Running Technique Tips

The great running shoe debate came and went without the anticipated fireworks and feisty exchanges of previous outings. The most surprising aspect of the debate was that there was little actual debate; it could have been the great running shoe agreement.  While I was happy enough not to witness pointless argument, I did leave the venue unsatisfied with where things are at in relation to discussions about running injuries, running technique and the issues facing the running shoe industry in general. As I wrote in my previous article that previewed this debate, it does seem we remain narrowly focused on a discussion about shoes, foot-strike and barefoot running.

But onto the debate at hand, the format went something like this: the panel posed each other questions and also answered some from those close to the shoe discussion that couldn’t be in attendance. I originally planned to write a complete summary, but there was too much ground covered, so I’ll stick to a small number of discussion points in this recap. I’m sure a video of the complete proceedings will appear at some stage if you’re interested in the entire 2+ hour discussion.

Why have injury rates among runners remained consistently high for several decades despite technological innovation in running shoe design? Associate Professor Peter Larson (Saint Anselm College)

I’m in furious agreement that highly cushioned; motion controlling running shoes do little, if anything to protect runners from injury and if anything can contribute to the development of poor running technique and then knock-on injuries. We’ve seen a number of runners in the coaching context that look like their shoes are getting in the way, but this has not always needed a radical minimalist transition to help start the improvement process. Often a move to a light-weight trainer makes a big difference to someone who has been running in a heavier, more structured running shoe for a long period of time.

So in my opinion, not every traditional running shoe should be thrown into the big bulky shoe category. A stripped back and flexible light-weight trainer may well be the best place for a runner adapted to heavier, more intractable shoes to start (and in some cases end) a minimalist transition. Combining this with an aspirational shoe build on a slightly lower heel-toe drop profile (used for a small volume of jogging) is a good mix. This allows the process of lengthening and strengthening the calves, Achilles tendons and deep compartment muscles (of the lower leg) to begin.

The fact that no one can agree (in a scientific debate) that there is evidence that wearing or removing shoes reduces injury risk supports the assertion that it’s not all about the shoes contributing to the running injury equation? I remain convinced that running shoes are only part of the picture, with western society being habitual sitters and wearers of raised heel shoes in everyday life. Looking at big bulky running shoes as the primary driver of injury seems an incomplete analysis of the situation.

When people take up running they are probably in worse shape than those in more active de-cluttered societies, you can observe many people walking about with poor hip strength and control. 

Which brings me to Pete’s second question:

Which “form flaws” are most likely to increase injury risk for a runner?

There is a similar discussion with an expanded panel of experts planed in Newcastle this Friday, I won’t be attending, but I think it would be helpful for the experts to spend a little longer on this point. There is much more going on than just the usual suspects of heel-striking, over-striding and low stride rate.

I agree a passive heel strike that sees the foot landing well ahead of the knee with none of the buttocks, hamstrings and lower leg muscles active as the foot contacts the ground is likely to cause injury. However, heel striking in itself isn’t necessarily the devil we are perhaps led to believe.

Someone adapted to running in shoes that lightly touches down with the heel and has the previously mentioned muscles active during ground contact is likely to be able to run comfortably and injury free. Getting those bigger running muscles strong and firing is a higher priority in our coaching approach than rapidly transitioning people into minimalist shoes or altering their foot-strike posture.

I was disappointed that developing hip strength and stability was dismissed as being a trendy approach to preventing running injuries. I’d happily debate that all day long. Why? Because it is the most consistent theme we have seen when coaching runners suffering a range of injury concerns. So through practical observation of runners we know it’s something that is always in the mix as a potential contributor to an injury. It is also an area that researchers have begun to pay serious attention to, with weakness in the buttocks linked to many common knee and lower leg injuries. With a different group of academic experts in a debate this may have received more attention.

Foot type and shoe fit – a retailer’s perspective

Another item discussed was the sales model used by most big running shoe companies and retailers: choosing shoes by foot type and shape. There was agreement around the point that there is no scientific evidence to support this simplistic model, although there were valid questions about the veracity of a couple of the studies in this area.

As an aside, I’ve played around with a couple of decision support systems on shoe company websites and noticed that you can produce scenarios that confuse the system. For example telling the computer that you have high arches, but also pronate excessively will result in zero shoes being recommended to you – why? It does not fit the model, nor does the trend towards minimalism.

This is something Mark Gorksi (as a retailer) has been very close to, having taken the approach of fitting shoes based on what works best for the individual when observed running, rather than looking at their feet. Mark has hit the nail on the head with these comments in the last couple of days:

One of the biggest challenges facing shoe companies is the re-education of retail staff in regards to emergence of the minimalist running trend. This isn’t just limited to what it means technically and where certain shoes sit on the shelf, but how they relate to safely servicing runners of differing abilities, ages and backgrounds.

With increasing numbers of customers wanting to try the new minimalist shoes there’s a real risk for the industry because knowledge amongst retail staff about minimalist transition pathways is sketchy at best. Further, getting the message right about where the benefit of minimalism can most effectively be sort by runners is no easy task.

The wrong sell can easily lead to an injured runner who with a more patient approach to transition may well have got good benefits. The downside is that this runner may well be lost to minimalism forever as they lose confidence and receive conflicting advice as they recover from their injury – you may never get them back and you’ve added to the long list of cautionary tale fodder.

This in an environment where the continued use of foot-type fit needs rapid adjustment to keep up with what many runners now know from following the science and better running blogs i.e. that foot-type fit is not based on any science. These are huge challenges and a major back-pedal for many of the major shoe manufacturers, how they handle it will be interesting to say the least.

At what age should children start wearing cushioned running shoes? Blaise Dubois

Blaise’s pillow analogy was one of the highlights of the night, when children move from the cot to the bed they receive a pillow – but why? Same thought process applies to shoes, why do children need cushioned running shoes? Just as important is the question about regular shoes. I grew up, along with millions of others, wearing stiff leather school shoes with a heel.

I can distinctly recall shin-splints in the playground. Children run about, play, climb, sprint, run etc, why put them in something that is not conducive to doing these things? If you need to wear black shoes for school, look for flat flexible models with room for toe spread that are more or less minimalist running shoes in disguise.

If your child has already started adapting to traditional shoes, you’ll need to help them adapt out of it gradually, but this should be an easier path than for older runners. Keep your children out of shoes with raised heels for a long as humanly possible.

Can overweight individuals run safely barefoot or in minimal shoes? Peter Larson

Great question and I think the discussion was pretty helpful; there is no reason why an overweight runner couldn’t wear less shoe. In fact, the thinking behind being able to feel the ground and activate the correct muscles being more important for those runners that are a bit heavier makes a lot of sense.

After full adaptation has occurred, which of the following optimizes distance running performance? Dr Craig Richards

Running barefoot, Flat cushioned shoe, 5mm heel-toe cushioned shoe, 10mm heel-toe cushioned shoe.

This is a general but interesting question that depends on the race. On the track, a zero drop spike seems the right choice given all current world records belong to spike-shod runners.  Although I did have a discussion about that with world record breaking master’s runner and coach Keith Bateman a few months back on Twitter. As you can see he’s of the view that he’d be more efficient barefoot than in spikes. Could we see a return to the days of athletes like Zola Budd breaking records running barefoot?

At the marathon the argument for some heel lift seems valid and most recent fast times have been recorded in a shoe like the old Adizero Adios or similar. But equally some runners wear a flatter shoe, as did the winner of this year’s Melbourne Marathon Japhet Kipkorir (pictured above left wearing an Adizero Pro). Even experienced barefoot runner Dr Mark Cucuzzella (pictured above right) wears shoes to race the marathon. But in Mark’s case a shaved down, level Newton MV2 is likely to be roughly zero drop. He says: 

Conclusion

Science has a hard job explaining how running works. One of the biggest things I take away from this debate is that any expert you rely on (myself included) is going to be basing their philosophy on a combination of science, observation and some practical personal and hopefully hands on experience in helping runners enjoy and get the most out their running experience. I don’t think we’ll ever reach a position where there is a uniform or consistent approach to running and perhaps this is a good thing. It’d be nice to have one area of life where there is room for the art as much as the science to lead the way forwards.

Written by Brian Martin

Related articles:

It is with some trepidation that I will attend a great running shoe debate to be held in Melbourne on Friday evening this week. On one level I’m happy to go along and hear what people have to say, these events can often deliver a thought provoker or drop useful knowledge into your lap. I’m also pleased to be able to finally make the acquaintance of Robbo from The Naked Runners, who along with Mossy, I’ve been corresponding with during the past year. It’s also a good chance to meet the experts in the field who will be taking the stage to slug it out with a bit of intellectual kick-boxing.

But debating by its nature is combative and rarely conducive to imparting knowledge, especially in this context where the debaters are experts/scientists with reputations to protect or enhance. To a running public that isn’t familiar with the scientific literature, how studies are designed and what makes a good and bad piece of research, it can be confusing. It’s worth checking out the blog of scientist and author Alex Hutchinson – he’s got a great nose for BS and is well qualified to sort the good from bad.

Entertainment versus knowledge value?

I’d go so far to say the actual narrative of debates like this can be meaningless to runners and coaches who are craving good information; however entertaining they are for running nerds and scientists. If you think I’m mistaken, visit the comments stream following the last of these debates.

Public exchanges of professional vitriol are of questionable benefit to the education of the running community at large. I’m thinking here of runners and running coaches. However, I concede there is value in raising the awareness and knowledge of developing issues amongst the professionals that might attend this debate.

There is a much needed shift in attitude that I think needs to occur amongst professionals that runners generally come into contact with. Runners need their physiotherapists and podiatrist to be more holistic in their approach and I acknowledge a change in attitudes to minimalist running footwear and orthotic prescription is part of this process that debates like this can help, but by no means is it the complete picture.

Debating shoes – a narrow focus

My real worry here is not this particular debate or the participants involved, but the continued narrow focus on shoes being the main (or only) lever available for runners to pull in their search for injury free running and proper running form. Why? My personal and practical experience in helping runners improve technique and find long term solutions to injury problems  strongly suggests that shoes are only one part of a multi-layered learning and conditioning approach. I agree with Pete Larson on the point that “bad shoes can lead to bad form” and removing a poor shoe choice can eliminate an unnecessary hurdle to improving their technique.

So why are we still only talking about running shoes?

I’m no scientist, but I did look into the possibility of formal study to examine some of the aspects I wrote about in my book. The main reason I didn’t undertake a Masters or PhD is that science is hard and running is complicated .It wasn’t a cop-out exactly, but I was firmly informed by one of the plain speaking academics I met that what I was considering doing wasn’t viable at a PhD level and that I’d have to narrow my focus so far that any results would be meaningless to someone who wanted to coach and write about running technique.

Stuff is hard to prove. That’s why there are so many studies that look at small and isolated aspects of running – like taking off your shoes. In my opinion, observational studies of actual out of the lab running such as the one performed by Pete Larson and colleagues on foot-strike patterns during a marathon are far more useful than something narrowed down to get past a bunch of hostile PhD examiners or the requirements of peer reviewed academic journal publishers.

Practical observations better than studying narrow interventions?

The type of study done by Larson gives you something real and practical to think about and they trigger new theories and stimulate discussion – I was quickly able to add something potentially useful to the observations of the authors of this study. They also help provide actual evidence to support things that you thought you knew in your gut. For example, it’s probably not a good idea for runners completing the marathon in more than three hours to wear zero drop shoes or racing flats unless they are extremely well adapted and experienced. It’s long been recommenced that only efficient runners wear flats in a marathon and this study supports that notion by identifying an increase in heel-striking as the marathon enters its closing stages.

The debaters

Back to the debate at hand. Craig Payne is a Podiatrist and barefoot running industry critic. Simon Bartold, another Podiatrist, who works with the ASICS shoe company as a consultant, is traveling overseas and will not be attending, but will be contributing via scripted questions.

On the case for minimalist running we have Blaise Dubois, a physiotherapist that advocates for minimalist running shoes and runs workshops around this topic and other trends in running injury prevention for physiotherapists. It’s good news as far as I’m concerned to have a physiotherapist advocating amongst physiotherapists to raise the profile of the potential benefits of minimalist running.

Also on the panel is Craig Richards, a researcher who has done much to debunk the pronation foot type myth by trying to find evidence (and not finding any) that there was some rational behind fitting runners into shoes loaded with motion control features based on the shape of their feet. Richards is also a strong critic of Sports Medicine Australia (SMA) for their endorsement of the ASICS running shoe brand.

More debates about shoes? How about better, more holistic information for runners?

I don’t personally know any of the debaters and will be interested to see how this thing plays out. My personal view is that we don’t really need more shoe debates, what we should be looking for is the different players and leaders within and around the world of running to make a bigger commitment to education by providing better quality, more holistic information to someone quite important, the runner.

The runner is currently on the receiving end of a whole bunch of mixed messages from direct and indirect influencers of opinion. They’re also likely to receive contradictory advice depending on who they’ve last talked to. It’s easy to see how runners get trapped in the injury doom cycle with so much going on.

My take on running shoe minimalism

My views about the benefits of wearing relatively less shoe as part of an overall program to improve running technique are in plain sight on my blog, but I’ve been cautious about insisting that the only way to run well is to just jump into extreme minimal shoes. This isn’t smart, nor is it correct, but if you’re a runner absorbing mainstream and some online media, this is exactly what you might decide to do. In fact, when we work with runners in the coaching context, a minimal shoe transition is one of only four main areas we work on, and even then many runners are not recommended a minimal or even a transition shoe because they are clearly not ready for it.

Coaching and discussing running technique, a practical multi-layered approach is needed

I’ve been providing (with Mark Gorski) a running technique coaching service for almost a year now, and the strategy we use is relatively straight-forward, but so far has been quite successful. We provide some basic information and instruction about how running should work and where a runner needs to focus to get from A to B. Often the gap between the current and future runner is too great to bridge in a single step, so we very much focus around the critical principle of hip strength, stability and the ability to activate the buttocks and hamstrings.

All good runners share a common running engine room – strong and stable hips. They are able to activate their buttock and hamstrings muscles as they contact the ground to facilitate an active landing that provides more power and better absorption and use of ground reaction forces. We’ve found foot-strike and running shoes are a secondary consideration if you can’t activate these major running muscles.

Shoes are definitely in the mix of factors we look at, but are only one of four main interventions we work on with the runner. I wouldn’t downplay the relative importance of any of the measures we use because they all feed off and enhance each other:

• Strength and coordination training
• Mental cues
• Training approach and philosophy
• Footwear

Learning from the experience of trying new things

We try and provide enough information, instruction, stimulus and a training approach that allows a runner to learn their way to technique improvements. I’ve had the good fortune to correspond with Dr Mark Cucuzzella over the last week or so as he prepares a presentation to be given at the University of Virginia – yes another debate, but about gait, not just shoes, this is a step in the right direction. We’ve talked a bit about the importance of experiential learning (trying stuff out) as part of the gait retraining process.

His recently released barefoot running video and principles of natural running has been a big hit – and contains great information for runners. But while it’s relatively easy to describe the principles of good running technique, we agree it’s harder to learn them. This is where experiencing different stimuli such as a small volume of low intensity barefoot running, wearing minimalist running shoes for some of your running, strength training, a change in training approach and using specific mental cues to activate better muscle activation patterns can all help.

Learning any new skill takes time and experimentation, so it’s better to think of it as a cycle rather than a short, linear progression with a fixed end point. You can always keep learning and evolving; new discoveries feed your progress and inspire new levels of performance, but you must be prepared to try and fail as part of the journey.

None of this is particularly radical, but the combination of measures used is effective. The reason for explaining it is this: I’d like to see more discussion, research and debate about a range of helpful measures for runners and coaches, not just shoes. I’d especially like to see more research into various coaching and teaching strategies. What I’ve outlined in our way of approaching the issue, I know there are others that are also effective; tapping into and sharing different strategies is what I’m getting at. This type of research is unlikely to prove anything in a black and white way, but observing what works and doesn’t work in practice can be a valuable learning experience.

More leadership, better education a bit of humility

So what we need is leaders and spokespeople in the running industry to step back, take a deep breath and give some ground on your position. We also need a clearer narrative and people to take a little effort to put any new research, products and advice in context so they have a sense of relativity and connection to the general running public. This doesn’t mean being patronizing, but just providing that extra layer of information that makes data or facts mean something to the person about to run in different shoes, try that new drill or make a sudden switch to forefoot or barefoot running.

The minimalist movement hasn’t done itself any favors by some companies and distributors getting into the mainstream media with simplistic messages about the benefits of barefoot shoes. Sure there are benefits to be had, but these messages don’t come with a warning label or point out that it’s not all about the shoe. Equally some running shoe manufacturers need to listen a bit more to what’s working in the real world and spend less time and energy on trying to polarize opinion. There’s plenty of profitable and helpful middle ground for those with a bit of vision to make the most of it.

Conclusion

So I’m looking forward to the debate, but I’m hoping that in the future these types of discussions will center far more on the runner and that researchers will move away from trying to prove narrow interventions. A focus on observing what happens when a range of measure are used by runners to improve their fortunes would be far more helpful. Yes you might never get that funny professor’s hat or find the running silver bullet, but you’ll be far more likely to help runners and running coaches develop better approaches to injury prevention, recovery and training.

Written by Brian Martin