my feet pronating inwards and I get pain in my ankles mainly at for front part, this negatively affects my pace. I’ve also tried Virbams five fingers, Nike minimalist designs, Asics support designs.. all sorts. One things for sure, my running style seems fine until I get tired, then it gets worse for a while and eventually becomes more natural again. The point is it changes throughout the run. How can gait analysis be of any use if it does not take this into account?
hi Will, you hit the nail on the head and one of the great disappointments to me is how much credence this practice is given – uncritically when it is so easy to show that it the methodology is based on assumptions that have no relation to reality.
We did this test in a running shop here in Ireland – my colleague, Jason Kehoe, ran on the treadmill and stuck his head out. So he began to heel strike and over-supinate because his head was now ahead of his centre of mass. The shop assistant noted this. He then brought his posture back into alignment and suddenly he was landing flat-footed to the puzzlement of the shop assistant.
The great disservice of the current debate has been the focus on foot-strike at the expense of overall running mechanics, which are much more important. Foot strikes will vary with terrain, speed, tiredness, concentration level, technical ability and other factors from ‘strike to strike’ but as long as they are not rampant heel strikes or very exaggerated side-foot landings no lasting damage will be done from this variation.
For instance, most of our runners run the majority of their runs with perfect form. But each have their weaknesses, so one may hit a hill and suddenly he get’s tired and loses his posture – so he starts ‘landing worse’. That’s simply a matter of training and awareness and I’d be doing this athlete a huge disservice by trying to solve it with a shoe rather than through training – as gait analysis is doing to most runners today.
If I was into conspiracy theories I would say that gait analysis is a perfect sales tool – it creates the illusion of scientific rigour and an immediate individualised sales pitch. Likely it’s simple a question that no one has the interest or level of education to ask the questions that will show this practice for what it is – a waste of time and potentially injurious to the athlete.
You’ve obviously never walked into a real running store.
We’ve have walked into at least one: the VivoBarefoot store in Covent Garden where the runner is taken through a full biomechanical assessment (that means filming from the side) as well as analysis on force plates to see the exact loading zones of the foot and is then referred onto a running technique coach with a higher degree of training and experience if that is warranted.
That’s basically the vision this article outlines: replace the current technique of filming with full video analysis (from the side – sagittal plane analysis) done by a trained movement coach. The VivoBarefoot model sets a good precedent in that it teaches a shorter course to the sales people in the shop (the instructor level) enough to provide basic commentary and give people an idea of where there running currently is as well as the basic principles. Then referral on to someone with a deeper knowledge of biomechanics and more time to spend on the individual client. Any stories about running stores already implementing this would be very welcome as it would be great news indeed if someone has taken this step forward. In Ireland I have not yet encountered it – around the world, there may well be more and I would expect some change to have happened in the two years since this article was written. It would be instance to know, for instance, how many running shops check for Morton’s toe. Without this piece of information any recommendation is sub-optimal.
I have to totally agree with this argument. I decided this year to go for a marathon full 26 miles I would say I have remained pretty fit all my life . I have had the usual ankle ligament damage over the years but it has never stopped me . I had been training for a while in what I would say are trainers I wore to 5 a side football. I spoke with a few people who advised me to go to a local shop and get good running shoes and my running style checked. I did this and the Asics trainers I tried on felt pretty ok.I then got the shop assistant to check my style it was recognised as neutral and I presumed these people know what they are doing so purchased the shoes . To say I take care with stretching and preparation is probably an understatement so about 3 weeks ago I went for a short 4 mile run in my new trainers. When I came home I cooled down and sat on my chair for about an hour watching tv when I went to get up I felt a sharp pain on the outside of my left knee it was really uncomfortable . May I stress I have never ever in 40 years ever had any form of knee injury . Next day the pain down the outside of my left knee was pretty bad. I phoned a private physio and went for an appointment he found a number of things which I can’t explain at this moment but he advised me to ice the area and take some Brufen which I did . The next evening I went for a walk and after 1 mile I could not walk due to the pain in my outside left knee area. Next day was the same. I made another appointment for the physio last week and he found a problem with my cartilage again he specifically told me the name but I will have to go over my emails to check. Again he advised me to rest etc etc. It was then the penny dropped could this in fact been the trainers? And I totally agree with the point above how can someone tell your running style if your feet are covered up? I then remembered that when I was at my doctors about a year ago that he noticed one of the arches of my feet was less than the other and I am getting a mold made for insoles for my shoes at present. At this moment it has been 3 weeks probably longer since the injury and I feel no different I know there has been serious damage done to my knee because of this shoe I have no doubt . Something should be done about this now in my view it has ruined my year and possibly future years and has cost me twice what the trainers cost. I am awaiting going to see a private knee specialist which will cost me a fortune . I would appeal to people to take this advice above very seriously .
Thank you for sharing your story Joe – very informative. The science supporting the arguments here is not easily dismissed as some will suggest. A list of just some of the studies:
-> Robbins, Stevens and Gouw 1990. Conclude that ‘the use of modern athletic footwear, in addition to being inferior to older footwear in moderating shock during running, renders the lower extremity susceptible to injury).
-> Richard, Parker, Robin 2009. Conclusion: the prescription of shoe type to distance running is not evidence-based. The true effect of running shoes is unknown
-> Ibid. 1991. Conclusion: It might be more appropriate to classify athletic footwear as ‘safety hazards’ rather than ‘protective devices’
-> Robbins, Waked 1997. Conclusion: Deceptive advertising of protective devices in athletic footwear is a health hazard and must be eliminated.
-> US Marine Corps Study . Conclusion: almost no correlation between ‘proper’ running shoe and avoiding injury. Injury rates were highest among the soldiers who had received shoes designed specifically for footwear
-> Ryan, Valiant, McDonald and Taunton. Conclusion: our current approach to prescribing in-shoe pronation control systems on the basis of foot type is overly simplistic potentially injurious.
Despite these damning findings no significant changes have been made to conventional footwear or gait analysis techniques. From an overall movement perspective the findings are not surprising because controlling supination or pronation is focusing on the effect rather than the cause. Restoring the foots natural pronation is a necessary precursor for all other actions that follow to happen at the right time – when you try to ‘take it out’ or control it without addressing the root cause you are at best ‘applying a cast’ and at worst reducing and worsening movement potential of the individual athletes.
Lately, the American Society of Sports Medicine has specifically reversed previous running shoe recommendations and are now recommending that runners should avoid the following properties in shoes:
High, thick cushioning
Shoes with heel to toe drop
Extra arch support and orthotics
Narrow toe-box
The majority of shoes still have these issues designed into them but it is being largely ignored while its clearly, as you state, a big health risk for people.
What a load of bollocks.
Keep the positive constructive comments coming. We’re delighted to discuss the specifics you don’t agree with.
For readers who want to look into the research supporting these claims, I suggest starting here:
Robbins, Steven E., and Gerard J. Gouw. 1990. Athletic footwear and chronic overloading – A brief review. Sports Medicine 9
Conclusion: The use of modern footwear in addition to being inferior to older footwear in moderating shock during running, renders the lower extremity susceptible to injury because of design flaws introduced by the preoccupation with optimisation of plantar comfort, and minimisation of shock through the use of simplistic ‘passive falling missile’ model.
Robbins S, and E. Waked. 1997. Hazard of deceptive advertising of athletic footwear. British Journal of Sports Medicine 31
Conclusion: Deceptive advertising of protective devices is a health hazard and must be eliminated
Injury reduction effectiveness of assigning running shoes based on plantar shape in Marine Corps basic training.
Knapik JJ1, Trone DW, Swedler DI, Villasenor A, Bullock SH, Schmied E, Bockelman T, Han P, Jones BH.
Conclusion: Almost no correlation at all between wearing the proper running shoes and avoiding injury. Injury rates were high among all the runners, but they were highest among the soldiers who had received shoes designed specifically for their foot types.
The effect of three different levels of footwear stability on pain outcomes in women runners: a randomised control trial.
Ryan MB1, Valiant GA, McDonald K, Taunton JE.
Conclusion: our current approach of prescribing in-shoe pronation control systems on the basis of foot type is overly simplistic and potentially injurious.
Clinghan, R., G. P. Arnold, T. S. Drew, and L. A. Cochrane. 2008. Do you get value for money when you buy an expensive pair of running shoes? British Journal of Sports Medicine
Conclusion: Low- and medium-cost running shoes in each of the three brands tested provided the same (if not better) cushioning of plantar pressure as high-cost running shoes
Richards, Craig E., Parker J. Magin, and Robin Callister. 2009. Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence based? British Journal of Sports Medicine
Conclusion: The prescription of shoe type to distance runners is not evidence-based. The true effect of running shoes is unknown.
Ibid. 1991. Athletic footwear: unsafe due to perceptual illusions. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
Conclusion: It might be more appropriate to classify athletic footwear as “safety hazards” rather than “protective devices”.
Look out for our upcoming series were we’ll have a look into paradigm-shift happening within Biomechenics which will invalidate a lot – if not most – of current analysis techniques. Those who want a ‘pre-read’ I will point to Professor Braybooke’s ‘The Evolution of Biomechanics’ for a full overview of the problem.
[…] you’ve got dodgy gait it’s more to do with technique (if you want to get nerdy, see this link: http://www.championseverywhere.com/why-gait-analysis-doesnt-work-future-of-the-shoe-industry). Running bare foot is one of the best ways to develop your awareness of how you are running and […]