stability vs. motion control in running shoes?

Discussion in 'Triathlon' started by Josh Meyer, Mar 21, 2003.

  1. Josh Meyer

    Josh Meyer Guest

    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
     
    Tags:


  2. 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.
     
  3. 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-
     
  4. 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
     
  5. Lee

    Lee Guest

    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.
     
  6. Rob

    Rob Guest

    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-
     
  7. Billx

    Billx Guest

    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-
     
  8. Swanger

    Swanger Guest

    "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-
     
  9. Josh Meyer

    Josh Meyer Guest

    "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
     
  10. 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-
     
  11. 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-
     
  12. 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
     
  13. 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
     
  14. "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?
     
  15. 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
     
  16. 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.
     
  17. 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
     
Loading...
Loading...