Sold wrong type of running shoes-any comeback?

AB1980!

So last week I went into a sports shop (well known chain, not a specialist) to buy a new pair of runners.

I succumbed to the whole sales pitch and got up on the gadget to check my arches, etc, etc and bought a pair with extra arch support. They felt great in the shop, great around the house that evening but I'm in agony after trying to run in them.

To be fair, one leg feels fine, so maybe that foot does need support; but the other is agony. I felt like my foot was being pushed outward (like Charlie Chaplins) and it twisted my knee.

I pulled up but had to walk home 2kms, I'm in bits now.

So, worn once, 5km on footpaths so pretty clean, any hope of returning them do you think?

rom

AB1980! wrote: »

So last week I went into a sports shop (well known chain, not a specialist) to buy a new pair of runners.

I succumbed to the whole sales pitch and got up on the gadget to check my arches, etc, etc and bought a pair with extra arch support. They felt great in the shop, great around the house that evening but I'm in agony after trying to run in them.

To be fair, one leg feels fine, so maybe that foot does need support; but the other is agony. I felt like my foot was being pushed outward (like Charlie Chaplins) and it twisted my knee.

I pulled up but had to walk home 2kms, I'm in bits now.

So, worn once, 5km on footpaths so pretty clean, any hope of returning them do you think?

you could try Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 (No. 16 of 1980) This legislation governs contracts for the sale of goods and supply of services to consumers. The Act provides that goods must be of merchantable quality, fit for their purpose and as described. In the case of contracts for the supply of services the Act provides that a consumer is entitled to expect that the supplier has the necessary skill to provide the service, that the service will be provided with proper care and diligence and that materials used will be sound and goods supplied as part of the service will be of merchantable quality. As you were sold them that they would be fit for your feet and they are not then they were entering into a agreement with you. if they say no then say you will have to take them to the small claims court to protect your rights. Now if they were a shop that you just bought the wrong shoes but they gave "expertise" on the shoes that would best suit you. If I bought tires for my car that fit and were the wrong size or wheel hubs that fit fine and when I turned the scrapped the wheel arches then I would have the right to get the right ones. Its the same thing really. They won't be happy with it but you were sold the wrong thing.

jb-ski

AB1980! wrote: »

They felt great in the shop,

'caveat emptor' I'm afraid.

911sc

With all respects, Rom, i disagree with your post. We are talking about a pair of shoes and no foot/gait is the same

rom wrote: »

but you were sold the wrong thing.

....or AB1980! bought the wrong thing. caveat emptor.


AB1980,
I don't think a shoe that may be of the wrong type for your gait would cause that much pain over such short distance.
Is the shoe defo the right size?

monkeysnapper

about 6 months ago i went to a specialist store and they recorded me running, ect ect, the shoes were fine for the 1st few runs then on my left foot i was getting alot of pain on top of my foot, i had to stop for a few weeks,after it healed i went out again and the pain came back in same foot , i was going to take them back as well , but i just decided not to tighten the left shoe as much , anyway ive done a good bit of running now and it seems to have sorted it self out, i was told by a regular runner
that they sometimes need breaking in . maybe you need to break these in as well, ...
i was also told i should wear new runners for a few days at least before going out running , just around the house ??? im no expert

rom

911sc wrote: »

With all respects, Rom, i disagree with your post. We are talking about a pair of shoes and no foot/gait is the same

....or AB1980! bought the wrong thing. caveat emptor.


AB1980,
I don't think a shoe that may be of the wrong type for your gait would cause that much pain over such short distance.
Is the shoe defo the right size?

Probably so. Its just annoying some shops are talking all about pronation, support etc and haven't got a clue what they are on about. i don't know if there is but there should be some formal training cert to achieve to sell running shoes in this way to ensure that the person knows what they are talking about.

RayCun

mmm, but that would make buying from running shops more expensive, and lead to more people going to the internet

tunney

RayCun wrote: »

mmm, but that would make buying from running shops more expensive, and lead to more people going to the internet

eh?

RayCun

If you have to have a formal training cert to sell runners, that will tend to increase the cost of staffing in running shops, which will tend to increase the cost of runners in those shops, which will lead to more complaints about runners being too expensive to buy there, compared to the internet.

(personally, I don't mind paying a bit of a premium to shop somewhere I know the staff know what they're talking about.)

Tombo2000

RayCun wrote: »

(personally, I don't mind paying a bit of a premium to shop somewhere I know the staff know what they're talking about.)

My own view is that you should know what shoe you need going into the place, and not be dependant on 'advice'.

To be honest, I wouldnt necesarily say its the shop assistats fault here, it could be just bad luck.

I wear a neutral shoe....but I've had some neutral shoes that I couldnt run in. You cant find out until you take them out for a spin.

I've never tried the gait analyses thing; but do they tell you anything beyond "you are flat footed, you are high arched" or whatever.

RayCun

Tombo2000 wrote: »

I've never tried the gait analyses thing; but do they tell you anything beyond "you are flat footed, you are high arched" or whatever.

The gait analysis is more about pronation/supination than the state of your arches.

Tombo2000

RayCun wrote: »

The gait analysis is more about pronation/supination than the state of your arches.

I thought they were one and the same> fallen arches (equals or leads to) over pronation?

RayCun

Tombo2000 wrote: »

I thought they were one and the same> fallen arches (equals or leads to) over pronation?

*not an expert*
They might be related - this will tend to cause that - but I don't think they're quite the same. While I have done the 'footprint' test for fallen arches, I've more often had my run videoed, without shoes and then in different shoes to see how my gait changes.

Clearlier

My experience of video gait analysis in a running shop is that they're looking to see how much your foot is moving sideways. Lots of movement = bad, little movement = good. I had the good experience of bringing back a pair after I had worn them for a run and realised that although my foot didn't move I didn't like running on a cushion. They exchanged them for me and refunded me the difference in price.

jb-ski

AB1980! wrote: »

I'm in agony after trying to run in them.

but the other is agony.
it twisted my knee.

I pulled up but had to walk home 2kms, I'm in bits now.

AB, what sort of running shoes have you been using before this?
Or have you been running much?

For a relatively short run, the pain seems extreme.

Again I'm not an expert, (& I am sympathetic to your problem), it's always a horrible gamble investing in new runners.

Could there be any other factors?

AB1980!

Thank you for all the replies.

In answer to a couple of queries:
I'm very new to road running but have been running in the treadmill in the gym for a long time with nothing but the usual aches and pains that come with that.

Up to now I've worn what I can only assume to be 'neutral' runners, bog standard 50 euro asics.

This wasn't video analysis or anything especially high tech, it was a heat sensitive pad which took the imprint of my foot. From this the sales assistant deduced that I needed arch support.

It was a pretty extreme reaction to a new pair of shoes but I do have kinda wonky knees ( the kneecap points slightly inwards rather than straight on, can't think if the technical term right now) so it doesn't take a lot to throw me out of alignment I suppose. On the leg that was sore i could feel the padding under the arch digging in

So I'm not saying at all that the runners have anything wrong with then as such, they just don't suit seem to suit me ( or rather don't suit one foot). If I can't return them then fair enough, live and learn, I'll stick with the cheapies.

Maybe it might be worth persevering with breaking them in, I'm not sure.

Younganne

ring the shop you bought them from and see what they say. Speak to the manager to see what their policy is... Maybe try on another pair of the same make & brand to make sure there is not a problem with the padding in that particular shoe!!!

bart simpson

i got my gait tested twice, the first time in a multi chain store, where i was told i over pronated and was recommended the most expensive shoes, i bought a pair, not the most expensive but a shoe with more support and cushioning than id be used to as i always wore neutral shoes, the cheaper asics ones than the kanyos in the same range. i had about 200 miles on them and all the stitching on the inside of the right one came apart!....it seemed to me the shoe was trying to push my foot one way and my foot wanted to go the other!! thankfully it was the shoe and not me that got busted.
i decided to go to a specialist gait place and he told me i was neutral!
i think some of the chain stores send employees on a day training course, and thats it, some of these employees, many have never ran get it into there head...the more cushioning and the more support the better.....the more expensive a product the better the shoe
This fact is so obvious when you go into one of these sports shops and most of the shoes are for over pronators!!!!! WTF....it doesnt make sense...are we supposed to believe most people over pronate? im sure millions of years of evolution would suggest most people would have the most effecient gait., but these sport shops still have a much bigger seletion for over pronators. there must be loads of people with supportive shoes that they dont need!

CorkRunning

AB1980! wrote: »

So last week I went into a sports shop (well known chain, not a specialist) to buy a new pair of runners.

Just out of interest, what model of shoe did you buy and how much did you spend on them?

spurscormac

bart simpson wrote: »

This fact is so obvious when you go into one of these sports shops and most of the shoes are for over pronators!!!!! WTF....it doesnt make sense...are we supposed to believe most people over pronate? im sure millions of years of evolution would suggest most people would have the most effecient gait., but these sport shops still have a much bigger seletion for over pronators. there must be loads of people with supportive shoes that they dont need!

I think I read a study somewhere that did in fact back up the fact that a majority of people over pronate.
However, the differing shoes for over pronators are for different levels of over pronation.
You'll also find a similar range of shoes in most of the chain stores for neutral runners, again, with varying levels of cushioning.

Anyway I do in a way agree with you, these non expert shops can at times sell based on price, claiming higher price is a better shoe, rather than fitting the level of cushioning or support to the particular individual.
If you're lucky, you'll get someone who knows what they're talking about, if not you can end up in the wrong shoes.

Having said all that, I've had gait done in a proper shop, the results of which were accurate, but the particular shoes I got just weren't right for me, so I needed to resort to my previous shoes, and ended up discarding the new ones.

One final thing to note for the OP, is that running on a road is tougher than on a treadmill, so the hard surface can have a detrimental effect. You should also be careful to only increase your mileage slowly week by week, so as to get your body used to the punishment.
Looks to me like you've got a combination of events leading to your pain, new shoes, new to the road, possibly too much mileage?
All these things need to be considered, but for now, I'd call the shop as suggested, revert back to your old shoes for a while, and ease yourself into the road mileage.

sconhome

911sc wrote: »

With all respects, Rom, i disagree with your post. We are talking about a pair of shoes and no foot/gait is the same

....or AB1980! bought the wrong thing. caveat emptor.


AB1980,
I don't think a shoe that may be of the wrong type for your gait would cause that much pain over such short distance.
Is the shoe defo the right size?

Goods are supposed to be supplied fit for purpose. You were recommended a particular pair of shoes, by the shop, the shoes are not doing what you expect of them and you are entitled to return them as being unfit for your purposes.

If you walked into the store and chose the shoes yourself, brought them home and found them to be the wrong size you are still entitled to bring them back for exchange.

The store is not obliged to give you your money back and can offer an alternative replacement pair or a credit note if there is no suitable pair available.

Re the gait and wrong shoe, if someone with a neutral foot bought a structured shoe it can cause outward pressure on the feet causing lower back pain in tsome instances due to misalignment. This can happen when standing or walking in the incorrect footwear.

Don't forget that the runnning shoe is to be worn on a dynamic foot, in motion, under loading that can be 3-5 times your body weight. This is entirely different to standing or walking around.

It is important to note than the planned running distance can have a bearing on the correct shoe. You may be neutral over 5-10k but need mild support over half or full marathon due to body fatigue and minor pronating issues that may not be detectable in the analysis. This is why customer feedback and shoe history is a good guide to foot form.

Staff training should not add to the cost of the shoes and I know of one store where it doesnt.

dahat

I too believe i was sold a shoe that was incorrect for my gait.
My first gait anyalyis lead me to buying Nike Lunar eclipse as the machine used said i was a moderate over pronator,i now believe i am a severe over pronator.

After contacting the shop through email and that i was told that the Nike Lunar eclipse is in the same class as the shoe i currently wear,Brooks Beast.
No offer of refund,credit note or the like from the shop,yes i know the shoe was used 4/5 times but it was not fit for the purpose i needed.
Parts of the email i recieved

The Lunar Eclipse is a new type of runner, using technology from research into bare foot running, and according to Nike the shoe is in competition with the Asics Kayano and Brooks Beast on the Running Market (actually, the direct competition for these shoes, the Nike Equilion, is now discontinued and replaced by the Lunar Eclipse). However, it is a different type of runner, a new technology, so it may not suit everyone (and I normally say this to customers who try them).(As an aside,I have personally used this shoe for 11 months and must say I love it).

Since stocking the Eclipse in November I have sold alot of them (They are only available in Nike Specialist running shops , of which I am one of about 10 in Ireland), and I have had 2 complaints to the shop about them (and loads of good comments on them, including many repeat sales) . i think you are one of these. I am sorry that the shoe did not suit, but in all fairness I don't think i can be expected to take these back once they were used. Do you think if the shoes you bought in Cork were not right that the shop would have taken them back?
I would also like to reiterate that at no time do we say that using the motionQube will mean you will not get an injury or the shoe will be perfect for you. It is not possible to say this, as there are so many variables that can affect you ( under lying injury, running style, lack of proper stretching, etc). We simply take alot of the guesswork out of purchasing Technical runners. (as opposed to walking into a multiple sports store and picking any shoe off the wall with no advise).

too much trifle

i have used gait video anaylasis on two occasions, just out of interest, the 1st was on the asics stand at the london triathlon, they recomended a shoe that i had already been using (and still use) for a no. of years, the second ,a large chain here in ireland recomended something completely different:eek: and unsuitable,
the only thing i can say about them is the length of time they have you running on the treadmill, i have no doubt my gait changes over distance, they video you for may be 2-3 mins, i'm pretty sure my gait after 5-6miles is different.

metamagical

AB1980! wrote: »

Thank you for all the replies.

In answer to a couple of queries:
I'm very new to road running but have been running in the treadmill in the gym for a long time with nothing but the usual aches and pains that come with that.

Up to now I've worn what I can only assume to be 'neutral' runners, bog standard 50 euro asics.

To be honest, after reading this I would suspect that your pain comes from running too far on an unfamiliar surface, and not necessarily from the shoes - the difficult truth is that running on a treadmill is not good training for running under your own steam on concrete or grass or anything else.

Amphibian king and a few other honourable exceptions apart, there is a lot of b*ll*cks marketed as science by running stores to sell you shoes. Pronation is a movement of the lower leg/ankle/foot, and not the same thing as fallen arches (although people with fallen arches may overpronate). And a certain amount of pronation is part of the natural shock-absorbing motion of the foot. Bottom line, you don't need a medical degree and an arsenal of hi tech machinery to run a few miles.

The best advice I can give you is go see a physio, get that pain checked out, and if he or she can verify the shoes are at issue, you have a solid case for returning them, regardless of them being worn.

bart simpson

spurscormac wrote: »

I think I read a study somewhere that did in fact back up the fact that a majority of people over pronate.
However, the differing shoes for over pronators are for different levels of over pronation..

do you know the name of the study, i would like to read it because I find this interesting. and id also like to know where does pronating become over pronating? is some pronation acceptable...even desired?
If over pronation is a fault in running technique I just dont understand why evolution would not ensure that the majority of people would not have it. doesnt make sense to me.

Tombo2000

too much trifle wrote: »

i have used gait video anaylasis on two occasions, just out of interest, the 1st was on the asics stand at the london triathlon, they recomended a shoe that i had already been using (and still use) for a no. of years, the second ,a large chain here in ireland recomended something completely different:eek: and unsuitable,
the only thing i can say about them is the length of time they have you running on the treadmill, i have no doubt my gait changes over distance, they video you for may be 2-3 mins, i'm pretty sure my gait after 5-6miles is different.

Thats interesting, as my own thoughts on this are that I am personally most likely to incur or aggravate an injury in that later period of a training session where I am not running as fluently, am less upright and the workload is shifting from my back to my lower legs.

rom

metamagical wrote: »

To be honest, after reading this I would suspect that your pain comes from running too far on an unfamiliar surface, and not necessarily from the shoes - the difficult truth is that running on a treadmill is not good training for running under your own steam on concrete or grass or anything else.

Amphibian king and a few other honourable exceptions apart, there is a lot of b*ll*cks marketed as science by running stores to sell you shoes. Pronation is a movement of the lower leg/ankle/foot, and not the same thing as fallen arches (although people with fallen arches may overpronate). And a certain amount of pronation is part of the natural shock-absorbing motion of the foot. Bottom line, you don't need a medical degree and an arsenal of hi tech machinery to run a few miles.

The best advice I can give you is go see a physio, get that pain checked out, and if he or she can verify the shoes are at issue, you have a solid case for returning them, regardless of them being worn.

A good physio, not one that wants to hit everyone up for a pair of orthotics. One physio who is a physio in the same practice as the physio I go to when he was on holidays recommended orthotics over the phone without ever seeing me. I went back to my physio when he came back and he told the other one to get lost that there was nothing wrong with me. At the time I thought my physio was being an ass for not letting the other physio look at me. Now I know he had my interest at heart.

A change of shoes has fixed most of my issues. We all want complicated answers to the problems when the simple ones are generally right.

Deego01

At our store in Cashel, we are physiotherapists and physical therapists, who treat running injuries, provide orthotics and sell running shoes and there is still always a chance we could get things wrong. I would guess, and this is my opinion only, that if you had such an immediate negative effect from running in these shoes that there might be another biomechanical issue lurking in the backround. AKW would be right in this case, see a good physio/pt, see if there is an underlying issue and take it from there.

sconhome

bart simpson wrote: »

do you know the name of the study, i would like to read it because I find this interesting. and id also like to know where does pronating become over pronating? is some pronation acceptable...even desired?
If over pronation is a fault in running technique I just dont understand why evolution would not ensure that the majority of people would not have it. doesnt make sense to me.

To give you a non-answer. A lot depends on the individual.

It is generally accepted that 70-80% of people overpronate when running in shoes. This is excessive movement beyond a point where running efficiency and the distribution of the loading forces becomes a strain on the soft tissues surrounding the feet and lower limbs. Generally it is the result of being shod from toddlerdom through adulthood that the controlling muslces are weakened and thus ineffective.

3-5% off the vertical is considered normal pronation - natural distribution of the forces / impact through flexion of the foot joints, ligaments, tendons and muscles through to the calves.

Minimalist running is an acceptance of our 'natural' heritage of running unshod but still having a common sense approach to the modern environment and conditions. I'm not getting a debate going on barefoot running, but, by removing / lowering the heel counter of shoes you tend to naturally run in a mid to forefoot form further reducing the impacts on the heel and changing the loading. The result is more activation of feet muscles etc which the body needs time to adapt to, hence tight calves after barefoot running when used to shoes.

Overpronating foot beyond 5% needs a bit of guidance to allow the body to adapt and develop control to minimise the risks of injury through strain.

With all of this, your level of running, flexibility, purpose (from simple jogging, through racing, ultra, Dean Karnazes etc) has a bearing on the shoe or non-shoe best suitable for you.

Deego01

The issues around pronation are always going to attract interesting and varied opinions. I worked in an elite clinic in London where we treated a lot of different sportspeople and I saw a lot of people who presented with "flat feet" who didn't necessarily have any issues related to this. The people who, both in London and here, present with running issues (shin splints, achilles,runners knee)tend to have very weak gluts, in particular gluteus medius and poor single leg balance. So it's a chicken and egg scenario, did the flat arches/pronation (very different) lead to weak gluts which caused overload below the knee or was it the other way around. Can you see how complicated it is? The issue can be addressed if you get a good biomechanical assessment. Pronation does not necessarily have to be addressed with orthotics or maximum support shoes if you can improve core/glut strength.

Deego01

I'm sorry I'm harping on a bit but this whole area interests me and in my clinic at present it's what I'm focusing on at the minute. People with weak gluts can have in a lot of cases what is termed a pseudo leg length discrepancy. If you lie on your back and look down at the ankles one leg will look longer than the other. A simple bridge exercise can sometimes correct this. If this happens and you are having a chronic running issue, core/balance/glut exercises need to be included in an exercise regime. Sometimes the runner on the opposite side to the shorter leg can experience neck or shoulder pain on that side due to hitching when running. Again, corrective strength training can address this. I'm not talking about niggles here, we all have those, I'm talking about ongoing, unrelenting pain. Not every niggle needs this amount of attention so I'm not ambulance chasing here.

Tombo2000

Deego01 wrote: »

I'm sorry I'm harping on a bit but this whole area interests me and in my clinic at present it's what I'm focusing on at the minute. People with weak gluts can have in a lot of cases what is termed a pseudo leg length discrepancy. If you lie on your back and look down at the ankles one leg will look longer than the other. A simple bridge exercise can sometimes correct this. If this happens and you are having a chronic running issue, core/balance/glut exercises need to be included in an exercise regime. Sometimes the runner on the opposite side to the shorter leg can experience neck or shoulder pain on that side due to hitching when running. Again, corrective strength training can address this. I'm not talking about niggles here, we all have those, I'm talking about ongoing, unrelenting pain. Not every niggle needs this amount of attention so I'm not ambulance chasing here.

As a matter of interest, how do you define overpronation?

Based on what you said, it does support the notion that people in running shops who have minimal training and mightn't even be runners themselves shouldnt be offering advice on what shoe to buy; and by extension, there is no point in having a gait analysis done in a place like this, and so it could be argued that its irresponsible for a lot of stores to have a gait analysis machine if they dont have the staff who can analyse the information it presents.......and by what you say, a staff member would nearly need to be a physio to be able to do this.

spurscormac

amphkingwest wrote: »

To give you a non-answer. A lot depends on the individual.

It is generally accepted that 70-80% of people overpronate when running in shoes. This is excessive movement beyond a point where running efficiency and the distribution of the loading forces becomes a strain on the soft tissues surrounding the feet and lower limbs. Generally it is the result of being shod from toddlerdom through adulthood that the controlling muslces are weakened and thus ineffective.

3-5% off the vertical is considered normal pronation - natural distribution of the forces / impact through flexion of the foot joints, ligaments, tendons and muscles through to the calves.

Minimalist running is an acceptance of our 'natural' heritage of running unshod but still having a common sense approach to the modern environment and conditions. I'm not getting a debate going on barefoot running, but, by removing / lowering the heel counter of shoes you tend to naturally run in a mid to forefoot form further reducing the impacts on the heel and changing the loading. The result is more activation of feet muscles etc which the body needs time to adapt to, hence tight calves after barefoot running when used to shoes.

Overpronating foot beyond 5% needs a bit of guidance to allow the body to adapt and develop control to minimise the risks of injury through strain.

With all of this, your level of running, flexibility, purpose (from simple jogging, through racing, ultra, Dean Karnazes etc) has a bearing on the shoe or non-shoe best suitable for you.

Actually, come to think of it, I believe the study I was referring to may have been a slide shown when you guys came to my workplace shortly after opening the shop in Oranmore - not sure if that was in your presentation (Mrs AKW), or the Asics rep when explaining the differences in the line of shoes they had at the time.
Anyway, I'll leave it to you experts to provide better explanations than I ever could.

Just to back-up what both you and Deego01 are saying, injuries, niggles, pain most likely require some physio examination to determine exactly what the cause is, how to resolve it and an action plan to prevent it from recurring.
Everyone will have different bio-mechanics which may result in different diagnosis, so it's impossible to tell exactly, and in many cases it may not be just one thing, but a combination of things which cause the problem.
But as we're not allowed provide specific medical advice on here, best solution is just to get yourself checked out and go from there.

Deego01

Tombo2000, this area is a bit of a minefield really. A previous poster said there should be some formal training for people who work in shops that sell shoes. I would agree with that to a certain extent but in the same way that if you buy a car, you are not being sold that by a mechanical engineer, I don't feel that the people who sell shoes should necessarily have an honours degree in physio. The important thing is that the person selling the shoes should run and be interested in the whole concept of exercise. A lot of the people I know who run have no sports therapy qualifications, but I have been put back in my box from time to time by people with a lot more running experience than me on the subject of footwear. But to a man/woman they would know their limitations on the subject of injury. What I'm saying is I wouldn't buy a car off a guy who only cycled!!!!!!

Deego01

Tombo2000 wrote: »

As a matter of interest, how do you define overpronation?

You can get a definition easily enough if you google it but in the clinic what we look at is the relationship between the talus bone and the arch/forefoot. People with really flat arches don't necessarily pronate, this is the mistake a lot of people make. They look at the arch pattern on the scanner and it says the flat foot profile means the person is overpronating. However the talus bone is still in the neutral position, therefore clinically this person is not pronating.
Now, let's ramp it up again. Standing on the scanner they have a flat arch profile, but the talus bone is in neutral, that's in standing. If you now walk or run the person, or put them over hurdles as we do, they could start pronating. Can you see how complicated it gets. If that person had no symptoms and had been running for donkeys in neutral shoes is the physio in me going to give them max support or make orthotics for them or is the runner in me going to leave them alone?

rom

Deego01 wrote: »

Tombo2000, this area is a bit of a minefield really. A previous poster said there should be some formal training for people who work in shops that sell shoes. I would agree with that to a certain extent but in the same way that if you buy a car, you are not being sold that by a mechanical engineer, I don't feel that the people who sell shoes should necessarily have an honours degree in physio. The important thing is that the person selling the shoes should run and be interested in the whole concept of exercise. A lot of the people I know who run have no sports therapy qualifications, but I have been put back in my box from time to time by people with a lot more running experience than me on the subject of footwear. But to a man/woman they would know their limitations on the subject of injury. What I'm saying is I wouldn't buy a car off a guy who only cycled!!!!!!

When you go to a tire shop and they advise you to get the wrong size tires there is a comeback. I am not for a second saying that they need to be some expert but if they are offering a service such as advising which is the best shoe for your foot then they should do it to an acceptable level or not offer the service at all. It would be great if there was a guy in a running shop say "The guy who know about this thing, one sec I'll go get him"

Regarding training. A single day course would probably be enough. Most people go on a manually handling and health and safety courses. A day more would not kill them and sure most training is a tax write off anyways.

bart simpson

amphkingwest wrote: »

To give you a non-answer. A lot depends on the individual.

It is generally accepted that 70-80% of people overpronate when running in shoes. This is excessive movement beyond a point where running efficiency and the distribution of the loading forces becomes a strain on the soft tissues surrounding the feet and lower limbs. Generally it is the result of being shod from toddlerdom through adulthood that the controlling muslces are weakened and thus ineffective.

3-5% off the vertical is considered normal pronation - natural distribution of the forces / impact through flexion of the foot joints, ligaments, tendons and muscles through to the calves.

Minimalist running is an acceptance of our 'natural' heritage of running unshod but still having a common sense approach to the modern environment and conditions. I'm not getting a debate going on barefoot running, but, by removing / lowering the heel counter of shoes you tend to naturally run in a mid to forefoot form further reducing the impacts on the heel and changing the loading. The result is more activation of feet muscles etc which the body needs time to adapt to, hence tight calves after barefoot running when used to shoes.

Overpronating foot beyond 5% needs a bit of guidance to allow the body to adapt and develop control to minimise the risks of injury through strain.

With all of this, your level of running, flexibility, purpose (from simple jogging, through racing, ultra, Dean Karnazes etc) has a bearing on the shoe or non-shoe best suitable for you.

thanks AKW, that makes a lot of sense. so could you change from a over pronator to neutral by easing some barefoot running into your training. could you then wear neutral shoes, or would you only be neutral when barefoot?

sconhome

bart simpson wrote: »

thanks AKW, that makes a lot of sense. so could you change from a over pronator to neutral by easing some barefoot running into your training. could you then wear neutral shoes, or would you only be neutral when barefoot?

Very subjective. If I put it this way, I'm historically a Mizuno Inspire person, mild support for overpronation, discovered this through a gem of a running shop in Bray a few years ago.

At the time I could not run 3k in a neutral shoe (Saucony Triumph) without flaring ITB problems.

I've lost weight since, run a hell of a lot more and through a combination of those two factors and the use of VFF's and Saucony Hattori which I have interchanged with my daily shoes I have developed a rather pleasing foot arch. I don't do much running in the Zero drop shoes, simply lifestyle things, run after the kids etc.

While my Inspire is the go to shoe I am very comfortable swapping out for short runs (without injury) to neutral shoes and use a 4mm trail shoe with no discomfort.

Out of necessity (it was either run or don't) I used a new pair of Saucony Triumph 9 which I had worn in slightly in a 12k run at the weekend. There have been no issues since.

I have a year of adaptation, foot strengthening and careful transition to go from 12mm guidance to 8mm neutral. I'll go lower but I believe that small amounts of barefoot stuff built slowly to meet the structured stuff being reduced is a sensible way to go.

Does that go anyway to answering? I'm just very cautious of specifics for anyone, in my case this worked, so it's well possible for others, just listen to your body.

bart simpson

amphkingwest wrote: »

Very subjective. If I put it this way, I'm historically a Mizuno Inspire person, mild support for overpronation, discovered this through a gem of a running shop in Bray a few years ago.

At the time I could not run 3k in a neutral shoe (Saucony Triumph) without flaring ITB problems.

I've lost weight since, run a hell of a lot more and through a combination of those two factors and the use of VFF's and Saucony Hattori which I have interchanged with my daily shoes I have developed a rather pleasing foot arch. I don't do much running in the Zero drop shoes, simply lifestyle things, run after the kids etc.

While my Inspire is the go to shoe I am very comfortable swapping out for short runs (without injury) to neutral shoes and use a 4mm trail shoe with no discomfort.

Out of necessity (it was either run or don't) I used a new pair of Saucony Triumph 9 which I had worn in slightly in a 12k run at the weekend. There have been no issues since.

I have a year of adaptation, foot strengthening and careful transition to go from 12mm guidance to 8mm neutral. I'll go lower but I believe that small amounts of barefoot stuff built slowly to meet the structured stuff being reduced is a sensible way to go.

Does that go anyway to answering? I'm just very cautious of specifics for anyone, in my case this worked, so it's well possible for others, just listen to your body.

thanks for your answer AKW, im neutral so i was just asking because i find it interesting, i wasnt looking for advice or anything so your grand. but it does point to something that i was thinking about doing last summer, which was to run barefoot on grass once a week to strengthen small muscles in the feet, i didnt do it but i might do it this summer.