Running with Orthotics

comer_97

Hi,

I recently got orthotics because my right heel was hitting the ground off centre (very off centre).

I'm trying the orthotics with Ascis GT2100 and i find them very high. I have taken the insole out but my heel seems to be slipping out of the runner.

Will this change with time or should i choose a different runner???

thanks

Amz

Have you tried lacing the runners a bit differently?

I've been running with soft orthotics and found if I laced them higher they weren't too bad. I am waiting on new permanent ones though which will lift my right heel and with will raise my arches, I'm hoping they wont cause much of a problem as regards falling out of the shoe (as I just got a new pair of runners which were quite expensive )

comer_97

thanks for that. I will try lacing them differently tonight.

I really dont want to get another pair of shoes, I have 4 at the moment.

Amz

I've bought two this year so far. Hopefully the latest pair coupled with the new insoles will mean less wear and tear on them.

comer_97

seems that my right foot is shorter than my left so i can feel my foot slipping that's the problem. the orthotics just highlighted an existing problem...

silverline

guys, who diagnosed your problems and recommended the supports?

Amz

Two physiotherapists.

comer_97

chartered physio who specialises in sports injury

robroy1234

Orthotics are not the way to go. You should have actually gone to a sport scientist that specialises in sports injuries. Here is just some information in relation to barefoot running and orthotics and in future I recommend not to go to someone with a vested interest in selling/marketing orthotics:

To be honest, if you really need to find information concerning orthotics you should look at www.sportsci.org. and avoid those who have a vested interest in selling/marketing orthotics - they will have tendency to tell you that it is vital for the long term viability of your running to have orthotics - whereas various studies indicate that barefoot running would be far better for your feet and legs than over-elaborate shoes and expensive orthotics - (Robbins and Hanna, 1987). Barefoot running may induce an adaptation that transfers the impact to the yielding musculature, thus sparing the fascia and accounting for the low incidence of plantar fasciitis in barefoot populations (Robbins and Hanna, 1987).
Chronic ailments such as shin splints, ilio-tibial band syndrome and peri-patellar pain are attributed variously to excessive pronation, supination, and shock loading of the limbs (Siff and Verkhoshansky, 1999, p.451). When running barefoot on hard surfaces, the runner compensates for the lack of cushioning underfoot by plantar-flexing the foot at contact, thus giving a softer landing (Frederick, 1986). Barefoot runners also land mid-foot, increasing the work of the foot's soft tissue support structures, thereby increasing their strength and possibly reducing the risk of injury (Yessis 2000, p.124). Wearers of expensive running shoes that were promoted as correcting pronation or providing more cushioning experienced a greater prevalence of these running-related injuries than wearers of less expensive shoes (Robbins and Gouw, 1991). In another study, expensive athletic shoes accounted for more than twice as many injuries as cheaper shoes, a fact that prompted Robbins and Waked (1997) to suggest that deceptive advertising of athletic footwear (e.g., "cushioning impact") may represent a public health hazard. Anthony (1987) reported that running shoes should be considered protective devices (from dangerous or painful objects) rather than corrective devices, as their capacity for shock absorption and control of over-pronation is limited. The modern running shoe and footwear generally reduce sensory feedback, apparently without diminishing injury-inducing impact–a process Robbins and Gouw (1991) described as the "perceptual illusion" of athletic footwear. A resulting false sense of security may contribute to the risk of injury (Robbins and Gouw, 1991). Yessis (2000, p.122) reasoned that once the natural foot structures are weakened by long-term footwear use, people have to rely on the external support of the footwear, but the support does not match that provided by a well functioning foot.

Here is the link that the above studies are mentioned http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm

ger664

Did you not show who ever made these or measured you the shoes that you run in ?

Ceepo

comer_97 wrote: »

Hi,

I recently got orthotics because my right heel was hitting the ground off centre (very off centre).

I'm trying the orthotics with Ascis GT2100 and i find them very high. I have taken the insole out but my heel seems to be slipping out of the runner.

Will this change with time or should i choose a different runner???

thanks

Hi There,

I could be wrong but arent the GT 2100 a Stability training runner.
And you are wearing orthotics to correct a problem with your foot strike, Is that not correcting the problem on the double.
I'm no expert but i think you should be wearing the orthotics in a Neutral running shoe.
I assume that when you got the gait scan done you were barefoot. The orthotics were to correct you, putting them into a shoe that offers support over compensate's for the correction.
Who ever supplied these to you should have explained this to you.

I should also say i'd have to agree with Robroy as orthotics are not the quick fix to everyone as some Physio's will tell you. I once went to a Guy and while in the waiting room i was given a leaflet on orthotics to read, half hour later after meeting the physio he gave me the choice of maybe 8 to 10 sessions or orthotics to fix my problem, made my excuses and felt as fast as i could.

But the might suit some,

Hope you get sorted

robroy1234

Ceepo - you definitely saved yourself a whole packet of money, and that physio probably upset that he lost easy money - I mean 8 - 10 sessions that would add up to €400 - €500, or orthotics that would cost €300 - €400. The dubious characters that pass themselves off as physios and running experts have double the income of having clients pay for sessions at €50 per time, orthotics €300, shoes €100 and then because the orthotics and shoes cause further injuries additional physio sessions. I once worked for such dubious characters and found that almost every client didn't need these extra sessions, that they didn't need orthotics or correcting shoes and that most of the time all they needed were neutral shoes and a physical conditioning programme. Their injuries were due mostly to being out-off shape and unfit and not a biomechanical/gait problem. In my own view the problem with Physiotherapy is that even though it is regulated Physios do not pledge an oath similar to that of the Hippocratic oath.

Clearlier

Not sure if you realised it Rob but you answered a query from 5 years ago..... How did you even find it?

I have some sympathy with your views although I would be a little more pragmatic and I suspect that it's a little late for the OP .

robroy1234

Information too late is better than information not at all. Bearing in mind that the original post that person may be still wondering why their leg problems have never gone away since getting orthotics. A quick fix leads to long term dependence.

Clearlier

robroy1234 wrote: »

Information too late is better than information not at all.

Not always sure about that!

robroy1234 wrote: »

Bearing in mind that the original post that person may be still wondering why their leg problems have never gone away since getting orthotics. A quick fix leads to long term dependence.

There's an implication here which perhaps you don't intend that orthotics never help anybody. I'd disagree from my own personal experience. I suspect you may find Paula Radcliffe disagreeing too from her own personal experience and she has had some success!

I think that there's an interesting debate to be had on orthotics - it'll go on for a long time and there probably won't be any definitive conclusion to the satisfaction of everybody but if you'd like to have that debate can I suggest that you create a new thread for it instead of picking up old threads?

Husavik

@Robroy

I had a foot injury for a year. Two physios gave different advice. One was based around gently moving the injured joint through it's range of motions. The other was more up your street. Working on my strength and flexibilty. 6-8 months later, on about 20% normal running volume, the pain still returned. So I tried a podiatrist and a supportive insole to be worn all day was, without hesitation, the recommendation. I was told I'd be back to normal within 12 weeks and was.

I'm not saying anything conclusive here but that people should keep an open mind.

As for barefoot running - how come 99.9% of all runners including pros are shod? You can't really blame people for not ditching runners when the very people who livelihoods depend on it don't do it? Yet they will risk their health and careers by taking dangerous drugs.

robroy1234

The majority of top runners are sponsored by shoe companies and many of them have little idea about the type of shoes that are needed. Barefoot running as a training method is proven to work anecdotally through athletes and through independent, university led studies. Also you need to look at the shoes that these athletes promote and the shoes that they race in. The majority would go straight away into a light weight racing shoe. A running spike has hardly any cushioning and plate for spikes to be screwed into - vastly different from an overly cushioning. Many athletes used to race in barefeet, the difficulty being that other competitors would step on their feet. In running in general it is the surface conditions - rocks, stones, glass etc., that prevent people running in barefeet.
As for the drugs issue you raised there - I will let you know on a little bit of information that doctorate researcher told me many years at the UK trials. He did a research where he gave a questionnaire about drugs and supplements. The findings supported that what was already known in tthe sport science community. Over 90% of athletes would take something to increase performance if it could never be detected. The same amount said they have once considered taking substances but never have done, and only a few step over that line. These findings are not surprising as such need for dietary intervention across all sports (rugby, GAA, athletics, soccer etc.,) supply the highest consumer base for sport supplements.
In all my involvement in athletics and sport science I have come to the conclusion that athletes and sports people are competing in sports but not learning about themselves or the sports that they are engaged in. Many are naive and do not apply adequate understand and knowledge concerning their footwear, training and diet. The mantra - Keep It Simple, Stupid - applies to all three - simple, light, neutral shoes - simple, light, proper training - and simple, light and easily digestable food.