stability vs. motion control in running shoes?

I'm looking for some new running shoes. I see shoes grouped in 3 categories: cushioning, stability,
and motion control. Q: what's the difference between stability and motion control?

Josh

 

Josh Meyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm looking for some new running shoes. I see shoes grouped in 3 categories: cushioning,
> stability, and motion control. Q: what's the difference between stability and motion control?

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.

 

Josh Meyer wrote:
>
> I'm looking for some new running shoes. I see shoes grouped in 3 categories: cushioning,
> stability, and motion control. Q: what's the difference between stability and motion control?

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-

 

Steve Freides <[email protected]> wrote:
>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

 

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. 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.

 

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.

Thanks.

Steve Freides <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Josh Meyer wrote:
> >
> > I'm looking for some new running shoes. I see shoes grouped in 3 categories: cushioning,
> > stability, and motion control. Q: what's the difference between stability and motion control?
>
> 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-

 

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. 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 <[email protected]>...
>Josh Meyer wrote:
>>
>> I'm looking for some new running shoes. I see shoes grouped in 3 categories: cushioning,
>> stability, and motion control. Q: what's the difference between stability and motion control?
>
>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-

 

"Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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

>
> Thanks.
>
> Steve Freides <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Josh Meyer wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm looking for some new running shoes. I see shoes grouped in 3 categories: cushioning,
> > > stability, and motion control. Q: what's the difference between stability and motion control?
> >
> > 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-

 

"Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> 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

 

Lee wrote:
>
> 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-

 

BillX wrote:
>
> 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-

> Steve Freides wrote in message <[email protected]>...
> >Josh Meyer wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm looking for some new running shoes. I see shoes grouped in 3 categories: cushioning,
> >> stability, and motion control. Q: what's the difference between stability and motion control?
> >
> >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-

 

Steve Freides <[email protected]> wrote:
>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 www.jor.com

 

Steve Freides <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

 

"Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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?

R: 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?

 

Jason O'Rourke wrote:
>
> Steve Freides <[email protected]> wrote:
> >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.

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 wrote:
>
> "Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > 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.

 

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