Miles Austin III – Get Some Better Fitting Nike’s

I was shocked last week when the July 26, 2010 Issue of Sports Illustrated arrived in my office. There on the cover is Dallas Cowboy wide receiver Miles Austin III, running down the field with holes in his Nike sponsored cleats where his big toes should be. Yikes…one of the faster ways to derail athletic talent is to wear shoes that don’t fit properly which is happening here.

Without seeing how the cleats fit when he is standing still it is difficult to determine whether there is too much volume and he’s sliding forward or whether the toe box is simply too short. One thing however is certain, having your toes exposed and unprotected is not a good thing, especially in a field sport. I think Mr. Austin’s trainers should give me a call.

Shoe Review – Brooks Addiction 8 vs. 9

I have blogged about Brooks Addiction 8 in previous posts https://drshoe.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/shoe-review-brooks-addiction-7-vs-8/ and have been waiting for the 9 to debut. Fortunately, the version changes have been worth the wait.

I much prefer the Addiction 9 to the 8 because it provides better midfoot fit. It also narrower which matches most feet better.

The toexbox depth of the Addiction 9 is shallower, so it won’t feel like you’re toes are swimming, which for some runners happened with the 8.

Other than these changes, the Addiction 9 is the same stable well designed work horse that the Addiction 8 was. Keep up the good work Brooks.

Shoe Review – North Face Fire Road I vs. II

I have been a fan of North Face Fire Road I for quite some time https://drshoe.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/shoe-review-north-face-fire-road/. It fits the narrow, shallow foot well and is lightweight and stable. Unfortunately, Fire Road II is not quite the same shoe. For starters, there are fewer eyelets on the II . This means the shoe will not adjust as easily or cinch up as tight. These features are crucial to a narrow foot type.

The next and most important difference is the toebox depth. Fireroad II has a much deeper toebox than I, which will not fit the narrow foot as securely. This may contribute to sliding forward and improper fit in the forefoot and heel.

If you are upgrading from version I to II, you will want to pay close attention to the changes this shoe has undergone as they can affect function. This is especially true if you have a narrow foot.

Shoe Review – Mizuno Wave Renegade 4

Mizuno Wave Renegade 4 is one of my favorite shoes for a wide foot needing serious support. The generous amounts of mesh in the upper make this shoe light weight in addition to being bunion and hammertoe friendly.

The outsole retains it’s width throughout the waist area which is also great for a wide foot, especially if you pronate excessively or have a history of posterior tibial tendonitis.

Finally, Mizuno Wave Renegade 4 has a firm heel counter which reduces pronation at heel strike promoting a more forward foot alignment.

All in all, I really like this shoe. It falls in the same class as Asics Gel-Evolution 5 and Brooks Beast. Great shoes!

Climbing Shoes

OD came in today with her climbing shoes. If you’re a rock climber then you already know how painfully short and tight these shoes are. Discussing the rationale behind this or the lack of a single scientific studies supporting this will be tabled to another blog posting on another day.

For now, I am going to return to the basics and remind you that a square peg is not designed to go into a round hole, especially if you have a bunion (wide forefoot) which OD has.

She has been wearing the Mad Rock shoes on the right for the past few years. Because they are starting to wear out, she purchased a new pair of Evolv shoes shown below on the left.

As you can see from the above image, these two shoes are not designed the same. The Evolv on the left is much narrower than the Mad Rock on the right, and the widest part of the shoe (forefoot) is not adjustable because it has straps instead of laces that don’t go as far down to the toes.

If you have a wide forefoot then you want the shoe to be adjustable at the widest point. Although laces are less popular than straps, this is a must-have design for a wide foot.

If you’re comparing two laced styles, check the width by turning the shoe over and comparing the width of the forefoot between the pairs. Again, in comparing the images below, with the Evolv on the left to the Mad Rock on the right, it’s easy to see independent of the upper, that the Mad Rock has a wider forefoot sole.

Now if you look at the side profile of both shoes, the rubber on the left Evolv comes up much higher on the foot, whereas the Mad Rock’s rubber is lower to the ground. This reduces forefoot compression, another plus for a wide forefoot

Finally, if you need even more forefoot room, you can always modify the lacing on your climbing shoes. This image shows what we did with OD’s shoes. Both feet are the same width, but the Evolv shoe on the left is essentially acting like a vice grip. You will not experience a loss of gripping ability with the modified lacing on the left, but an enormous improvement in overall comfort and fit.

Shoe Review – Nike Zoom Nucleus MC+

Nike is not generally known for width or durability. Zoom Nucleus MC+ however, gets an A in both of these categories. Although Zoom Nucleus MC+ only comes in a medium width it runs wide and is comparable to many other shoes that do come in wide widths (New Balance, Asics, Saucony). I also like that it flares on the outside forefoot of the outsole, which is something that many running shoes don’t have and need.

The upper of this shoe also has a generous amount of mesh in the places you need it most if you have bunions or hammertoes.

Finally, this shoe is extremely stable with not only firm medial EVA but a non-collapsible heel counter. These two features really help prevent excessive pronation and give Brooks Beast and Asics Gel Evolution a run for their money in the motion control department.

If you didn’t think you would ever be able to find a Nike+ shoe in a wider last with  more stability, then your answer may have arrived. Nike Zoom Nucleus MC+ is a great shoe.

Shoe Review – Zoot M Ultra Temp+ 2.0

JM was trying to find better fitting racing flats (training) and was recommended Zoot Footwear by a Road Runner Sports brick and mortar store.  According to the Zoot website, their footwear is designed by and for triathletes to be easy-on, easy-drying and easy-off. As a racing flat however, I was underwhelmed.

Although lightweight and definitely breathable, this particular model’s upper seems to overpower the outsole resulting in a sloppy fit hovering over an unstable base. A semi-curved last and an extremely narrow outsole don’t help either and at least for SK who has a wide foot, this shoe would be disastrous with any mileage at all, triathlon or track run.

And to add insult to injury, the quick-pull lacing systems cinch plate came apart after just one use requiring us to tie the elastic lace in a knot to keep the shoe on.

In the end, we went with Asics Gel-Speedstar 3 which I also reviewed https://drshoe.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/shoe-review-asics-gel-speedstar-3/.

Shoe Review – Asics Gel-Speedstar 3

Finding a running shoe that works as a racing flat is not easy. Finding a racing flat that fits a wide foot is nearly impossible. Fortunately, Asics Gel-Speedstar 3 qualifies.

Although it looks like it should be narrow, the mesh upper has extra depth which makes this a great match for a wide foot.

Even thought the midsole looks thick, it’s made of soft EVA which is lightweight, providing shock absorption. All this in a mere 9 ounces.

What a great shoe!

Boot Trees

Thanks to ED for showing me an ingenious, inexpensive way to make boot trees. Instead of plunking $50+ to purchase a single pair of boot trees, she showed me how to make your own. Just grab a handful of paper grocery bags, fold them together lengthwise, insert into boot and voila, a perfectly upright boot which will proudly sit in your closet without falling down. This boot would have stood even taller with 3 bags instead of 2. Ingenious, don’t you think?

Snowboard Boots – Heel Slippage

Snowboard boots are notorious for not holding the heel down which is essential for a good fit in any shoe. What most people don’t realize is that the snowboard boot liner needs to fit snugly to secure proper fit. Unfortunately most snowboard boot liners fail in this area of design.

Typical liner fastening utilizes either the traditional lace system or faster quick pull systems. Unfortunately, these systems don’t go far enough toward the toes to secure proper fit. Without a snug fit over the top of your foot and not just the ankle, your heel will slip out affecting comfort and performance.

If you have a heel slippage problem, rather than buying a new (expensive) pair of boots, give this modification a try. Have your local shoe repair shop add additional eyelets over the foot part of the liner and lace an additional pair of laces through. This will cinch down the foot part of the liner securing your heel in the boot.

This modification also works for ski boot liners.

Shoe Review Gel-Kayano 16 vs. 15

I was very disappointed when Gel-Kayano 15 debuted. I was a fan of prior versions, but not the 15 and I blogged about the reasons why  https://drshoe.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/shoe-review-gel-kayano-15-vs-14/. The main difference was the 15 was deeper than the 14 and the 15 was much more unstable laterally. These trends haven’t changed with Gel-Kayano 16.

Overall, Gel-Kayano 16 is not a big departure from the 15 with the exception that it  is even deeper. The medial midsole of the 15 and 16 are nearly identical as shown below. The outsole is exactly the same.

Gel-Kayano 16 has a similar midsole to the Gel Kayano 15 with more gel and less EVA in the lateral (outside) midsole. This design may make your heel strike more wobbly causing things like ankle sprains or tendonitis. Everyone doesn’t necessarily need firm lateral EVA but if you do, you would be better off with the 2150 than the Gel Kayano 15. This modification is a huge departure from versions 14 and prior.

Asics has continued with the asymmetrical lacing, however this version design is better than the the 15. I’m still not a fan of asymmetrical lacing, but at least this one won’t bunch up causing irritation like the 15 did. The lack of trim over the big toe, also means less potential irritation along the top of the big toe.

The one plus is Gel-Kayano 16 has a higher heel counter int he back which will reduce heel slippage if that’s been a problem for you.

Overall, Gel-Kayano 16 is too much like Gel-Kayano 15 and not enough like Gel-Kayano 14 and prior versions for me to recommend.

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 https://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.

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.

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.

Shoe Review – New Balance 1123 Excessive Forefoot Wear

I have reviewed New Balance 1123 in a previous post https://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.

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

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.https://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

Shoe Review – Saucony Hurricane 11

I have previously reviewed the Saucony Hurricane 9 and 10 https://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.

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.

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: https://drshoe.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/shoe-review-brooks-ariel-old-vs-newhttps://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