{ADMIN NOTE: This post was moved from the threads on
Lawsuit filed against Skechers}
A question for the experts on the arena. I reviewed the American Council for Exercise (ACE) study but one conclusion nags at me:
"Bryant says he’s also concerned that extended wear of these toning shoes may alter the walking gait mechanics of wearers and, in some cases, potentially cause problems for those who may already be at risk for lower-extremity
issues."
My question is: Is altering gait mechanics necessarily a bad thing? Our feet are designed to move in three planes of motion, and to adapt to terrain fluctuations. But most of us spend the majority of our time on flat, hard level surfaces, such as concrete, tile and asphalt. Is it possible that these surfaces can cause repetitive stress/overuse injuries and pathologically alter our gait wearing ordinary shoes?
Shoes like MBT, Joya and Ryn shoes
do alter gait on concrete , but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. In fact, for many I think it could be quite beneficial. Instead of repetitive foot slapping on concrete, the foot goes into a controlled rolling motion on concrete surfaces. I believe that some of these shoe designs actually protect the body from the repetitive stress of walking on unforgiving, artificial surfaces. With MBT and Ryn, the body balances on the apex of a heel-to-toe rocker. It's nearly impossible to have poor posture in these shoes. It's very easy to assume poor postures in ordinary shoes.
So is altering gait necessarily a bad thing, as the ACE study suggests? Here's a link to the article:
http://www.acefitness.org/getfit/stu...hoes072010.pdf
By the way I have no problems with any brand being punished for exaggerated, unfounded or fraudulent marketing claims. What I am questioning some of the conclusions drawn by the ACE study. After all, ACE is a trade group representing gyms and personal trainers. Hardly an objective group.
Question about benefits of toning shoes
Linear Mode
