what happens if I wear a shoe for pronators when not a pronator?

You will travel down the dark road to supination.

Shoes for pronation have firmer midsole on the inner, so it compresses less. If you run flat or on the outside you accentuate the relative compression outer vs inner and you'll quickly be thrown onto the outside of your foot. V bad news. Trash these shoes.

Frodofeet wrote:what happens if I wear a shoe for pronators when not a pronator?

The Earth's rotation will reverse.

Actually I did this without knowing a while back, and I didn't have a problem.

You could easily run yourself into knee problems.

Pronation is the natural movement of the foot (everyone does it). What I assume you're asking is what would happen if you used a shoe meant for over-pronators (2100 series, adrenaline, maybe beast in extreme cases).

Those shoes have medial posting at a much firmer density than the rest of the shoe, and thus doesn't compress nearly the same. What most shoe-guys will say (because it just makes sense to have an easy answer when talking to annoying customers) is that it will push you out and make you supinate (which is still pronating BTW, just under-pronating). In reality it just won't compress nearly as well and you will find yourself with a harder shoe that could lead to knee problems etc. The medial posting is there for over-pronators who would crush a neutral shoe and need that support to keep them "neutral". It's a harder shoe but the benefits for them outweigh the gain in a cushioned shoe (which they would crush pretty fast).

Bigger problems could come from wearing a so-called "motion control" shoe, as they have a straight last, which matches the contour of a flat-footed person's foot. This won't mesh with your foot at all, and would probably wind up feeling like you were barefooting on concrete all the time.

Hope that helps.

This problem led to a femoral stress fracture, and two tibial stress fractures for me. I had bad shin splints and flat feet, so everyone kept telling me my problem was overpronation. I bought motion control shoes and ended up with stress fractures on three different occasions. Later on I found out that despite having a flat foot I had an arch that didn't break down and a neutral foot strike. I ditched the motion control and eventually even did all of my runs in racing flats without ever getting another stress fracture. I would return the shoes.

I supinate just walking across the room barefoot. (and have hyperflexible ankles because of 15 years of competitive swimming) If I wear any type of shoes that try to put me even more on the outside of my feet when I run, my knees start to kill.

I ended up tossing a pair of perfectly nice Asics Nimbuses after about 100 miles because even though they're advertised as a neutral shoe, they've got some sort of mild stealth corrective features that were making my knees hurt all over again. Went back to Cumuluses after that, which are true neutral shoes, and haven't had a knee twinge since.

if you're really super lucky...nothing

more realistically you'll probably wind up with either an IT-band problem, shin splints, or some kind of plantar fasciitis deal eventually

My experience echoes the guy above. ITBS especially.

Years ago, video gait analysis and other running shops all agreed I should be in stability shoes. I struggled with ITBS and other injuries, eventually felt more natural and got hurt less in neutral lightweight trainers, and even more so on both front having progressed to minimal flats.

beachmouse wrote:

I ended up tossing a pair of perfectly nice Asics Nimbuses after about 100 miles because even though they're advertised as a neutral shoe, they've got some sort of mild stealth corrective features that were making my knees hurt all over again.

Bullshit, no they don't. They're just a little too much shoe for you.

OP- what the hell kind of shoe were you wearing to begin with? I can't think of a neutral shoe on the market that has been "replaced" by a stability shoe. You sure it isn't just a completely different shoe?

Try it, unless it is a stability shoe. Something for mild pronaters would prob be ok. Just ditch them at the roadside as soon as you get a twinge of pain. I should've.

I don't know if it was the Saucony Hurricanes--I've been in them successfully for three years--but I ended up with Achilles, then raging PF. Have lost the whole summer. Bought a more neutral Saucony.

But besides my high arches, the new running doc says my ankles have biomechanical problems;that may be more the cause than the shoe.

If I had anything to do over, I would see a podiatrist who runs and have him tell me what kind of shoe to get. My legs are a mess with ITBS, cartilage lesions and posterior tibialis trouble.

\

I am neutral and up until now have been training in ds-trainers for 3 years which are meant for helping pronators. havent been injured once, but am still switching up my shoes

Bullshit, no they don't. They're just a little too much shoe for you.

OP- what the hell kind of shoe were you wearing to begin with? I can't think of a neutral shoe on the market that has been "replaced" by a stability shoe. You sure it isn't just a completely different shoe?

That shoe apparently had always been a primarily neutral shoe that happened to have a little bit of stability feature to it, which I never discovered until I talked to the running store manager. The hourly employees didn't know and just assumed that neutral was neutral, not realizing there was a little bit of a spectrum within that designation.

Am now reasonably happily back in my Asics Cumuluses. If I weren't such a fat ass, I'd just go with something really lightweight/lightly cushioned, but I don't get enough miles out of a pair of those in my present decrepit state.

Calf Strains

moloradocudstuffin wrote:OP- what the hell kind of shoe were you wearing to begin with? I can't think of a neutral shoe on the market that has been "replaced" by a stability shoe. You sure it isn't just a completely different shoe?

For one, the asics Ohana racer (neutral) was replaced by the bandito (which has a medial post).

beachmouse wrote:

That shoe apparently had always been a primarily neutral shoe that happened to have a little bit of stability feature to it, which I never discovered until I talked to the running store manager. The hourly employees didn't know and just assumed that neutral was neutral, not realizing there was a little bit of a spectrum within that designation.

There definitely is a bit of variance in the neutral range, but in my experience the nimbus is typically on the neutral end of that range. Shoes like the Brooks Defyance are definitely on the stable end of neutral shoes, but I wouldn't put the Nimbus in that category.

My main reasoning is that the Nimbus is one of the best shoes on the market for underpronators (aka supinators); if it had any "stability" at all, that would cause a ton of problems. From what I have seen over the past several years, they're fine.

Buy vitruvian shoes, they're cheaper and have no junk features.

I've found VITRUVIANS customer service to be just fine.

I don't make money from Chuck, either. I buy his shoes.

My post is total truth.

So don't read the posts if you don't like them.

Stop whining.