Orthotics Are a Mystery

Standard

“I guess the main thing to note is that, as biomechanists, we really do not know how orthotics work.”
– Dr. Joseph Hamill, University of Massachusetts professor of kinesiology

Orthotics.  Some people swear by them.  Some people swear at them.  (That would be me.)  Some of them cost a few bucks at the grocery store.  Others cost several hundred dollars and must be fitted at a podiatrist, physical therapist or chiropractor.  So what about them?  Do we need them or not? (And if they are important for our health, how did the Egyptians, the Romans, Gengis Kahn, the Vikings, etc. ever manage march across the earth and conquer everything in site without them?)

All runners and other fitness enthusiasts–anyone who wears shoes really–must read the latest dispatch from the New York Times Personal Best section titled Close Look at Orthotics Raises a Welter of Doubt.  It’s a fascinating discussion on how and why orthotics may or may not work.  As the quote above indicates, no one really seems to know what these things actually do for the feet.  There are several important points in the article.

Analysis of Orthotics

Dr. Benno Nigg, professor of biomechanics and co-director of the Human Performance Lab at the University of Calgary in Alberta has made a career of researching orthotics. He makes a point that I’ve observed in my own experience with orthotics, namely that they tend to work in the short-term.  However he says that idea that they are supposed to correct mechanical-alignment problems does not hold up.

Further Dr. Nigg says, “If you do something to a shoe, different people will react differently.”  Different feet react differently: One person might respond by increasing the stress on the outside of the foot, another on the inside. Another might not respond at all, unconsciously correcting the orthotic’s correction.

The article discusses something I’ve heard discussed among those who make orthotics.  That is, there are different ways to make orthotics.  Depending on where you go, you’ll likely get a different device.  Dr. Nigg conducted a study in which a runner went to several different orthotics makers and each one made him a distinctly different orthotic to “correct” his pronation.  He liked two of them–yet they each were made differently.  More research by Dr. Nigg yielded the following:

“They (orthotics) turn out to have little effect on kinematics — the actual movement of the skeleton during a run. But they can have large effects on muscles and joints, often making muscles work as much as 50 percent harder for the same movement and increasing stress on joints by a similar amount.”

“As for ‘corrective’ orthotics,” Dr. Nigg says, “they do not correct so much as lead to a reduction in muscle strength.”

Support for Orthotics

Several seemingly well-educated people voiced support for the use of orthotics.  Jeffrey P. Wensman, director of clinical and technical services at the Orthotics and Prosthetics Center at the University of Michigan makes a sound argument when he says the key measure of success is his patients feel better in orthotics.

(On that note, I think it’s wise that if you’re in an orthotic and feeling good, running fast and all is well, then don’t change anything.)

Seamus Kennedy, president and co-owner of Hersco Ortho Labs in New York says there are hundreds of papers and studies showing that orthotics can treat common foot ailments.

So maybe there’s a lot of solid evidence in favor of orthotics right?  Well… The article states:

“In one recent review of published papers, Dr. Nigg and his colleagues analyzed studies on orthotics and injury prevention. Nearly all published studies, they report, lacked scientific rigor.”

Maybe the lesson is to be skeptical of orthotics makers who show you evidence of the benefits of orthotics.

What About Flat Feet?

The article goes on to profile someone who has flat feet and his quest to “correct” this issue.  Every orthotics provider he went to attributed his injury to his previous poorly made orthotics and goes on to provide him with different orthotics.

(The article mentions this fellow has an “injury” though there’s no mention of what this injury is.  I’m not sure if we’re to take his flat feet as an injury.)

Dr. Nigg explains that flat feet shouldn’t be any problem.  Our arches are an evolutionary leftover of when we used to grip trees with our feet.  This is interesting to me because I recall reading elsewhere a study of third-world populations that never wear any sort of supportive shoes.  Their feet tend to be flat yet there are far fewer numbers of the type of musculoskeletal injuries we have in the U.S.  So maybe these all important arches aren’t all that important?

My view on all this is that orthotics are of limited use and the science behind them is quite murky.  I’ve used several different types of orthotics and I’ve had either no results or I’ve experienced increased discomfort.  I think they are far from an essential component for human health and performance.  That said, on an individual basis, an orthotic may be very helpful.


Trainer? Therapist? What Do We Call Ourselves & What’s Our Role? Part I

Standard

A recent article in the Wall St. Journal titled Getting Fit Without the Pain got me thinking about a few things.  What, for instance does it mean to be a “personal trainer?”  How is that  job viewed by the public and medical professionals like surgeons and physical therapists?  Should some of us take on a different title?  Further, do our experiences in the fitness setting match our job definition?

Physical therapists are charged with rehabilitating injuries and post-surgical patients.  By various standards and regulations, personal trainers can’t claim to offer injury rehabilitation.  Personal trainers help people exercise and get “in shape.”  Personal trainers, by most definitions, are allowed only to work with people who are injury-free and completely healthy.

The Journal article states, “… fitness trainers shouldn’t attempt to treat, and certainly shouldn’t ignore, sports injuries, says Diane Buchta, spokeswoman for IDEA, a trainer organization. ‘We must refer those clients to a physician,’ she adds.

Injured vs. 100% Healthy

I’ll tell you as a practicing personal trainer/fitness professional/movement specialist–whatever my title is–that there is a significant gap or gray area between physical therapists and personal trainers.   I don’t think I’ve met a gym goer over the age of 25 (including myself) who doesn’t have some sort of strange ache or pain.  The vast majority of these people don’t  quite fall into the “injured” category.  They’re still active and their pain isn’t so severe that they’re prevented from coming to the gym and exercising.  I think most personal trainers have similar clientele.  If we were to turn away these folks we’d have no business whatsoever.

Still other clients I’ve worked with have pain that has proven resistant to physical therapy, chiropractic, acupuncture, drugs…  X-Rays, MRIs, neurological exams and blood work may all be normal.  These folks assumed they were injured and sought what we might call the appropriate care–but they’re still hurting.  Are these people injured?  It’s difficult to say.  Again I think I’m seeing a gray area, this time between “injured” and “healthy.”  Maybe we need to consider the issue of pain vs. injury.

More News & Questions on Stretching

Standard

Stretching–and whether or not to do it–is one of the most debated issues in health and fitness.  What’s the final verdict?  (I’ve given my opinions a few times already here, here, and here.)  Does Stretching Before Running Prevent Injuries comes from the New York Times and it’s the latest comment on the issue.  The article discusses a study from USA Track & Field that involved about 3000 runners over the course of three months.  These subjects were split into two groups: one group followed a pre-run stretching routine, the other group did not stretch.  (From the description, the stretching group engaged in static isolated stretching, or what many of us would recognize as stretching: bend over and stretch the hamstrings for 20-30 seconds for example.)  Both groups followed the same running program.  The result?  Both groups experienced the same injury rate.  Thus, pre-run static stretching does not appear to help guard against injuries.  There is an exception though.

The study states:

“If runners who normally stretch prior to running were assigned to stretch, they had a low risk of injury but if they were assigned not to stretch, the injury risk was double those who kept stretching. It’s this result that most startlingly exhibits why people consider stretching to prevent injury. This study shows that those who are comfortable with their pre-run stretching routine should maintain it. They risk injury if they discontinue their pre-run stretching. For runners comfortable without pre-run stretching, they don’t necessarily improve their injury protection by starting a pre-run stretching routine.”

As I see it, the broad point to take from this observation is that any changes to your program should be undertaken slowly.  That goes for adding speed work, hill work, more mileage or engaging in barefoot running.  Sudden dramatic changes may leave you sidelined.

Selecting Shoes by Foot Shape

Standard

Results of three military studies showed that prescribing shoes based on foot shape made no difference in the rate at which injuries occurred in Army, Marine and Air Force basic trainees, who spend quite a bit of time running. That’s “no” as in none, sports fans.

Any runner is familiar with the idea that certain shoes are made for certain types of feet.  We’ve got motion control shoes, neutral cushioned shoes, stability shoes….  The idea being that these different types of shoes help guide feet in the healthiest most efficient manner.  This concept has been challenged by three military studies.  Army, Air Force and Marine studies all had similar results.

“We found no scientific basis for choosing running shoes based on foot type,” said Bruce Jones, M.D., injury prevention program manager at U.S. Army Public Health Command (Provisional), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.

The most recent study looked at 1400 Marine recruits.  Men and women were randomly assigned into two groups.  One group got shoes matched to their foot type, the other group received stability shoes. Similar to Army and Air Force studies, the recruits with shoes prescribed according to foot type experienced the same rate of injuries as those in the control group, regardless of other factors, such as age, sex, race and smoking habits.

I wonder what the shoe companies have to say?

These findings echo statements found in Noakes’ Lore of Running.  He refers to a study by Stacoff (1998) of orthotics.  The study found that the orthotics–thought to control pronation of the foot–didn’t actually change ankle motion in the test subjects.  Though this study refers to orthotics, it’s quite likely that shoes designed to control pronation produce similar results.  So if shoes are prescribed to a runner based on his or her foot strike pattern, and if we’re expecting to see that foot strike pattern altered in a certain way, then the expected outcome is unlikely.

That’s not to say the right shoes and/or orthotics won’t work for an individual.  But the mechanism by which these shoes and inserts work is unclear.  At the very least, these studies suggest that we don’t really know why a certain shoe or orthotic may work for someone.  Nor can we predict accurately the right type of shoe/orthotic someone needs based on looking at their foot type.

The Benefits of Supervised Strength Training

Standard

Supervised Strength Training is More Effective, Swedish Study Finds, is an article from  Science Daily.  What does it tell us?   It turns out that supervision and personalization is an important component of an injury-prevention (prehabilition) workout–at least when it’s performed by Swedish volleyball players.  This information probably isn’t a huge shock but the implications are worth considering not only for injury-related issues but also for any fitness or sports performance goals.

The study surveyed 158 elite-level volleyball players by way of a questionnaire.  The answers indicated that almost all the players performed some kind of injury-prevention program yet almost half of the players had been injured.  Most of the players exercised without supervision.  Further, two groups of players were given exercise programs.  One group was given a personalized program and was supervised by a physiotherapist.  The other group was given a non-personalized program and they were not supervised during workouts.  The supervised group both improved their performance more than and had a lower injury rate than the unsupervised group.

Now, from the description of the study, there are several weak points that we could discuss: small sample size, physiological differences in the groups that might predispose or protect the players from injury, effect of the supervision vs. the effect of the personalized workout in the results, validity of the questionnaire.  What’s more important though is that even elite-level athletes might benefit from a personalized, supervised conditioning program.

“I have a feeling that more athletes really stick to the program and focus on the task if there is a coach present. Many players may feel that the strength and conditioning training is the boring part of their sport, which makes it tempting to ‘cheat’ when nobody is watching,” says Sofia Augustsson, author of the study.

These are people for whom their sport is a major focus of their lives to the point that they may be earning a living from volleyball, so we might expect very strict adherence to any exercise program given to them.  However, the behavior of these athletes and the results of their exercise programs confirms something I learned in graduate school: personalized programs and close interaction with individuals has impact.  The more a fitness instructor or coach can work with one person or a small group the more likely that person or group will adhere to a program and succeed.

Does this sound like an argument for hiring a personal trainer?  Well, yes, absolutely it does!  Obviously I’m biased here but at the same time, there seems to be just a little bit of science to back up the idea.

To take it a little further, what I often see in the gym are people exercising but putting forth little effort.  They’re often doing the same workout over and over.  They may be neglecting their needs in favor of their “wants.”  (“I want bigger pecs,” or  “I want washboard abs” for example but what he or she may need is more hip or spine mobility, better shoulder stability or better nutrition.)  So often these folks are putting in the time but they’re not getting the most value for their time–but at least they’re doing something in the way of exercise.   Many more gym goers will give up altogether.  They’ll spend some time exercising but never knowing the important whys and hows of getting to their goal.  They’d stand as good a chance of getting a college degree without a degree plan.  (BTW, here are some interesting stats on Americans’ exercise habits…  Had to throw that in somewhere.)

It’s entirely likely that some time (and yes money) spent with a trainer could improve things dramatically.  Just about anyone will benefit from a different set of eyes to look over their goals and their methods to achieving those goals.  Even the most dedicated gym rat works harder when someone else is pushing him or her.  Getting in shape and staying healthy is more than just reading an article or doing the workout you did in high school.  So if you want to get the very most out of your time in the gym, or on the road, or on the track, the pool, the basketball court–wherever it is you exercise, seek out professional advice and you may achieve more than you ever imagined.