Is using stability shoes considered a defect, or problem?
Is using stability shoes considered a defect, or problem?
NO.
END OF THREAD PERIOD
Tergat sometimes runs in a stability shoe. Lots of elites use orthotics. So I would say absoloutley not.
Kara Goucher swears that the Nike Air Structure Triax saved her running.
Doug E. wrote:
Kara Goucher swears that the Nike Air Structure Triax saved her running.
I wonder why she'd say such a thing.
cuz she's been crazyfied.
People with high arches are naturally able to absorb more of the impact of footfalls, meaning collectively they are able to hander more intense training without getting hurt. That said, it is a predisposition, not a requisite, for success in running.
themanontherun wrote:
People with high arches are naturally able to absorb more of the impact of footfalls, meaning collectively they are able to hander more intense training without getting hurt. That said, it is a predisposition, not a requisite, for success in running.
I beg to differ. I am cursed with high-arched feet and am injured every 3 months. I can run quite well off of limited training, but not to the best of my ability.
themanontherun wrote:
People with high arches are naturally able to absorb more of the impact of footfalls, meaning collectively they are able to hander more intense training without getting hurt. That said, it is a predisposition, not a requisite, for success in running.
Ummm I do believe you have been ill informed. High arches are actually a curse. I have them and I have a lot of problems with plantar fascitis. I have been lucky enough to get away from the stress fractures but the trainers say its just a matter of when, not if they ever happen.
High arches do not mean you have a neutral foot strike. Just like a flat arch does not mean you need a motion control shoe.
You need arches that are able to collapse as to absorb the shock of running. In the same breath, arches that collapse too much are bad as they cause your lower-limbs to roll medially.
The height of one's arch doesn't really mean much, the extent of arch collapse does.
because your hands aren't weight bearing......
Adam, Kara, Abdi and Kip's favorite shoes - Elite Athlete Forum - Nike Team Nationals 2007
sjc wrote:
because your hands aren't weight bearing......
C'mon, you should have given the guy another 20 posts before blowing his idiotic hypothetical out of the water like that.
themanontherun wrote:
People with high arches are naturally able to absorb more of the impact of footfalls, meaning collectively they are able to hander more intense training without getting hurt. That said, it is a predisposition, not a requisite, for success in running.
Geb (and just about all Africans) have flat feet. Unless there's something pathologically wrong with a person's foot, it really doesn't matter what their arch looks like.
http://www.shoebusters.com/thesis.htmluhgm wrote:
sjc wrote:because your hands aren't weight bearing......
C'mon, you should have given the guy another 20 posts before blowing his idiotic hypothetical out of the water like that.
If you doubt the credibility of the above, I could dig up some actual studies for y'all.
that would have been a better choice on your first post instead of posing a question that is kind of silly in relation to this thread.
It was rhetorical question, and obviously I thought it was analagous enough to apply to the point I was making.
Whether or not it directly relates to the original premise of the thread... meh, big deal. I don't really care. Even if it's loosely related, I'll take it as an excuse to vent on running shoes.
Also:
good runners are usually reknown for going fast and winnig things, not for the type of lipstick they use.