what r the possible side effects of a runner of 145lbs switching from a lwt stability shoe like ds trainer to brooks ghost? have flat and pronate just a little . the ghost help w/ push off, like newtons but not as extreme.
With what you describe, probably nothing at all. If you truly overpronate (or more precisely rate of pronation), esp on longer runs, may increase your change for plantar fasciitis or ITB syndrome. You might notice some initial mild blistering just distal on your medial arch at first as well.
thanks, I have been noticing tighter calves than normal. I have flat feet so I am a little prone to it.but wasnt sure if it was related or it was the difference to ones gait from the Ghost’s technology
I have no idea about the ‘ghost’, but can say that a runner like you should probably never have used stability shoes…but then again I don’t think many runners of any type should use them. They’re only good for lasting longer before they’re visibly needing to be retired. They do nothing beneficial for the runner and actually hurt many people.
The ‘ghost’ likely has less of a drop from heel to toe which is probably the reason your calves feel tighter.
This entire subject confuses the crap out of me, even after reading the article on the main page. Maybe I’ll end up starting a new thread, once I get a good enough grip on it to post a coherent question.
This entire subject confuses the crap out of me, even after reading the article on the main page. Maybe I’ll end up starting a new thread, once I get a good enough grip on it to post a coherent question.
I haven’t even read that article…I probably should.
Yeah, I was kinda surprised to find out that when you click on that big blue onion at the top left of the screen, you get a link to all sorts of articles and stuff.
Curious about your comment about stability shoes. I’m trying to figure out the best running shoe for training use.
I have a high arch and I overpronate quite a bit based on video gait analysis. Currently I have posterior tibial tendonitis in both ankles and I’m seeing a foot doc(only one visit so far, follow up MRI etc is coming soon). I’m 6-2 and weigh 180lbs. Running mileage was around 30 mpw but is now much lower, about 10 mpw. Doc said to quit for a while but I seem to be stupid/stubborn. Planning on stopping altogether in March after two small races in February and just swimming/biking for at least 6 weeks.
Seems like I don’t fit well in to any shoe category, motion control/stability shoes are made for lower arches. Cushion shoes are made for high arches but don’t control pronation.
Curious about your comment about stability shoes. I’m trying to figure out the best running shoe for training use.
I have a high arch and I overpronate quite a bit based on video gait analysis. Currently I have posterior tibial tendonitis in both ankles and I’m seeing a foot doc(only one visit so far, follow up MRI etc is coming soon). I’m 6-2 and weigh 180lbs. Running mileage was around 30 mpw but is now much lower, about 10 mpw. Doc said to quit for a while but I seem to be stupid/stubborn. Planning on stopping altogether in March after two small races in February and just swimming/biking for at least 6 weeks.
Seems like I don’t fit well in to any shoe category, motion control/stability shoes are made for lower arches. Cushion shoes are made for high arches but don’t control pronation.
What I said shouldn’t be construed to apply to special case situations, which yours may be. Pronation can cause/contribute to your tendonitis, so in your case controlling pronation may actually be called for. The problem with motion control shoes in general is that pronation is a mechanism by which our bodies attenuate the shock of impact and by stopping that these shoes can increase the stress our lower bodies encounter when running. To make matters worse, one of the ways in which pronation is controlled is by reducing the elasticity of the midsole material, so these shoes are built with yet less impact absorption.
These stability shoes can increase the tendency for a runner to experience shin splints and various knee and hip injuries…but not your particular injury. In your case they might help…However, I think the best way to treat/prevent your condition (short of stopping running) would be a soft wedge inside a shoe…not necessarily a stability shoe, but that would work too.
By rotating the foot outward in the supine direction it should alleviate a lot of the stress on your tendon.
I wouldn’t confuse a stability shoe with a straight last shoe. When a shoe has a straight last, it becomes appropriate for people with low arches (as well as those without). I have low arches and even curved last shoes are fine. Even though there may not be midsole material under my arch, the area is supported and gussetted by the upper material that is cinched up via the laces. I have no idea what the shoe market is like these days, but a couple of decades ago when I was a shoe expert, the New Balance shoes were a great example of straight last shoes.
The stability shoes are built with rigid plate in the bottom of the shoe to avoid torsion of the mid-sole (hence most of the loss of cushioning). These could be built on a straight or curved last and therefore don’t necessarily offer any more arch support than a non-stability shoe…however I think most shoes supply plenty of arch support. I’m not sure that people with low arches need arch support, it might actually be the opposite.
Whenever I’ve tried shoes with arch support I got uncontrollable blisters on my arches. The arch is another piece of the shock-absorption puzzle and it’s not necessarily good to short circuit this part of your anatomy either (by placing something solid under it).
All in all, I think the one primary goal in injury prevention (at least as far as the shoes are concerned) is shock absorption, not changing someone’s mechanics. I would suggest to a heavy runner and/or a pronating runner to just buy well-cushioned neutral shoes and replace them when their gait prematurely wears out their shoes.
and to the minimalist/Prose advocates I’ll throw out this caveat: Running gait is more important in injury prevention than shoes.
I bounce between the two with no problems at all–DS Trainer and Speedstar, in my case. Don’t really even notice the difference. OTOH, I am very high arched, so my foot is a bit different.
Have you tried a stability shoe with a higher arched insert or orthotic?
I have higher arches but pronate just a bit. If I run under 50-60 mpw I can use almost any light stability or neutral show with no problems. But above that mileage, even my slight pronation will cause problems in a neutral shoe. But since I have higher arches the stability shoes tend not to fit me great. I use higher arched inserts and actually am in the process of getting some custom orthotics. These will be for high mileage training phases to help stave off injuries. According to my chiro, the pronation can lead to: runner’s knee (which I suffer from at times), achilles tendonitis, shin splints or stress fractures, ankles problems, and ITB issues.
Maybe rroof can chime in on this for a second opinion.
stability shoes are about the only shoes i can run in. i’ve been a competitive runner for 40 years and have had to take years off at a time in my early 20s due to problems that could not be cured prior to the advent of stability shoes and decent orthotics. perhaps i’m one of your special cases, but most people will tell you i’m not that special 
stability shoes are about the only shoes i can run in. i’ve been a competitive runner for 40 years and have had to take years off at a time in my early 20s due to problems that could not be cured prior to the advent of stability shoes and decent orthotics. perhaps i’m one of your special cases, but most people will tell you i’m not that special
I appreciate your counterpoint. In your 20s granted they didn’t have motion control shoes or orthotics, but did they even have decent shock absorption? My premise is that for most people shock absorption is the key factor. In recent years have you tried a well-cushioned neutral trainer? If so, what was your experience with that shoe?
Do you (or did you…in your 20s) have a particular type of injury or did it run the gammut?
“In recent years have you tried a well-cushioned neutral trainer?”
yes, i have tried well cushioned shoes. they don’t work for me, because my orthotic immediately breaks down a shoe like that. but you seem to be using motion control and stability more or less interchangeably, and i do not look at it that way. i cannot wear a classic motion control shoe. i can’t wear a straight-lasted battleship, i need medial posting and structure, but otherwise a lighter and more flexible shoe that can give me decent performance.
so, i couldn’t run in a brooks beast, but i’m a great candidate for brooks’ adrenaline (that’s been my favorite trainer for years). but i probably couldn’t run in a brooks infiniti (their “guidance” shoe) because i doubt it would support my orthotic (tho i haven’t tried it). and certainly i could not run in a brooks ghost, which is that sort of cushioned neutral shoe you reference.
You’re right. I tend to use those terms interchangeably and should probably differentiate.
Thanks.
Wow - interesting bit of discussion going on here, I like! You are correct in your thoughts about pronation (except the wedge and turning the foot out or abducted - that would make it worse! You meant in I think).
However, without seeing the true scope of pathology that is out there, you can’t assume that many runners would do well in a nice, cushioned neutral shoe (as Slowman has eluded/responded to this). Now, this forum is heavily skewed towards people who probably can though (myself included) and I also tend to prefer this for most runners if tolerated.
Like all things, since shoe technology has come so far, the retailers take it an misapply to many runners based on their “education” from the manufacturers.
Thanks to you and all others for a very thoughtful chunk of info/discussion.
I have recently started using Sole heat moldable inserts in my shoes, the arch support “feels” great but mechanically, I don’t know if it’s the right answer or not. I did get a small blister in the arch during one run so prehaps it’s a bit much. Also, am I just moving the overload from one place to another ie saving the arch/lower ankel but working on another injury in the mean time? No way to tell I suppose so trial and error is my path at this point. My doc is recomending orthotics but in the mean time I’m working with otc footbeds to see if I can help things out a bit.
With the insoles, my arch and lower ankle pain is reduced or nearly eliminated but there is no change in the upper PTT path, still mild discomfort on and off the day after a run. This may be a symptom of the disease or not. My symptoms in general are reduced due to the small volume of running I’m doing and are much better than in December whan all this started. I’m trying to be conservative and systematic about this (thus the plan to stop running by March and start from a clean slate after a couple of months). My frustation comes from the fact that there seems to be a lot of misinformation out there in retail shoe land.
Thanks agin for the insight everyone.
“this forum is heavily skewed towards people who probably can though (myself included) and I also tend to prefer this for most runners if tolerated.”
i don’t know that i agree with your assumption that the forum is skewed toward those who can run in a neutral shoe. first, triathletes are on balance heavier than pure runners, that is, the closer to “elite” you get the more difference there is between runner and triathlete (probably 35 or 40 pounds at the world class level). now, i might be wrong about this – you would know better than i – but i have always intuited that one proximate cause of overpronation is weight, that is, the heavier you are the more weight is causing natural pronation to trend toward overpronation. i think the lighter you are, the more likely you’ll have a good footfall. it’s been my (unscientific) observation that light runners are less likely to be overpronators.
i think sometimes we assume good athletes will be good, or strong, or preferable, or advanced, across all physical metrics. but i don’t know that this is the case. mark allen has a bigger motor than i do. does this mean he’s got more flexibility, and range of motion, than i do? i have seen very little correlation in the course of bike fitting between power and speed on the one hand, and range of motion on the other.
is it true that triathletes are likely to have a better footfall than runners? another way to look at both footfall and range of motion is: does a powerful engine correlate with a strong or straight chassis? i don’t notice this correlation, and i would guess that triathletes are just as likely to need corrective or prophylactic “chassis” work (orthotics, medial posts, etc.) as are those in other athletic categories.
“this forum is heavily skewed towards people who probably can though (myself included) and I also tend to prefer this for most runners if tolerated.”
i don’t know that i agree with your assumption that the forum is skewed toward those who can run in a neutral shoe. first, triathletes are on balance heavier than pure runners, that is, the closer to “elite” you get the more difference there is between runner and triathlete (probably 35 or 40 pounds at the world class level). now, i might be wrong about this – you would know better than i – but i have always intuited that one proximate cause of overpronation is weight, that is, the heavier you are the more weight is causing natural pronation to trend toward overpronation. i think the lighter you are, the more likely you’ll have a good footfall. it’s been my (unscientific) observation that light runners are less likely to be overpronators.
i think sometimes we assume good athletes will be good, or strong, or preferable, or advanced, across all physical metrics. but i don’t know that this is the case. mark allen has a bigger motor than i do. does this mean he’s got more flexibility, and range of motion, than i do? i have seen very little correlation in the course of bike fitting between power and speed on the one hand, and range of motion on the other.
is it true that triathletes are likely to have a better footfall than runners? another way to look at both footfall and range of motion is: does a powerful engine correlate with a strong or straight chassis? i don’t notice this correlation, and i would guess that triathletes are just as likely to need corrective or prophylactic “chassis” work (orthotics, medial posts, etc.) as are those in other athletic categories.
You are correct in most of your assumptions, except that you are “living” in the world of athletes still: comparing runners to triathletes. I’m in the “real world” with triathletes vs. the rest of my patients. HUGE difference
“I’m in the ‘real world’ with triathletes vs. the rest of my patients.”
no doubt. nevertheless, i question whether the majority of our readers can successfully run in neutral running shoes. i’m not saying they can’t. i’m just not comfortable letting that statement lie there uninvestigated. i think it would be a good exercise to put this thesis to the test – and quite helpful to readers.
can i just “poll” it? do we have confidence our readers are, as a group, sufficiently knowledgeable as to what they need? i could ask: do you know in what structural category your chosen shoe falls? or, maybe this:
what is your best everyday shoe:
motion control
stability
neutral
don’t yet know
i wonder how many don’t knows there would be?