stability vs. motion control in running shoes?
Josh Meyer
categories: cushioning, stability, and motion control. Q: what's the
difference between stability and motion control?
Josh
Dave Andersen
A: Go to a good running-specific shoe store in your area
and get them to look at your feet and running and recommend
an appropriate type of shoe. (Sorry, obligatory meta-answer,
but I really do mean it - appropriate shoes can help you avoid
a world of injuries).
AA: Motion control means pronation control, preventing you from
rolling inwards too much, usually by means of a medial post.
The post is a stiff bit on the inside of the shoe that resists
the inward roll of pronation.
Stability means a less flexible midsole, so the shoe won't twist
around as easily.
The two usually go together. Happy shopping.
-Dave
--
work: dga - at - lcs.mit.edu me: angio - at - pobox.com
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science http://www.angio.net/
(note that my reply-to address is vaguely despammed...)
bulk emailers: I do not accept unsolicited email. Do not mail me.
Steve Freides
All of this stuff is not so subtle attempt on the part of the running
shoe companies to have you wear shoes that mask the symptoms and don't
deal with the problem. If you learn to run properly, striking forefoot
first, you'll find that the less shoe, the better, and racing flats will
be your shoe of choice for both training and racing.
Do a web search on Austin Gontang and read his articles on the subject
of running gait, or just post on news:rec.running with a subject of
"Forefoot Strike - Better?" and see what people have to say. I ain't
making this stuff up and changing the way I run has made a huge
difference in how my body responds to running - I'm faster, I'm lighter
on my feet, my lower back no longer bothers me, and I wear nothing but
flats.
-S-
Jason O'Rourke
>All of this stuff is not so subtle attempt on the part of the running
>shoe companies to have you wear shoes that mask the symptoms and don't
>deal with the problem. If you learn to run properly, striking forefoot
>first, you'll find that the less shoe, the better, and racing flats will
>be your shoe of choice for both training and racing.
Most people don't change their running form - their best method tends
to be the one that comes naturally.
Personally, I like running on the waters edge at the ocean, barefoot, but
I'll stick to shoes elsewhere, and racing flats when racing.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
Lee
foot during running--usually seen with the "flat foot" type). Motion
control shoes accomplish the same thing but are recommended for
heavier runners. I disagree with Steve (sorry, Bro) about changing
your running style to prevent foot injuries. Our bodies find the most
efficient way for us to move forward--something that we have little
control over. If we try to change the way our body has adapted it may
result in abnormal stresses on different parts of our feet, knees,
hips and low back and result in injury. Regardless of your belief,
the choice of stability vs motion control depends on your weight and
foot type.
Rob
Is there somewhere you can link me to that possibly has videos of the
differences in gait? I'd like to see what people are talking about.
Thanks.
Steve Freides <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote in message news:<3E767985...@fridayscomputer.com>...
Swanger
"Rob" <circu...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:468189a9.03031...@posting.google.com...
> I have heard a lot about running gait style and forefoot strike, etc.
> Is there somewhere you can link me to that possibly has videos of the
> differences in gait? I'd like to see what people are talking about
Hey Rob, I don't have any video links. However, I can say that as a
long time ex-sprinter, my running stride is completely different than it was
years back. There is no air time or springy gait. I don't think that
runners will necessarily always find the best way to run unless they really
don't care if they have "pretty" form. I was helped by watching the
shufflers moving along at a quicker pace. I tried it and found that a lot
less foot strike was actually good and a lot more efficient.
Rick (killing goats) Swanger
Josh Meyer
"Lee" <cour...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:638c9877.03031...@posting.google.com...
> Regardless of your belief,
> the choice of stability vs motion control depends on your weight and
> foot type.
FWIW, i'm 170 lbs. and 5'9". currently i'm probably 10 pounds over what
people would consider trim. i blame girl scout cookies.
Josh
BillX
is paying for your footware. Flats are generally more expensive than
padded shoes and wear out faster. On top of that they offer little
cushion/support which becomes more important as the body ages. At 20 I
could run in Red Ball Kents (worse than flats) but now approaching 50 need
shoes with padding. I agree there's alot of marketing hype out there
regarding shoes but disagree that the "average" runner would do better in
flats.
Steve Freides wrote in message <3E767985...@fridayscomputer.com>...
Steve Freides
>
> Stability shoes help control excess pronation (rolling inward of the
> foot during running--usually seen with the "flat foot" type). Motion
> control shoes accomplish the same thing but are recommended for
> heavier runners. I disagree with Steve (sorry, Bro) about changing
> your running style to prevent foot injuries. Our bodies find the most
> efficient way for us to move forward--something that we have little
> control over.
Sorry, bro, but that's rubbish, plain and simple. What's "natural" is
what you would do if you spent your life barefoot, which most of us do
not. Therefore what we do without thinking is based on our experiences
in shoes which alter the way we walk. Our bodies do indeed find the
most efficient way for us to move forward given the footwear we use.
Change the footwear and you can get used to walking and running in a
truly "natural" way again.
> If we try to change the way our body has adapted it may
> result in abnormal stresses on different parts of our feet, knees,
> hips and low back and result in injury. Regardless of your belief,
> the choice of stability vs motion control depends on your weight and
> foot type.
Again, forgive my bluntness but this is all rubbish. No goal worth
achieving comes easily and learning to run properly takes a whole of
concentration and practice - I'm not saying it doesn't. But learning to
swim is the same. For some reason, everyone acknowledges that one must
learn how to swim properly but thinks that one should just be able to
put sneakers on and run well. It doesn't work that way for most
people. What you are calling "abnormal stresses" will indeed highlight
muscles and connective tissue that have been mislead by overly cushioned
shoes into thinking they don't need to do their jobs any longer but,
with perseverance, this can be overcome. I did it. I was a very heavy
heel striker and I changed.
-S-
Steve Freides
>
> Training and racing exclusively in flats??? Not likely unless someone else
> is paying for your footware. Flats are generally more expensive than
> padded shoes and wear out faster.
Well this one is just complete nonsense. Go into the running shoe store
and price your normal padded training shoe, which is in the $75 or more
range for most people, then price a racing flat. Flats are little shoe,
less material, less "sophisticated" and they cost less. $40 is more
like it, or about half what training shoes cost. Make no mistake about
it - flats are less expensive because they contain less material and
also because they change less from year to year since they don't rely on
all the fancy updates in cushioning technology.
> On top of that they offer little
> cushion/support which becomes more important as the body ages. At 20 I
> could run in Red Ball Kents (worse than flats) but now approaching 50 need
> shoes with padding.
Horse Hockey! I'm 48 years old, I'm not even a small framed person, and
I do just fine in racing flats.
> I agree there's alot of marketing hype out there
> regarding shoes but disagree that the "average" runner would do better in
> flats.
You have simply bought into what they wanted you to think. It ain't
true, it doesn't have to be that way, but you're welcomed to accept what
they tell you if it makes you feel better.
-S-
Jason O'Rourke
>Well this one is just complete nonsense. Go into the running shoe store
>and price your normal padded training shoe, which is in the $75 or more
>range for most people, then price a racing flat. Flats are little shoe,
>less material, less "sophisticated" and they cost less. $40 is more
>like it, or about half what training shoes cost. Make no mistake about
Not the flats I see. Each are 79.
Jason O'Rourke
>Again, forgive my bluntness but this is all rubbish. No goal worth
>achieving comes easily and learning to run properly takes a whole of
>concentration and practice - I'm not saying it doesn't. But learning to
>swim is the same. For some reason, everyone acknowledges that one must
>learn how to swim properly but thinks that one should just be able to
>put sneakers on and run well. It doesn't work that way for most
humans evolved around walking and running upright.
We did not evolve around the australian crawl.
Steve Freides
We must be looking at different stores. I've seen flats for much less
than I pay for them, never more unless it's some sort of high-zoot Nike
thing.
Let's also not forget - and this may be the cause of the disagreement
here - that over the last few years many of the running shoe companies
have taken to calling their lightweight trainers "flats" and they just
ain't flats. The New Balance RC330/340 is a good example. They call it
a racing flat - it just ain't. It's lighter than some of their other
trainers but it's your normal, high-heeled running shoe for people who
don't know how to run. The RC230/240, on the other hand, is a bona
fided, low-heeled, little cushioned racing flat that sells for less than
$50, maybe less than $40. You can see both these shoes, and both listed
as racing flats, at this URL:
http://dickpondathletics.com/shop.asp?CategoryID=5&SubCategoryID=46
Ain't Google a wonderful thing? <smile>
Note that the 340 sells there for $68 while the 240 is $43. Lest there
be any doubt, I have seen both these shoe models in person. I run in
the 240. I ordered, and sent back as soon as I received them, a pair of
340's and have a friend who still has a pair.
-S-
--
http://www.kbnj.com
James Hawkins
> with perseverance, this can be overcome. I did it. I was a very heavy
> heel striker and I changed.
Q: Do you train in flats as well?
Q: What issues did you encounter during the switchover? I'm more of a
neutral striker than a heel striker but I am now trying to move my strike
further forward. My usual run is about 10-15 miles, and I find a) I can't
persist the change for that distance yet, and b) muscles that never got
stiff before do now. I expected both of these but what do you feel "with
perserverence" constitutes?
Stewart Fleming
Steve Freides wrote:
> Note that the 340 sells there for $68 while the 240 is $43. Lest there
> be any doubt, I have seen both these shoe models in person. I run in
> the 240. I ordered, and sent back as soon as I received them, a pair of
> 340's and have a friend who still has a pair.
I got a pair of 230s from the New Balance store in Seattle last year when I was
visiting. I'm very happy with them. They are lighter and the low heel is
perfect for fast footstrike. Fine-tuning with heel wedges, the speed
difference is about 5-10sec/km for me over standard running shoes (I used to
run in NB 764s).
STF
Steve Freides
>
> "Steve Freides" <st...@fridayscomputer.com> wrote in message
> news:3E791EB4...@fridayscomputer.com...
>
> > with perseverance, this can be overcome. I did it. I was a very heavy
> > heel striker and I changed.
>
> Q: Do you train in flats as well?
Yes. I was a 25 mile a week or so runner. I'm running less now - had a
bout of pneumonia over the winter and am also doing lots of other things
- swim, bike, tae kwan do, kettlebells - so the running is on the back
burner, but I trained for a marathon once and did my long runs, upwards
of about 18 miles, in flats as well.
> Q: What issues did you encounter during the switchover? I'm more of a
> neutral striker than a heel striker but I am now trying to move my strike
> further forward. My usual run is about 10-15 miles, and I find a) I can't
> persist the change for that distance yet, and b) muscles that never got
> stiff before do now. I expected both of these but what do you feel "with
> perserverence" constitutes?
I find that keeping my focus on where my center of gravity is in
relationship to my feet works best for me. If I strive to keep my feet
beneath me when they strike, and strive to have my feet on the ground
for only an instant, my footstrike usually takes care of itself. Once
in a while I think about the mechanics of how it lands but, truth be
told, the switch from forefoot to heel and back to the forefoot push-off
again happens very quickly. After all, my cadence is about 180. That's
another thing I focus on, keeping that cadence. Slower makes it harder
to keep a nice, light, forefoot strike.
When I was making the transition I first only did races and my speedwork
days in flats. Doing speedwork in flats was a good way to transition to
them. Then I would take them out for only the shortest recover runs in
addition to speed work. And so it went, gradually using them more and
more.
Problems? Yes, I had problems. When I wasn't forefoot or
midfoot/neutral striking, my lower back would bother me because of the
lack of cushioning. For better or for worse, I have a bad back and thus
was and am very sensitive to this sort of thing, so it wouldn't take me
long to fix my gait if it had gone astray.
I should also add that I made the transition from my then-usual trainer
to a lightweight trainer first, and after I'd gotten used to that to a
flat. I used the NB 828 as my lightweight trainer. The RC340 would
probably have worked as well or better.