Insoles

Antony Jones said:

Perhaps we could now get back on topic?

One thing I've wondered about with these super-moulding footbeds is to
what extent they're actually a benefit... Feet have evolved for walking
as they are, and one doesn't have special conformable ground when
walking in bare feet, so ISTM that contour-for-contour support isn't
necessarily going to be the help one at first might assume. My arches
don't need support in bare feet, so why should they in shoes?

Custom orthotics (AFAICT) tend to be about propping up specific bits and
preventing excessive motion, and I don't see that moulded /full/ support
will necessarily achieve the same as such a targeted approach.

But this is just a passing thought, without much theoretical backing or
anything like proper knowledge in the area.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch wrote

Quoted message said:

One thing I've wondered about with these super-moulding footbeds is to
what extent they're actually a benefit... Feet have evolved for walking
as they are, and one doesn't have special conformable ground when
walking in bare feet, so ISTM that contour-for-contour support isn't
necessarily going to be the help one at first might assume. My arches
don't need support in bare feet, so why should they in shoes?

I suspect a lot (the majority?) of people's feet require some form
of support simply because we habitually wear shoes all of the time
and the musculature of the lower leg and foot now demand support
for the extended and heavy use required by hill walking. For the
majority of folk the standard fit insoles are fine but there's a small
minority that benefit from orthotic correction.

Chris

Chris Gilbert said:

I suspect a lot (the majority?) of people's feet require some form
of support simply because we habitually wear shoes all of the time

Sounds reasonable, /but/ that doesn't necessarily extend to a footbed
moulded to the shape of your feet, but your feet. That's something you
only get by going out of your way for it, so I don't see it necessarily
follows that it helps.

Quoted message said:

and the musculature of the lower leg and foot now demand support
for the extended and heavy use required by hill walking.

It's nothing more than is demanded by [censored] sapiens using bare feet or
very low tech footwear for hundreds of thousands of years though. Why
does having a perfect impression of, say, my middle toe in my footbed
actually help me? If this was such a help wouldn't feet have evolved
well before footwear was invented to be much flatter, because a perfect
impression in a footbed effectively makes them flat, with full contact
across the base of the foot?

Quoted message said:

majority of folk the standard fit insoles are fine but there's a small
minority that benefit from orthotic correction.

But my point is that orthotic correction generally /isn't/ a fully
conformable footbed, it's carefully targeted props.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch wrote

Quoted message said:

Sounds reasonable, /but/ that doesn't necessarily extend to a footbed
moulded to the shape of your feet, but your feet. That's something you
only get by going out of your way for it, so I don't see it necessarily
follows that it helps.

So are you saying that you think we've fallen for the fact that
because someone says we need footbeds then we clearly need
footbeds ?

Quoted message said:

But my point is that orthotic correction generally /isn't/ a fully
conformable footbed, it's carefully targeted props.

Agreed.

Chris

Peter Clinch said:

It's nothing more than is demanded by [censored] sapiens using bare feet or
very low tech footwear for hundreds of thousands of years though. Why
does having a perfect impression of, say, my middle toe in my footbed
actually help me?

It probably doesn't, but the [censored] sapiens of yore didn't have footwear
and would have developed very tough skin on the feet over the span of
their lives. And yet _at some point_ it became desirable to use
footwear, which suggests that there were valid reasons, even with
toughened feet, to provide protection (perhaps from cold, perhaps from
sharp objects). Nowadays it's not a question of evolution but
conditioning. Our feet are cushioned and sheltered from day 1 so they
are soft, pink and vulnerable, therefore we benefit from insoles. Add
to that the fact that we _voluntarily_ walk many miles over rough
terrain, whle I'd expect early man to never walk any further than was
required to find food and resources.

The question of do we need a fairly basic pad of foam rubber or do we
need a custom-fitted perfectly shaped and supported footbed is open to
debate. Marketing will have its way, and many people have convinced
themselves that they 'need' the full thing, regardless of whether they
have any specific foot problems. Personally I got for the £5 per pair
cush'n'step insoles. When my feet start to get sore it's just a
reminder that I need to lose some weight. Actually quite a lot, but
that's another story.

Colin

Chris Gilbert said:

So are you saying that you think we've fallen for the fact that
because someone says we need footbeds then we clearly need
footbeds ?

I'm not railing against footbeds in general, I'm just questioning
whether a footbed containing a perfect moulded impression of my foot is
actually going to be necessarily better than a footbed that doesn't, if
all else is equal.

Footbeds in general are part of shoes in general, and while we may not
/need/ shoes (look at the number of folk in the world who go batrefoot a
lot of the time) they do make life a lot more convenient, so I'm happy
to keep on using them. However, do I necessarily gain by moulding them
to the exact underside of my feet, which have inbuilt musculature and
bone structure to deal with uneven ground, never mind a non-perfect fit
of footbed?

I don't know, but am simply thinking that a perfectly moulded footbed is
one of those things where first impression is "oh, that's bound to help
by being a perfect fit, people are always on about fir being key" while
second impression is that feet don't actually need a perfectly flush
surface to work well, and in fact they've evolved to work specifically
with highly variable surface fits, so will it *actually* help? My main
problem in footwear is over-pronation. That can be dealt with
effectively with props and pillars in the right place, like other
orthotics. Will a perfect impression of my middle toe actually help?
It might, but I can't say I can see why it would.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person
Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> said
<snip>

Quoted message said:

I don't know, but am simply thinking that a perfectly moulded footbed is
one of those things where first impression is "oh, that's bound to help
by being a perfect fit, people are always on about fir being key" while
second impression is that feet don't actually need a perfectly flush
surface to work well, and in fact they've evolved to work specifically
with highly variable surface fits, so will it *actually* help? My main
problem in footwear is over-pronation. That can be dealt with
effectively with props and pillars in the right place, like other
orthotics. Will a perfect impression of my middle toe actually help?
It might, but I can't say I can see why it would.

Well it might help to keep your foot in one consistent place .. which is
OK if it is the RIGHT place. It's all very much down to personal choice,
and match with socks/boots. I had one pair of boots where my usual
superfeet insoles were unusable, because (in these boots only) the 'lip'
at the back of the heel end would chew away at, and blister, the
'corner' of my heel in very short order. Left foot only. Other insoles,
or those insoles in other boots, no problem. I can only assume it was
the shape of the back of the boot leather.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
9,423 Km walked. 1,827Km PROWs surveyed. 33.2% complete.

Colin MacDonald said:

It probably doesn't, but the [censored] sapiens of yore didn't have footwear
and would have developed very tough skin on the feet over the span of
their lives.

But an impression in a footbed made to perfectly fit the foot doesn't
actually address "tough skin".

Quoted message said:

And yet _at some point_ it became desirable to use
footwear, which suggests that there were valid reasons, even with
toughened feet, to provide protection (perhaps from cold, perhaps from
sharp objects).

Undisputed. I'm not saying we shouldn't want shoes, I am wondering if
perfect fit themral-moulded footbeds in those shoes actually do anything
useful?

Quoted message said:

Nowadays it's not a question of evolution but
conditioning. Our feet are cushioned and sheltered from day 1 so they
are soft, pink and vulnerable, therefore we benefit from insoles.

Again , undisputed, but it doesn't answer my specific question about the
nature of the insoles.

Quoted message said:

The question of do we need a fairly basic pad of foam rubber or do we
need a custom-fitted perfectly shaped and supported footbed is open to
debate.

Exactly!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Colin MacDonald said:

Peter Clinch said:

It's nothing more than is demanded by [censored] sapiens using bare feet or
very low tech footwear for hundreds of thousands of years though. Why
does having a perfect impression of, say, my middle toe in my footbed
actually help me?

It probably doesn't, but the [censored] sapiens of yore didn't have footwear
and would have developed very tough skin on the feet over the span of
their lives. And yet _at some point_ it became desirable to use
footwear, which suggests that there were valid reasons, even with
toughened feet, to provide protection (perhaps from cold, perhaps from
sharp objects).

Most definitely from cold: archeological evidence over the years seems
to suggest shoes/foot coverings developed in colder areas, and certainly
many peoples of equatorial areas even today do not habitually wear shoes.

If you look at the feet of those who go unshod for most of their lives,
you find that the space between the big toe and the rest of their toes
tends to be a little wider, their toes are more prehensile, and their
calves can be more developed than those who wear shoes as a matter of
course. The sole *does* become more calloused, but not hugely so. Take
a look at the feet of the fellas from Vanuatu in the Radio Times... Ort
those of Kalahari Bushmen.

Quoted message said:

Nowadays it's not a question of evolution but
conditioning. Our feet are cushioned and sheltered from day 1 so they
are soft, pink and vulnerable, therefore we benefit from insoles. Add
to that the fact that we _voluntarily_ walk many miles over rough
terrain, whle I'd expect early man to never walk any further than was
required to find food and resources.

Sometimes that WAS miles (15-20 per day when food was scarce), as it is
still for nomadic tribes. Many of them still do this in bare feet.

I'm sure the amount of time I spend shoeless is part of the reason that
I have reached 50 without developing bunions, hammer toes, fallen
arches, and many other foot problems. The problems I DO have are not
feet specific: I get the same pain all over!

Quoted message said:

The question of do we need a fairly basic pad of foam rubber or do we
need a custom-fitted perfectly shaped and supported footbed is open to
debate. Marketing will have its way, and many people have convinced
themselves that they 'need' the full thing, regardless of whether they
have any specific foot problems. Personally I got for the £5 per pair
cush'n'step insoles. When my feet start to get sore it's just a
reminder that I need to lose some weight. Actually quite a lot, but
that's another story.

I never did have bare feet problems, but before I shed a lot of weight
(five stone), I did have shod foot problems. Now that most of the
excess weight has gone, I can wear silly shoes all day and just end up
with the feeling that my toes need some fresh air rather than hurting!
Mind you, I won't buy even the silliest shoes without the knowledge that
I could either walk five miles in them in comfort or teach all day. The
greatest test for a pair of shoes in a whole day shopping and site
seeing in London!

Far too many of us wear shoes that don't fit properly. Even as an
adult, when I go to buy shoes I generally have my feet measured just to
be sure I get the proper fitting.

--
Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.katedicey.co.uk
Click on Kate's Pages and explore!

Peter Clinch said:

Undisputed. I'm not saying we shouldn't want shoes, I am wondering if
perfect fit themral-moulded footbeds in those shoes actually do anything
useful?

But Superfeet, at least the standard green "syngizer" (or whatever),
aren't heat moulded. They do that type as well (at some hideous price)
as do "Conformable" (my Salomon Super Mountain Guides came with
"Conformable" footbeds included). Personally, I think if a podiatrist
has diagnosed a specific problem and prescribed orthotic insoles then
fine, but otherwise this type is overkill for the majority of users. If
you have a problem serious enough to warrant full orthotics then I'm
dubious of the efficacy of those heat formed types you get in outdoor
and ski shops (unless the shop assistant just happens to be a fully
qualified podiatrist ;-).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The question of do we need a fairly basic pad of foam rubber or do we
need a custom-fitted perfectly shaped and supported footbed is open to
debate.

Exactly!

On the other hand, basic semi-orthotic insoles (like Superfeet "green"😉
support the arch and help locate the foot (there's a firm heel cup
too) correctly in the boot (I find my foot moves around too much inside
my hiking boots and running shoes with other types causing tiredness and
blisters). I also use Specialized Body Geometry shoes for cycling and
they have a very similar shape footbed to prevent the foot rolling
inward during the power stroke.

If you have perfect physiology then perhaps you don't need any insole,
or just a squiggy foam/elastomer type. Having tried various types, I'm
sticking with what I've found works for me and my imperfect body. YMMV

Cheers,
-Antony.

Peter Clinch said:

Antony Jones said:

Perhaps we could now get back on topic?

One thing I've wondered about with these super-moulding footbeds is to
what extent they're actually a benefit... Feet have evolved for walking
as they are, and one doesn't have special conformable ground when
walking in bare feet, so ISTM that contour-for-contour support isn't
necessarily going to be the help one at first might assume. My arches
don't need support in bare feet, so why should they in shoes?

It's always a good idea to do a reality check on these sort of "nature
intended" arguments. In this case, you could make the same argument
about boots and shoes, and similar ones about fire, clothes, and
eyeglasses. Are you going to stop using them? I think not.

Reality is much more complex. Bipedalism is a hack, in evolutionary
terms. It was never quite finished in the human species - for
instance, the combination of bipedalism and large babies is why
childbirth can be so dangerous. More: as far as biological evolution
is concerned, you have no right to live after 40; your body was
designed to survive in tropical climates, where it is expected to walk
all the time on soft ground. Oh - and you have flat feet or any other
problem that restricts your ability to gather food, strongly consider
not passing on your deleterious genes - in fact, nature will go out of
its way to help you here.

Real world: high arch hurts => use corrective technology. Flat feet
hurt => use corrective technology. Just like correcting eye sight. And
if you are performing an activity which is likely to result in
biomechanical degradation (about 70% of long term medium to high
activity joggers end up with flat feet) and you can find a technology
that stops it, then use it.

Quoted message said:

Custom orthotics (AFAICT) tend to be about propping up specific bits and
preventing excessive motion, and I don't see that moulded /full/ support
will necessarily achieve the same as such a targeted approach.
But this is just a passing thought, without much theoretical backing or
anything like proper knowledge in the area.

Well, yes. Having a science and engineering background, and have done
quite a bit of reading up on this stuff over the past ten years, and
having used some of the products - I can say the Sole (and probably
several other products, like the Kiper insole) work. They are approved
by the US podiatrists association, btw, and I'm told that they're
widely used in athletics in the US.

Modern feet are rather like eyes, I suspect: we use them for longer
than nature "intended", in ways that were never planned - and
thankfully we ignore nature's intended "quality control" scheme of
constant culling for having a duff pair (otherwise I would be dead).

My own experience with the Sole has literally been amazing - and I
have a high arch: a friend with a low arch (actually no arch, almost!)
found they worked just as well.

Antony Jones said:

But Superfeet, at least the standard green "syngizer" (or whatever),
aren't heat moulded.

Those are the ones I happily use...

Quoted message said:

They do that type as well (at some hideous price)
as do "Conformable" (my Salomon Super Mountain Guides came with
"Conformable" footbeds included). Personally, I think if a podiatrist
has diagnosed a specific problem and prescribed orthotic insoles then
fine, but otherwise this type is overkill for the majority of users. If
you have a problem serious enough to warrant full orthotics then I'm
dubious of the efficacy of those heat formed types you get in outdoor
and ski shops (unless the shop assistant just happens to be a fully
qualified podiatrist ;-).

Even if they are, I doubt they can get the machine to do other than
it does...

I was particularly wondering whether thermo-moulding to the exact
shape of one's foot will actually have a tangible benefit.
Especially as you'll cease to fit in the impression you made as
soon as you felx your foot, as you do every time you take a step!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

It's always a good idea to do a reality check on these sort of "nature
intended" arguments. In this case, you could make the same argument
about boots and shoes

Boots and shoes give me tougher outsoles which enable me to walk
happily and easily on the hard surfaces we fill our living spaces
with. Even horses need special shoes for such surfaces, it's
hardly surprising we benefit too. That's not really important in
"do we benefit from a completely conformable footbed?", however.

Quoted message said:

Reality is much more complex. Bipedalism is a hack, in evolutionary
terms. It was never quite finished in the human species - for
instance, the combination of bipedalism and large babies is why
childbirth can be so dangerous.

No shortage of childbirth problems for qudrapeds either. Do you
not listen to The Archers?

Quoted message said:

More: as far as biological evolution
is concerned, you have no right to live after 40;

By living after 40 I can help my /grand/children to survive, so I
have a useful niche still in the Darwinian scheme of things.

Quoted message said:

Real world: high arch hurts => use corrective technology.

Indeed, though does a fully conformable footbed actually achieve
this better than alternatives? I'm not really convinced,
especially as someone with high arches that don't hurt and are
actually less comfortable when "supported".

Quoted message said:

Well, yes. Having a science and engineering background, and have done
quite a bit of reading up on this stuff over the past ten years, and
having used some of the products - I can say the Sole (and probably
several other products, like the Kiper insole) work. They are approved
by the US podiatrists association, btw, and I'm told that they're
widely used in athletics in the US.

Approval by a professional association doesn't mean that much
beyond being faintly reassuring the pros think it won't hurt. And,
by contrast, having read the BMA Board of Science's position piece
on cycling helmets I am convinced not that cycling helmets are a
good idea but the BMA's Board of Science aren't actually any good
at science, and if they can be that [censored] then so can the US
podiatrists association. And while you are undoubtedly happy with
your Soles, and your pal too, that is very much at the level of
anecdotes, and the plural of anecdote is not data.
There are various things I use and am happy with, but when it comes
down to it I must face the fact that the error bars on my
subjective opinion are such that they're bigger than the error
margin for me kidding myself (my cranked kayak paddles are a
particular case in point, I've seen people claim they really help
when using a paddle with the cranks so far apart the paddler isn't
even using them, but they /still/ claim a tangible benefit). It's
also possible that there are genuine benefits for me but which
aren't actually due to the marketing bullet-points (my off-the-peg
Superfeet happen to put me at a volume sweetspot in relation to the
uppers I use them with, possibly?)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Antony Jones said:

But Superfeet, at least the standard green "syngizer" (or whatever),
aren't heat moulded.

Those are the ones I happily use...

Quoted message said:

They do that type as well (at some hideous price) as do "Conformable" (my
Salomon Super Mountain Guides came with "Conformable" footbeds included).
Personally, I think if a podiatrist has diagnosed a specific problem and
prescribed orthotic insoles then fine, but otherwise this type is
overkill for the majority of users. If you have a problem serious enough
to warrant full orthotics then I'm dubious of the efficacy of those heat
formed types you get in outdoor and ski shops (unless the shop assistant
just happens to be a fully qualified podiatrist ;-).

Even if they are, I doubt they can get the machine to do other than it
does...

I was particularly wondering whether thermo-moulding to the exact shape of
one's foot will actually have a tangible benefit. Especially as you'll
cease to fit in the impression you made as soon as you felx your foot, as
you do every time you take a step!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

I appreciate the Superfeet come in various sizes but is there any trimming
required or do they fit any boot provided they are sized correctly.

Mike

Mike Mason said:

I appreciate the Superfeet come in various sizes but is there any trimming
required or do they fit any boot provided they are sized correctly.

That depends on the boot... they may need some snipping, since as
"Size x" means slightly different things to different boot makers
you can't be guaranteed a perfect fit.

/Any/ aftermarket footbed may well need a little trim to fit optimally.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

I was particularly wondering whether thermo-moulding to the exact
shape of one's foot will actually have a tangible benefit.
Especially as you'll cease to fit in the impression you made as
soon as you felx your foot, as you do every time you take a step!

My wife's got a set of the moulded (black) superfeet. They appear
to have a similar underlying skeleton to the green ones I've got,
but the black footbed holds its shape better.

I would think that all they really do is give a bit of pressure relief
to any high spots (OK, low spots since they're extending
downwards). The moulded layer is only marginally thicker than the
equivalent on green superfeet so it's not going to have the same
effect on foot positioning as a custom orthotic. The moulded relief is
not terribly obvious (e.g. there's no ridge at the toes, as with a
Birkenstock). In fact, it just looks like a green superfoot that's
been used for a long time. If you have a fairly supple and even base
to your foot, I doubt they have any advantage over the green type but
if you have a few knobbly bits they're probably more immediately
comfortable. A bit like a memory foam mattress, except stiffer to take
account of much higher pressures than a mattress will see.

I agree that just taking an impression of the base of your foot is not
necessarily going to produce what a podiatrist would do : in fact, in
some cases, like overpronation, it might produce exactly the opposite.
But I don't think these footbeds have enough effect for that to be an
issue.

-adrian

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Mason said:

I appreciate the Superfeet come in various sizes but is there any
trimming required or do they fit any boot provided they are sized
correctly.

That depends on the boot... they may need some snipping, since as "Size x"
means slightly different things to different boot makers you can't be
guaranteed a perfect fit.

/Any/ aftermarket footbed may well need a little trim to fit optimally.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Thanks Peter

I'm off to buy a pair tomorrow and then see what happens

Mike

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person
Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

Mike Mason said:

I appreciate the Superfeet come in various sizes but is there any
trimming required or do they fit any boot provided they are sized
correctly.

That depends on the boot... they may need some snipping, since as "Size
x" means slightly different things to different boot makers you can't
be guaranteed a perfect fit.

/Any/ aftermarket footbed may well need a little trim to fit optimally.

Yep, best to take the boots, and if there is any doubt get a size up (it
is possible to cut bits off, sticking bits on doesn't work, especially
if the problem is width-ways). Most insoles actually say there should be
a small amount of fore/aft movement.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
9,423 Km walked. 1,827Km PROWs surveyed. 33.2% complete.

In message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Gilbert said:

I suspect a lot (the majority?) of people's feet require some form
of support simply because we habitually wear shoes all of the time

Sounds reasonable, /but/ that doesn't necessarily extend to a footbed
moulded to the shape of your feet, but your feet. That's something you
only get by going out of your way for it, so I don't see it necessarily
follows that it helps.

Quoted message said:

and the musculature of the lower leg and foot now demand support
for the extended and heavy use required by hill walking.

It's nothing more than is demanded by [censored] sapiens using bare feet or
very low tech footwear for hundreds of thousands of years though.

Which is why surveys show that people who walk barefoot or in low tech
footwear on rough ground in countries without many tarred roads don't
tend to get foot problems. Walking round in modern shoes on flat
surfaces, as many of us do most of the time, is the cause of problems.

Quoted message said:

Why
does having a perfect impression of, say, my middle toe in my footbed
actually help me?

It doesn't.

The front of the footbed is only to stop the rear - the active part -
from sliding down the boot/shoe. I have several custom fit pairs of
footbeds with the front sections cut to fit different shaped footwear.
This makes no difference to the performance.

I can tell the difference between trim-to-fit and custom fit Superfeet -
the latter do make a difference.

Quoted message said:

If this was such a help wouldn't feet have evolved
well before footwear was invented to be much flatter, because a perfect
impression in a footbed effectively makes them flat, with full contact
across the base of the foot?

A properly moulded footbed shouldn't do that. My feet are flat without
footbeds.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

majority of folk the standard fit insoles are fine but there's a small
minority that benefit from orthotic correction.

But my point is that orthotic correction generally /isn't/ a fully
conformable footbed, it's carefully targeted props.

Custom fit footbeds are designed to minimise over-pronation. They don't
do much, if anything, for other problems.
--
Chris Townsend

http://www.christownsendoutdoors.demon.co.uk

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

It's always a good idea to do a reality check on these sort of "nature
intended" arguments. In this case, you could make the same argument
about boots and shoes

Boots and shoes give me tougher outsoles which enable me to walk
happily and easily on the hard surfaces we fill our living spaces
with. Even horses need special shoes for such surfaces, it's
hardly surprising we benefit too.

Oh - so when you return to natural surfaces, as you do when you go
hiking, you go barefoot? Most of us wear boots. In fact, when carrying
a pack most of us wear boots with a steel or nylon shank, which is a
MUCH greater modification of our biomechanics than any insole.

I also note the you say Superfeet green: this is just an attempt to
provide the same sort of support as the more recent more advanced
mouldable insoles, but "averagized".

Quoted message said:

That's not really important in
"do we benefit from a completely conformable footbed?", however.

Quoted message said:

Reality is much more complex. Bipedalism is a hack, in evolutionary
terms. It was never quite finished in the human species - for
instance, the combination of bipedalism and large babies is why
childbirth can be so dangerous.

No shortage of childbirth problems for qudrapeds either. Do you
not listen to The Archers?

Definitely not. If you don't believe me about bipedalism, do read some
books on primate evolution and eg female pelvis size. They're probably
more entertaining than The Archers at least...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

More: as far as biological evolution
is concerned, you have no right to live after 40;

By living after 40 I can help my /grand/children to survive, so I
have a useful niche still in the Darwinian scheme of things.

Except that you're also competing for food resources with your
offspring and reducing the mobility of the tribe: go away and die
already.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Real world: high arch hurts => use corrective technology.

Indeed, though does a fully conformable footbed actually achieve
this better than alternatives? I'm not really convinced,
especially as someone with high arches that don't hurt and are
actually less comfortable when "supported".

It all depends ***how*** they are supported, I would suggest.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, yes. Having a science and engineering background, and have done
quite a bit of reading up on this stuff over the past ten years, and
having used some of the products - I can say the Sole (and probably
several other products, like the Kiper insole) work. They are approved
by the US podiatrists association, btw, and I'm told that they're
widely used in athletics in the US.

Approval by a professional association doesn't mean that much
beyond being faintly reassuring the pros think it won't hurt. And,
by contrast, having read the BMA Board of Science's position piece
on cycling helmets I am convinced not that cycling helmets are a
good idea but the BMA's Board of Science aren't actually any good
at science, and if they can be that [censored] then so can the US
podiatrists association.

I agree with the point about professional associations, but you've
removed the passage you wrote that I was responding to - I was
answering your comparison of mouldable's to podiatrist designed
orthotics.

Quoted message said:

And while you are undoubtedly happy with
your Soles, and your pal too, that is very much at the level of
anecdotes, and the plural of anecdote is not data.

Hmm. I think I have the right to be a little testy here as I never
advanced the "they worked for me so they'll work for everyone"
argument - any more than you did, presumably, when you said that
Superfeet work for you. However, since you raise it: several user
opinions, plus wide use in the athletics industry, and a reasonable
fit with modern biomechanics theory about gait and shock absorption
(which I have read quite a few papers on) and podiatrist approval DO
outweigh your proposed alternative criteria of "what I, a bloke on the
Internet who doesn't know anything about the subject, decides in the
first 5 seconds of thinking about it". I don't even see any evidence
that you've bothered to google for references on gait biomechanics or
relevant medical studies.

Quoted message said:

There are various things I use and am happy with, but when it comes
down to it I must face the fact that the error bars on my
subjective opinion are such that they're bigger than the error
margin for me kidding myself (my cranked kayak paddles are a
particular case in point, I've seen people claim they really help
when using a paddle with the cranks so far apart the paddler isn't
even using them, but they /still/ claim a tangible benefit).

Biomechanics is very subject dependent: different people recruit the
hip flexors at very different points when doing a sit-up.

Quoted message said:

It's
also possible that there are genuine benefits for me but which
aren't actually due to the marketing bullet-points (my off-the-peg
Superfeet happen to put me at a volume sweetspot in relation to the
uppers I use them with, possibly?)

Quite possibly. Otoh, I notice that you've ignored several very
important points - e.g. that most people start with a foot that is
either normal or low arched, and that have heavy use of the foot (as
experienced by regular runners certainly, and walkers quite possibly)
will often convert a foot to a low arch over time. After that, joint
misalignment problems follow. An insole with a well-fitting arch
support can prevent this. Most people aren't willing to pay for
handmade orthotics for this purpose, but moudables do the job nicely
and are a fraction of the cost - about the same amount you're paying
for your averagized Superfeet green. And hey, at least with the Soles
you get your money back if you don't like them - I don't see any
mention of this with the Superfeet. (Regretably, or I and several
friends would each be £35 up.) That's not saying that *you* should
switch from the Superfeet if they work for you, of course, but I think
for most people the Soles are a better bet. They're also wider than
the Superfeet, which were too narrow for me (they can be trimmed, of
course).