Gait assessment?

Ben Davies 15

RoadWarrior wrote (see)

A 300 person study revealed that injury rates increased by assigning 100 people stability shoes, another 100 people assigned motion control shoes experienced higher rates of injury shoes than the 100 assigned stability shoes. 100 people assigned neutral shoes experienced the least amount of injuries. Could it be that neutral shoes should be assigned in order to minimise injuries, promote natural foot movement and to provide adequate cushioning for protection. When shoes shift more towards protection and correction there is an increase rate of injuries.

http://colpts.com/pronation-does-not-cause-running-injuries/

Choosing a running shoe based on your foot type does not reduce your risk of injury. If you have flat feet or are an overpronator, it is unlikely a motion-control shoe will reduce your injury risk.

Why does pronation control or modification not change running injuries? This is likely due to the fact pronation is a normal motion that helps with shock absorption. The muscles, tendons and ligaments of our foot are designed to withstand the forces of running. As such, preventing the naturally occurring motion from occurring with a rigid shoe may be counterproductive. Based on these newer scientific studies it appears making your running shoe decision based on comfort and how the shoe feels is more appropriate than choosing a shoe based on your foot type. Fortunately, we are learning that other factors such as weakness of the outside hip muscles and the foot strike pattern (heel strike versus mid foot) can increase injury rates and can be easily addressed.

My main criticism of this study, would be the very small sample size compared to the other studies mentioned. Even so, its methodology seems to be sound, so it has to be discussed in the argument.

Interestingly, some of the studies that suggest that pronation causes injuries, found that a little bit of pronation was better than none or too much. In that sense the two sides of the argument might ultimately align.

[Deleted User]

Why does gait analysis necessarily have to equate to orthotics?

Gait analysis can highlight a running anomaly that can be addressed by improving the conditioning of certain muscle groups - restoring balance or improving form.  

My opinion of orthotics?  Rolling a turd in hundreds and thousands and expecting it to taste like chocolate. 

Gait analysis - analysed by a professional = good.

Gait analysis - analysed by the monkey at a national sports warehouse = probably better of asking a veteran at your club.

 

SSLHP Shoes smell like horse piss

I come back to an earlier point that Running shoe shops don't offer gait analysis, they offer pronation analysis viewed from behind only.

Ben Davies 15

Shoes smell like horse piss wrote (see)

I come back to an earlier point that Running shoe shops don't offer gait analysis, they offer pronation analysis viewed from behind only.

I guess that I would have to ask what your definition of gait analysis is?

 

I would expect a shop assistant who was any good, to look for the following points in a video analysis:

 

• Where the foot strike occurs.
• Whether the foot pronates, and to what extent.
• Whether the action of the foot causes the shin bone to be displaced laterally.
• The angle between the base of the ankle and the knee during foot strike.

 

I would also expect them to discuss the customers injury history with them, and try to relate it to what was seen on the video. 

 

SSLHP Shoes smell like horse piss

Can you see how far in front of the hips the foot lands from behind?

Can you see the angle between the base of the ankle and the knee during foot strike from behind?

Can you see if the runner plantar flexes just before the foot leaves the ground suggesting a 'push-off' from behind?

Can you see if the knee straightens before the foot pulls off the ground from behind?

Can you see if the runner lands with a straight knee from behind?

Ben Davies 15

 

 

Shoes smell like horse piss wrote (see)

Can you see how far in front of the hips the foot lands from behind?

Can you see the angle between the base of the ankle and the knee during foot strike from behind?

Can you see if the runner plantar flexes just before the foot leaves the ground suggesting a 'push-off' from behind?

Can you see if the knee straightens before the foot pulls off the ground from behind?

Can you see if the runner lands with a straight knee from behind?

There is nothing forcing you to place the camera behind the customer, but you generally do so.  It comes down to whether the factors you have listed will impact upon shoe recommendation, and whether you can really do anything about them.    

I would always recommend looking at how far in front of the hips the foot lands, and how the foot lands, as this gives you an idea of what sort of injuries are likely to occur further down the line. 

I do not think that running shops should be correcting customers running style, because the risk of injuring them would be considerable.  There are only a very small number of people who are qualified to do that IMHO. 

SSLHP Shoes smell like horse piss

My list wouldn't impact on shoe recommendation, because shoes wouldn't correct any of the faults in the runners stride and their associated injury potential, but proper gait analysis lets you look at those things, which is why I say that shoe shops don't offer gait analysis -it's just pronation analysis...and so what?

Ben Davies 15

It is not comprehensive gait analysis, for the reasons that you have outlined, but I do not think that it would be doing it justice to call it "pronation analysis". The pronation itself is not the problem, although it has been associated with metatarsal fractures. The problem (in theory) is that it imparts a sharp lateral force upon the base of the shin bone, which impacts the shin, and in turn can effect the knees hips and even lower back.