slow-twitch
Member
I started running 3 years ago in a random shoe that i thought looked cool (Mizuno Wave Inspire) without any research. After many injuries, I eventually went to Road Runner sports to have my stride analyzed, where they decided I needed a stability shoe (Saucony hurricane iso). I also fell for the molded in$ole$, which honestly felt better, but who knows.
Since then I've been injury free, going through multiple pairs of stability Sauconys, but for all I know, most of my previous injuries were from being new to running and possibly from picking a random shoe. Well I'm due for new shoes and my inserts are worn out. I kind of want to give a lighter, neutral shoe a try, without their expensive molded insoles.
Is this a bad idea? Is there any merit to using a stability shoe? Are inserts a sham?
TLDR: wondering if the stability thing is BS and I should run in a neutral shoe.
I say go with a lighter shoe, you'll run faster. If you have some trouble with it, start with only using lighter shoes for fast workouts, run your base mileage in your regular bulky trainers.
Yes, the stability thing is complete bullshit.
You are right, people injures themselves early on because they're new to running (bones and tendons adaptations are slow). Then they read about the under/over pronation thing and think they have a problem and the problem can be corrected using special soles or shoes. Shoes company jumped on that more than a decade ago but it's complete BS.
All studies show minor variations in lower extremity alignment are not a risk factor for injury. [1][2]
Yes, some people have a very bad gait and that's bad. Most people don't though. And your body can get used to pretty much any gait. Unless you are already maxed on your running genetic potential and you need to have 100% perfect mechanical form to conserve energy to run faster, don't bother altering your form or having it analysed. Beside I wouldn't trust the average physiotherapist for that, much less a shoe store clerk.
On cushionning it's less clear. Not all studies show that it actually reduces impact (more like a redistribution). Also reducing impact could be actually bad in the end, providing less adaptation, mostly in bone density. Studies show that people who have a low peak impact have the same likelihood of getting injured as those with a high peak impact force. [3]
What this means is a high impact is obviously bad if you're jumping from the third floor, you'll break something for sure. However that's not what is happening when running. The impact forces and stresses acting on cartilage, bones, ligaments, and tendons during running are typically within an acceptable range. But it does appear that some kind of cushionning is good, or else all WR would be run in minimalist shoes.
The general rules for shoes are:
- Run into something comfortable to you.
- Run in whatever stride is natural/comfortable to you.
- You can get use to anything over time.
- The lighter the shoes, the faster you run.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/p...-in-runners-a-prospective-study-of-alignment/
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pubmed/17883966-risk-factors-for-overuse-injuries-in-runners/
[3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232123540_Impact_forces_in_running