Archive for the ‘DrShoes’ Category

December 17th, 2009 Shoe Review – Asics GT-2140 vs. Asics GT-2150

Asics just debuted their GT-2150 model and I am happy to report it is very similar to the GT-2140 http://drshoe.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/asics-2140-has-arrived/

I am a huge fan of this series as it is one of the few shoes that works for the narrow foot.  Although the GT-2150 model is ever so slightly wider than the GT-2140, I don’t think this will be a problem for most feet.

All in all, the 2100 series remains one of my favorite running shoes and I will continue to recommend it for many of my runners feet.

December 12th, 2009 Barefoot Running Shoes

During the past several months, more and more runners and readers have asked for my opinion regarding the increasingly popular barefoot running styles of shoes. What follows are my responses to an interview I recently did with Podiatry Today http://www.podiatrytoday.com/december-2009.

Have you seen an increased demand for shoes that simulate barefoot running?

Yes. Questions about barefoot running seem to parallel the introduction of new barefoot running shoes into the marketplace. The most common I’ve seen in my practice include NikeFree, Vibram Five Fingers and Newton Running.

NikeFree was the first introduced in 2004. At the time, Nike who was sponsoring Stanford’s track team discovered that some of their training had been done barefoot. Stanford’s coach at the time, Vin Lananna felt that barefoot training reduced injuries and improved foot and ankle strength. Seizing an opportunity, NikeFree was developed. Basically it has a soft, non-supportive cloth upper with a wide, cushioned midsole having deep grooves to enhance flexibility.

A little slower to catch on has been Vibram Five Fingers, which were introduced in 2005. Vibram originally designed these to be worn while yachting and was surprised initially that anyone would want to run in them. Once they discovered this however, this shoe with individual toes became mainstream.

Newton Running was developed in 2007 and is similar to NikeFree in appearance but provides more forefoot cushion. It was designed by Runners and is heavily endorsed by runners. The shoes are expensive and cost between $150-$200.

Other than the debut of a new barefoot running type shoes, Christopher McDougall’s recently released book entitled Born to Run, has re-ignited the barefoot running controversy.

Chris is an ultrarunner and writer for Men’s Health. His book is a page turning, entertaining read about his own personal journey of barefoot ultrarunning, which started, with the simple question of “why does my foot hurt?”

It chronicles Chris’s introduction, training and subsequent 50-mile treacherous run with the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico’s Copper Canyon. The Tarahumara are a legendary tribe known to run hundreds of miles at a time while only wearing sandals. In it he vilifies running shoe companies, podiatrists, sports medicine specialists and orthotics as the cause of running injuries. Looking below the surface however, I was able to appreciate the book for it’s historical accounting of barefoot running, ultrarunning and Chris’s analysis of running form. I also think it will stimulate conversation and better scientific research into the question is there an optimal running form and is it the same for everyone and every foot type?

In regard to shoes that simulate barefoot running, what in your clinical opinion are the biomechanical strengths and weaknesses of these shoes in comparison to conventional running shoes?

Barefoot running shoes are designed to promote forefoot contact over heel contact. This does two things. One, it reduces the impact of heel strike, improving shock absorption throughout the midfoot and forefoot.  Two, it alters the center of gravity forward with the feet being better centered below the hip, which is a much more stable alignment.

My problem with barefoot running shoes isn’t with the biomechanics of the design but rather the concern that runners will see this as the newest fad and train without proper conditioning or assessment. It doesn’t matter whether you are wearing NikeFree 5.0 or Nike Zoom Structure Triax +12. If the running shoe isn’t a match to your foot type and running biomechanics, injuries will occur.

I also think in addition to shoes, too many runners have not been adequately coached in proper form. The best running shoe design in the world coupled with poor running form has little chance of benefiting a runner. ChiRunning, Pose Tech Training and Evolution running are all running methods which simulate barefoot running form and are often helpful in reducing or eliminating injury.

Are there other considerations Podiatrists should keep in mind when asked for recommendations of these shoes by patients? Are there certain foot types that would prohibit use of these shoes?

When asked by patients about barefoot running I say it may have a place in an overall training strategy, but based on most of the patient’s pathology I see coming through the door, few would benefit from this as a primary treatment. In fact I have taken quite a few runners out of these styles of shoes because they caused injury. It amazes me that so many experienced runners (triathletes, marathoners, ultrarunners) who presumably know everything about their running are oftentimes clueless when it comes to their shoes. They are sponsored by a particular shoe company consequently have to wear that company’s shoe and no one has really ever analyzed whether it’s right for them or not. Or, they have run in the same shoe for the past 10 years but never realized that the shoe design has changed so dramatically during a version change, that in spite of the name being the same it’s not the same shoe.

In your experience in treating athletes, are there particular brands of these shoes that simulate barefoot running that you have found to be effective?


The few patients I have who use these types of shoes as well as readers of my blog find that Vibram Five Fingers are really the only shoe that simulate the true feel and biomechanics of barefoot running. NikeFree and Newton Running seem to be losing ground in the battle of barefoot running shoes. However, I’m sure as time goes on, more and more shoe companies will jump on the barefoot running bandwagon and incorporate even more designs and styles into their manufacturing lines.

November 17th, 2009 Shoe Review – New Balance 1123 Excessive Forefoot Wear

I have reviewed New Balance 1123 in a previous post http://drshoe.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/breast-cancer-3-day-shoe-review-new-balance-1123/.

New_Balance_1123_Medial

This has been one of my favorite shoes for the wide, deep foot. It’s especially good for walkers due to it’s wide base and seemingly firm midsole. Or, so I thought.

Today, someone came in having worn this shoe while walking for the few past months with a recent onset of ball of the foot pain (metatarsalgia). When I turned the shoe over, I was shocked to find that the thin firm, rubber outsole had worn clear through, exposing a butter soft EVA midsole. The midsole was so soft in fact that it provided little in the way of forefoot shock absorption, causing the ball of the foot to be pounded with each step.

NB_1123_Bottom

If you own this shoe, make sure to check the outsole monthly. If it has worn down like this shoe has, replace it immediately or you may do your feet severe harm. Otherwise, I still like this shoe.

November 17th, 2009 Shoe Review – J-41 Grand

The reason I don’t blog more about non-athletic shoes is that shoe manufacturers discontinue styles before you would actually be able to go out and buy any shoe I would recommend. Hopefully, this won’t happen with J-41 Grand. This shoe is in the category of Dansko clogs – wide and deep which typically is a hard to fit foot. The strap is Velcro so it’s adjustable, which is a design feature all Mary Jane styles should have. The forefoot is rigid and doesn’t flex which helps with ball of the foot pain (metatarsalgia) or pain under the big toe joint (sesamoiditis).

J-41_Medial

The insole is nicely padded and is removable so that you can fit in a low profile orthotic if you want to.

J-41_Dorsal

All in all, if you are looking for a comfy, cute wide shoe, then J-41 may just be the right for you. And, as of today, you can still get this style at Zappos.com.

November 10th, 2009 Shoe Review – Brooks Adrenaline GTS 10

Thank goodness, Brooks has debuted Adrenaline 10. I count  on Adrenaline to fit the most narrow foot, which is why the Adrenaline 9 was such a disappointment. Prior versions were perfect, but version 9 had changed so much from prior versions that it would no longer fit the narrow foot properly. Here’s my post about it.http://drshoe.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/shoe-review-brooks-adrenaline-gts-8-vs-gts-9/.

Now however, I am happy to report that Adrenaline 10 rises to the level of fit for the narrow foot that all versions prior to 9 had. What a relief. This is a classic case of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and Brooks has been restored to their rightful first place in helping runners with narrow feet find a perfectly fitting running shoe.

As an added bonus, the overall look is much more stylish and sleek making this shoe even nicer. Thanks Brooks and thanks JY for bringing these shoes in for me to evaluate.

Adrenaline_10

November 10th, 2009 Shoe Review – Saucony Progrid Omni 8

Progrid Omni 8 is a departure from the 7 version in that the 7 had both moderate and ultimate styles depending on how much stability you wanted. The Progrid Omni 8 is closer to the 7 moderate version in medial EVA firmness as shown below.

Progrid_Omni_7_v_8_Medial

The other big difference is sizing. Progrid Omni 8 runs 1/2 size shorter than Progrid Omni 7. Therefore, if you’re used to wearing a size  10 in the Omni 7 then you will want to size up to a 10 1/2 in the Omni 8.  Below is a comparison length between Progrid Omni 8 W and Asics GT-2140, both in women’s size 8. The 2140 is true to size whereas the Omni 8 is not.

Progrid_Omni_8_v_2140

September 25th, 2009 Shoe Review – Saucony Hurricane 11

I have previously reviewed the Saucony Hurricane 9 and 10 http://drshoe.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/shoe-review-saucony-progrid-hurricane-9-vs-10/ and Saucony has now released version 11. Overall I like the changes to the 11, but this model has even less volume than the 10, which may be a problem if you’ve been wearing this shoe for it’s roominess.

One of the changes I especially like though  is a thicker forefoot midsole which is great for added cushioning at toe-off as seen below.

Hurricane_2009_Medial

The waist of the 11 is also wider than the 10 providing much better midfoot support and help with pronation.

Hurricdane_2009_Plantar

My only problem with this shoe is how expensive it’s become ($139). Each new version is $10 more than the prior. At this price point the shoe is OK but better designed and less expensive, similar shoes include Adrenaline GTS 9 or Asics 2140. I even prefer Saucony Guide Shoe to this shoe in terms of overall design and fit.

September 21st, 2009 Shoe Review – Asics Gel Frantic 4

This is the 1st time I have seen this  shoe and I am underwhelmed.

Gel_Frantic_5

One of the things I like most about many Asics running shoes  is that they are generally well structured and stable which makes them a perfect choice for many runners. The Gel Frantic on the other hand is anything but. It strikes me as a Nike Shox wannabee in design without any of the rigidity associated with many of the Shox shoes. This shoe rolls up like a ball with very little effort and anyone who pronates at all would be ill-served by this flexible shoe.

Frantic_Torsional_Instabili

In summary, I would probably never recommend this shoe for a serious runner, especially one  having foot, knee or iliotibial band pain.

September 15th, 2009 Shoe Review – Saucony Progrid Echelon

If you are a runner who doesn’t pronate too much and need maximum cushioning or shock absorption then Saucony Progrid Echelon may be the shoe for you.

It’s upper is similar in design to the Progrid Stabil 6 http://drshoe.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/shoe-review-saucony-grid-stabil-vs-progrid-stabil/ without the firm EVA medial midsole. It’s mesh cutouts also help if you have bunions or hammertoes.

Echelon_Side

The outsole doesn’t hourglass much which is helpful if you have a wide or high arched foot or just need extra width to keep from spilling over in this area.

Echelon_bottom_2

September 15th, 2009 Brooks Introduces New Colors – Beast and Ariel

Brooks is staying cutting edge by not changing the shoe, but giving you more color choices instead. They just released two new colors in the Beast model and one new color in the Ariel model. I am a fan of both of these shoes and have blogged about both before: http://drshoe.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/shoe-review-brooks-ariel-old-vs-newhttp://drshoe.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/shoe-review-brooks-beast/. FYI as of today, Brooks does not have all the colors available on their site, so Zappos.com is a good place to go instead.

Beast_New_Colors

Ariel_New_Colors