Stability vs Neutral Shoes (Read 1901 times)

So what do I find out?  I have a normal to somewhat high arch, I over-pronate (somewhat), I am right-foot dominant (more weight distributed to right foot), my toes point outwards when I stride and my right foot is slightly larger than my left (10 vs 9.5) and I have a D width.  Wow!  I had no idea my stride was so screwed up!  

 

Of course, you said you're just joking but these things are not so much to say that your strides are "screwed up" at all.  I'd say 9 out of 10 shoe sales people would tell you first that you pronate.  There are motion pronation and structural pronation.  If latter, you might think about ways to somehow correct it.  This is the case that you know your ankles are rolling inward just by standing up.  If the former, that is, your ankle rolls inward as you run, probably 99% of people do that simply because that is the natural leg action.  You're supposed to pronate slightly.  It is the degree of pronation that matters.  By the way, 7 or 8 out of 10 people have one foot bigger than the other.  That's quite normal as well.  I very much doubt the difference is 0.5 size because, if really so, you must have felt it.  My right foot is probably 0.25 (or maybe 0.23... ;o)) smaller than my left foot.  I usually compensate it by adding a very thin small additional insole in my right shoe to make them feel equal (I'm too sensitive I guess).  Again, 7 or 8 out of 10 people point their toes outward when they run.  Most of us push hardest with the big toe.  Natural position is the line from the center of heel and the center of big toe point the direction you're running to.  So that naturally places your foot slightly pointing outward.  Sometimes, not always, people who lands mid-foot, outside the ball of your foot, tend to point outward even more and they probably pronate more because, as they touch down on the outside the ball of their foot (man, can I breathe!?), with the forward momentum and torque created; pushes the heel forward further and roll your foot forward and inward.  If you have strong arch, it should hold it however.

 

Past 3 decades of shoe manufacturing history has focused mainly on protection.  You get landing shock--protect it.  Your foot rolls--stabilize it.  Your arch sinks down--keep it up and stabilize it.  Probably less than 10% of research had been spent on how to maximize the function of feet correctly; or how to enhanse the natural movement more without losing the effectiveness of that particular movement...  It has always been restriction rather than enhancement--until, oh, perhaps last 5 years or so ago.  If you ever looked into the history of sprinting spike shoes, it's quite interesting because these are the very things they HAVE TO look into.  In sprinting, your feet go through the extreme; yet, they'd have to be able to function to the fullest in order to produce speed.  In other words, you can't focus on "restriction" and come up with effective sprinting spike shoes.  They'll have to MAXIMIZE foot movements.  You can't run fast, wearing ski boots; even some hiking boots.  If you try, you'll hurt the bottom of your feet (THAT, by the way, is Plantar Fasciitic, folks).  You let your little baby run around barefoot, they'll develop good strong arch--because you're allowing your foot to strengthen and develop.  You put some inflexible bulky shoes (by the way, this is something I had always felt ever since our daughter is born...18 years ago!  Material they use to make most baby shoes are way too hard for baby's feet to function properly.  I don't know if there is such research done about # of people with flat foot but I will bet we have a heck of a lot more today than, say, 60s and 70s) and the arch won't develop as much.  So you get these weak arches and what do most people do with them?  They protect them even more.  You drive everywhere, your legs get weaker.  You walk everywhere, your legs (and heart) become stronger.  Same thing with your feet.

 

To "prescribe" stability shoes for someone who (most likely only moderately) pronate is, as far as I'm concerned, tampering the issue.  You need to look into the cause of this pronation (structural, mechanical, or situational) and fix the cause of it--not the superficial "action" alone. 

 

If you've been running in shoes like Nike Free previously with no apparent problems and feel comfortable, my suggestion is to stick with minimalist type shoes and NOT stability type shoes.  I always have at least one pair with somewhat cushiony in case my legs feel tired and beaten up.  But other than that, I'd stick with the kind of shoes that would allow your feet's natural movement and function rather than restricing them.  Very slowly and gradually, shoe manufacturers are shifting their focus on more natural and functional shoes but they still have a long way.  And most likely, shoe stores will be even further back behind.

I'd say listen to your body.  If you're doing just fine in neutral shoes (and the infrequent cushioned neutral-ish stability shoe), stick with them.  If you're feeling a physical limitation that you think you can resolve with a stability shoe, experiment with that.

 

Some jaded folks here.  It's not like there are neutral shoes, ultra-motion-control shoes, and nothing in between.  Even in the "stability" segment, there's still a range.  If there are any stability elements in the shoe, I don't think it rightly can be called "neutral" ... but those stability elements can be very minimal.

 

Non-neutral running shoes aren't the devil or the badge of unscrupulous LRS salespeople.  Shoes are nothing more than tools that assist you in running to your fullest.  Pick the right tool for the job.

 

HotSoup:

 

All due respect, you are going backwards.  Your profile says you're a student.  Trust me; I've been there and, when I was younger, I listen to the shoe manufactures' advitise and reasonings and tried to get the top-of-the-line shoes which in the end lead me to PF and Achilles problem that lasted me over 5 years.  Now I've shifted back to minimalist shoes and my Achilles problem is gone. 

 

 

Running more won't injur you.  Upping your mileage too quickly might; too many fast miles might.  But most problems will come from equipping yourself with wrong equipment.  Even running on hard surface won't injur you if you're landing properly.  By wearing "foam brick" underneath your feet, you have no idea how much shock you're getting and, therefore, you won't develop feather-light running form that itself takes away landing shock; consequently, you develop brick-hard landing form that would eventually injur you. 

 No one has ever consistantly trained on a competitive program and never gotten injured.  Its a fact of life.  You can't run on the hard surfaces industrial society gives us forever, the joints or connective tissue will go out eventually, and thats not including the normal aches and pains that go along with training. 

 

Most of my coaches and running mentors have been shoe people.  One owns his own store.  So maybe I'm biased.  But I do see the whole minimalism movement past wearing some flimsy low-to-no stability shoes, like the Free's, for a run or two a week to build strength and form, as anything really substantiated by hard fact.  There is decades of science and experimental work in each major running shoe for the major companies.  The pegasus has had years of refining.  To take a piece of rubber like the Five Fingers, basically a glorified flip flop, and throw out those decades of research just seems silly.  We are faster now than before Nike and the coming of the modern running shoe, so throwing it out without good reason is cracy.  Sure, there is a greater understanding of the science of training now, but you cannot ignore the shoes. 

 

And its not like the Shoe guys mind the Five Fingers.  Shoe store owners enjoy selling them, not that a one believes in the ideology behind them in the slightest.  If they can hand you a rubber pad and collect $120 or so, that is far better than the research that goes into a shoe these days.  Its not some corperate conspiracy, no one is going to run the mileage needed for competitive training barefoot so the shoe industry will always exist;  no need to shun minimalism on their part. 

 

I will admit that minimilism running a few times a week may hold some promise; and I intend to try it as soon as I can get a hold of some Free's to do it in.  I think our overstable and overcushioned shoes could lead to weak muscles and injury as a result, so in that respect its a good idea.  However, the movement past that I think is overreaching.  I'd like to see whose better off after a 20 miler, me in my Pegasi or someone in Five Fingers, Frees, or like. 

 +x on don't fix it if it ain't broken.  However, stability shoes do come in nice colors...

 

 Of course, you said you're just joking but these things are not so much to say that your strides are "screwed up" at all.  I'd say 9 out of 10 shoe sales people would tell you first that you pronate.  There are motion pronation and structural pronation.  If latter, you might think about ways to somehow correct it.  This is the case that you know your ankles are rolling inward just by standing up.  If the former, that is, your ankle rolls inward as you run, probably 99% of people do that simply because that is the natural leg action.  

 

Good points. 

 

I found that I have said structural pronation where my ankles roll in, even when walking.  I need some level of support in my shoes.  Not a big deal on low mileage but it was when my miles increased.  Lower leg strengthening helped a lot and allowed for a lighter shoe than a standard stability model but still with some kind of medial post.  A shoe with insufficient rear foot stability will rapidly lead to tendinitis in my ankle. I'm not sure if any amount of strengthening can completely remove that issue.  I'd have to fundamentally change how I run, which would likely lead to other issues.  I've discovered both to my peril.  In short, find what works for you and stick with it.

 

+1.  And hat's moved down from rotating motion control, moderate stability and light stability.  I think the variety helps.

 

Nobby, if you check back in, what's your view on the variety?  I do this too (differently, but same concept). 

I also tend to rotate the variety of my shoes often. I probably have a shoe in my closet to represent just about every heel-to-toe drop and every ounce weight. I find this helps to significantly mitigate injury. The one caution I want to give, though, is that you have to be careful if you get into the habit of rotating shoes to mitigate injury. Running causes repetitive stress and it's very easy for there to just become too great an amount of repetitive stress, regardless of how well you're addressing it by changing your footwear.

 

I believe variety is VERY important--probably more important than most people think.  But, unfortunately, most people probably don't understand how to go about. 

 

I probably rotate 5 or 6 shoes constantly depends on the surface, leg condition, what workout, etc.  When my calves are tight, for example, I may go thicker heel cushiony shoes OR I may actually go low heel shoes to stretch my calves.  When doing fast runs, I may go thick trainer in earlier season to be more conservative but, as the season goes by and my legs get stronger, naturally, there's a need to get more accustomed to what you might wear in the actual racing. 

 

All in all, however, the shoe would have to fit well.  You can't, and shouldn't, just rotate shoes for the sake of rotating them.  There does exist "wrong" shoe for you and you shouldn't wear them "just because..."

 

Hey Nobby,

I just wanted you to know that I do not use Beasts any more.  I haved been running in Newton Gravitys and now I can't run in Beasts.  My knees are much better.  My last 500 miles have been in Newtons.  What do you think I should do from here?  I had runners knee for about 2 years prior to the Newtons.