Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

What do we mean by 'motion control' in running shoes

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Atlas, Aug 16, 2007.

  1. Atlas

    Atlas Well-Known Member


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    <ADMIN EDIT/> This thread has been split off from the Do Adidas still make shoes? thread </>

    What do we mean by 'control' in footwear?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 8, 2007
  2. Re: Do Adidas still make shoes?

    At one end of the spectrum they manufacture a neutral cushion shoe and at the other, a motion control shoe. So moving along the range of shoes there is increasing "control" usually in the form of a higher durometer foam block along the medial aspect of the midsole. Nothing in the neutral- big long block in the motion control and various length block in between.

    From my perspective, I think of control as altering the kinetics.

    I know Bartold wants us to think of motion enhancement rather than control, but frankly this is the language of the runner and the running store so it's easier to communicate in these terms.
     
  3. Atlas

    Atlas Well-Known Member

    Re: Do Adidas still make shoes?


    There is not much difference between a patient liking a colour, and a practitioner dogmatically preferring a brand IMO.
     
  4. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Re: Do Adidas still make shoes?

    Well... I guess I was always gonna join this thread sooner or later, and of course the point I want to pick up on is the vexatious issue of 'Control". I understand Simon's point, but I do not think it is great to use a term that cannot be justified, just because it is easy. If runners and retail understand the term "control", they understand a term that is incorrect, scientificlly unsustainable and grossly misleading. In short, it is impossible to "control" a foot with a shoe, and anyone who says they can.. manufacturer or practitioner.. is guilty of gross deception. I think most of us have drummed tendonitis out of our vocabulary and replaced it with tendinopathy, even when talking to a lay populatiopn. The reason for this is accuracy and to allay confusion rather than create it. We have known.. absolutely.. since the early to mid 1980's that footwear does not in the true sense "control' motion". We have also known that footwear does not, to any significant degree, attentuate impact force, and yet all manufacturers are guilty of suggesting that their gel or air or hydroflow or whatever the spin guys come up with, effects impact force. It does not. Nor does increased force have any real effect on injury.. other than a positive one.
    The reason to flush this term "control" down the biomechanical lavatory is because the technical side of footwear has moved on.. actually quite some time ago..and continues to move very quickly indeed. We will all see, in the next few years, footwear that will be super lightweight, super flexible but progressive stiffen as the foot moves from contact to propulsion (sound familiar).. so in essence, this footwear will "control" better than anything ever made, but will confound every concept of motion control footwear. I assure.. it already exists. It really is time to move on and recognise the future is in psychophysical feedback loops, mechanoreceptor stimulation, windlass enhancement, lower limb spring stiffness recognition, and vibration frequency analysis. It 'aint easy, but we need to educate the public and retail in terms of accuracy and scientific sustainability. I would certainly hope that most of us are not conning our patients that our orthotic devices control their overpronation... coz.. they just don't.
    In relation to the adidas discussion.. I think adidas are far from a spent force in the technical footwear industry. They have some of the most talented biomechanists working for them, and they have always been and remain a hotbed of quality ideas and research. Footwear is to a degree a fashion industry.. and the thing about fashion is.. sometimes your in, and sometimes your out. I urge you all to prescribe footwear based on what is best for your patient, not by brand. Maybe there is just not enough really good information out there on technical athletic footwear.. where it's at now and where it is going. This is probably something this group can address, and I am happy to drive it if there is seen to be a need. I think a few of you might be a little surprised by just what is happening right now.
    regads to all .. simon
     
  5. Re: Do Adidas still make shoes?

    Simon,

    Thank you for you insight into this.

    From the multiple definition's of "control" in the OED: "2. the power of restraining 3. A means of restraint"

    So when I measure rearfoot eversion in barefoot runners and then look at them in shoes designed to "control" pronation and see a reduction in rearfoot eversion, how is this not restraint of pronation, viz-control?

    Further, and not a personal dig at you Simon, I grow tired of hearing that orthoses don't "control" pronation. From Kevin's review article on orthoses efficacy:

    "Experimental studies that have measured the effects of foot orthoses on the kinematics and kinetics of the foot and lower extremities in runners have shown the following significant mechanical results: a decrease in maximum rearfoot eversion angle (2, 38, 63); a decrease in maximum rearfoot eversion velocity (38, 63)"

    2. Bates BT, Osternig LR, Mason B, James LS. Foot orthotic devices to modify selected aspects of lower extremity mechanics. Am J Sp Med 1979;7:328-31

    3. MacLean CL, Hamill J. Short and long-term influence of a custom foot orthotic intervention on lower extremity dynamics in injured runners. Annual ISB Meeting, Cleveland, September 2005.

    4. Smith LS, Clarke TE, Hamill CL, Santopietro F. The effects of soft and semi-rigid orthoses upon rearfoot movement in running. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1986;76:227-232.

    If this is not to be termed control, what should we call it?

    Just playing ;)
     
  6. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Re: Do Adidas still make shoes?

    I agree there are many definitions of control, and most refer to this as an absolute. However we are talking about two words here, because we are putting "motion" in front of control. Now I am really interested to know if people really, truly believe one can "control" motion, with either an orthotic device or a piece of footwear? Maybe what you are seeing when comparing the unshod to shod state is not an accurate representation of what is happening, because as you know, there are countless studies that have established the calcaneus moves within the shoe, the only way to visualise this being to cut a window in the posterior aspect of the shoe, and you will see tons of movement. You are assessing shoe movement, not foot movement, and this is something retial does, and makes important decision on, and it drives me nuts! In relation to orthoses and motion control.. All the studies indicating a mechanical effect are subjective, descriptive, include little function and virtually no biology. And amongst these I include the studies you have cited which on average are 25 years old. The exception is the paper from Cleveland ISB by Mc Lean and Hamill, at which I was present. This study certainly did not indicate a long or short term mechanical change. Orthoses change kinetics, they change mechanosensory feedback, they change vibration, they change lower limb stiffness. They change motion pathways, they change comfort.. Most importantly they change joint moments AND they work! It is extremely unlikely that they change mechanical positioning of the foot and leg. The quality studies, and in particular the bone pin marker studies tell us the actual mechanical effect of an orthosis is negligable. This of course does not mean they do not work, because of course they do.. Extraordinarily well.. It just means they work primarily in a manner other than mechanical change or... "control". We now have compelling ecidence to suggest orthoses reprogram muscle firing patterns.. That for example they advance the firing of VMO (Toyoda et al,Wavelet analysis can be used for evaluating correlation between vastus lateralis and vastus medialis for patients with Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome, ECSS, 2003). It is worthwhile understanding that I derive my living working for an athletic footwear company.. ASICS, but I have spent a large part of the last 10 years trying to explode the myths the athletic footwear companies continue to espouse. I get into terrible trouble with my employer because I am as vocal with them on issues I consider scientifically insupportable as I am here in this forum. But the bottom line is.. We are (rightly) so focussed on evidence-based medicine.. We are so strict on ourselves as a profession that we should be accurate in what we say.. We now have an excellent podiatric research base and some really excellent researchers.. Including of course you Simon. Why then are we prepared to accept the term control,for something that patently does not achieve control. The fact of the matter is that as soon as one puts a shoe on, one is applying a bionegative effect. In other words, the shoe dampens sensory feedback and interfers with normal foot function. The more "controlling" the shoe is.. The worse this effect is. This is why every major athletic footwear manufactuer is moving towards footwear that functions with the foot and not against it. The concept of motion control has been dying a slow agaonising death for at least 10 years. Let's put the poor thing out of its misery! I am very symathetic to the real issue for clinical practice and retail, and maybe now would be a good time to open up a new thread on categories of running shoes.. The spectrum from motion control to cushioning.
    Regards to all Simon
     
  7. Atlas

    Atlas Well-Known Member

    Re: Do Adidas still make shoes?

    On one hand we place eva foam wedging at the top of the pyramid in terms of negligible biomechanical effect; and on the other we generally and typically advise the purchase of 'controlling' athletic footwear.
     
  8. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Re: Do Adidas still make shoes?

    Simon,

    From your writings it seems that your definition of motion control is more of a definition of position control. Would you agree that a change in pronation veolocity is controlling of motion? There are other studies besides the ones cited by Simon Spooner. There was the classic ones by Nigg on lateral flare and pronation velocity. Also

    Mundermann A, Nigg BM, Humble RN, Stefanyshyn DJ.
    Foot orthotics affect lower extremity kinematics and kinetics during running.
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2003 Mar;18(3):254-62.

    I think that we are on the same side of a lot of issues and I agree that it is importantly to be scientifically accurate in the appropriate settings. I will admit to using short hand term plantar fascia when what I really mean is all the structures that insert into the sesamoids. However, this forum appears to be more on the conversational level. Motion control is what is currently used to describe a shoe which will shift the center of pressure medially under the heel of the foot. When my patients come back to me complaining that the shoe store did not have motion control shoes, but they do have shoes with a dual density midsole, then we will start seing a change in the terminology used.

    As an aside, Simon, could you break up your posts into smaller pargraphs? We all have our pet peves.

    Thanks,

    Eric
     
  9. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Re: Do Adidas still make shoes?

    Eric
    you wrote

    From your writings it seems that your definition of motion control is more of a definition of position control. Would you agree that a change in pronation veolocity is controlling of motion? There are other studies besides the ones cited by Simon Spooner. There was the classic ones by Nigg on lateral flare and pronation velocity.

    I am prety sure my understanding of motion is the same as yours.. the Nigg study was subsequently revisited by Stacoff et al using bone pin markers with pretty much the opposite results..
    Anyway.. i get a sense I am being seen as an orthotic basher.. which I am not.
    The whole purpose of this discussion is to ask the question "does joe average runner, joe average retailer, and.. dare I say it, joe average podiatrist truly understand the concept of motion control?

    Our own studies indicate that the chief architect of "motion control" namely dual density midsoles.. does nothing.. absolutely nothing except add weight. It is there in footwear because the marketplace.. on account of an ongoing myth.. demands it be there

    And weight.. on account of F+ MC2 is the great enemy of technical footwear.
    Do you think it is therefore right to continue this way?

    sorry about my postings.. I am a complete amatuer at this. I will shut up now.
    regards
    SImon
     
  10. conp

    conp Active Member

    Re: Do Adidas still make shoes?

    Interesting

    Interesting

    Interesting.

    Some good points Simon B.
    It is nice to hear it from someone well versed in this field.
    As most know, that's why I am very interested in a particular shoe.
    Regards
    Con
     
  11. Re: Do Adidas still make shoes?

    What do muscles? If I can alter muscle firing patterns do I not control motion?

    Still just playing.
     
  12. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Re: Do Adidas still make shoes?

    Simon,
    I understand your point about lay and proffesional people not necessarily understanding the concept of motion control. The concept beyond motion control is kinetics. As you are aware, you can have changes in external moments and coresponding changes in internal moments without changing the observed motion. Therefore I agree that "motion control" shoes may not change motion, however they do change kinetics. What is your suggestion on what we should call these shoes?

    Are you saying that the dual density shoes don't change the location of center of pressure during the contact phase of gait? If they change the location of center of pressure then there will be a change in internal moments. I"ve seen otherwise, but haven't done the study. Of course you would have to account for frontal plane touch down angle as well.

    Simon, It was not my intention to make you shut up. I appreciate a poster who has knowledge of the literature and can teach me something. My point was we all have our pet peves and that we have to forgive them in others. Forgive me for using the term motion control. I will use a better term when it becomes available.

    Regards,

    Eric
     
  13. Admin2

    Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

  14. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    While sitting down the back at a conference recently (Simon B was also there) preparing my powerpoint for a presentation, I typed "What are motion control shoes for?" - the cynic sitting beside me leaned over and said something like "The only thing that motion control shoes are good for is to prevent the shoe from wearing out too quickly in those that pronate"
     
  15. Re: Do Adidas still make shoes?

    Simon, good to see you back on Podiatry Arena "causing trouble". I really have no problem with the words "motion control" for running shoes since this is, as far as I'm concerned, lay person language, and not scientifically precise language. As Dr. Spooner mentioned, the word "control" has many meanings ("restraint" being one of them) and if we simply understand that the word "control" in this context means that the shoe may modify the kinematics of the foot, and not absolutely controls every motion of the foot, then "motion control" is fine with me.

    We use the word "control" commonly to speak of how parents handle their children's behavior at the shopping mall. We ask the parents to "control their children" even though, when they are "controlled" they are just running around in circles around the parent and around any other fixture in the mall, and they are not destroying property at the shopping mall when the parent is "controlling them". In the same fashion, "motion control" shoes do not eliminate pronation, but may have an effect on the kinematics of some feet. While I agree that the words "motion control" is not the best to describe shoe mechanics, I do not like the words "motion enhancement" at all that is being suggested as terminology replacement for "motion control" to descibe shoes since this implies that the potential change in motion produced by the shoe is always positive for the individual, which we know it isn't.

    A much better word for these shoes would instead be "anti-pronation" shoes, rather than "motion control" shoes, since one could then say that these shoes reduce the pronation moments on the foot but not necessarily the pronation motion of the foot, which is consistent with our knowledge of rotational equilibrium and kinetics of the subtalar joint. However, when I go into the running shoe store (Fleet Feet) this AM for my once-a-month Saturday "clinic", even though it is probably one of the best stores in Northern California, I'm sure I will be hearing lots of innaccurate terminology being discussed by individuals who do not have medical degrees.....I realize that this will always be the case in the running shoe industry.

    Also, on to another point, there are numerous studies that do show that foot and lower extremity kinematics may be altered by foot orthoses. Here is a list from a chapter on the subject I just wrote a few months ago:

    Bates BT, Osternig LR, Mason B, James LS: Foot orthotic devices to modify selected aspects of lower extremity mechanics. Am J Sp Med, 7:328-31, 1979.

    Smith LS, Clarke TE, Hamill CL, Santopietro F: The effects of soft and semi-rigid orthoses upon rearfoot movement in running. JAPMA, 76:227-232, 1986.

    Williams DS, McClay-Davis I, Baitch SP: Effect of inverted orthoses on lower extremity mechanics in runners. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 35:2060-2068, 2003.

    MacLean CL, Hamill J: Short and long-term influence of a custom foot orthotic intervention on lower extremity dynamics in injured runners. Annual ISB Meeting, Cleveland, September 2005.

    Eng JJ, Pierrynowski MR: The effect of soft foot orthotics on three-dimensional lower-limb kinematics during walking and running. Phys Therapy, 74:836-844, 1994.

    Nawoczenski DA, Cook TM, Saltzman CL: The effect of foot orthotics on three-dimensional kinematics of the leg and rearfoot during running. J Ortho Sp Phys Ther, 21:317-327, 1995.

    Stackhouse CL, Davis IM, Hamill J: Orthotic intervention in forefoot and rearfoot strike running patterns. Clin Biomech, 19:64-70, 2004.

    Certainly, orthoses and running shoes affect mostly kinetics, and are less likely to affect kinematics. However to say that they do not affect kinematics is wrong and not supported by the scientific literature on the subject. We must also remember about sagittal plane kinematics (and not just frontal plane kinematics) that are likely significantly affected by shoe sole stiffness and heel height differential when we start talking about shoe kinematics. In this regard, maybe a 3" high heeled dress pump is more of a "motion control" shoe than are dual density running shoes?!:eek::p

    Hope to see you soon at a seminar again, Simon. BTW, hope you remember the score is USA-1, Australia-0, from the our last joke contest on the bus ride home during BSS 2004.......:p
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2007
  16. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Let me try to clarify my thought proceses and simplify them so that I do not waste too much of the forums' time.

    As you may have gathered, the process frustrates me.. and the terminology frustrates me, chiefly because, especially in the world of commercial athletic footwear, the term "motion control" has been hijacked and manipulated by the marketing guys in the big footwear companies.

    As a result, retail is blindly perpetuating a myth, based on what they are taught by the manufacturers, and to a lesser degree us, that athletic footwear can do things it simply cannot. And despite the fact this is a grey area.. there seems little intent or interest to consider that 'motion control shoes' will not cure everything from AKP to haemorroids. Heavan forbid.. that there may (actually usually is) a penalty for wearing a very stiff, very heavy, very non responsive motion control shoe.

    And the thing that worries me most is that the runners are buying into a myth, ofen at great cost to them.

    I will stick my neck out now (uh oh) and say I reckon less than 10% of my patients (in a 100% athlete care practice) needed motion control shoes as they are marketed by the manufacturer

    In general, I think Simon and Eric and I are in total agreement.. and Kevin.. of course.. that footwear has it biggest impact in terms of kinetics, rather than kinematics.. and that is very important..

    But if all the control strategies are so good, and the shoes work so well.. how come there is no change in the injury demographic over the past 20 years. AKP is still the most common injury by far, and it still plagues women 2-9 times more tha men depending o whom you believe. Shoes have changed heaps.. injuries have not.

    From our (ASICS) and my studies using pedar-m, dual density midsoles do not have a consistent effect on COP. We are currently looking at far more sophisticated techniques to manipulate COP in much lighter, much more flexible footwear.

    As for a better term? .... I still like motion enhancement best of all, and I still think it most accurately reflects what is happening.

    As for the score Kevin.. well when next we meet, I have a good one about Sherlock Holmes, Watson and a tent.. stay tuned
     
  17. I see your point here, Simon. I suppose, since you are exposed to the term on a daily basis from a shoe-industry standpoint, having a term like motion control could become very annoying. However, in the history of the running shoe-industry, there are many instances where the shoe company has taken a scientific concept that would not be readily understandable to the lay public (or even to many podiatrists) and then came up with a catchy phrase or word to try to describe the concept but also have this catchy phrase sell shoes at the same time. The shoe companies do not seem too eager, in many instances, to be too scientifically accurate when they coin these phrases since they are designing the phrase to describe what they hope their shoe will do, not necessarily what their shoe does for all customers who wear the shoe. For example, do the terms energy return, motion control or motion enhancement apply to even a majority of runners wearing the shoe???.....I don't think so.

    For the runners I see in my practice, I would estimate that I recommend motion control shoes for about 30% of them, recommend stability shoes for about 60% of them and recommend neutral shoes for 10% of them. However, this will, of course, depend on whether they have a foot orthosis inside their shoe or not and also will very much depend on their weight, their athletic goals/ability, and on their running biomechanics, to name a few factors. Luckily, since our running shoe stores are very good here in Sacramento, I may not see as many runners placed immediately into motion control shoes as many others have found in their practices/communities. I personally find motion control shoes quite uncomfortable to run in.....but have many patients that need that type of shoe to run injury free...even with orthoses inside their shoes.

    Even though the goal of shoe companies may be to reduce injury frequency, I don't think that shoes will ever, by themselves, be able to accomplish this goal. I believe that running injuries will always be produced while the individual is wearing any running shoe if the individual runs too many miles, runs too fast or runs over an injury-producing surface/terrain.

    The physical-psychological nature of this family of animals, the runner, which I have been a member of for the past 35 years, is that no matter what shoe is being worn, the runner will generally train only as much and as fast as their injuries will allow. If the shoe is poor, the runner will be able to train less/slower until an injury occurs. If the shoe is excellent, the runner will be able to train quite a bit more before an injury occurs. However, as far as using injury frequency in runners as an indicator of how well running shoes are working, I don't think you can use this injury frequency statistic reliably unless you know also how much/fast that runner is training in the shoe relative to the training level they were at before.

    For example, in my late teens and early 20s, I ran between 70-100 miles per week, averaging about 85 miles a week when I was gearing up for a marathon, in running shoes that now would be considered to be very poor by today's standards. However, today, at age 50, if I can run 25 miles a week consistently in the world's best running shoes (that cost 3 times more than the shoes I ran in during high school/college), that is a good week for me. Is it the shoes that are producing my increased injury frequency?....no, it is my older body.

    In the same light, let's not blame the female runners' predisposition toward certain injuries on how good or bad their shoes are when their increased injury frequency in certain body parts is more likely due to hormonal/structural differences in their bodies versus their male counterparts. Shoes can and will only be able to do so much for the athlete, no matter how they good or technologically advanced they are.

    And I can always pull out the Mother Green or Wamba joke if I feel threatened.;)
     
  18. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Simon S, Simon B and Kevin,

    I was once told that road running shoes, irrespective of their level of 'control', offer none of this at the forefoot; so for forefoot driven pathologies you wont necessarily benefit more from a shoe with greater control than from one with less

    Any thoughts on this?

    Respectfully

    Ian
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2007
  19. Depends on the shoe, some shoes now have forefoot features which may help- see Nike caesium for example. Also depends on strike pattern and how much the rearfoot is "controlling" what happens at the forefoot.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2007
  20. yehuda

    yehuda Active Member

    the cesium has only rearfoot control plus WARP technology for the windlass mechanism. I have fount the cesium to be the only true motion control shoe on the market, but I still wear my orthotics inside them.

    Yehuda
     
  21. My understanding from the sales people + inspection of the shoe suggests that it is posted straight through the midsole to the forefoot. Could be wrong
     
  22. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    I just got the August issue of BioMechanics and there is a report in there from the ACSM mtg which says "Motion control shoes appear to increase several lower extremity joint moments in low-arched runners" .... will try and find the abstract from the conference as an increase in joint moments is not a good thing.
     
  23. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    Here it is:
    The Effect of Footwear on Hip and Knee Mechanics in Low Arched Runners:
    Butler, Robert J.; Davis, Irene S.
     
  24. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Pretty much what you would expect i reckon. It is a pity they did not include EMG in the study, it would have ben interesting to see how it effected the timing of VMO firing.

    As an aside.. we have just finished a nice neat litle study looking at mechanoreceptor stimulation.

    It not only was able to demonstrate a significant shift of the COP laterally in a pronated population.. but most interestingly and excitingly.. we achieved a refractory effect without the stimulation for about 1/2 hour after the test.. more to come..

    regards to all
    Simon
     
  25. conp

    conp Active Member

    OOOHH!
    I can't wait to hear more!
    This is very interesting.
    Fill us in when you can (polite way of saying 'ASAP')
    Regards
    Con
     
  26. Simon "Alfred E. Neuman" Bartold......great improvement over the old look, mate!:rolleyes::p
     

    Attached Files:

  27. Bruce Williams

    Bruce Williams Well-Known Member

    Simon;

    I'm curious about the statment of "moving the COP laterally in a pronated population". Is COP equal to Center of Pressure?

    If so I'm a little confused. Did you want these patients to pronate more? A more lateral CoP is usually what I see with a more pronated population.

    Thanks for any clarification.

    Sincerely;

    Bruce Williams
     
  28. Paulo Silva

    Paulo Silva Active Member

    Hello everyone

    There is one thing that "motion control" shoes are good for:

    Usually these type of shoes are built in straighter lasts allowing a roomier fit for low arched wide type of feet, This roomier fit is only possible with straight lasted shoes.
    My point
    If for nothing else these shoes are the best (if you consider fit alone) for wider low arched feet that are virtually impossible to properly fit in the curved lasts of neutral shoes.

    [​IMG]
     
  29. Bruce Williams

    Bruce Williams Well-Known Member

    Re: What about Reinforced Midfoot support in Athletic Shoes?

    I'm curious as to any reseach that has been done regarding whether reinforced midfoot support is better for athletic shoes?

    I know that as chair of the Shoe Committee for the AAPSM that we talk about shoes that flex at the midfoot as being "bad" and that it is preferred that they flex at the ball or MPJ's of the shoe and not at the midfoot area at all.

    Simon B. was at our workshop in Philadelphia and did not differ with this, not within my earshot anyway! :)

    He did bring up the fact that Windlass mimicing devices are starting to show up in some newer shoes for research. Obviously, provided that the ball of the foot/shoe flexes, with or without help from the shoe, will help to stabilize the midfoot and then should decrease the necessity of a reinforced Midfoot in an athletic shoe.

    But, has this been published for better or worse, regarding shoes that just utilize extra material or less flexible shanks to "shore" up the midfoot area?

    Thanks.
    Bruce
     
  30. kerstin

    kerstin Active Member

    I agree with the fact that a dual density shoe doesn't change the kinematic of the foot but it is just a fact that the durability of the material is beter. So the more weight my patiƫnts have the more I recommend the anti-pronation shoe (a light on). Or is this a "mis"feeling? And yes there is a need for a good shoe without technical gadgets in the shoe (plastic bridges, shock abdaptors, whatever it can be important .... , sorry don't believe in there efficacy in time, just believe in good hea).
    simon can you explain me the importance of the VMO timing? I am torturing my little brain, sure something to do with the knee but...???
     
  31. kerstin

    kerstin Active Member

    I agree with the fact that a dual density shoe doesn't change the kinematic of the foot but it is just a fact that the durability of the material is beter. So the more weight my patiƫnts have the more I recommend the anti-pronation shoe (a light on). Or is this a "mis"feeling? And yes there is a need for a good shoe without technical gadgets into the shoe (plastic bridges, shock abdaptors, whatever they find important .... , sorry don't believe in there efficacy in time, just believe in good health care professions (holistic view), especially a good podiatrist ;-)) ).

    simon can you explain me the importance of the VMO timing? I am torturing my little brain, sure something to do with the knee but...???
     
  32. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    I can't speak for Simon/Alfred E Newman, but assume he meant that VMO coming on earlier is a good them in those with patello-femoral problems.
     
  33. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    We probably should address the concept of straight vs curved last footwear.

    In fact this is a urban myth.. there is no such thing as straight or curved last footwear. Every company has maybe 3-4 major lasts they use, which relate more to volume than anything else.
    The shoe is made to look "straight, by adding bulk to the medial midfoot, and it is made to look "curved" by heavily sculpting in this region.

    Often a straight and curved shoe come off exactly the same actual last (plastic model the shoe is "lasted" from), and so the appearance is actually only visual, with very little functional difference.

    The actual volume of the upper, and the width of the midsole/outsole combo are what influence fit. Curved/semi-curve/straight lasted shoes have no effect on performance, as is often quoted.

    It is important to note that some companies spruik the merits of width fittings, but do so only by blowing out the volume of the upper,without increasing the base-net of the midsole/outsole. This will have very little fit benefit, as the wider foot just splays out over the midsole.

    regards
    Simon
     
  34. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Da Vinci is correct. The aim is to advance the timing of the onset of firing of VMO. Something in the vicinity of a 5 ms advance is thought to have a theraruetic efect in symptomatic patellofemoral pain. This can be achieved by VMO training per the research of Jenny Mc Connell, Sally Cowan et al, or with an oththotic device.. per Anna Mundermann. If you do not have these papers and would like them, I will dig them up for you

    S
     
  35. Simon:

    Thank you, thank you, thank you! I've been saying the same thing about "curved last vs straight last" shoes for years, but has anyone been listening??....no!! Most podiatrists and nearly all shoe sales personnel look at the bottom of the shoe sole and see a curve and think this means that the shoe is "curve-lasted" and then look at another shoe with a straighter medial sole border and say the shoe is "straight-lasted". Wrong!!

    The last is the three-dimensional model about which the upper of the shoe is constructed, and has almost nothing to do with the shape of the shoe sole when viewed from plantarly. In running shoes, such as "motion-control" shoes, these shoe soles typically have a straight medial border in order to place more material under the medial arch of the shoe, which makes them heavier and more "clunky" to run in, but also makes them better at applying external supination moments to the foot. These shoes are often called "straight last shoes". A racing flat, on the other hand, may have very little medial arch sole/midsole which will not only make it lighter, but will also make it less able to exert external supination moments on the foot during running. These shoes are often called 'curved last shoes". Both of these shoes may be made over the same three-dimensional foot model (i.e. last) but may have very different abilities to exert supination forces on the foot due to their huge differences in midsole construction.

    An urban myth???.....probably a podiatric myth, a running magazine myth and running shoe store myth also!!
     
  36. Paulo Silva

    Paulo Silva Active Member

    Even so the volume available in the shoe upper its completely different in both shoes.

    Completely true in some but not in all models.

    Myth or no these shoes will not fit the same way:

    [​IMG]

    (Please compare the volume available in the medial versus lateral side of each model)

    Each shoe will have different fit and feel, alowing more or less volume and that's all I'm saying:, its easier to fit a low arched foot in a straight last, this is a problem I had to solve almost every day (shoe/foot Marriage)since 1993 in my professional life.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2007
  37. Paulo:

    Comparing the transverse plane profile of shoe soles does not directly determine the fit of the upper on a foot. The fit of the upper is more determined by the three-dimensional shape of the last of the shoe, not the transverse plane profile of the shoe sole.

    I also worked as a shoe fitter for a few summers, lectured at the California College of Podiatric Medicine for about five years on shoe history, shoe biomechanics and shoe-orthosis interactions, and have been a long distance runner and interested in running shoe technology for over 35 years. Simon is right: saying that the shoes you display in your photo are curved-lasted vs straight-lasted is improper terminology, but is commonly-used terminology, as I noted in my last posting.

    In order to determine whether a shoe is made around a curved foot model or a straight foot model, one needs to determine the shape of the upper of the shoe, which is the part of the running shoe that is made to fit the last. Looking at the sole of the shoe from the plantar aspect only determines the transverse plane dimensions of the shoe sole, not the shape of the upper.
     
  38. Ian Linane

    Ian Linane Well-Known Member

    Simon you offered

    "This can be achieved by VMO training per the research of Jenny Mc Connell, Sally Cowan et al, or with an oththotic device.. per Anna Mundermann. If you do not have these papers and would like them, I will dig them up for you."

    This would be valuable thank you

    Ian
     
  39. kerstin

    kerstin Active Member

    I agree Ian
    So thank you Simon

    kerstin
     
  40. User7

    User7 Active Member

    Simon B.,

    I think the following question from Bruce Williams may have gotten lost in the thread:

    I'm similarly interested in an answer. Thanks.

    What type of mechanoreceptor stimulation was used? Something similar to the nobby insoles used in the women's soccer team study?
     
Loading...

Share This Page