Podiatry Arena members do not see these ads

My guess is that the 10-12 mm heel height differential (HHD)seen in the vast majority of traditional running shoes was a trial and error thing that happened in the 1970s and 1980s among the dominant running shoe companies where they each were wear-testing different shoe HHDs, listening to feedback from their wear testers and shoe sales people and decided by numerous trial and error approaches with different shoe HHD designs to stick to what seemed to work best in the subsequent years for the majority of runners. I know of no definitive research which has shown this 10-12 mm HHD is either best for metabolic economy or preventing running injuries, but it certainly seemed to work very well for me and thousands of other runners for many years.

Hold on there, Mathew. You are starting to go down this road of what is "natural" or not in regards to a set of individuals who have worn shoes all their life, have worn clothes all their life, have eaten processed foods all their life and have walked and run on asphalt and cement for all their lives. So, Mathew, with this in mind, what is more natural: running for 30 minutes in a traditional running shoe with a 12 mm HHD or walking for 8 hours a day in 15 mm HHD men's dress shoe or for 8 hours a day with a 75 mm HHD lady's dress shoe?

I wonder are you equally as concerned for the 75+ mm HHD shoes that many females in our culture habitually wear on their feet all day, or do you just care about the 8 mm of HHD between a "minimalist shoe" and a traditional running shoe for their 30 minute runs? In other words, please don't start going down this "natural" path with us here to try to support your preference for a lower HHD running shoe unless you can produce some evidence that walking or running with no shoes or in shoes with 0 HHD is better for all feet in today's modern society....a modern society where shoes with quite large HHDs are worn everyday and for many hours per day by members of our communities for walking and standing during their daily weightbearing activities.

__________________
Sincerely,

Kevin

**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College

e-mail: kevinakirby@comcast.net

Private Practice:
107 Scripps Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825 USA
My location

Voice: (916) 925-8111 Fax: (916) 925-8136
**************************************************

Hi Simon. Just give me an e-mail and I'll send you my mobile and sort something out.

pjtodd70@hotmail.com

Cheers

Thanks Kevin for your views. The above you state is a “guess”... fair enough... but I would like something with more credence than a “guess” – you would as well, I’m sure. If the above is somewhat valid, then going by “trial & error” based on the feel on various HHD just doesn’t sit well with me as the optimal approach. This methodology doesn’t account for the potential future problems that could be encountered via various potential secondary/tertiary adverse influences this elevated HHD could create when deviating from the primordial foot structure/design & subsequent intended function (I will not use the term “natural” as will detail later). I think we both (all) will like a more official history & reasoning for the advent of the 12mm HHD in running shoes. I must confess, I haven’t looked deeply into finding the legitimate origin myself.

What would have been a more optimal approach in assessing the merit of HHD would have been research following the lines of the above stated nature. Then again, & once again – why alter the ankle/foot angle function (in itself affecting kinematics/kinetics) via a shoe targeted towards the masses... for at present – for some unknown reason (or ambiguous at best). You stated that it “seemed to work very well” for you & “thousands of other runners for many years”... but are you sure that it did/has & continue to do so. As we both know, injuries are multifactorial with many potential adverse influences from one runner to another... can we at least assume that HHD was/is just one of these potential adverse influences, of which enough to tip a runner over their injury threshold – it would seem we don’t know the full implications of this. I don’t know your injury history Kevin (although I have skimmed over references to it by another member here) but I can at least speculate at this point in time what an elevated HHD has had on my past running history & the history of some of my running related patients... & I personally feel it has been an adverse influence... of which with no sound reasoning/research to back up its implementation.

It would appear that some don’t feel this “HHD” is an important matter but I just feel it’s time for a review on this matter (& yes, I have already stated it should be reduced/removed).

Hang on there Kevin; please don’t dwell on my single use of the word “natural” (I just knew I shouldn’t have used that word!) in my last post. I know you’re not a fan of the word “natural” in these settings & neither am I due to its airy fairy connotations but it was used in the following context...
... whereby having a foot function in an elevated HHD is relatively un-natural in relation to the foot functioning plantigrade to being “natural” (based on the primordial/anatomical design of the foot/ankle).

In fact Kevin, speaking of “natural” reminds me of a very clever Nike add – whereby phrases such as “natural running” & “foot move more naturally” are coined... & “super-natural” could be the way to go... in getting back to basics in the picturesque high altitude training camp of “Bear Butte”...

Video interlude... because there are some bear (bare) butts revealed you may have to unfortunately log in to YouTube to see the vid (yet it’s really quite harmless). You could also see it here (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x92...amp_shortfilms) or here (http://vimeo.com/4352558)...




There are some world class runners featured... “If you want to be a super-natural runner, you gotta train like one.”


Despite the above video, we still do need clothes (particularly in Sydney at present)... however, processed foods we certainly don’t need. Oh Kevin, you’ve got me started on another one of my pet topics – nutrition. Frankly, the human body has been polluted & maimed (i.e. cancer, CVD, arthritis etc...) with the degree on poor diet present... to the point that we should be glad there are clothes available to hide some of the evidence. Yet, it wasn’t meant to be this way... the human body should have a life of continual vibrant activity... feeding the body, with dare I say it – natural foods, foods in their natural packaging, foods not chemically engineered, foods devoid of animal products... a diet of fruits, nuts/seeds, vegetables - preferably vegan with the majority of which being raw (around 80%) – that is uncooked whereby a higher degree of vitamins, minerals & amino acids can be efficiently metabolised for optimal health & performance (l think I’ll stop here).


Yes, hence why we need foot attire which serves as protection & cushioning. You know Kevin; I’m not one of those extremist barefoot advocates. I have expressed the need/reason for shoes (albeit plantigrade midsoles) & orthotics (when help of force control needed) whilst advocating the merits of barefoot running within the training program.

Well... none of the above I would consider more “natural” really. The thing is Kevin; this topic/discussion is in the context of running... running for various lengths of time over various distances. My usual run is a fair bit longer than 30 min. a day but the real issue is the accumulated affect over the week, month & year. An average runner may run 40 – 50 km a week, whilst an elite distance runner can be running at least 150 - 200 + km a week... regardless, that is a lot of accumulated foot strikes, force & tonnage over the period, of which something may pack in as a result of injury threshold being met... as the result of an adverse influence contributing to potential adverse internal &/or external forces. The above scenarios would all be the result of this to varying degrees of which also influenced by other factors such as structural alignment, muscle/tendon conditioning etc...

Being a Podiatrist I certainly care about the individuals who habitually wear those ridiculous high heels. I really don’t know why they persist – well, I do... maybe to do with sex appeal - to accentuate the calf & ankle contour, longer legs & lower back & buttock contour. But it really doesn’t turn me on at all... I find a woman far more attractive wearing a sensible flat shoe so she can walk properly, which also reveals she has concern for her wellbeing & has the self confidence not to be persuaded by mundane foot fashion & peer pressure. The majority of my patients are women – not because women have congenitally worse feet than men – but because of the silly shoes they think they should wear. In fact I have two notices on my clinic wall addressing this, one of which is the following...



Sorry Kevin... I haven’t stated the above at all – that could qualify as a straw man argument. Besides, I think I have already covered part of your concern already (i.e. regarding the use of the word “natural”). As for the later part of the quote... we as consumers & runners have been dictated to for the past 30 odd years with the implementation of elevated HHD for “all feet”. I simply don’t agree with its degree of height differential & subsequent prevalence (targeted for everybody). It would seem more logical & professionally/medically responsible to make the HHD lower & address elevating the heel if needed on an individual basis than to have an elevated HHD for all via a shoe.

And we as Podiatrist have made a living from (to say the least)... the possible consequences thereof. The continual use of elevated HHD to varying degrees across varying footwear classes (i.e. running, casual & particularly dress shoes) will continue to keep us in business for the future.

__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.

You mean shoes like these podiatrists wear?





Not telling which one is me.

__________________
Just a rock `n roll refugee.

If...

Mathew:

I don't have enough time currently to respond to all the points in your lengthy posting. However, I will have to say that your arguments are nearly identical to those used by Blaise Dubois and the many others who seem to think that wearing thicker soled running shoes is harmful to runners. Thinner soled running shoes have been continuously available in running shoe stores for the past 40 years, however, we called them racing flats. There was no conspiracy among running shoe companies to injure runners. If runners became injured, it was much more likely that the injury was due to a training error, rather than from the shoes they wore.

In addition, while thinner soled running shoes with a low HHD may be perfectly fine for you and Blaise, you must also remember that thousands upon thousands of runners have been running painfree and injury free in traditional running shoes with a 10-12 mm HHD for over 30 years. If you want to claim that these traditional running shoes have been an "adverse influence", then you have that right to make that claim. However, since you have absolutely no research evidence to support your conjecture, then your opinion has no more substance than do the claims and conjectures that Chris McDougall made in his semi-fiction novel, Born to Run.

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the additional variety offered currently by having more shoes with a lower HHD is good for the running community in that it gives the runner more shoe choices. However, the addition of more lower HHD shoe options at the running shoe stores have also led to even greater confusion for the average runner when they need to try and make a decision which specific shoe is best for their running activities. I wish I could say that this barefoot/minimalist shoe trend/fad has been beneficial over all for the running community. However, at this time, I will need to hold judgment on this matter due to insufficient evidence.

__________________
Sincerely,

Kevin

**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College

e-mail: kevinakirby@comcast.net

Private Practice:
107 Scripps Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825 USA
My location

Voice: (916) 925-8111 Fax: (916) 925-8136
**************************************************

yeah.. it's all about the weight.. hehehehe

Kevin, it is the midsole gradient/heel to forefoot pitch/heel to forefoot differential/heel to toe drop/elevated HHD (whatever term we should officially call this) which is of my main concern here - not so much the sole/midsole thickness. Although I can see that midsole gradient/elevated HHD is associated/related to sole/midsole thickness. I didn't think my views qualify as... "arguments nearly identical to those used by Blaise Dubois" - but I suppose based on the fact stated in the previous sentence, I can see how you would perceive it that way. In fact I haven't taken much notice of the Blaise's argument for a while now... I usually just skim over the heated dialogue between he, yourself & Simon (toomoon). I did pick up on some issue with the term "BBS" (aka - big bulky shoes), which would explain the sole/midsole thickness issue but wasn't familiar with much (if any) HHD contention.

On the issue of midsole thickness alone; I can see it would make sense to have a thicker midsole thickness for a heavier runner (jogger/plodder weighing 100kg + wanting to get fit) as opposed to a lighter frame runner.


Yes, so did I - why did we do this & why were we aware of them (racing flats)? Because we were/are both experienced runners who took running seriously & would compete in running races. However, if we were to ask the average jogger what is a racing flat or name one, they wouldn't have an idea. I remember going to High School/Uni in my racing flats & I would get questions on the shoes - because they were different to any other shoe you would get in a retail store... the general public just wasn't aware of them.

I'm not too sure what it is like in America but here in Australia you will find it hard to find a racing flat in your regular footwear store, even running related stores like the Athlete's Foot. The only place to get a decent range of racing flats is to go to a specialty running store. This is the case in 2012 & back 10, 20, 30 years ago it would have been even harder to find a racing flat in this country. Thus the point is, the lower profile racing flat option has not been around for the general public for as long as you suggest (at least in this country). Over the past 25 - 30 years the general public have only the traditional training shoe (with its 10-12mm HHD) to choose from... it is what they have ever been use/exposed to... this along with stats suggesting a continual high percentage (75 - 80% give or take) of runners being injured each year for a number of reasons... of which I will at least have a logical right to suggest it just well could be related/influenced by the thing there foot is inside of - that 12mm HHD running shoe. Of which there doesn't appear to be any clear logic as to its implementation or research to justify its continued inclusion.

The other issue with racing flats is that the general view was that you wore them naturally in races only (hence the term - racing flat). When I started training in a racing flat (about 25 years ago) I got so many queries as why I was doing so... & this was within the running community. People would tell me that they weren't designed for training in & that I would get injured. Thus the other point is that the mindset back then (& until recently) is that you didn't train in a racing flat with its lower profile, less supportive structure.

It has only been fairly recently that the general view of training in a lower profile shoe may have some merit - hence the now growing number of lower profile (low HHD) running shoes available which has now also grabbed the attention of the general public... & subsequently given birth to the militant barefoot/minimalist advocates who want to see a conspiracy within running & the footwear industry (yet 10 years ago probably wouldn't know a racing flat if it kicked them in the @#$%).

To be blunt Kev... I can see why it has p!!55ed you & others here off at times - it has for me also!


Yes, I agree... but be prepared to continue to... as a result of biased sentiments espoused from the barefoot/minimalist brigade.

A view I would further add to the above quote is that I do feel that the shoes could be an influencing factor... or seen as an exacerbating factor to tipping one over their injury threshold... alone &/or in association with poor conditioning &/or "training error".


Hmmm... I'm not so sure Kevin... sure "thousands" could be seen to get away with it... but I wouldn't rest my laurels on that viewpoint.


Oh no ... "no more substance than do the claims and conjectures that Chris McDougall made"... a tear formed in the corner of my eye when I read that one Kev (but I forgive you). Maybe I should write a book as well ... "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth... Running and Continual Enlightenment".

Anyway, I think we have both discussed & agreed on the research aspect in this area (& the same applies as to the validation of your perspective). That said, ideas/conjectures/opinions need to be first expressed before research can start to reveal evidence/data either way. We will await to see what the future brings on this issue.




Good point, I also see it confusing for the general public as they have not been exposed to this lower HHD running shoe & they wonder what the significance is... is it suitable for them, shoe feeling weird within the store, do they need the support they have been conditioned physically & psychologically to wear. This also makes it confusing for the Podiatrist in a clinical setting providing appropriate advice for individual patients... as well as to educate them to unlearn what they have learned psychologically (i.e. confidence to move away from the higher HHD) & physically (i.e. condition Triceps Surae/Achilles).


I personally believe it has... yet, frustrating at times but birthing pangs are to be expected in a paradigm shift... such as this could be perceived as.


Please do. Being that there were photos taken (at same event going by the flooring) the issue looked to be discussed at the time.


Sorry for the length... again.

__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.

Came across this post recently (doesn't look like it's been discovered yet by the forum) which seems to be the result of someone known within this area (& to this forum i.e. Dr Craig Richards - Hunter Gait Australia).

Relevant to this topic as it provides another speculated reason behind the use of an elevated HHD - albeit a satirical view (which doesn't cut it)... referred to as "Congenital Short Hard Heel Syndrome" by Dr Musculoskeletal...



No doubt annoying for some ... or a comical interlude for another.

__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.

Being that this post (videos of elite runner's foot strikes) in the "Slow motion videos from the US Olympic trials" thread has a close relationship to this thread pertaining to footstrike patterns, I thought I'll highlight it here as well.

__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.