Confusion over different types of stabliity shoe/level of support needed

munkee

I'm a mild overpronator according to the excellent AK, and the shoes they recommended to me were Mizuno Wave Inspire/Asics GT 2000/New Balance 1260. I got the Wave Inspires, but badly need a new pair and want to mix it up a bit and rotate a few styles.

Today, I tried Elvery's as I work in town, can't get out to AK for the next few weeks. Their gait analysis had me as needing a light support shoe, so they said any of the above shoes, but they also suggested the NB 870/770 and Brooks Ravenna.

My running form has probably changed a bit in the past 8 months since I got analysis done at AK- lots of strengthening exercises and drills, but I have no way of knowing what's right for me.

How do you all determine the level of support you need in a shoe, and know what's adequate? Do folk on here just experiment with different shoes?

tang1

Stick with what AK told you, shop for runners run by runners. Wouldn't take any advice re runners off an employee in Elverys.

barryoneill50

tang1 wrote: »

Stick with what AK told you, shop for runners run by runners. Wouldn't take any advice re runners off an employee in Elverys.

+1

munkee

I agree, I'm a huge fan of AK, not so much of Elvery's.

But my question is more about what experienced runners do in mixing things up. Say you use a support shoe, but want to try something else, would you just try it out?

tang1

munkee wrote: »

I agree, I'm a huge fan of AK, not so much of Elvery's.

But my question is more about what experienced runners do in mixing things up. Say you use a support shoe, but want to try something else, would you just try it out?

I run in neutral shoes, i have tried loads of different types of neutral shoes from the big and bulky(Nike Pegasus)to the lightest racing flats(Adidas Adios).I wouldn't try a stability shoe as i know it doesn't suit me.

Keep to the type of shoe recommended is my advise but no harm in trying various types of that shoe to see if there to your liking.

menoscemo

munkee wrote: »

I'm a mild overpronator according to the excellent AK, and the shoes they recommended to me were Mizuno Wave Inspire/Asics GT 2000/New Balance 1260. I got the Wave Inspires, but badly need a new pair and want to mix it up a bit and rotate a few styles.

Today, I tried Elvery's as I work in town, can't get out to AK for the next few weeks. Their gait analysis had me as needing a light support shoe, so they said any of the above shoes, but they also suggested the NB 870/770 and Brooks Ravenna.

I don't get your question at all.
Mild overpronators wear light support shoes. Elverys are basically repeating what AK says, there is no conflict here. All the shoes Ak have recommended are the same 'category' as the ones Elverys recommended, just different brands. All of them do the same job...

menoscemo

BTW, this website is good for checking out which shoes fall into which 'category' throughout the brands (switch through brands on left).
http://www.runningwarehouse.com/catpage-MRSNB.html
In the New Balance section above you can see the 870's are in the same section as the 1260s...

munkee

menoscemo wrote: »

I don't get your question at all.
Mild overpronators wear light support shoes. Elverys are basically repeating what AK says, there is no conflict here. All the shoes Ak have recommended are the same 'category' as the ones Elverys recommended, just different brands. All of them do the same job...

Sorry if it's not clear. I was trying to understand the differences between various support shoes. Do some offer less support than others? If so, which ones should you pick? E.g. the 1260s are classed as maximum support, the 870s as moderate support.

That linked site is really useful, thanks.

menoscemo

munkee wrote: »

Sorry if it's not clear. I was trying to understand the differences between various support shoes. Do some offer less support than others? If so, which ones should you pick?

That linked site is really useful, thanks.

I think shoes are generally divided into 'Neutral shoes' for underpronators (suppinators) and neutral runners, 'support shoes' for mild overpronators and 'Motion control' shoes heavy pronators.

All of the shoes you listed above fall into the second category.

munkee

menoscemo wrote: »

I think shoes are generally divided into 'Neutral shoes' for underpronators (suppinators) and neutral runners, 'support shoes' for mild overpronators and 'Motion control' shoes heavy pronators.

All of the shoes you listed above fall into the second category.

Ah ok, so there are just shades of 'support' within each general category. Good to know, means I have a lot more options than I realised. Thanks.

menoscemo

munkee wrote: »

Ah ok, so there are just shades of 'support' within each general category. Good to know, means I have a lot more options than I realised. Thanks.

Pretty much, I guess the level of support might depend on the distance/pace you run. For example for a long run you might need a heavier shoe with a bit more support (for when you get tired and your form goes a bit; you might pronate a bit more) where as for a short run or a race you might look for a lighter shoe with slightly less support.

All the above said, I was 'analysed' as being a slight pronator when i started running but have been surviving for years with neutral light weight shoes. I gues your gait can improve over time...

munkee

menoscemo wrote: »

All the above said, I was 'analysed' as being a slight pronator when i started running but have been surviving for years with neutral light weight shoes. I gues your gait can improve over time...

Judging by the footage I saw today, and to my untrained eye, it looked like I pronate less now than 6 months ago. It seemed much more marked last time. I may just experiment with shoes, and call out to AK for a new analysis.

Murph_D

I wear support shoes myself, but I'm not convinced by the pronation argument at all. This study suggests there may be a lot of hot air in the argument.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/the-myth-of-pronation-and-running-injuries/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

menoscemo

Murph_D wrote: »

I wear support shoes myself, but I'm not convinced by the pronation argument at all. This study suggests there may be a lot of hot air in the argument.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/the-myth-of-pronation-and-running-injuries/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

So are you gonna jump into a pair of light; neutral runners?
FWIW I agree with a lot of the article, You'd think that pronation was some sort of disease or affliction the way people talk about it. Have a look at Haile's gait, he pronates rather markedly but managed to run injury free wearing flats and spikes for years and years. Maybe with less support your ankle/foot just adapts and manages to absorb the impact....

Seanie_H

Murph_D wrote: »

I wear support shoes myself, but I'm not convinced by the pronation argument at all. This study suggests there may be a lot of hot air in the argument.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/the-myth-of-pronation-and-running-injuries/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I'd have been along the same lines of thinking, I get the feeling there's a lot of this generated by marketing execs. Was there such a thing as pronating in the 80s? I doubt it. That said, having gone with support (asics 3000 series) back in 07, I then picked up a pair of neutrals which I liked the look of and suffered some awful knee pain. I'll never change again.

sconhome

Seanie_H wrote: »

Was there such a thing as pronating in the 80s? I doubt it.

Yep there was, pronation is a natural movement.

Just a couple of points which most probably know.

The effects and ill effects of excessive pronation is probably down to the explosion in leisure runners through the 00's and 10's. With more and more people leading sedentary lifestyles for most of their life and then in the mid to late 30's realising that health is important, jumping into a shoe and going running is not as simple as it may seem.

Footwear is developing constantly in reaction to the demands of users, it is less to do with clever marketing (in the most with running brands) creating demand and more to do with reactionary demand.

Weak muscles, poor form, bad posture are the last things people think of when they take up running. By addressing the footwear it enables the 'shortcut' to running that most demand and it is only through learning that people realise the importance of form, glute strength etc and the effects that running can have on the body.

It is true that foot posture can improve with running. Pronation will always be there. You could conceivably become more neutral after a while, losing weight leads to less ground force, the body adapts to the loading, feet get stronger, legs get stronger etc.

Footwear is designed to suit the market, not the other way around - at least in the specialist brands.

To address OP. You have a great range of shoes to choose from with differing degrees of guidance. If you are in the inspire and they work for you there is no reason why the NB870 / Brooks Ravenna / Pure Cadence / Saucoyyn Guide / ASICS SuperJ33 and a host of others shouldn't work for you. You would probably get away with a neutral shoe for shorter or faster runs if you so desired too.

Murph_D

menoscemo wrote: »

So are you gonna jump into a pair of light; neutral runners?

Well I do have a lighter neutral pair, which were recommended after my second gait analysis! I use them mostly for shorter training runs and races up to 10 miles. But I'm more used to the support shoes and generally stick with them for the longer stuff. My latest gait analysis said support shoe again. :roll eyes: All three to date were done in specialist running shops.

sconhome

Murph_D, I'm seeing across a clue of threads a bit of skepticism, which is healthy, but I'd like to ask you something if I may.

At any stage in your analysis did you get to discuss your history of shoes or your experience with the light neutral shoes? Did you have any influence in the recommendations?

The reason I ask is that there are so many choices in footwear as a result of the variances in sports science studies, no one type fits all and it is this that should be the basis of gait analysis, to help find the footwear that is best suited to you rather than a random choice off a shelf or recommendation of some old guy who always ran in Kayanos.

While video or pictures or static tests may throw up one thing or another yr history combined with this should be the bigger picture. I'm not being defensive of the footwear industry or specialist stores, they can look after themselves but it is interesting how so many people doubt the options and misread the motivation of the running shoe business.

There always will be heavily marketed products but the question there is the longevity and purpose of those products eg MBT etc. but the need for neutral, guidance, control will always exist across the whole profile of people who run. Brand and marketing comes after that distinction.

Murph_D

Hi AKW.

When I got my first gait analysis I didn't know anything about pronation but I did like the shoe (Saucony Omni) that I chose from the several support shoes recommended. On the second occasion (about a year later) in a different specialist shop I told the assistant what I was wearing, but after he did the analysis he recommended a neutral shoe. While I bought this shoe I got an injury while wearing if on a long run but of course i don't have any evidence that the shoe was responsible. It's more likely, I think, that the injury was caused by not enough easy running after a couple of hard races. I continued to rotate this shoe with my other pairs, all and still do, although my next purchase after further analysis was a support shoe again, in a third shop (specialist again).

So to answer your question, yes, I've been asked what I was wearing and how I liked them. I haven't had any more running related injuries.

You're right - I am generally sceptical, but I'm not hard to persuade when confronted with the evidence. I probably don't agree with your statement that there is necessarily a need for different kinds of shoe, as everything I've read so far on this topic suggests little or no connection between shoe type and injury and/or performance. (I don't think about this kind of stuff all day long however and haven't read exhaustively on the topic - would be happy to read anything you recommend). I have been to a couple of your shops and I think the staff are very good - helpful, attentive and knowledgeable.

I do like to wear shoes when running so have to make a choice. I like what I'm wearing because they feel comfortable. I guess that's the bottom line for me, sceptic or no!

MLC_biker

One reason to vary the brand of shoe, even if the level of support is the same/similar, is that according to a recent study it may reduce the risk of injury

Sorry can't post link to article in runnersworld

I currently use a range of shoes with varying heel-top drops, and feel (not scientific I know ) that the area around my ankle is stronger/more flexible as a result. Trust AK, they've never put me wrong.

Rantan

OP

IMO - if you are running injury free there is no reason to change what you are doing at all. if you have a recurring injury see a physio..if not keep doing what you are doing

I started running about 8 yrs ago in chunky stability Asics as was recommended...(cant remember where at the time but a high st shop as opposed to specialist) I had ITB issues for a year or two and then over the years I got caught up in the whole minimalist buzz(born to run etc etc)

Now I do all my long runs in Puma fass 500's(relatively light and neutral) and will do DCM in them too - I am now on my 5th or 6th pair - point being they work for me so I stick to them

munkee

I'm definitely going to mix up my style of shoe a little, after I go consult with AK. I read the article about rotating shoes as an injury prevention strategy- it makes sense to me, in the same way as varying the terrain you run on.

I do have a niggling injury that just won't quite go away after nearly 4 months, so I also think it's time to head back to my physio.

run_Forrest_run

I think there's just as much hot air with physios than there is with the whole shoe/pronator thing.

I've gone to so many physios to hear so much conflicting BS over the years. I'm now happily at the point where self education, strengthening with something like Pilates or yoga along with regular stretching and a decent pair of shoes can keep you on the running surfaces for many a year.

Rantan

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

I think there's just as much hot air with physios than there is with the whole shoe/pronator thing.

I've gone to so many physios to hear so much conflicting BS over the years. I'm now happily at the point where self education, strengthening with something like Pilates or yoga along with regular stretching and a decent pair of shoes can keep you on the running surfaces for many a year.

agree..but in my early years running I didn't know how to differentiate basic overuse/strain pain as opposed to an injury.

But I still needed a few physio session to diagnose the tight ITB and other basic stuff and to offer solutions so I now recognise the symptoms of most aches and pain and can resolve with stretches, strengthening or foam rolling.
Totally agree with pilates and yoga - great compliment to running

munkee

I'm on the fence about physios.

I went to my physio yesterday- she recommended a series of excercises that I already know and some rest.

I don't understand why there always seems to be a requirement for several follow up visits.

Rantan

munkee wrote: »

I'm on the fence about physios.

I went to my physio yesterday- she recommended a series of excercises that I already know and some rest.

I don't understand why there always seems to be a requirement for several follow up visits.

They're just doing their job I suppose.....if someone takes the time and expense to present to a physio - the physio can only expect that there is some form of problem - or else you wouldn't have gone in the first place!
After that they are just making sure that the problem is fixed and that there is nothing more serious behind the issue

munkee

That's true.

I guess my real problem with this physio, is that they tend to discourage me from activity.

The other day they were saying I should only ever run short distances, and should forget about any aspirations for a marathon.

In the past, when I mainly cycled, they tried to talk me out of doing a 200k cycle, saying I'd get seriously injured and wouldn't complete the event. In the end, I trusted my judgement, listened to my body, took it easy, and finished in comfort and went on to do many more long rides over the years.

Yesterday I tried to press them on why I should not run long distance, and couldn't really get a clear answer.

So on more than one occasion, I have left their office, feeling deflated and wanting to give up.

After yesterday I decided enough is enough, I'll seek out a different physio. And I still hope to do a marathon at some point.

Drifting back on topic, next step is to drop out to AK to try some different varieties of shoe.

Rantan

munkee wrote: »

That's true.

I guess my real problem with this physio, is that they tend to discourage me from activity.

The other day they were saying I should only ever run short distances, and should forget about any aspirations for a marathon.

In the past, when I mainly cycled, they tried to talk me out of doing a 200k cycle, saying I'd get seriously injured and wouldn't complete the event. In the end, I trusted my judgement, listened to my body, took it easy, and finished in comfort and went on to do many more long rides over the years.

Yesterday I tried to press them on why I should not run long distance, and couldn't really get a clear answer.
So on more than one occasion, I have left their office, feeling deflated and wanting to give up.

After yesterday I decided enough is enough, I'll seek out a different physio. And I still hope to do a marathon at some point.

Drifting back on topic, next step is to drop out to AK to try some different varieties of shoe.

bad form by that physio...sounds like a poor one too tbh..

munkee

Rantan wrote: »

bad form by that physio...sounds like a poor one too tbh..

They get some good recommendations, including here. I think as a pure physio, they're quite good, but the de-motivational aspect is a big turn off.

xElDeeX

munkee wrote: »

That's true.

I guess my real problem with this physio, is that they tend to discourage me from activity.

The other day they were saying I should only ever run short distances, and should forget about any aspirations for a marathon.

In the past, when I mainly cycled, they tried to talk me out of doing a 200k cycle, saying I'd get seriously injured and wouldn't complete the event. In the end, I trusted my judgement, listened to my body, took it easy, and finished in comfort and went on to do many more long rides over the years.

Yesterday I tried to press them on why I should not run long distance, and couldn't really get a clear answer.

So on more than one occasion, I have left their office, feeling deflated and wanting to give up.

After yesterday I decided enough is enough, I'll seek out a different physio. And I still hope to do a marathon at some point.

Drifting back on topic, next step is to drop out to AK to try some different varieties of shoe.

I've experienced this before. Was told by a physio I shouldn't run anything over a 5k. I was only having coffee with her not there with an injury! As I work in healthcare I don't take a lot of notice of what other healthcare professionals say unless it's their specific area of expertise. Make sure to see a physio that only does sports if you can. Less likely to give ridiculous advice.

Getting ready for my second marathon now

munkee

xElDeeX wrote: »

Make sure to see a physio that only does sports if you can. Less likely to give ridiculous advice.

Bizarrely she is a former runner and has a history of treating sports persons. I'm going to see if the folks at AKW have any recommendations.