? Human Motivation and desire | Main | My first longer ride of the season ?
March 05, 2005
Why the ‘wet test’ is not very accurate
So I’ve been looking for running shoes and have done a fair amount of research into what I really need. Several people I know have told me to just go to a running store that has knowledgeable staff that can find the right shoe for me. But in my reasoning I felt like I should know what I needed before buying expensive shoes that may or may not be better for me. I looked online and in the Runner’s World magazine and asked people that I knew what they thought of the things I was learning.
In the Runner’s World magazine they rate shoes and even give advice on how to select the proper shoes for our foot types. According to them there are three basic foot types, based on your arch: 1. Normal (medium) Arch, 2. Flat (low) arch, and 3. High Arch. Normal Arch people are normal pronators, Flat-footed people are Over Pronators and High Arch people are underpronators. This has to do with how the foot rolls when it strikes the ground. According to the running experts, each shoe is designed with a particular type of body and stride in mind. But really that’s mind washing because all the sales people, and the magazine articles really look at is your arch.
There are motion control shoes, neutral-cushioned shoes, stability shoes and performance training shoes, each designed with a particular arch in mind. Runner’s World magazine had this test online to determine what type of arch you have. Following their guidance, I put my bare foot in water then stepped on a brown grocery bag to make a print of my foot. This shows how much of your foot strikes the paper. After reading all about pronation and arch types and shoe types, I thought I was wise enough to go into the store and know if they were selling me any old shoe. I thought I had normal arches with normal pronation, which should mean I would wear a Stability shoe. According my ‘wet test’ I have normal arches, neither high nor low.
When I got to the store, the place was really busy. I was told this store in particular was run by runners and they really knew what they were talking about. It makes sense that if they have a lot of experience, they should be able to help me better than a more general sporting goods store where they sell everything and their salespeople don’t actually use the products. I waited for help, mainly because I didn’t want to select any old shoe just by appearance, and I wanted to hear what they were going to recommend. When it was my turn I told the saleslady that I wanted a running shoe that had more cushion than my current shoes because my legs felt like they were getting pounded. Then I made the mistake of mentioning that I took the ‘wet test’ to check my arches already. She wasn’t impressed or remotely enthused. She was probably thinking, “Oh God, here’s another one that reads something in a magazine and thinks they are an expert runner.” She insisted I take off my shoes and she would check for herself. She informed me that the ‘wet test’ is not really accurate because you have to look at the arches to see how high the arch is off the ground, not just whether it touches. I thought, “Yeah, that makes sense. A really low arch could be off the ground but low enough that it needs extra support. A high-arched foot could have more surface area on the ground, but the arch could still be very high.” So what I thought were normal arches, she said were flat. That means that I should be an over-pronator and require a motion-control shoe to control that excess pronation. According to my research these shoes are better for runners who are flat-footed or strike hard on their heels and for heavier runners who need support and durability. I’m not heavy and I don’t strike hard on my heels. Also based on the wear on my shoes, my feet are rolling off in the center of the toes, which means my pronation is very normal, not over or under rolling. But I saw her point about how low my arches looked. So I just let her bring on the shoes that were supposed to fit my arch type.
After trying on about 7 pair by several manufacturers I finally eliminated the Nike’s, Adidas, New Balance and some other shoe and settled on one pair of Asics. Out of all of these, this one pair seemed like what I was looking for. It felt good. According to my research though, She should have been selling me a Motion Control shoe, when what I ended up with was a Stability shoe. That’s what I originally determined I needed for a normal arch. I don’t actually think there is much difference between these two shoe types anyway, but it did leave me wondering how much knowledge is enough. I got some new running shoes that feel good and have good cushion and arch support, so I guess I can keep running. I could have just skipped my research and took the advice of the experts and bought what they told me, and saved myself hours of reading time.
This reminds me, another one of my daughter’s journal topics was, “How much education should a person get? Why? This question sounds like it’s asking for a grade level or how high of a degree a person should achieve, and if that’s the case I think the question should be rephrased to something like, “When should a person stop learning?” I think we all are perpetual learners and can never assume we know everything, because there is always more to learn. I didn’t waste the time I spent learning about shoes, because I learned more by having a basic understanding already. I also learned that even the experts don’t know everything and sometimes contradict each other. In these cases the only recourse is to either take their advice or leave it. When I get out and run with my new shoes I’ll learn even more about the construction and function of specific shoe types, by experience. How much learning should we do in our lifetime?
The 'wet test' is not very accurate because it's not enough.
Posted by carl1236 at March 5, 2005 11:42 PM | Learning