Shoe News You Can Use
Pronation is dorsiflexion, eversion and abduction, It is a term usually used to refer to midfoot motion. It occurs as the friction of the heel with the ground causes the talus to slide anteriorly on the calcaneus, as it does so, it plantar flexes, adducts and everts. this motion causes a medial spin of the talus, which, in turn, causes an internal spin of the tibia (see above).
Pronation is a natural motion which is one of the 4 shock absorbing mechanisms we have to attenuate force (pronation, ankle dorsiflexion,knee flexion and thigh flexion). Some pronation is necessary for normal gait. Over or under pronation appear linked to increased likelihood of injury. Of the 2, over pronation is the most treated (possibly wrongly so) and one intervention is motion control shoes.
Motion control shoes usually have a feature (medial posting, varus positioning, dual density midsoles, increased lateral flare, etc) which attenuates or delays pronation.
Along those lines, an in light of our latest series of posts, we thought you may find this study interesting. Results were as follows: “A one-tailed paired t-test indicated a statistically significant decrease in the total range of proximal tibial rotation when a motion control shoe was worn (mean difference 1.38°, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 2.73, P=0.04).”
So, motion control shoes decreased motion about 1-1.5 degrees. The average amount of midfoot motion is 4-8 degrees. Our question to you is “Is that enough, or is that significant?”
We think so, especially in some cases. A few degrees can make all the difference. There appears a time and place for motion control shoes, but on our opinion, they are grossly over prescribed for problems that are usually able to be treated more conservatively.
The Gait Guys. Promoting Gait and Foot literacy…everywhere
Effect of motion control running shoes compared with neutral shoes on tibial rotation during running.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a motion control running shoe reduces tibial rotation in the transverse plane during treadmill running.
DESIGN: An experimental study measuring tibial rotation in volunteer participants using a repeated measures design.
SETTING: Human Movement Laboratory, School of Health Professions, University of Brighton.
PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four healthy participants were tested. The group comprised males and females with size 6, 7, 9 and 11 feet. The age range for participants was 19 to 31 years.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The total range of proximal tibial rotation was measured using the Codamotion 3-D Movement Analysis System.
RESULTS: A one-tailed paired t-test indicated a statistically significant decrease in the total range of proximal tibial rotation when a motion control shoe was worn (mean difference 1.38°, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 2.73, P=0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: There is a difference in tibial rotation in the transverse plane between a motion control running shoe and a neutral running shoe. The results from this study have implications for the use of supportive running shoes as a form of injury prevention.
Copyright © 2010 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
