More about Nickey

More about Kim

More about Jacqui Pitt

More about Kim Dovey

More about Nickey Barnard

She also competed in the 70.3 / Half Iron Man held in East London on 23 January 2011, and finished 3rd in her age group  in 5hrs 33min 59sec.”It was a tough race and the weather conditions were not in our favour? It was raining and very windy on the 1st 45km of the cycle. Overall I had a fantastic race and was pleased that it wasn’t a scorcher of a day”. Nickey’s goals are to be selected for the S.A. team in the long & Olympic distances. Her main goal is to focus on the SA Ironman 2011. (3.8km swim, 180km cycle, 42km run). She aims finish first in her age group; this will ensure a selection to compete at the Hawaii Ironman (this can be compared to being selected for the Olympics).

Nickey’s upcoming races:

6 March – Midlands Ultra Midmar – Long distance Champs – (1.9km swim, 90km cycle, 21km run)

20 March S.A. Champs P.E. – Olympic distance – 1.5km swim, 40km cycle, 10km run)

10 April – Iron man S.A. in P.E. – (3.8km swim, 180km cycle, 42km)

Her last 10km run was really tough, and after a harsh ‘pep talk to self’ she  bettered her first 10km time.

Strong and focussed mental attitude accounts for the best part of the race.

More about Kim >>

Choosing the right running shoe is imperative for serious runners. If one neglects to wear proper footwear with the right support, traction or cushioning, the body is placed under severe strain, exacerbating mechanical problems and predisposing runners to injury. Unfortunately, even top athletes still remain in the dark about what shoe is best. Various factors need to be taken into consideration when choosing the right shoe, including the runner’s movement, biomechanics, weight and running speciality; the running surface; and shape of the foot.

Basic parameters

Based on the assessment of the imprint of the foot on sand, or wet foot print on a flat surface, three distinct foot types can be identified:

The high-arched foot reveals a print with a very narrow band or no band at all between the forefoot and the heel. This foot tends to be supinated or underpronated and rigid with less shock absorption due to a lack of flexibility of the intrinsic foot joints. According to sports podiatrist, Dennis Rehbock, less than 5% of the population have this foot type. A high-arched foot results in additional stress being placed on other shock-absorbing structures, which can potentially set the stage for injury. Alison Thomson, chair of the Western Cape Physiotherapy Sports Group, recommends shoes with extra cushioning and the most flexibility: “These provide more shock absorption than other shoe types. They also have soft midsoles, which allow movement of the foot, and no extra medial support. Unfortunately for heavy runners, they wear down fast, and may need to be replaced more often.”

The flat foot shows a print of the whole foot. This type of foot is generally hypermobile with a low arch, and usually overpronates, striking the ground on the outside of the heel and rolling inwards excessively. This foot type is more common, and can cause a variety of injuries to occur.

“Motion control or stability shoes are the best option for these foot types,” says Thomson. “Stability shoes, which have a combination of cushioning and support, are suitable for medium weight runners, who require a mild limitation of pronation with some shock absorption. Motion control shoes, on the other hand, are the most rigid with greater durability. They limit pronation more than stability shoes with maximum medial support. These are best for heavy weight runners and those who pronate excessively.”

The neutral/normal foot reveals a flare on the footprint with the forefoot and heel connected by a broad band. It is a foot that is biomechanically efficient, does not under- or over-pronate, and has an active arch support. “Cushioned or stability shoes, with no extra anti-pronation support, are ideal. Cushioned shoes are ideal if there are no abnormal biomechanics present,” says Thomson.

Wear patterns and the durability of a runner’s existing shoes also provide a good indication of shoe type. Wear on the outer heel is normal, but if it is detected on the inner heel, then the foot is pronating. Wear on the middle sole might indicate that the foot is supinated. Wear in the front of the sole pinpoints ‘forefoot strike’ – a condition that is common in sprinters, but can can cause damage for long distance runners.

“By placing the shoes on a level surface with the heels together, one can assess whether the shoe leans in. This is a good indication of pronation. In this position, the inner border of the sole can also be assessed for increased wear and cracks. A very flat inner border shows excessive foot pronation”, says Thomson.

It should be noted that the above foot-type analysis is merely a guideline, one also needs to take into account the person’s running background: How long have they been running? – What type of running do they do? – What is their average mileage on a weekly basis? – On what surface do they usually run? – Do they have any existing injuries?

In terms of injury, a runner might need to contact a professional for advice, such as a biokineticist, podiatrist or physiotherapist depending on the concern or condition.

The underlying science

According to Prof. Schwellnus at the MRC/UCT Exercise and Sports Medicine Research Unit, the ‘90s saw shoe manufacturers design running shoes according to the shape of the foot. “The soft shoe was developed for the high-arch foot (supinator), the neutral shoe for the neutral foot, and the anti-pronation shoe for the flat-footed runner (pronator). At this time, we developed the Sports Injury Prevention System (SSIPS) – a scientifically based system to assess and prescribe a group of running shoes best suited to the biomechanical profile of a particular runner,” he says. “However, there was not much scientific evidence regarding foot form, the forces of running, and the risk of injury. We therefore conducted a comparative study between a group of runners whose running shoes were prescribed using the SSIPS, and another group, which was using their own choice of shoe. We monitored both groups, and after a year, came to the conclusion that biomechanical assessment and prescription only reduced injury risk by a small percentage.

“Certain questions still remained unanswered, such as: What effect do running shoes have on gait, and is pronation really the cause of injury? Our biomechanical laboratory at the Sports Science Institute learnt a considerable amount by measuring the forces and movement of limbs, as well as the electrical activity of the muscles during running. “The laboratory studied various runners across all three foot-shape categories and found no difference in terms of forces and movement. It was noted that the most important effect that running shoes have on running is that the shoes reduce impact, i.e. soften the rate of force application. This impact relates to running injury risk, and therefore running shoes are still seen as beneficial in this regard. “Running shoes also provide good shock absorption, and, as such, reduce stress factors by 50% in relation to the rate of impact.
“The laboratory also investigated how the body controls the rate of loading. Various runners were asked to rate impact, and, based on their accurate response in terms of hard, medium and soft, it was realised that the brain registers loading, and will assess impact and control it. The body actually adopts a mechanism to reduce the loading accordingly, i.e. bending the knee further to reduce impact. Currently we are investigating adaptive behaviour and its relationship to increasing or decreasing running injuries.”

Is bare best?

One of the questions posed was: Do running shoes reduce the foot’s natural function, “robbing” its sensory ability to respond to impact? Historically, barefoot individuals reveal minimal disabilities in comparison to those commonly noted among shod people.

Research has since revealed that the human body has its own complex mechanisms, which are intricately designed to deal with running impact; it has the ability to sense and adjust in order to cushion the impact that a foot might encounter. The receptors in the foot are specifically designed to sense both vertical (impact) and horizontal (shear) force.

According to these findings, many runners have incorporated barefoot running into their training. Certain shoe manufacturers have also developed shoes, such as Nike Free, to allow one’s foot to function as if one was barefoot. “This is how our feet were meant to function,” says Rehbock, “Shoes are man-made, and essentially not good for us.” Thomson sees the benefit of using these shoes during training to encourage the original biomechanics of the foot, but notes that they are seldom used for racing or marathons.

Prof. Schwellnus, who has conducted notable research on the body’s ability to deal with the stresses of running, notes the following: “One needs to consider the fact that sensory input does not take place from the sole of the foot alone. Sensory receptors in the ligaments, muscles and tendons are also responsible for sending sensory input to the brain. It is therefore imperative to study the body’s sensory input as a whole rather than to break it down into isolated parts.”

Orthotics and heel lifts

Some experts suggest that overlooked biomechanical abnormalities in the arch of the foot and the length of the leg can predispose some runners to injury. Although certain studies have revealed positive outcomes in this regard, the results are still debatable. “In extreme cases, orthotics can be used to alter pronation (movement), muscle activity and gait. However 85% of runners pronate slightly, and I am unsure how much significance one should give to trying to control these conditions completely. In most cases, the body’s adaptive behaviour has caused an adjustment for a reason, and if the runner is without injury, orthotics may be unnecessary,” says Prof. Schwellnus. Rehbock concurs, “Although these devices are useful to improve and support foot function, and to aid in the treatment of foot or leg injuries, I feel that modern shoe technology is often enough to cushion and/or support the foot.”

“With regard to correcting leg length discrepancies, it is very difficult to truly assess a leg length discrepancy without performing full-length X-rays,” says Thomson. “Many of us have a functional leg length difference, mainly due to altered biomechanics, sacro-iliac joint injuries, increased hip rotation or back injuries. As such, inner soles or corrective devices may not reduce injuries in this regard. Often wearing the correct footwear, which provides adequate shock absorption and foot position, may do more to prevent injuries. A leg length difference of 1cm is common, and our bodies manage to easily compensate for this difference. Only where it is greater, might orthotics be beneficial. Even then, it takes time for the body’s biomechanics to adapt to the newly corrected positions. These changes need to be done carefully and slowly, and possibly under the supervision of a physiotherapist, biokineticist or podiatrist. The other option is to rehabilitate the intrinsic foot muscles, as well as the eccentric working of the muscles of the lower limb, from foot to hip. This combined with biomechanical correction, correct training techniques, especially with regard to increased training, will help prevent overuse and stress injuries.”

Time for the bin

Considering the fact that runners create a load of up to five times their own body weight with every stride taken, and that the foot hits the ground 1 600 times per mile, running shoes should be replaced every six months or 600-1000km, depending on the runner’s weight, running distance, regularity of use, and running surface.
It should be noted that every time the shoe is worn, the shock absorbing section in the midsole deteriorates. “The shoe’s materials begin to lose some of their function, even if they remain untouched on the shelf or in the cupboard. As a rule, an unworn shoe that is 12 months old is unsuitable, or won’t give the runner the benefits that it was originally designed to provide,” says Thomson.

In terms of the running shoe design, extensive research is being undertaken by shoe manufacturers on an ongoing basis. New cushioning systems and materials are being developed. “Most new technology does not work in isolation. The modern trend is for all the technology systems in the shoe to work together to cushion the foot, and to control the foot into it natural foot function,” say Rehbock. To conclude: one of the most simple, yet fundamental, findings to date is that once a dedicated runner’s loyalty lies with a certain running shoe, they will stick to it, rather than risk discomfort or injury.

This article has been written by Performance Pro Magazine and has been republished with permission.