I routinely have runners present to our office demanding orthotics for their shoes. Even more common is the request for replacement orthotics. The question is: Should they even be running in an orthotic?
To begin the discussion, runners who do not even have a biomechanical abnormality commonly overutilize orthotics.1,2 Many runners adhere to the false belief that they need to “support” their arches with an orthotic device to protect from the heavy pounding that occurs from running. Others have simply recovered from an overuse injury and have elected to continue running with orthotics.
What runners and physicians need to be aware of is what exactly they are trying to accomplish with an orthotic. We typically prescribe rigid or semi-rigid orthotics to control excessive pronation occurring in the subtalar joint. Even if the patient does not have a true pes planus deformity, a gait examination may demonstrate increased pronation occurring during heel strike and into midstance. This leads the practitioner to recommend an orthotic device.
With all the recent attention on barefoot running and minimalist running shoes, we have also seen the focus on “proper running form.” This seems to be the most important limiting factor in correcting overuse injuries, more so than the actual shoe or orthotic.
The debate now enters a second arena. Do we advocate striking on our midfoot/forefoot or our heels? There is evidence that demonstrates most elite runners who are finishing first and running faster are landing on the forefoot.3,4 While our focus should remain on being healthy and not just winning, we could extrapolate from these runners that they have adopted an efficient and natural way to run.
A recent study published by Lieberman and colleagues demonstrated a significant increase in injury rates amongst collegiate competitive cross country runners who habitually rearfoot strike in comparison to those who forefoot strike.5 The injury rate associated with those who heel strike was comparatively as large when researchers compared this to other factors thought to influence injury rates such as age, prior injury, body mass index, foot type, lumbopelvic strength, arch type, flexibility, Q angle and neuromuscular control.6-10 Numerous studies also demonstrate minimal, if any, significance for the prescriptive use of orthotics or running shoes for running injuries.11-15
Given the observation that both scientific and anecdotal evidence is pointing toward forefoot/midfoot striking, we now must ask ourselves the question: Where do orthotics play a role in running?
One important concept to understand with forefoot or midfoot striking is that we convert the vertical force of striking the ground into rotational force by lowering the heel to the ground. This occurs by pronation of the entire foot first, then with pronation of the subtalar joint just before the heel lifts off the ground to begin its forward momentum. Accordingly, preventing subtalar joint motion with an orthotic device and heel striking is not a relevant issue. We need the motion that is occurring through the entire process of forefoot strike to heel contact and pronation to absorb the shock adequately.
Does Proper Running Form Negate The Need For Pronation Control?
Obviously, more studies need to examine this concept but it poses a very interesting question: Do we really need to control pronation if we have proper running form?
In my practice, when runners bring up the question of what type of shoe they should be wearing, I explain that they first need to “learn how to run.” Then shoegear and orthotics become irrelevant. We also use the same approach with orthotics. As with any treatment protocol, that “treatment” must be justified via sound evidence-based medicine.
If a runner presenting to our office has dealt with any type of overuse injury that is chronic, we stress the importance of learning proper running form and educating the patient on forefoot striking, proper cadence and proper transitioning from the current running form.
If patients are in mid-season training for a marathon or similar distance event, we educate them on proper running form, but advise them that a drastic change in their gait prior to a race could be detrimental if training time is not sufficient. If the patient is heel striking, we can implement an orthotic temporarily but only until the patient can begin transitioning from a forefoot strike pattern and only if symptoms are present due to the overpronation occurring as a result of heel striking.
1. Tuff S. Do you really need an $800 custom insole? New York Times. 2006; Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/fashion/thursdaystyles/22Fitness.html?… .
2. Spiker T. Orthotics for your shoes. Runner’s World. 2004; Available at http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-240-319-327-7000-0,00.html .
3. Larson P, Higgins E, Kaminski J, et al. Foot strike patterns of recreational and sub-elite runners in a long-distance road race. J Sports Sciences. 2011; 29(15):1665-1673.
4. Hasegawa H, Yamauchi T, Kraemer WJ. Foot strike patterns of runners at the 15-km point during an elite-level half marathon. J Strength Cond Res. 2007; 21(3):888-893.
5. Daoud AI, Geissler GJ, Wang F, Saretsky J, Daoud YA, Lieberman DE. Foot Strike and injury rates in endurance runners: a retrospective study. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012; epub Jan 3.
6. Bennett MR, Harris JWK, Richmond BG, Braun DR, Mbua E, Kiura P, Olago D, Kibunjia M, Omuombo C, Behrensmeyer AK, Huddart D, Gonzalez S. Early Hominin Foot Morphology Based on 1.5-million-year-old footprints from Ileret, Kenya. Science. 2009; 323(5918):1197-1201.
7. Bramble DM, Lieberman DE. Endurance running and the evolution of Homo. Nature. 2004; 432(7015):345–352.
8. Frederick EC. Physiological and ergonomics factors in running shoe design. Appl Ergonomics. 1984; 15(4):281-287.
9. Kerr BA, Beauchamp L, Fisher V, Neil R. Footstrike patterns in distance running. In: Nigg BM, Kerr, BA, eds. Biomechanical Aspects of Sports Shoes and Playing Surfaces. Calgary University, Calgary, 1983, pp. 135–142.
10. Williams DS, McClay IS, Manal KT. Lower extremity mechanics in runners with a converted forefoot strike pattern. J Appl Biomech. 2000; 16:210–218.
11. Hume P, Hopkins W, Rome K, Maulder P, Coyle G, Nigg B. Effectiveness of foot orthoses for treatment and prevention of lower limb injuries: a review. Sports Medicine. 2008; 38(9):759- 779.
12. Knapick JJ, Trone DW, Swedler DI, Villasenor A, Bullock SH , Schmied E, Bockelman T, Han P, Jones BH. Injury reduction effectiveness of assigning running shoes based on plantar shape in marine corps basic training. Am J Sports Med. 2010; 36(9):1469-1475.
13. Mattila VM, Sillanpää PJ, Salo T, Laine HJ, Mäenpää H, Pihlajamäki H. Can orthotic insoles prevent lower limb overuse injuries? A randomized-controlled trial of 228 subjects. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010; 21(6):804-8.
14. Ryan MB, Valliant GA, McDonald K, Taunton JE. The effect of three different levels of footwear stability on pain outcomes in women runners: a randomised control trial. Brit J Sports Med. 2010; 45(9):715-721.
15. Schwellnus MP, Jordaan G, Noakes TD. Prevention of common overuse injuries by the use of shock absorbing insoles. A prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 1990; 18(6):636-41.
Dr. Campitelli is a podiatrist in Akron, OH specializing in foot and ankle surgery with an interest and enthusiasm for running as well as helping runners with injuries. For the past several years he has been treating running injuries in patients by fixing their form and transitioning them to minimalist shoes. Having treated runners with all types of injuries through conservative measures with orthotics and shoe gear changes to reconstructive foot and ankle surgery, Dr. Campitelli has brought what works best and is most current to his practice as well as the Akron and Cleveland running communities.