Choosing single shoe for walking & kickboxing/karate

Clarifications & additions below...

Aching Foot said:

I am on a tight budget, so I'm trying to get a single shoe for everyday use
and exercise. One ventilated shoe for summer, another enclosed shoe for
winter. I have a very flat-footed right foot, but in recent years, it
hasn't bothered me (years ago, it bugged my knee alot). I wear
off-the-shelf insoles for arch support (Superfeet), with a metatarsal pad
(MTP) on the right foot. The MTP was an experimental attempt to solve foot
pain caused by cheap shoes that squeezed the front half of the metatarsal
bone leading to the big toe. Only helped a small bit. This (rather than
the currently inconsequential flat-footedness) is the primary reason why
I'm in a hurry to find decent replacements shoes. Admittedly,
flat-footedness could be amplifying the impingement on the metarsal bone.

My primary whole-body-weight-bearing exercise is kickboxing and karate.
Often, though not regularly, I also like to walk half-hour to an hour, once
or twice a day, on good pavement and wintery ground (could be gnarled
ice/snow). On occassion, I jog for upto half-hour.

My primary source of info, besides a sport-medicine doctor, kinesiologists,
and runners' foot store experts, are:

http://tinyurl.com/6je8m
http://adam.about.com/reports/000061_4.htm

According to these, my shoe should be motion-controlled and straight-last
to prevent overpronation. That means the shoe should not twist easily
along the front-back axis, and should not bend inward at the front.
(Personally, I find that presses the big toe). Rightly or wrongly, I have
relegated this to a secondary consideration, since my right knee hasn't
been a problem in recent years. More importantly, I am trying to balance
the need for support in walking versus the diverse needs of martial arts,
which I spend much more time on.

* Too much webbing for ventilation means that the outer shell is not
rugged enough for constant impact against a bag

* Depending on the art form, the back foot may be flat on the ground (foot
bent up at the ankle so that the toe is slanted upward toward knee,
possibly leaning toward the outside of the knee).

* Potentially lots of bouncing on toes.

* Front kicks have the toes pulled back, implying a need for toe flex, as
in a runner's shoe. However, I'm not sure if the lateral inflexibility
of a running shoe would be to constraing.

Front of the foot is away from the shins, toes pulled up -- like walking on
very high heels, I guess. Not to sure if lateral inflexibility of runners would
be to /constraining/ for the other lateral bending, described below.

Quoted message said:

* For kickboxing style of interest, back foot has a raised heel, again
implying a need for toe flex

* Cat stance also needs similar foot positioning as front kick.

* Side kick requires bending at the ankle so that the blade (outer edge)
of the foot faces out sideways, toes still point forward. Hooks kicks
can also be done this way.

* Front splits require same bending at ankles as side kick.

* Back kick requires the front of foot bent toward the shin so that heel
protrudes out. Round house may also require this, but with toes pulled
up.

* Roundhouse with instep requires toes pointing away from the shin.
Hook kicks can also be done this way to strike with ball of foot.

I think a good summary is that the shoe should allow good range of
positions of the ankle. I'm tempted to conclude that this falls under the
needs addressed by cross trainers. However, I haven't been able to find a
good explanation of exactly what cross trainers are, in terms of specific
support. Vague descriptions such as allowing side-to-side movement,
lateral support (which I think better describes restricted movement of
motion controlled runners).

Thanks for any suggestions as a shoe type that meet these requirements. If
it also meets the requirements of walking and/or flat-footedness, so much
the better (running is also a consideration, but not very much). If you
can clarify the specific attributes that define a cross trainer, that would
be appreciated too.

As well, I have read repeatedly that motion-control stability is exactly the
opposite of flexibility /and/ cushioning. I can see why flexibility is traded
off, since that is the opposite of motion-control, by definition. By why is
cushioning compromised by motion control?

Quoted message said:

Aching Foot

P.S.
When I use to have right-knee problems, I tried custom insoles made from
box-foam impressions, but they didn't help hardly at all. If the knees
ever become a problem again, I will try plaster- cast-based insoles. They
are suppose to be better because they don't flatten out the feet while they are
being made.

Aching Foot said:

As well, I have read repeatedly that motion-control stability is exactly the
opposite of flexibility /and/ cushioning. I can see why flexibility is traded
off, since that is the opposite of motion-control, by definition. By why is
cushioning compromised by motion control?

I spoke too soon on this specific point. I don't really know that cross trainers
are the opposite of motion-control, as the exact definition of a cross trainer is
still quite vague to me. I know that a running store sells non-cross-trainers
i.e. running shoes, and they span the gamut from motioncontrolled to flexible
and cushioned. Since the latter are not cross trainers, cross trainers
are not necessarily the "opposite" of motion control.

Aching Foot said:

As well, I have read repeatedly that motion-control stability is exactly the
opposite of flexibility /and/ cushioning. I can see why flexibility is traded
off, since that is the opposite of motion-control, by definition. By why is
cushioning compromised by motion control?

It isn't. Motion control shoes also have cushioning.

I used to do martial arts barefoot, and I think this is fairly common. If you must
use a shoe, your best bet would be to find something fairly non-intrusive. Puma H
Street or a racing flat would be a good start. Search for "clearance flats" on
eastbay.com. The mesh uppers might not be quite as durable as you'd like, but you'll
probably toast the midsole of almost any shoe before the uppers have much damage.

If you need a walking shoe with "arch support" or any other kind of support, then
you will need another shoe. No shoe that is appropriate for martial arts will have
any kind of "support".

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[censored]

In article <[email hidden]>, Aching Foot <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Aching Foot said:

As well, I have read repeatedly that motion-control stability is exactly
the
opposite of flexibility /and/ cushioning. I can see why flexibility is
traded
off, since that is the opposite of motion-control, by definition. By why
is
cushioning compromised by motion control?

I spoke too soon on this specific point. I don't really know that cross
trainers
are the opposite of motion-control, as the exact definition of a cross
trainer is
still quite vague to me. I know that a running store sells
non-cross-trainers
i.e. running shoes, and they span the gamut from motioncontrolled to flexible
and cushioned. Since the latter are not cross trainers, cross trainers
are not necessarily the "opposite" of motion control.

I wouldn't confuse "motion control" as applied to running shoes with
motion control.

Motion control running shoes do tend to be less flexible; actually, it
may be better to say that lightweight trainers tend to be more flexible
- many running shoes have a fairly stiff insert above the midsole. The
stiffness helps with cushioning. It's left out of the lightweight
trainers and racing flats.

Motion control shoes are also cushioned, but a portion of the midsole is
stiffened to minimize pronation (or in some cases supination). That's
the motion that's controlled.

It's the kind of motion generated by straight forward running. With
cross-trainers, there is some additional support for lateral changes in
direction - as with, say, basketball or tennis. That, I think, is what
is implied by cross-training - some cushioning for running, some lateral
support.

For martial arts, I'd look into volleyball shoes. They have some support
for lateral motion, but aren't as thinkly cushioned as basketball or
tennis shoes.

Why do you want a single shoe? Do you intend to train in the dojo with
the same pair of shoes you wear in the weather?

Peter Claussen

Peter Claussen said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Aching Foot <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Aching Foot said:

As well, I have read repeatedly that motion-control stability is
exactly the opposite of flexibility /and/ cushioning. I can see why
flexibility is traded off, since that is the opposite of
motion-control, by definition. By why is cushioning compromised by
motion control?

I spoke too soon on this specific point. I don't really know that
cross trainers are the opposite of motion-control, as the exact
definition of a cross trainer is still quite vague to me. I know that
a running store sells non-cross-trainers i.e. running shoes, and they
span the gamut from motioncontrolled to flexible and cushioned. Since
the latter are not cross trainers, cross trainers are not necessarily
the "opposite" of motion control.

I wouldn't confuse "motion control" as applied to running shoes with
motion control.

Motion control running shoes do tend to be less flexible; actually, it
may be better to say that lightweight trainers tend to be more flexible
- many running shoes have a fairly stiff insert above the midsole. The
stiffness helps with cushioning. It's left out of the lightweight
trainers and racing flats.

Motion control shoes are also cushioned, but a portion of the midsole is
stiffened to minimize pronation (or in some cases supination). That's
the motion that's controlled.

It's the kind of motion generated by straight forward running. With
cross-trainers, there is some additional support for lateral changes in
direction - as with, say, basketball or tennis. That, I think, is what
is implied by cross-training - some cushioning for running, some lateral
support.

I think I should clarify what I meant by flexible, as there are many types
e.g. there is flexing at the toe, which runners are supposedly good for.
The twisting that "motion control" minimizes is the same as if you grab
the front and back of the shoe with each hand and twist it around its
front-to-back axis. Apparently, this is the same motion that allows for
collapsing of the arches. This is why the running shoe store I visited
had shoes categorized according to "motion stability" at one end to
cushioned & flexible at the other. It seemed like a tradeoff of one at
the expense of the other, though I did see that all were cushioned to
some degree. Perhaps I misunderstood -- perhaps the cushioning of the
"motion controlled" shoe is not really less than that of a less "motion
controlled" shoe. Or, perhaps the cushioning is less because some of
the midsole is devoted to material for preventing the above described
twisting. I'm not clear on that.

As for support for lateral motion in cross trainers, that is the level of
explanation I've been finding, but exactly what direction of stabilizing
force, and applied to where, is required for such such lateral motion? Why
would such support structure require a trade-off in "motion support" and/or
cushioning? Those questions arose in pondering whether runners or cross
trainers were more appropriate. I hesitate to subject the staff at running
shoe stores to this because it evokes impatience; the conversation can
become quite subjective, and often driven by a runner's needs. I have to
carefully and diplomatically distinguish what information can be extrapolated
to my needs, and what rationale doesn't make sense for my situation.

Quoted message said:

For martial arts, I'd look into volleyball shoes. They have some support
for lateral motion, but aren't as thinkly cushioned as basketball or
tennis shoes.

OK, thanks. I'll keep this in mind, and find a good store or two in which
to try it out.

Quoted message said:

Why do you want a single shoe? Do you intend to train in the dojo with
the same pair of shoes you wear in the weather?

Yes and no. I don't really train in a formal karate setting anymore. I
use the kata as a warmup (after some pre-warmups) for a less formal training
setting. It could be in an open space in a large, wide hallway. It could
be in a kickboxing class with other people who come in from the open and
train with the same shoes as they walk with. The latter takes place in
multipurpose rooms in which such practice is not uncommon.

As for why, aside from budgetary constraints, I am often travelling from
one place to another with lots of stuff. Shoes take up alot of space, so
it is preferable to avoid that. As well, my dwelling is very small, and
accumulating yet another piece of belonging is best avoided. In the case
of using a 2nd pair of shoes, I might also decide to go work out,
impromptu, due to a scheduling change that opens up a time window; in that
case I won't have the 2nd pair of shoes with me.

Aching Foot

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Aching Foot said:

As well, I have read repeatedly that motion-control stability is exactly the
opposite of flexibility /and/ cushioning. I can see why flexibility is traded
off, since that is the opposite of motion-control, by definition. By why is
cushioning compromised by motion control?

It isn't. Motion control shoes also have cushioning.

Yes, but for some reason, the less motion controlled seem to toot louder about
cushioning. See for example http://www.newbalancetoronto.ca/choosing_shoe.htm.
For terminological reference, see http://www.newbalancetoronto.ca/construction.htm.
Nothing in the latter suggests why less motion control equates to greate cushioning,
though the former link implies that it has to do with the midsole.

Quoted message said:

I used to do martial arts barefoot, and I think this is fairly common. If you must
use a shoe, your best bet would be to find something fairly non-intrusive. Puma H
Street or a racing flat would be a good start. Search for "clearance flats" on
eastbay.com. The mesh uppers might not be quite as durable as you'd like, but you'll
probably toast the midsole of almost any shoe before the uppers have much damage.

In my experience, the uppers usually go before any other visible sign of damage
to the shoe, though the midsole could have been damaged in a way that is not
outwardly visible. I will keep in mind the possibility of racing flats, though
light weight is not the foremost on my mind (heavy shoes can be good training).

Quoted message said:

If you need a walking shoe with "arch support" or any other kind of support, then
you will need another shoe. No shoe that is appropriate for martial arts will have
any kind of "support".

I was inclined to think the same. However, I'm trying to be sure of the detailed
reasons, in case it is possible to have properly supported shoes for kickboxing
and karate. So far as I can see, flexible range of motion at the angle and toe is
important, so I'm trying to see if a shoe type can meet those needs. As well as
trying to better understand the exact mechanics of cross trainers to see if they
might meet some of these needs.

Aching Feet

Aching Foot said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It isn't. Motion control shoes also have cushioning.

Yes, but for some reason, the less motion controlled seem to toot louder
about cushioning.

I understand that.

I think the short story on the reason is that "cushion" shoes are made for
people with high arches and rigid feet -- feet that do not have much innate
shock-absorbing capacity. So the idea is that these people do not need
pronation control, but do need cushioning. Motion control/stability shoes
contain dense rubber, which doesn't necessarily reduce the shock absorbing
capacity of the shoe, but does (or is designed to) inhibit pronation, and
pronation is a mechanism that heel/midfoot-strikers use to reduce landing
shock.

But a lightweight "cushioning" shoe (like the Mizuno precision) does actually
have less cushioning than a heavy motion control shoe (like the brooks beast)

Quoted message said:

reference, see http://www.newbalancetoronto.ca/construction.htm. Nothing in
the latter suggests why less motion control equates to greate cushioning,

Because it doesn't. At most, motion control inhibits pronation response. The
stiffer material is strategically placed (on the medial side of the foot) but
the material in the heel and ball of the foot is typically the same as would
be used for a cushioning shoe. The difference is in torsional rigidity of the
shoe, and the effect on the natural shock absorbing capacity of the foot
itself. The shoes on the other hand have the same amount of padding.

The thing about touting "cushioning" versus touting "stability" boils mostly
down to marketting.

Quoted message said:

In my experience, the uppers usually go before any other visible sign of
damage to the shoe, though the midsole could have been damaged in a way that
is not outwardly visible.

Yes. The midsole is usually toast long before the outsole wears through. You
should be able to feel midsole damage before you can see it.

Quoted message said:

I will keep in mind the possibility of racing
flats, though light weight is not the foremost on my mind (heavy shoes can be
good training).

You could also look at cross country flats (like the zike zoom waffle flats,
but NOT the spikes). These have stiffer, more durable uppers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you need a walking shoe with "arch support" or any other kind of support,
then you will need another shoe. No shoe that is appropriate for martial
arts will have any kind of "support".

I was inclined to think the same. However, I'm trying to be sure of the
detailed reasons, in case it is possible to have properly supported shoes for
kickboxing and karate.

It's not. The needs are directly at odds. For example, you want a shoe that
bends with your foot. But stability/motion control shoes are carefully designed
to NOT do this.

If you're just walking (not running), then keeping your foot low to the ground
may be a good idea anyway. A low shoe is a stable shoe. Your foot will not
pronate all over the place during walking/running if the midsole is very thin,
because there is less "wiggle room" between your foot and the ground. If you
were using them for running, maybe you should think twice about flats, but for
walking they should be fine (and they do have good stability). Race walkers do
tend to use low shoes, including running flats.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-01-31, Aching Foot <[email hidden]> wrote:

The thing about touting "cushioning" versus touting "stability" boils mostly
down to marketting.

I sort of suspected that. Unfortunately, the marketing is causing confusion
among potential customers.

Quoted message said:

You could also look at cross country flats (like the zike zoom waffle flats,
but NOT the spikes). These have stiffer, more durable uppers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

possible to have properly supported shoes for
kickboxing and karate.

It's not. The needs are directly at odds. For example, you want a shoe that
bends with your foot. But stability/motion control shoes are carefully designed
to NOT do this.

I caved in an got a pair of cross trainers. I first tried it out to ensure that it flexes
enough at the toe and allows adequate flexing at the ankle. Perhaps it was
impulsive, but comfortable shoes are so hard to find that I jumped at it when
I tried them on and found them comfortable, even though they don't have the
stiff uppers as the cross country flats (all ventilated cloth).

Quoted message said:

If you're just walking (not running), then keeping your foot low to the ground
may be a good idea anyway. A low shoe is a stable shoe. Your foot will not
pronate all over the place during walking/running if the midsole is very thin,
because there is less "wiggle room" between your foot and the ground. If you
were using them for running, maybe you should think twice about flats, but for
walking they should be fine (and they do have good stability). Race walkers do
tend to use low shoes, including running flats.

Donovan, I wonder, do you have flat feet? I'm wondering if the above is based
on personal experience. The reason is because I expect that flats would leave
one's foot in a flat-footed position if there is no arch support. Even if you
don't repeatedly go through the movement of collapsing the arch, the fact that it is
always in a collapsed state (due to less wiggle room) is not good for the knees.
If you found differently, I may have to re-examine my less-than-sure understanding
of flat-footedness and pronation. I still have to get walking shoes for everyday
use, as the cross-trainers I got are too ventilated to wear outdoors in the winter.

Aching Foot

Aching Foot said:

Quoted message said:

Donovan, I wonder, do you have flat feet?

No. I'm high arched and wear "cushion" shoes.

Quoted message said:

I'm wondering if the above is based
on personal experience. The reason is because I expect that flats would leave
one's foot in a flat-footed position if there is no arch support.

You can put arch supports inside them.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Aching Foot said:

Quoted message said:

Donovan, I wonder, do you have flat feet?

No. I'm high arched and wear "cushion" shoes.

Quoted message said:

I'm wondering if the above is based
on personal experience. The reason is because I expect that flats would leave
one's foot in a flat-footed position if there is no arch support.

You can put arch supports inside them.

There's an idea...for most people, that may be an attractive option. I've been
told, however, that I'm an extreme case of flat-footedness. So they don't think
it's overdoing it to have support from both the shoe and insoles, in my case.
In any case, since I've separated the shoe for working out versus that for walking,
the needs aren't so conflicting. Hence, I can no afford to go for lots of support
for walking, without regard to the flexibility needed for training. Thanks for
the info you've provided.

Aching Foot

"Aching Foot" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am on a tight budget, so I'm trying to get a single shoe for
everyday use
and exercise. One ventilated shoe for summer, another enclosed shoe
for
winter. I have a very flat-footed right foot, but in recent years, it
hasn't bothered me (years ago, it bugged my knee alot). I wear
off-the-shelf insoles for arch support (Superfeet), with a metatarsal
pad
(MTP) on the right foot. The MTP was an experimental attempt to solve
foot
pain caused by cheap shoes that squeezed the front half of the
metatarsal
bone leading to the big toe. Only helped a small bit. This (rather
than
the currently inconsequential flat-footedness) is the primary reason
why
I'm in a hurry to find decent replacements shoes. Admittedly,
flat-footedness could be amplifying the impingement on the metarsal
bone.

My primary whole-body-weight-bearing exercise is kickboxing and
karate.
Often, though not regularly, I also like to walk half-hour to an hour,
once
or twice a day, on good pavement and wintery ground (could be gnarled
ice/snow). On occassion, I jog for upto half-hour.

My primary source of info, besides a sport-medicine doctor,
kinesiologists,
and runners' foot store experts, are:

http://tinyurl.com/6je8m
http://adam.about.com/reports/000061_4.htm

According to these, my shoe should be motion-controlled and
straight-last
to prevent overpronation. That means the shoe should not twist easily
along the front-back axis, and should not bend inward at the front.
(Personally, I find that presses the big toe). Rightly or wrongly, I
have
relegated this to a secondary consideration, since my right knee
hasn't
been a problem in recent years. More importantly, I am trying to
balance
the need for support in walking versus the diverse needs of martial
arts,
which I spend much more time on.

* Too much webbing for ventilation means that the outer shell is not
rugged enough for constant impact against a bag

* Depending on the art form, the back foot may be flat on the ground
(foot
bent up at the ankle so that the toe is slanted upward toward knee,
possibly leaning toward the outside of the knee).

* Potentially lots of bouncing on toes.

* Front kicks have the toes pulled back, implying a need for toe flex,
as
in a runner's shoe. However, I'm not sure if the lateral
inflexibility
of a running shoe would be to constraing.

* For kickboxing style of interest, back foot has a raised heel, again
implying a need for toe flex

* Cat stance also needs similar foot positioning as front kick.

* Side kick requires bending at the ankle so that the blade (outer
edge)
of the foot faces out sideways, toes still point forward. Hooks
kicks
can also be done this way.

* Front splits require same bending at ankles as side kick.

* Back kick requires the front of foot bent toward the shin so that
heel
protrudes out. Round house may also require this, but with toes
pulled
up.

* Roundhouse with instep requires toes pointing away from the shin.
Hook kicks can also be done this way to strike with ball of foot.

I think a good summary is that the shoe should allow good range of
positions of the ankle. I'm tempted to conclude that this falls under
the
needs addressed by cross trainers. However, I haven't been able to
find a
good explanation of exactly what cross trainers are, in terms of
specific
support. Vague descriptions such as allowing side-to-side movement,
lateral support (which I think better describes restricted movement of
motion controlled runners).

Thanks for any suggestions as a shoe type that meet these
requirements. If
it also meets the requirements of walking and/or flat-footedness, so
much
the better (running is also a consideration, but not very much). If
you
can clarify the specific attributes that define a cross trainer, that
would
be appreciated too.

Aching Foot

P.S.
When I use to have right-knee problems, I tried custom insoles made
from
box-foam impressions, but they didn't help hardly at all. If the
knees
ever become a problem again, I will try plaster- cast-based insoles.
They
are suppose to be better because they don't flatten out the feet while
they are
being made.

Allstars.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

If it's a single shoe you need.........always go with the left one.

You can alleviate the pressure near the front of your foot by
loosening the laces there. You can prevent this loseness from
affecting the top of the shoe by unlacing the laces to the
point below which the laces should be loose, tying an
simple overhand knot, then relacing it up to the top.

HTH

P.S. There are adhesive cushion pads that you can stick on
the inside of the tongue, covering the upper portion of the tongue.
This liftes the tongue away from the foot, leaving a small gap at
the bottom of the tongue.

Fred

Aching Foot said:

Clarifications & additions below...

Aching Foot said:

I am on a tight budget, so I'm trying to get a single shoe for everyday use
and exercise. One ventilated shoe for summer, another enclosed shoe for
winter. I have a very flat-footed right foot, but in recent years, it
hasn't bothered me (years ago, it bugged my knee alot). I wear
off-the-shelf insoles for arch support (Superfeet), with a metatarsal pad
(MTP) on the right foot. The MTP was an experimental attempt to solve foot
pain caused by cheap shoes that squeezed the front half of the metatarsal
bone leading to the big toe. Only helped a small bit. This (rather than
the currently inconsequential flat-footedness) is the primary reason why
I'm in a hurry to find decent replacements shoes. Admittedly,
flat-footedness could be amplifying the impingement on the metarsal bone.

My primary whole-body-weight-bearing exercise is kickboxing and karate.
Often, though not regularly, I also like to walk half-hour to an hour, once
or twice a day, on good pavement and wintery ground (could be gnarled
ice/snow). On occassion, I jog for upto half-hour.

My primary source of info, besides a sport-medicine doctor, kinesiologists,
and runners' foot store experts, are:

http://tinyurl.com/6je8m
http://adam.about.com/reports/000061_4.htm

According to these, my shoe should be motion-controlled and straight-last
to prevent overpronation. That means the shoe should not twist easily
along the front-back axis, and should not bend inward at the front.
(Personally, I find that presses the big toe). Rightly or wrongly, I have
relegated this to a secondary consideration, since my right knee hasn't
been a problem in recent years. More importantly, I am trying to balance
the need for support in walking versus the diverse needs of martial arts,
which I spend much more time on.

* Too much webbing for ventilation means that the outer shell is not
rugged enough for constant impact against a bag

* Depending on the art form, the back foot may be flat on the ground (foot
bent up at the ankle so that the toe is slanted upward toward knee,
possibly leaning toward the outside of the knee).

* Potentially lots of bouncing on toes.

* Front kicks have the toes pulled back, implying a need for toe flex, as
in a runner's shoe. However, I'm not sure if the lateral inflexibility
of a running shoe would be to constraing.

Front of the foot is away from the shins, toes pulled up -- like walking on
very high heels, I guess. Not to sure if lateral inflexibility of runners would
be to /constraining/ for the other lateral bending, described below.

Quoted message said:

* For kickboxing style of interest, back foot has a raised heel, again
implying a need for toe flex

* Cat stance also needs similar foot positioning as front kick.

* Side kick requires bending at the ankle so that the blade (outer edge)
of the foot faces out sideways, toes still point forward. Hooks kicks
can also be done this way.

* Front splits require same bending at ankles as side kick.

* Back kick requires the front of foot bent toward the shin so that heel
protrudes out. Round house may also require this, but with toes pulled
up.

* Roundhouse with instep requires toes pointing away from the shin.
Hook kicks can also be done this way to strike with ball of foot.

I think a good summary is that the shoe should allow good range of
positions of the ankle. I'm tempted to conclude that this falls under the
needs addressed by cross trainers. However, I haven't been able to find a
good explanation of exactly what cross trainers are, in terms of specific
support. Vague descriptions such as allowing side-to-side movement,
lateral support (which I think better describes restricted movement of
motion controlled runners).

Thanks for any suggestions as a shoe type that meet these requirements. If
it also meets the requirements of walking and/or flat-footedness, so much
the better (running is also a consideration, but not very much). If you
can clarify the specific attributes that define a cross trainer, that would
be appreciated too.

As well, I have read repeatedly that motion-control stability is exactly the
opposite of flexibility /and/ cushioning. I can see why flexibility is traded
off, since that is the opposite of motion-control, by definition. By why is
cushioning compromised by motion control?

Quoted message said:

Aching Foot

P.S.
When I use to have right-knee problems, I tried custom insoles made from
box-foam impressions, but they didn't help hardly at all. If the knees
ever become a problem again, I will try plaster- cast-based insoles. They
are suppose to be better because they don't flatten out the feet while they are
being made.