Gait analysis, as waste of time?

13567

Comments

  • RoadWarrior wrote (see)

    http://nomahealth.com/evidence-against-prescribing-running-shoes-based-on-the-motion-control-paradigm/

    “Current conventions for assigning stability categories for women’s running shoes do not appear appropriate based on the risk of experiencing pain when training for a half marathon. The findings of this study suggest that our current approach of prescribing in-shoe pronation control systems on the basis of foot type is overly simplistic and potentially injurious.” This doesn’t instill much confidence in the current system, does it? By allowing publication of a study that openly states that there is no clinical data showing that shoes designed to control pronation do anything to prevent injuries, Nike took a great risk.

    It makes one wonder if the whole pronation-control shoe paradigm is nothing more than a giant marketing gimmick whose goal is to scare consumers into buying shoes based on fear of injury. It’s a time-honored marketing tactic—convince consumers of a need, and provide a product that supposedly fulfills it.

    In this case, the need is a neutral gait in order to reduce injury risk, and the products are the shoes that promise to correct gait to meet the need. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence showing that running shoes either do or don’t reduce injury risk (or maybe even increase it), why stop making something that continues to sell and has come to be expected by consumers?

     

     

    RoadWarrior wrote (see)

    http://nomahealth.com/evidence-against-prescribing-running-shoes-based-on-the-motion-control-paradigm/

    “Current conventions for assigning stability categories for women’s running shoes do not appear appropriate based on the risk of experiencing pain when training for a half marathon. The findings of this study suggest that our current approach of prescribing in-shoe pronation control systems on the basis of foot type is overly simplistic and potentially injurious.” This doesn’t instill much confidence in the current system, does it? By allowing publication of a study that openly states that there is no clinical data showing that shoes designed to control pronation do anything to prevent injuries, Nike took a great risk.

    It makes one wonder if the whole pronation-control shoe paradigm is nothing more than a giant marketing gimmick whose goal is to scare consumers into buying shoes based on fear of injury. It’s a time-honored marketing tactic—convince consumers of a need, and provide a product that supposedly fulfills it.

    In this case, the need is a neutral gait in order to reduce injury risk, and the products are the shoes that promise to correct gait to meet the need. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence showing that running shoes either do or don’t reduce injury risk (or maybe even increase it), why stop making something that continues to sell and has come to be expected by consumers?

     

    The problem with the minimalist shoe argument is this Road Warrior. 

    Its proponents attack the running industry based on the lack of evidence backing up its position, then they unquestioningly accept something that seems completely bonkers, based on even sketchier evidence. 

    They also commit the cardinal sin of assuming that what works for them will work for somebody else.  The one absolute certainty I can give you is that you will not find a universal solution for everybody. 

    If the running industry are engaged in some ingenious and elaborate conspiracy to sell people worthless shoes, it begs the question why are they so breathtakingly incompetent in everything else that they do?

  • Shoes smell like horse piss wrote (see)

    8 million years of evolution. Thank goodness shoe manufacturers came along in the early 70s and saved us from our faulty, malfunctioning feetimage

    Stone age man did not have to run of tarmac, and probably only livedto the age of 35. 

     
  • Ah, so it all went wrong since tarmac was invented
  • Ten years ago the evangelists were telling us all about Pose and forefoot running. Nowadays it's zero-drop shoes, barefoot or whatever. These things go in cycles.

    There's always a group that claims to be referring to research when everyone else is being taken in by a sales pitch image

  • Ben Davies 15 wrote (see)

    Here is the problem Ian

    Even if there is published data that contradicts the idea of pronation causing injuries, you still don’t get to dismiss the published data that says it does, or cherry pick the sources that support your position. 

    That isn’t how science works. 

    If you do that then you are no different than a young earth creationist who starts with a predetermined position and sets out to find the evidence to support it. 

     

     

    Ben, My day job is doing science - reading and evaluating existing research, and then implementing it is what I get paid for - I know exactly how it works. Choosing newer research than your examples is not 'cherry picking', it's using up to date research. Research that better reflects our current state of knowledge - that's how science works. Old suppositions get thrown out, new conjectures get proposed.

    You citing three papers that you haven't even read isn't science - it's desperate cut n paste floudering and I'm guessing isn't something your master's supervisor would advocate either

    Highlighting that the one paper I managed to download of the three you cited doesn't even support your proposition isn't science either, but does demonstrate that you personally should stay clear of trying to use science to support your argument.

  • Just ordered a new pair of Omni 12's will now have raced in every model since the 4's came out...



    ... Don't read running research, just go with what my body tells me is working
  •  

     

    Flob wrote (see)
    Ben- you can't have it both ways. You say that those who disagree with you can not ignore older studies that support your argument, so likewise you can not ignore the bigger and more up to date studies that dispute your evidence. As I stated earlier, there is no undisputed evidence so therefore anyone claiming that they have the answer is simply being dishonest unless they state that it is only their opinion and not supported by any meaningful scientific evidence. The industry gets around facts by saying that shoes are designed for overpronators instead of saying that their shoes will correct over pronation and prevent associated injuries.
    It is all marketing spiel and means nothing if you actually look for absolute statements of fact.
    Wearing what feels most comfortable is about the best guide you will get because your foot knows better than any salesman when it comes to what it needs.

    Let me be clear about this.  I am not claiming to have all the answers here.  I have already said that a lot more research non this topic is needed.  I don’t expect any sort of consensus to emerge within the field for some time.

    I think that the people making absolute stamens against the methodology, or claiming that minimalist running shoes are the solution, are in effect claiming to have the answers. 

    The reason the papers I put forward reflected one position, was because some people had claimed that there was no evidence to suggest that pronation causes running injuries, and this clearly had to be challenged since there is such research. 

  • Can't argue with that!!

  • Shoes smell like horse piss wrote (see)
    Ah, so it all went wrong since tarmac was invented

    I suspect that it is a significant part of the problem.   

    I don’t have any research to back this up, but we all know that running 20 miles on tarmac can hurt more than running 40 on trails. 


     

  • Dear me, what a kerfuffle!

  •  

    Shoes smell like horse piss wrote (see)

    8 million years of evolution. Thank goodness shoe manufacturers came along in the early 70s and saved us from our faulty, malfunctioning feetimage

     

    I guess you're only playing devil's advocate, but some do seriously put forward this argument, and it is just SO bereft of intellectual thought.

  • Gait analysis done in running shoe shops just look at the over pronation issue which is totally pointless when the important issue is ignored. it's where the foot lands in relation to the general centre if mass that has the greatest inluence on injury risk ( not to mention efficiency). who cares if a shoe slightly straightens the ankle if the runner thumps down on his heel 2 feet in front of his knee.
  • Ben Davies 15 wrote (see)
    Shoes smell like horse piss wrote (see)

    8 million years of evolution. Thank goodness shoe manufacturers came along in the early 70s and saved us from our faulty, malfunctioning feetimage

    Stone age man did not have to run of tarmac, and probably only livedto the age of 35. 

     You are confusing life expectancy at birth with life span.  Up until recent times most people died in childhood, depressing average life expectancy.  However if you survived childhood living to 70 plus would not be that unusual.

     

  • Surrey Runner wrote (see)
     You are confusing life expectancy at birth with life span.  Up until recent times most people died in childhood, depressing average life expectancy.  However if you survived childhood living to 70 plus would not be that unusual.

     

    Eminently valid point. 

    I will give you one counterpoint.   

    Life expectancy in say Victorian England takes child mortality into account. 

    In the fossil record it is based on the age of adults at the point where they died. 

    For example we know that a Tyrannosaurus rex, almost never lived past the age of 30. 

     

  • Ben. It time for you to realise das spiel is aus for your little gimmick at sweatshop. Sweatshop is good enough and doesn't need this bit of nonsense.

  • You have made two mistakes there. 

    Sweatshop     is not good enough, they couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery.  It      does need this bit of nonsense as you call it. 

    If you want to give a customer the best service that you can, then this is an important tool at your disposal. 

     

  • I'm sure we all agree the some running shoe shops provide pronation analysis. that's it. nothing more
  • My personal experience with Gait Analysis is as follows:

    First ever running shop visit had me stand still while she looked at my feet, then sold me the shoes she wanted to sell me.

    Second ever running shop visit had me run on a treadmill while the guy watched from behind, then sold me the shoes he wanted to sell me.

    Third time I went to Sweatshop, the young chap took me to the treadmill, popped some insoles in a heater thing, had me run for a while, showed me the video and the movements of my feet/ankle/shin. Explained while watching the video how I was over-pronating slightly with my right foot but nothing to worry about, took the insoles out of the heater and put them back on the pile.

    He then asked me to pick the trainers I liked the look of and he'd let me know if they were neutral and so suited for me. So I pointed to the Brooks I'd gone in to buy and he said yup, they'll be fine.

    Job done, I was happy. And I didn't have that niggling feeling that I'd been had.

  • Flob wrote (see)
    Let me be clear about this?? What are you- a bloody politician?

    My earlier comment:

    As I stated earlier, there is no undisputed evidence so therefore anyone claiming that they have the answer is simply being dishonest unless they state that it is only their opinion and not supported by any meaningful scientific evidence.

    By this I mean that companies selling products using unproven data are being dishonest. Unless you are such s retailer then I am not commenting about you because you are just giving an opinion and not selling it to the public.

    Nike paying for and not burying a study that questions the industry wide sales pitch is an interesting development. Hopefully, one day there may be a double blind study that is large enough and balanced enough in numbers to provide a clear answer about injuries and shoe types which takes in gait analysis as a contributing factor.

    I had gait analysis today and according to the salesman, metal gaits are best! Boom!

    Its like this. 

    Although the case for gait analysis is till unclear, we still have to get on with our lives, and shops still have to do the best that they can to fit people with the right shoes.  This means that they must use all the tools at their disposal, one of which is gait analysis. 

    It is not just for your sake either.  If I as a shop assistant sell you a pair of shoes with a 30 day guarantee, and you bring them back, then my manager is going to kick my ass.  Of course I am going to insist on using every tool at my disposal to constrain the choice. 

    Furthermore, your typical customer when you work in such a shop is somebody who already has a problem.  They will have bought a pair of shoes from Sports Direct, had a problem, and decided to give somebody more upmarket a chance.  Are you seriously going to tell me that you would just give them a shoe that felt comfortable, and hope for the best?

  • Encourage your customer to have a go on the treadmill that nearly all running shops have to make sure that the shoes are comfortable when running.  But that is all. Sports direct typically don't have a treadmill.

  • The thing is Flob that we do not have a scientific consensus about what works yet, and the retailers job is to offer the customer the best chance of getting the result they want. The people who are saying that we should not do gait analysis, do not have any suggestion as to what we should put in its place. I think it is legitimate to use it as a component, and only as a component, of a strategy to try to determine the customers needs.

    While the scientific studies on gait analysis have produced mixed results, the fact that some have upheld it means that it is something worth pursuing at the current time. You make a joke about shopkeepers being involved in the worlds biggest study into gait analysis success rates, but in a way that is what they are doing. Individual Sweatshop members of staff are assessed based on the number of returns they get, and are held accountable for them.

    Surrey - if the customer is going to obligingly run on the treadmill for you, and you have the facility to film them, why would you not?

  • The times I've been into running shops and seen, or more importantly, HEARD running on the treadmill with dreadful running form -bending at the waist, overstriding, landing on the heels etc. It hurts even to listen to them, yet all the shop assistant is doing is looking from behind to see if there ankle rolls a little bit much! Then in the other corner there's another sales assistant telling runners that minimal shows will make them land on their forefoot! Nope. It's all nonsense.

    Buy what fits well and is comfortable, then learn how to run with better technique

  • You would be making a grave mistake if you think that every problem in running can be solved by buying what fits well and is comfortable and learning how to run with better technique.  That is one of the worst examples of a person claiming to have all the answers. 

  • I used to listen to this rubbish...I went to a propper running shop and got To go  on running machine.

    i was advised as I have flat feet I needed a motion control shoe,they were comfy but big bulky and heavy...I did put up with this for a few pair then I decided to go on comfort making sure I had same length and 2e wide.

    i then tried on nb 860 v2 which would never been sold to me in a shop,felt light,and managed to get to 17 mile run in them without a problem at all.i then got a 2 nd pair which now are almost had it now.

     

    iam now looking for a new pair as Iam doing my 1 st marathon next year.

    i have no problem going for something comfy( which many may say is wrong for my foot) 

    If find a flat shoe with no arch way better for me even that I have flat feet...this goes against what Iam told. 

     

  • Ben,

    You said earlier that new shop assistants in Sweatshop tend to have a bigger 'return rate'... but that this improves markedly with experience.  Did you see a pattern to the changes that those assistants made?  For example, I wonder if new assistants tend to be 'over' prescribe solutions.  Or perhaps it's the other way round.  Or maybe no discernable patterns.

  • Ben. have injury rates reduced since the invention of these medicsted shoes?
  • Nose Nowt wrote (see)

    Ben,

    You said earlier that new shop assistants in Sweatshop tend to have a bigger 'return rate'... but that this improves markedly with experience.  Did you see a pattern to the changes that those assistants made?  For example, I wonder if new assistants tend to be 'over' prescribe solutions.  Or perhaps it's the other way round.  Or maybe no discernable patterns.

    The inexperienced assistants tended to take a simplistic view i.e. “this is overpronation and I correct it by sticking something hard under it”.  This often resulted in over prescribed solutions, as you elegantly put it.  A more experienced assistant will often prescribe slightly less support than the footage would indicate. 

    As people get more experienced, they look at the way the customer is running more.  They look at whether the shin bone is getting knocked sideways, and the customers running posture.  They look at whether the customer is landing on the heel or the forefoot, because while most shoes are good for heel strikers, many are crap for forefoot strikers.  Above all they look at the customers history more, in terms of previous injuries and what has worked for them in the past. 

    The bottom line is that every piece of information you can get about the customer is significant, and the video footage is not so much the single most important piece of information, as the one you need to give all the others context. 

Sign In or Register to comment.