.
TrafficRevenue

Running Changes Lives: Louise Cunningham’s Story

One of the things that I absolutely love about writing this blog is meeting people through it who have changed their lives by starting to run. Louise Cunningham is one such person.

I met Louise (or Weez) this summer at a running workshop that I co-hosted here in Concord, NH – she drove all the way down from Bangor, ME to attend (quite a long drive!). I’ve since corresponded with Weez frequently over email and Twitter, and her story is an amazing one.

In January of 2012 Weez weighed 285 pounds. She hadn’t run in years, and she realized that she needed to make a change or her health would continue to suffer. So she started to run. Here’s how she describes her progression on her blog:

“…when I started going to the University fitness center, I felt VERY self conscious and out of place amongst all those thin athletes there. I could barely walk the 1/10th mile track without having to sit down. I am serious. It was baaaaad. So many times I would think about running, but basically couldn't remember how... I know that sounds stupid but I was so overweight that I felt like an elephant with every step, making the ground shake.

Eventually I worked my way up to 1/10th walk, then 2/10th, then 3/10 and before I knew it, I was walking a mile. I made a decision to wait on the running until I felt I had lost a good amount of weight, in order to minimize the chance that I would get injured again.  When I finally lost 25lbs or so, I started jogging a bit at a time. It was slow. It was NOT fun. I hated it, but in my mind I knew that I had to keep it up to be able to get back to where I was as a runner years ago. Now it's September 30th and I feel like I have made a fair amount of progress… I in fact HAVE loved the journey. Every drop of sweat involved has been worth it all the way. Little by little I have mustered the courage to wear compression shorts without shorts on top. I bought some sports bras like everyone else wears. I run in skirts... I'm getting there, coming out of my comfort zone, little by little.”

These are the kind of stories that keep me going because they remind me so much of myself and how running has changed my own life for the better. Weez has accomplished a lot in 2012, and I’m looking forward to seeing what the future holds for her.

You can read Weez’s full story here and here.

Running Changes Lives: Louise Cunningham’s Story

One of the things that I absolutely love about writing this blog is meeting people through it who have changed their lives by starting to run. Louise Cunningham is one such person.

I met Louise (or Weez) this summer at a running workshop that I co-hosted here in Concord, NH – she drove all the way down from Bangor, ME to attend (quite a long drive!). I’ve since corresponded with Weez frequently over email and Twitter, and her story is an amazing one.

In January of 2012 Weez weighed 285 pounds. She hadn’t run in years, and she realized that she needed to make a change or her health would continue to suffer. So she started to run. Here’s how she describes her progression on her blog:

“…when I started going to the University fitness center, I felt VERY self conscious and out of place amongst all those thin athletes there. I could barely walk the 1/10th mile track without having to sit down. I am serious. It was baaaaad. So many times I would think about running, but basically couldn't remember how... I know that sounds stupid but I was so overweight that I felt like an elephant with every step, making the ground shake.

Eventually I worked my way up to 1/10th walk, then 2/10th, then 3/10 and before I knew it, I was walking a mile. I made a decision to wait on the running until I felt I had lost a good amount of weight, in order to minimize the chance that I would get injured again.  When I finally lost 25lbs or so, I started jogging a bit at a time. It was slow. It was NOT fun. I hated it, but in my mind I knew that I had to keep it up to be able to get back to where I was as a runner years ago. Now it's September 30th and I feel like I have made a fair amount of progress… I in fact HAVE loved the journey. Every drop of sweat involved has been worth it all the way. Little by little I have mustered the courage to wear compression shorts without shorts on top. I bought some sports bras like everyone else wears. I run in skirts... I'm getting there, coming out of my comfort zone, little by little.”

These are the kind of stories that keep me going because they remind me so much of myself and how running has changed my own life for the better. Weez has accomplished a lot in 2012, and I’m looking forward to seeing what the future holds for her.

You can read Weez’s full story here and here.

Do Runners Really Know How Much They Pronate?

Two days ago I posted commentary on an article by podiatrist Ian Griffiths that discussed why the term “overpronation” is inaccurately applied and should be banished as a blanket criterion for assigning shoes to runners. I did quite a bit of research on this topic while writing my book, and my overwhelming conclusion was that pronation should not be given the primacy in the shoe fitting process that it is currently afforded.

One study that made a big impact on my thinking was published as part of a conference proceedings back in 2003. Titled “Do Pronators Pronate?” and authored by Stefanyshyn et al. from the University of Calgary, the study examined whether runner’s beliefs about which pronation category they belong to actually matched with how much their feet everted when measured in a laboratory (note, eversion is one component of the complex movement we call pronation and can be though of simply as the inward roll of the foot after contact).

In the study, the authors examined a total of 83 runners (42 males, 41 females) who self-classified themselves as either a “pronator,” a “normal” runner, or a “supinator” (self classification most likely resulting from being told in a shoe shop or through observation of their arch height). Forty one subjects classified themselves as pronators, 40 classified themselves as normal, and 2 classified themselves as supinators.

The researchers attached markers to the legs and feet of the runners and had them run five trials barefoot and five in a neutral shoe. Runners were filmed in slow motion as they ran across a force platform – this allowed for a detailed quantification of foot eversion.

For the barefoot condition, they classified individuals with a change in eversion (i.e., inward foot roll) of >15 degrees as pronators. For the shod condition, the pronator category cutoff was a change in eversion of > 16.5 degrees.

Here’s where things get interesting. The results showed that for the 41 subjects who called themselves “pronators,” only 5 fell into the “pronator” category in both the shod and barefoot conditions (12%!), and nearly 70% did not exhibit high eversion in either the barefoot or shod conditions. In other words, 70% of the runners who considered themselves to be pronators were actually well within the normal range based on the criteria established by the researchers!

Similar to the above, “normal” pronators were also pretty lousy at their self-classification. Eighteen of the 40 self-classified “normal” runners exhibited a level of eversion that exceeded the “pronator” cutoff – that’s nearly 50% of normal runners who were actually pronators based on the classification criteria.

The authors suggest that runners may define their pronation category based upon observation of their arch height, but found no significant differences between loaded arch height in the self selected “pronator” vs. “normal” groupings (the only significant arch height difference was a lower unloaded arch in male pronators compared to normal males). They also found no correlation between arch height and amount of eversion, indicating that arch height is not a valid indicator of how much a runner pronates (so much for the wet test! – for more on arch height, read this post).

Based on these results, the authors concluded the following:

“The above results lead to the following conclusions: Barefoot eversion, shod eversion and the perception of pronation are variables that do not describe the same phenomenon. People who consider themselves to be pronators may not be pronators. People who consider themselves to be normal may be pronators.”

Does not instill confidence that we know ourselves as well as we think we do, does it!

So, just because somebody told you that you are an overpronator does not mean that you actually are, and just because you have flat feet does not mean that you necessarily pronate excessively (maybe you can skip the motion control…).

Even if you are an overpronator, unless it’s severe, it may not matter all that much. Dr. Benno Nigg, who was one of the co-authors of this study, states in his recent book, Biomechanics of Sports Shoes, that:

“Pronation and supination have long been the “danger variables” hanging over the sport shoe community, but their time as the most important aspects of sport shoe construction is over. Pronation is a natural movement of the foot, and “excessive pronation” is a very rare phenomenon. Shoe developers, shoe stores, and medical centres should not be too concerned about “pronation and supination.”

In his book Nigg also says that based on his extensive research into the topic, and his knowledge of the relevant literature: “overpronation, as it occurs in typical runners, is not a critical predisposition for injuries.”

(Incidentally, if you don’t know who Benno Nigg is, he’s a highly respected footwear expert and was one of the pioneers of the development of stability shoes in the early 1980’s. He has since changed his mind, and was quoted in Runner’s World saying the following: "I pushed the cushioning trend as much as anyone…And I take the blame for pronation devices as well.")

The above information contributes to why I believe that the pronation control model of shoe fitting needs to disappear – pronation can still be considered on an individual level when problems arise, but it should not be a primary criterion by which shoes are suggested to people in a shoe shop.

Stay tuned, as I plan to follow up shortly with a summary of a more recent study that provides similar results.

To read the Stefanyshyn paper click here.

Do Runners Really Know How Much They Pronate?

Two days ago I posted commentary on an article by podiatrist Ian Griffiths that discussed why the term “overpronation” is inaccurately applied and should be banished as a blanket criterion for assigning shoes to runners. I did quite a bit of research on this topic while writing my book, and my overwhelming conclusion was that pronation should not be given the primacy in the shoe fitting process that it is currently afforded.

One study that made a big impact on my thinking was published as part of a conference proceedings back in 2003. Titled “Do Pronators Pronate?” and authored by Stefanyshyn et al. from the University of Calgary, the study examined whether runner’s beliefs about which pronation category they belong to actually matched with how much their feet everted when measured in a laboratory (note, eversion is one component of the complex movement we call pronation and can be though of simply as the inward roll of the foot after contact).

In the study, the authors examined a total of 83 runners (42 males, 41 females) who self-classified themselves as either a “pronator,” a “normal” runner, or a “supinator” (self classification most likely resulting from being told in a shoe shop or through observation of their arch height). Forty one subjects classified themselves as pronators, 40 classified themselves as normal, and 2 classified themselves as supinators.

The researchers attached markers to the legs and feet of the runners and had them run five trials barefoot and five in a neutral shoe. Runners were filmed in slow motion as they ran across a force platform – this allowed for a detailed quantification of foot eversion.

For the barefoot condition, they classified individuals with a change in eversion (i.e., inward foot roll) of >15 degrees as pronators. For the shod condition, the pronator category cutoff was a change in eversion of > 16.5 degrees.

Here’s where things get interesting. The results showed that for the 41 subjects who called themselves “pronators,” only 5 fell into the “pronator” category in both the shod and barefoot conditions (12%!), and nearly 70% did not exhibit high eversion in either the barefoot or shod conditions. In other words, 70% of the runners who considered themselves to be pronators were actually well within the normal range based on the criteria established by the researchers!

Similar to the above, “normal” pronators were also pretty lousy at their self-classification. Eighteen of the 40 self-classified “normal” runners exhibited a level of eversion that exceeded the “pronator” cutoff – that’s nearly 50% of normal runners who were actually pronators based on the classification criteria.

The authors suggest that runners may define their pronation category based upon observation of their arch height, but found no significant differences between loaded arch height in the self selected “pronator” vs. “normal” groupings (the only significant arch height difference was a lower unloaded arch in male pronators compared to normal males). They also found no correlation between arch height and amount of eversion, indicating that arch height is not a valid indicator of how much a runner pronates (so much for the wet test! – for more on arch height, read this post).

Based on these results, the authors concluded the following:

“The above results lead to the following conclusions: Barefoot eversion, shod eversion and the perception of pronation are variables that do not describe the same phenomenon. People who consider themselves to be pronators may not be pronators. People who consider themselves to be normal may be pronators.”

Does not instill confidence that we know ourselves as well as we think we do, does it!

So, just because somebody told you that you are an overpronator does not mean that you actually are, and just because you have flat feet does not mean that you necessarily pronate excessively (maybe you can skip the motion control…).

Even if you are an overpronator, unless it’s severe, it may not matter all that much. Dr. Benno Nigg, who was one of the co-authors of this study, states in his recent book, Biomechanics of Sports Shoes, that:

“Pronation and supination have long been the “danger variables” hanging over the sport shoe community, but their time as the most important aspects of sport shoe construction is over. Pronation is a natural movement of the foot, and “excessive pronation” is a very rare phenomenon. Shoe developers, shoe stores, and medical centres should not be too concerned about “pronation and supination.”

In his book Nigg also says that based on his extensive research into the topic, and his knowledge of the relevant literature: “overpronation, as it occurs in typical runners, is not a critical predisposition for injuries.”

(Incidentally, if you don’t know who Benno Nigg is, he’s a highly respected footwear expert and was one of the pioneers of the development of stability shoes in the early 1980’s. He has since changed his mind, and was quoted in Runner’s World saying the following: "I pushed the cushioning trend as much as anyone…And I take the blame for pronation devices as well.")

The above information contributes to why I believe that the pronation control model of shoe fitting needs to disappear – pronation can still be considered on an individual level when problems arise, but it should not be a primary criterion by which shoes are suggested to people in a shoe shop.

Stay tuned, as I plan to follow up shortly with a summary of a more recent study that provides similar results.

To read the Stefanyshyn paper click here.

University of Richmond (my Alma mater) is Cutting it’s Track and Field Program: Support Them By Signing Their Petition

I was surprised to open up the Let’s Run homepage today and see the name of my undergraduate Alma mater featured front and center. Turns out the University of Richmond, which I attended from 1993-1997, is cutting their indoor and outdoor track and field programs and the men's soccer program to make way for a men’s lacrosse team. Here’s a local news report describing the situation:

WRIC Richmond News and Weather -

The Richmond T&F coach indicates in the video that if Track and Field is cut, cross-country will die out shortly thereafter. I find this disturbing as both an alumnus and a college professor because Track and Field athletes are often models of the ideal scholar-athlete (the XC coach at my college of employment has been trying for years to add a varsity Track and Field program with little luck). Indeed, in the text of a petition put together by the team, they indicate that in Spring 2011 the UR track team had the highest team GPA all DI outdoor Track and Field teams. It is a sad reality that college sports are often driven more by decisions revolving about revenue generation and enrollment than the achievements of the student athletes, and this seems to be a perfect example of that.

I write this post to encourage you to head over and support these student athletes by signing their petition to save the sport, the text of which is below:

On September 21st, 2012, University of Richmond Athletic Director Jim Miller informed the members of the University of Richmond Track and Field program that the University would be cutting the men’s indoor and outdoor Track and Field teams. These cuts were made in order that the University could add a Men's Lacrosse team. The Richmond Cross Country/Track program has been the epitome of what the NCAA promotes as Student-Athletes. We have succeeded both academically and athletically. The following are just some of the accomplishments by the Richmond Cross Country/Track and Field program over the past few years.

Spring 2011- Highest Team GPA all DI Outdoor Track and Field Teams

10 consecutive years on USTFCCCA All Academic Team for Cross Country, Indoor Track and Outdoor Track

2010- Qualified for NCAA XC Championships

2010-Top 25 finish in the NCAA

2010- Atlantic10 Cross Country Champions

Please sign this petition and vocalize your concern to the University community at large, to raise awareness and hopefully reverse this decision. Thank you for your support.

They are aiming to get 10,000 signatures, and currently they are only about 500 signatures away from that goal. I have signed, and I hope you will to.

To sign the petition, click here.

University of Richmond (my Alma mater) is Cutting it’s Track and Field Program: Support Them By Signing Their Petition

I was surprised to open up the Let’s Run homepage today and see the name of my undergraduate Alma mater featured front and center. Turns out the University of Richmond, which I attended from 1993-1997, is cutting their indoor and outdoor track and field programs and the men's soccer program to make way for a men’s lacrosse team. Here’s a local news report describing the situation:

WRIC Richmond News and Weather -

The Richmond T&F coach indicates in the video that if Track and Field is cut, cross-country will die out shortly thereafter. I find this disturbing as both an alumnus and a college professor because Track and Field athletes are often models of the ideal scholar-athlete (the XC coach at my college of employment has been trying for years to add a varsity Track and Field program with little luck). Indeed, in the text of a petition put together by the team, they indicate that in Spring 2011 the UR track team had the highest team GPA all DI outdoor Track and Field teams. It is a sad reality that college sports are often driven more by decisions revolving about revenue generation and enrollment than the achievements of the student athletes, and this seems to be a perfect example of that.

I write this post to encourage you to head over and support these student athletes by signing their petition to save the sport, the text of which is below:

On September 21st, 2012, University of Richmond Athletic Director Jim Miller informed the members of the University of Richmond Track and Field program that the University would be cutting the men’s indoor and outdoor Track and Field teams. These cuts were made in order that the University could add a Men's Lacrosse team. The Richmond Cross Country/Track program has been the epitome of what the NCAA promotes as Student-Athletes. We have succeeded both academically and athletically. The following are just some of the accomplishments by the Richmond Cross Country/Track and Field program over the past few years.

Spring 2011- Highest Team GPA all DI Outdoor Track and Field Teams

10 consecutive years on USTFCCCA All Academic Team for Cross Country, Indoor Track and Outdoor Track

2010- Qualified for NCAA XC Championships

2010-Top 25 finish in the NCAA

2010- Atlantic10 Cross Country Champions

Please sign this petition and vocalize your concern to the University community at large, to raise awareness and hopefully reverse this decision. Thank you for your support.

They are aiming to get 10,000 signatures, and currently they are only about 500 signatures away from that goal. I have signed, and I hope you will to.

To sign the petition, click here.

Saucony Mirage 3 Preview from Running Warehouse

Quick post to alert you to a preview of the Saucony Mirage 3 over at the Running Warehouse blog. I reviewed the original Saucony Mirage a few years back and found it to be a solid option as a transitional running shoe. Version 3 of the Mirage is a complete redesign that strips about an ounce of weight from the shoe and adds both increased flexibility and a beveled heel similar to that on the Kinvara 3.

For more details, head over to the Running Warehouse blog.

Saucony Mirage 3

Saucony Mirage 3 Preview from Running Warehouse

Quick post to alert you to a preview of the Saucony Mirage 3 over at the Running Warehouse blog. I reviewed the original Saucony Mirage a few years back and found it to be a solid option as a transitional running shoe. Version 3 of the Mirage is a complete redesign that strips about an ounce of weight from the shoe and adds both increased flexibility and a beveled heel similar to that on the Kinvara 3.

For more details, head over to the Running Warehouse blog.

Saucony Mirage 3

Why the Term Overpronation Should be Banished: Great Article by Podiatrist Ian Griffiths

PronationQuestion: Why do you wear pronation control shoes?

Answer: Because someone at a shoe store told you that you need them, and they were told that you need them by a shoe company rep.

The above Q&A basically describes my feelings on the topic of overpronation. You might think that you wear such shoes because you need support for your “excessive” foot movement to prevent injury, but the reality is there is scant evidence at best that these shoes accomplish this goal, or that excessive pronation is even strongly linked to increased injury risk.

Unfortunately, the pronation control paradigm has come to dominate the world of shoe fitting, and judging by the number of people asking for shoe advice on online forums who start by claiming they are an “overpronator,” it’s not a topic that seems to be dying off as rapidly as it should.

The reality is that pronation is completely normal. If you walk in a shoe store and their sole basis for choosing a shoe for you is how much your pronate and what your arch looks like, turn around and walk out the door. You’re probably just as well-off choosing a shoe at random from an on-line store. The science simply does not support this protocol (I wrote an entire chapter in my book explaining why), and in fact may contraindicate this practice. Given this, I was pleased to see a post come across my blogroll by sports podiatrist Ian Griffiths.

The post, published on the Kinetic Revolution website, describes why Griffiths thinks that “the term “overpronation” is neither accurate, descriptive nor meaningful, and should therefore be erased from modern day usage in both the lay and the medical communities.” Griffiths covers a lot of ground in his article, pointing out such interesting tidbits as the fact that with regard to pronation:

Across many studies, all of the data collected from pain free and injury free subjects and athletes shows that very few individuals actually meet the historical definition of ‘normal’.

One study examined 120 healthy individuals both non weight bearing and weight bearing. Not one subject conformed to the historical criteria of a ‘normal’ foot. Further searching through the literature shows that the majority of data collected from sampled populations suggests that the normal (average) foot position at rest is actually mildly to moderately pronated, as opposed to ‘neutral’.

Regarding injury risk due to “overpronation,” Griffiths has this to say:

It is a commonly held belief that pronation will increase the risk of lower extremity injury.  However (perhaps surprisingly) this is not particularly well supported by the literature, with very few studies which actually show pronation increases injury risk.  Instead, there are numerous pieces of work which have shown there is no association with foot type and injury and some research exists which even suggests that a pronated foot type is actually protective against injury.

And I love and fully agree with the conclusion regarding what to do with the term “overpronation”:

Hopefully it is now clear that this is a term which contributes nothing to our understanding – it is not definable, not reliable or valid, not diagnostic, its relationship to injury is not fully understood, and it does not dictate what the most appropriate management plan may be.  It should not be replaced, it should be removed.

Griffiths feels that pronation is simply one factor to consider when dealing with an injured patient, and this is in line with my view as well. It’s one factor among many that could contribute to any given injury, and it has been given a primacy in the footwear world that it does not deserve. It would be like deciding all of a sudden that we should assign shoes to runners based on their amount of hip adduction and internal rotation because excessive amounts have been linked to increased patellofemoral pain syndrome risk – at least in this case there would be some science supporting the practice.

Anyway, I highly recommend heading over to read Griffiths full post at the Kinetic Revolution website. Hopefully the article will help to free you or your running friends and loved ones from the shackles of the pronation-control paradigm!

Why the Term Overpronation Should be Banished: Great Article by Podiatrist Ian Griffiths

PronationQuestion: Why do you wear pronation control shoes?

Answer: Because someone at a shoe store told you that you need them, and they were told that you need them by a shoe company rep.

The above Q&A basically describes my feelings on the topic of overpronation. You might think that you wear such shoes because you need support for your “excessive” foot movement to prevent injury, but the reality is there is scant evidence at best that these shoes accomplish this goal, or that excessive pronation is even strongly linked to increased injury risk.

Unfortunately, the pronation control paradigm has come to dominate the world of shoe fitting, and judging by the number of people asking for shoe advice on online forums who start by claiming they are an “overpronator,” it’s not a topic that seems to be dying off as rapidly as it should.

The reality is that pronation is completely normal. If you walk in a shoe store and their sole basis for choosing a shoe for you is how much your pronate and what your arch looks like, turn around and walk out the door. You’re probably just as well-off choosing a shoe at random from an on-line store. The science simply does not support this protocol (I wrote an entire chapter in my book explaining why), and in fact may contraindicate this practice. Given this, I was pleased to see a post come across my blogroll by sports podiatrist Ian Griffiths.

The post, published on the Kinetic Revolution website, describes why Griffiths thinks that “the term “overpronation” is neither accurate, descriptive nor meaningful, and should therefore be erased from modern day usage in both the lay and the medical communities.” Griffiths covers a lot of ground in his article, pointing out such interesting tidbits as the fact that with regard to pronation:

Across many studies, all of the data collected from pain free and injury free subjects and athletes shows that very few individuals actually meet the historical definition of ‘normal’.

One study examined 120 healthy individuals both non weight bearing and weight bearing. Not one subject conformed to the historical criteria of a ‘normal’ foot. Further searching through the literature shows that the majority of data collected from sampled populations suggests that the normal (average) foot position at rest is actually mildly to moderately pronated, as opposed to ‘neutral’.

Regarding injury risk due to “overpronation,” Griffiths has this to say:

It is a commonly held belief that pronation will increase the risk of lower extremity injury.  However (perhaps surprisingly) this is not particularly well supported by the literature, with very few studies which actually show pronation increases injury risk.  Instead, there are numerous pieces of work which have shown there is no association with foot type and injury and some research exists which even suggests that a pronated foot type is actually protective against injury.

And I love and fully agree with the conclusion regarding what to do with the term “overpronation”:

Hopefully it is now clear that this is a term which contributes nothing to our understanding – it is not definable, not reliable or valid, not diagnostic, its relationship to injury is not fully understood, and it does not dictate what the most appropriate management plan may be.  It should not be replaced, it should be removed.

Griffiths feels that pronation is simply one factor to consider when dealing with an injured patient, and this is in line with my view as well. It’s one factor among many that could contribute to any given injury, and it has been given a primacy in the footwear world that it does not deserve. It would be like deciding all of a sudden that we should assign shoes to runners based on their amount of hip adduction and internal rotation because excessive amounts have been linked to increased patellofemoral pain syndrome risk – at least in this case there would be some science supporting the practice.

Anyway, I highly recommend heading over to read Griffiths full post at the Kinetic Revolution website. Hopefully the article will help to free you or your running friends and loved ones from the shackles of the pronation-control paradigm!

Nike Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against adidas Over Flyknit, Primeknit Similarity

A few weeks ago I got an email from adidas PR announcing the adidas Primeknit running shoe. Included in the email was a link to the following video:

The Primeknit is clearly intended to capitalize on the buzz created by Nike’s release of the Nike Flyknit – both shoes are unique in that they sport a knit, one-piece upper:

adidas PrimeknitNike Flyknit

Not surprisingly, the similarity between the shoe designs has led to a standoff between the companies. Nike claims that the Primeknit is a copy of the Flyknit and thus infringes on their patent, and sought an interim injunction to prevent adidas from making or selling the Primeknit in Germany. This temporary injunction was granted, and Nike is now seeking a permanent injunction.

As reported on The Oregonian, a Nike spokesman stated: "Nike has a strong heritage of innovation and leadership in footwear design and development…Our patents are the foundation of that leadership and we protect them vigorously.”

adidas claims the Primeknit has been in development for three years. It’ll be interesting to watch how this battle between shoe giants plays out!

Nike Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against adidas Over Flyknit, Primeknit Similarity

A few weeks ago I got an email from adidas PR announcing the adidas Primeknit running shoe. Included in the email was a link to the following video:

The Primeknit is clearly intended to capitalize on the buzz created by Nike’s release of the Nike Flyknit – both shoes are unique in that they sport a knit, one-piece upper:

adidas PrimeknitNike Flyknit

Not surprisingly, the similarity between the shoe designs has led to a standoff between the companies. Nike claims that the Primeknit is a copy of the Flyknit and thus infringes on their patent, and sought an interim injunction to prevent adidas from making or selling the Primeknit in Germany. This temporary injunction was granted, and Nike is now seeking a permanent injunction.

As reported on The Oregonian, a Nike spokesman stated: "Nike has a strong heritage of innovation and leadership in footwear design and development…Our patents are the foundation of that leadership and we protect them vigorously.”

adidas claims the Primeknit has been in development for three years. It’ll be interesting to watch how this battle between shoe giants plays out!

How to Measure Heel-Toe Drop in a Running Shoe

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post on how heel-toe drop (in reality, heel-forefoot drop) and foot length interact to determine the slope of the footbed in a shoe, I thought I’d put up a short post showing how exactly I measure heel-forefoot drop in running shoes.

When I first wrote on this topic a few years back I described a really rough measurement method that involved a bar clamp and a ruler. The method was not very precise, but it worked well enough to get a reasonably good idea of what the sole height differential was.

Nowadays I utilize a simpler and more accurate tool – a digital iGaging C-caliper (also called an outside caliper). Here’s what the caliper looks like:

IMG_3724

To measure a shoe, you simply open the caliper up and pinch the sole with the two arms of the “C” like so:

IMG_3726

For the heel, I place the tip of one of the arms in roughly the center of the heel, and the other on the outsole immediately below (being careful that the tip doesn’t wind up in an outsole groove which will lead to a thinner sole measurement). Thus, the thickness of the sole is pinched between the tips of the arms, and the distance between the tips is displayed on the caliper output screen.

For the foefoot, I slide an arm between the lateral tongue and the upper as far forward as I can go, thereby pinching the sole roughly under the region of the ball behind the little toe. Here are two photos:

IMG_3735IMG_3731

Using this method I measured the sole of the Altra instinct 1.5 at about 18mm thick in both the heel and forefoot (note that the forefoot measure in the photo says 18.2mm – this minute difference is most likely due to the fact that trying to hold the caliper and take a photo at the same time was quite a challenge!).

This method works great for shoes, and also works great for measuring just the height differential of the insole – to my surprise many shoes have heel lift built into the removable insole, and I have taken to swapping these out for a thin, flat one (typically the Skechers GoBionic insole) in many of my shoes.

So there you have it, a simple and easy way to measure heel-forefoot drop in shoes that doesn’t require hacking the shoe in half lengthwise. Should you desire to try this yourself, the iGaging caliper is available at Amazon for about $30.

How to Measure Heel-Toe Drop in a Running Shoe

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post on how heel-toe drop (in reality, heel-forefoot drop) and foot length interact to determine the slope of the footbed in a shoe, I thought I’d put up a short post showing how exactly I measure heel-forefoot drop in running shoes.

When I first wrote on this topic a few years back I described a really rough measurement method that involved a bar clamp and a ruler. The method was not very precise, but it worked well enough to get a reasonably good idea of what the sole height differential was.

Nowadays I utilize a simpler and more accurate tool – a digital iGaging C-caliper (also called an outside caliper). Here’s what the caliper looks like:

IMG_3724

To measure a shoe, you simply open the caliper up and pinch the sole with the two arms of the “C” like so:

IMG_3726

For the heel, I place the tip of one of the arms in roughly the center of the heel, and the other on the outsole immediately below (being careful that the tip doesn’t wind up in an outsole groove which will lead to a thinner sole measurement). Thus, the thickness of the sole is pinched between the tips of the arms, and the distance between the tips is displayed on the caliper output screen.

For the foefoot, I slide an arm between the lateral tongue and the upper as far forward as I can go, thereby pinching the sole roughly under the region of the ball behind the little toe. Here are two photos:

IMG_3735IMG_3731

Using this method I measured the sole of the Altra instinct 1.5 at about 18mm thick in both the heel and forefoot (note that the forefoot measure in the photo says 18.2mm – this minute difference is most likely due to the fact that trying to hold the caliper and take a photo at the same time was quite a challenge!).

This method works great for shoes, and also works great for measuring just the height differential of the insole – to my surprise many shoes have heel lift built into the removable insole, and I have taken to swapping these out for a thin, flat one (typically the Skechers GoBionic insole) in many of my shoes.

So there you have it, a simple and easy way to measure heel-forefoot drop in shoes that doesn’t require hacking the shoe in half lengthwise. Should you desire to try this yourself, the iGaging caliper is available at Amazon for about $30.

Heel-Forefoot Drop, Foot Length, and Ramp Angle: How Shoes Alter the Orientation of Your Feet

8-percent-gradeOver two years ago I wrote a post on what exactly is meant by the phrase “heel-toe drop,” and that post remains one of the most frequently read on this blog. Put quite simply, drop is the difference in height between the base of the heel and the ball of the foot when standing in a shoe.

Drop can be measured as the difference in stack height (outsole+midsole+insole thickness) between the center of the heel and the forefoot of the shoe (I generally measure forefoot height at the level of the ball behind the little toe since initial contact is made on the lateral margin of a shoe – these are the calipers that I use for these measurements). The presence of a heel-forefoot differential means there is a downward slope (see diagram below) from heel to forefoot (just like percent grade on a road), and the angle between this sloping line and a line extending back from the forefoot parallel to a flat ground surface is known as the ramp-angle:

Heel Forefoot Measures

“Drop” has become a standard measurement reported for running shoes (e.g., Running Warehouse reports it for almost all of the shoes that they carry). However, there is a lot of debate about how significant shoe drop really is for a runner, and I myself have argued that the number may mean different things for different shoes. But, from a practical standpoint shoes that are higher in their heel-forefoot drop will put the foot in a more plantarflexed orientation than it would be if one were standing barefoot on flat ground (imagine your foot placed on top of the triangle shown above - your ankle would have to be plantarflexed for the foot to rest on this slope while standing upright).

One thing to keep in mind about heel-forefoot drop is that the specific effect that it will have on ankle angle/foot orientation is dependent on the length of the foot. A 10mm differential spread along the length of a toddler’s foot will have a much more pronounced effect than the same differential in an adult male with size 12 feet. See the diagram below for a visual depiction:

Adult vs. Child Shoe

Given this, I though it might be helpful to do a bit of geometry and produce a chart that shows how drop is related to ramp angle and footbed slope for feet of different sizes (note, it’s been a long time since I took a geometry class, so if I screw up the calculations please let me know!). Ramp angle is computed by calculating the arctangent of heel-forefoot drop divided by heel-forefoot length(remember SOHCAHTOA?). Percent grade is simply drop divided by length x 100 – this is the same way it is calculated for a road (h/dx100 in the example below):

1000px-Grade_dimension.svg

Road Grade - Image via Wikipedia

So, doing the math in MS Excel, here’s what you get for shoes varying in heel-forefoot drop from 4mm to 14mm (some of my wife’s old traditional-style running shoes measure 14mm drop) and feet varying in heel-forefoot length from 70mm to 200mm. For frame of reference, the distance from the center of my heel below the calcaneus to the center of the ball behind my little toe measures about 150mm, for my wife it’s about 130mm. The same distance in my 7yo daughter is about 110mm:

             
Heel-Ball 4mm 6mm 8mm
Length (mm) % Grade Angle % Grade Angle % Grade Angle
200 2.00 1.15 3.00 1.72 4.00 2.29
195 2.05 1.18 3.08 1.76 4.10 2.35
190 2.11 1.21 3.16 1.81 4.21 2.41
185 2.16 1.24 3.24 1.86 4.32 2.48
180 2.22 1.27 3.33 1.91 4.44 2.54
175 2.29 1.31 3.43 1.96 4.57 2.62
170 2.35 1.35 3.53 2.02 4.71 2.69
165 2.42 1.39 3.64 2.08 4.85 2.78
160 2.50 1.43 3.75 2.15 5.00 2.86
155 2.58 1.48 3.87 2.22 5.16 2.95
150 2.67 1.53 4.00 2.29 5.33 3.05
145 2.76 1.58 4.14 2.37 5.52 3.16
140 2.86 1.64 4.29 2.45 5.71 3.27
135 2.96 1.70 4.44 2.54 5.93 3.39
130 3.08 1.76 4.62 2.64 6.15 3.52
125 3.20 1.83 4.80 2.75 6.40 3.66
120 3.33 1.91 5.00 2.86 6.67 3.81
115 3.48 1.99 5.22 2.99 6.96 3.98
110 3.64 2.08 5.45 3.12 7.27 4.16
105 3.81 2.18 5.71 3.27 7.62 4.36
100 4.00 2.29 6.00 3.43 8.00 4.57
95 4.21 2.41 6.32 3.61 8.42 4.81
90 4.44 2.54 6.67 3.81 8.89 5.08
85 4.71 2.69 7.06 4.04 9.41 5.38
80 5.00 2.86 7.50 4.29 10.00 5.71
75 5.33 3.05 8.00 4.57 10.67 6.09
70 5.71 3.27 8.57 4.90 11.43 6.52
             
Heel-Ball 10mm 12mm 14mm
Length (mm) % Grade Angle % Grade Angle % Grade Angle
200 5.00 2.86 6.00 3.43 7.00 4.00
195 5.13 2.94 6.15 3.52 7.18 4.11
190 5.26 3.01 6.32 3.61 7.37 4.21
185 5.41 3.09 6.49 3.71 7.57 4.33
180 5.56 3.18 6.67 3.81 7.78 4.45
175 5.71 3.27 6.86 3.92 8.00 4.57
170 5.88 3.37 7.06 4.04 8.24 4.71
165 6.06 3.47 7.27 4.16 8.48 4.85
160 6.25 3.58 7.50 4.29 8.75 5.00
155 6.45 3.69 7.74 4.43 9.03 5.16
150 6.67 3.81 8.00 4.57 9.33 5.33
145 6.90 3.95 8.28 4.73 9.66 5.51
140 7.14 4.09 8.57 4.90 10.00 5.71
135 7.41 4.24 8.89 5.08 10.37 5.92
130 7.69 4.40 9.23 5.27 10.77 6.15
125 8.00 4.57 9.60 5.48 11.20 6.39
120 8.33 4.76 10.00 5.71 11.67 6.65
115 8.70 4.97 10.43 5.96 12.17 6.94
110 9.09 5.19 10.91 6.23 12.73 7.25
105 9.52 5.44 11.43 6.52 13.33 7.59
100 10.00 5.71 12.00 6.84 14.00 7.97
95 10.53 6.01 12.63 7.20 14.74 8.38
90 11.11 6.34 13.33 7.59 15.56 8.84
85 11.76 6.71 14.12 8.04 16.47 9.35
80 12.50 7.13 15.00 8.53 17.50 9.93
75 13.33 7.59 16.00 9.09 18.67 10.57
70 14.29 8.13 17.14 9.73 20.00 11.31

What the above shows is that changes in footbed slope (i.e., percent grade) and ramp angle are more pronounced as drop increases and foot length decreases. What this means from a practical standpoint is that a child will experience a steeper ramp angle for a given heel-toe drop. Now, manufacturers do adjust drop in kid’s shoes to account for this, but basically if you take a kid’s running shoe and drop it to an 8mm differential, it merely brings it roughly in line with a 12mm differential adult shoe, and it’s probably going to be a lot less flexible.

Women will also like experience a steeper ramp angle than men – for example, my wife in her old 14mm drop Asics 2130’s was experiencing a greater than 10.77% grade just standing in her shoes! That’s almost equivalent to the average grade of the Mt. Washington Auto Road. Thus, if her footbeds were roads, there would be giant yellow warning signs like the one at the top of this page!

Much to my chagrin, my daughter has a pair of “special occasion” high-heel sandals (I can’t always win in a battle against fashion…) that are 24mm drop – that puts her at a 21.82% grade when she wears them. That’s over 6 degrees of excess plantarflexion at the ankle just standing in place! But, when young girls are trained to look at horrific cases of forefoot equinus (as in Barbie and her deformed feet) as normal, such things are easy to overlook.

My basic stance on shoes is that kids should be in flat shoes. In all of the research I have done, I have yet to find any reasonable justification for why we put kids in shoes with a heel lift, particularly athletic shoes. That being said, there is a place for lifted heels in athletic footwear for adults. For example, adults who have been wearing lifted shoes their entire lives can experience anatomical changes in the feet and legs that might make going flat very difficult, particularly if they have no desire to alter their footwear habits (I discuss this extensively in my book). From a personal standpoint, having now been flat in daily life for almost two years, wearing a shoe with a 12mm heel lift feels extremely awkward, whereas that used to be my norm. The human body is adaptable, it just needs to be given the necessary time.

So, I hope this is helpful as a resource. I’ve also created a calculator that will do the calculations for any set of numbers - this is my first time trying to embed an interactive spreadsheet so let me know if there are any problems! All you need to do is enter the appropriate numbers into the gray cells - the blue cells should populate with the answers based on those numbers.