Rocky Mountain Runner

Rocky Mountain Runner
The #1 Info Source for Runners in the Rockies!

Shoe Guru Responds

Dear Shoe Guru,

I've always worn Asics, and I've always been in their 2000 line. No problems, a great shoe, as you know. Be it boredom or whatever, I tried on the Kayano, it felt great, and seemed to keep me from pronating as much. What are your thoughts on the Kayano? We're talking a $60 difference! Justified?

Thanks,
Erik

***

Dear Erik,

The Kayano is an excellent shoe--the main difference between it and the 2060 is the size of the gel units. Both shoes have Asics gel pads in the forefoot and rear, but the gel units in the Kayano are much bigger. Therefore, the shoe provides quite a bit more cushioning. I would say the dual-density stability features are roughly equivalent. So what you're paying for is a more cushy ride. If you're a light runner in need of stability, it's probably not worth the extra money. If you're a heavy runner, the extra shock absorption might make it a more comfortable shoe for you. Try out both and if you can't tell a marked difference in the ride, go with the 2060 and save some money.

Dear Shoe Guru,

Just read your "The Definitive Guide to Running Shoes" and consider it to be one of the clearest explanations of running biomechanics I've come across. Here's my problem. I have high arches (rigid feet), very narrow heels, normal width forefoot, and a low volume foot overall. Finding a shoe to fit my feet and biomechanics has been difficult. The problem is that I really seem to supinate. And interestingly, a shoe that's too soft laterally causes a medial toe-off so that it appears that I'm overpronating. Does this make sense? Problem is that most "cushioned" shoes seem to incorporate a lateral "crash pad" (e.g., Adidas Boston or Response) or other device which is softer laterally. Again, this causes problems (e.g., ankle strain, ITB strain, hip pain).

Any suggestions on particular shoes that might work? Have you seen this combination of characteristics before? Help!

Thanks,
Todd

***

Dear Todd,

You say you have a rigid foot structure. Remember the best way to determine that is by looking at the sub-talar joint. High arches can still overpronate; in fact, I've seen many that do. I'm always a bit skeptical when someone says they're a supinator-it's statistically rare and easy to jump to conclusions with a quick glance downward. Underpronators and supinators often experience IT band strain and hip pain, although that is not the only cause of these problems. Muscle imbalances in the quadriceps and a short, tight IT band could explain it, too. Are you adding biking to your routine? I see IT band problems a lot in triathletes. Increasing bike mileage tends to quickly develop the muscles in the upper leg which puts strain on the fascia known as the IT band.

You noticed a medial toe-off and I'm curious how pronounced that is. Do you detect any wear patterns on your shoes associated with that? Obvious wear in the medial toe region would confirm overpronation. Most overpronators tend to do so on toe-off, a fact that is often overlooked by shoe companies and rarely mentioned. Why do they put dual-density material and foot bridges in the heel then? Good question. The fact is most people strike on the heel first and benefit from the early correction associated with the typical stability shoe design. If you tend to land more mid-foot, though, or even forefoot-which tends to happen at faster speeds-you're bypassing the corrective design.

Honestly, I don't know why there haven't been more models designed to incorporate a dual-density midsole in the forefoot to correct for this. The heavy duty motion control shoes usually extend their stability features farther up the shoe. But if you're a mild overpronator, I certainly wouldn't recommend jumping into a motion control shoe, especially if you haven't been experiencing any medial knee pain or shin splints.

The one shoe I know of that had a dual-density midsole only in the forefoot was the old Adidas Universal. It was a great shoe, especially for mid-foot strikers who overpronated. Of course, they changed the design a few years ago to incorporate a mesh cover on the medial forefoot instead of the denser EVA-it was another fantastic shoe for neutral to very mild overpronators looking for some forefoot stability. In fact, I would rank the 2000 version of the Universal as one of my favorite shoes of all time; which of course means that it was too good to be true and destined to be discontinued.

I would suggest trying a stability shoe or a cushioned shoe with more torsional support. You might try the Asics 2060, a fantastic stability shoe that fits a large variety of feet. The New Balance 763 would be another one to try, if the D width is too wide in the heel then you can always get it in a B width for a snugger fit. You might also try the Nike Structure Triax, Saucony Swerve, Brooks Adrenaline, or the Brooks Trance. If you want to stick with a cushioned shoe, try the Asics Nimbus. I'd stay away from the new Adidas Response which I find completely lacks torsional support. You're best bet is to find a specialty running store near you that has knowledgeable staff who can evaluate your biomechanics and fit you in a shoe for your needs. A podiatrist could evaluate you, as well-just make sure you go to one who runs or is familiar with running related problems. Often, you can call a specialty running store and set up a free consultation with a podiatrist that they work with, or at least ask them for a recommendation.

Good luck!
André Zapatos