I don’t know the origin of the practice or the initial rationale (haven’t researched the topic enough), but the paper I linked does suggest reduction of forefoot pressure in a rockered shoe. I don’t know if my wife benefited from the cushion or the rocker of the Hoka (or both), but she was in pain on every run and first run in the Hokas was pain free.

I tend to think of metatarsalgia as more general term meaning pain in the metatarsal area of the foot, whereas a neuroma is a specific problem with nervous tissue that may or may not be located in the foot.

I have had so-called “metatarsalgia” for two years and was forced to stop running for five months this summer. I could barely walk across the parking lot to work. As you might imagine I am very interested in this subject of toe-spring and forefoot rockers. I can find essentially no rational basis for these things, except for pretty marketing pictures like the one in the review. What evidence is there that preventing the toes from touching the ground during midstance via a permanent toe extension device, and trying to remove the long flexors from any involvement in running is a good idea or improves running performance? Seriously, I am really interested to know where in the world this came from and why manufactures keep pushing it (often with a much more extreme toe spring than these shoes appear to have).

Just curious – if your wife has a neuroma (another questionable diagnosis!) do you consider that the same thing as “metatarsalgia?”

Couldn’t agree more Rodger. Part of my motivation of leaving that in there was not to promote the idea, but rather to make the claim known to my audience which includes a lot of intelligent and savvy people. Sometimes repeating a ridiculous marketing claim has the desired effect of having people like you who are experts on the topic call it out. That fact that you did so makes me all the more happy that we left it in there. You could tear the claim apart far better than I.

All that being said, there is something of a different feel in a rockered shoe like this. I have not run in this particular Scott shoe but have in an older road model and I would be very interested to know what exactly is going on. There is some evidence that rockered soles reduce plantar pressure under the forefoot (but increase under the heel) and might be useful in treatment of forefoot issues like metatarsalgia – see here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24370440/. I wonder if this might be in part (besides the thick cushion) why my wife found benefit moving to Hokas for her neuroma.

George
I think we’ve probably run in lots of the same shoes over the years. I started in 1974 with a pair of Nike Finland Blues.
Anyhow, I’m a scientist and we measure running economy in my lab, so I get my hackles up when people make claims like Scott Inc. does in that ad.

As I recall there are now 5 papers showing that rear foot is at least if not more efficient that mid foot landing and none showing midfoot more efficient than rearfoot. Midfoot landing might provide other benefits (and risks) but it does not improve efficiency in the lab.

In my opinion, repeating a dubious and unsupported claim tends to promote the idea, even if it is false.

If Scott thinks that their shoes improve running efficiency and wants to advertise it, they should hire a lab/grad student to scientifically test the idea.

The general public (and the Federal Trade Commission) would not find it acceptable if Ford said that their new F150 pickup gets better mileage than a Prius. In my opinion, we should hold shoe manufacturers to the same standard. If Scott etc. just want to say our shoes “feel great” and have “groovy colors”, that’s fine by me.

Rodger, totally agree with you and Pete. The only thing I have felt with either Scott shoe is that eh eride tends to have you land more on your midfoot which is a good thing and does provide some push off. This could make one more efficient in running.

I didn’t write the review Rodger, it was by a guest reviewer, and the line says “Scott claims that…” the shoe does those things, not that the shoe actually does those things (“claims” being the key word there). I think it’s pretty clear that George was just pointing out Scott’s marketing claims about the shoe (hence also why I added the image from their catalog).

Of course it’s typical unsubstantiated shoe company marketing BS. 90% of shoe marketing and technology probably is. I try to keep my own editorializing out of guest reviews.

This blog used to have at least a little scientific skepticism of such unsubstantiated claims.