are stability shoes bad?

depends who you are. if you are a neutral runner, yes. if you are a pronator, no. they will not become obsolete because eventually people will realize that barefoot running is not the answer for everyone on the planet, everyone's feet and mechanics are different. there will always be the guys whose arches and ankles scrape the ground who will need the support. just go to a running specialty store and get fit professionally for shoes.

I don't know; is the color green bad?

No and no. Tell any minimalist person you see trying to tell you they are bad to fvck off.

Stability shoes are more bad than good. The pronation/foot type model is flawed; a new approach to footwear is needed.

Scientifically, there's no more evidence supporting shoes than there is supporting minimalist/barefoot running. Bulky, "motion control" shoes make you inefficient at the very least. Shoes have not altered injury rates over time. Changing your footwear will likely only change where you are injured rather than when or if.

That said, minimalist footwear isn't for everyone. True stability is relative to the whole kinetic chain, not just the motion at the ankle.

This will get you started in the right direction:

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2010/01/why-running-shoes-do-not-work-looking.html

when it comes down to it people do best in what feels comfortable. I prefer running barefoot on a field or running in bulky running shoes. I can't stand minimalist shoes, I feel like I pronate even more in them than when I run barefoot. If a stability shoe feels the most comfortable run in that. If a neutral or minimalist shoes feel the most comfortable run in that. It really is that simple. Try on all types of shoes and go with the one that feels the best!

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2010/06/26/bjsm.2009.069849.abstract

If stability shoes were as bad as Chris McDougall claims, you wouldn't have been born wearing them.

dogcrap wrote:

I am new to these forums. With all the talk of minimal shoes lately, I must ask: Are stability shoes now bad? Will they soon become obsolete?

Your questions should be mostly answered by this article:

A lot of people are saying that "there is no data to support the use of "normal" running shoes." However, where is the data saying that "minimal" shoes are the answer? Some of the material from Harvard is interesting but it doesn't prove, to me anyway, that minimal shoes are a cure all. Then you have people saying that: "Anecdotal evidence suggests that minimal footwear helps with injuries." However, if you look at shoe reviews on roadrunnersports and runningwarehouse a lot of people claim that Asics Kayanos and Brooks Beasts cure all of their injuries as well. Interesting debate.

the bottom line is, if you have crappy form and just want a pair of shoes to lace up, forget about technique and just crush the miles, stability shoes still work for most people. if you want to think about technique more, then don't wear them. again, run in what you feel the most comfortable in (and what doesn't get you injured)

Stability shoes are not bad at all. Think about this: when we first get new running shoes, unless they are total garbage, we all think that they are great shoes for about a month or so then once we start to get used to them we really find out if they are for us or not. Minimal shoes just started hitting the market. A lot of people are trying them, liking them for a little while, getting injured and going back to their old "normal" trainers. Obviously, some people who have good mechanics and don't train more than 40 mpw can use these shoes, but for others it is an injury waiting to happen. Don't believe the hype.

stitch wrote:

again, run in what you feel the most comfortable in (and what doesn't get you injured)

^this.

If you have found something that works for you and keeps you injury free (and that means anything from barefoot to Beasts with orthotics) just keep doing it.

If you have been continually injured (especially if it is the same thing all the time) then try something different (gradually and easily at first) and see if it helps. If it doesn't, go the opposite direction and see if that helps.

They are not bad, but they might not be needed. The whole purpose of minimalism is to get runners to think of running in shoes that do the job without hindering the natural movement of the foot and wearing too much shoe for the job. I've never understood why natural forefoot runners need shoes with a heel on it. Every runner should determine their foot-strike, work on their foot and leg strength, and carefully determine the shoe that meets their needs.

dogcrap wrote:

I am new to these forums. With all the talk of minimal shoes lately, I must ask: Are stability shoes now bad? Will they soon become obsolete?

Yes they are bad. Your feet are supposed to pronate.

No, they won't soon become obsolete, because there are too many people working in the business who don't understand basic biomechanics.

i work in a running shoe specialty store, and we get thousands of people complaining about all sorts of injuries and always blaming it on shoes. well since the introduction of minimalist shoes and Born To Run, about a year and a half ago we starting getting tons of people looking for minimalist shoes. dozens and dozens a day. now those people that came in about a year ago are all coming back to get the shoes they had before, because just as many, probably even more, are getting hurt using minimalist shoes. i agree with what someone said earlier, use what works. if you dont have problems, stay where you are. if you do, try something else. the other thing is, problems arent necessarily caused by the shoes either. most of the time it is muscle imbalances caused by doing an extremely repetitive activity called running that using virtually no lateral strength, so on the odd stride that may cause a lateral movement, everything gets messed up. overtraining, lack of cross training, and so many other factors play in. there is no one shoe, or type of shoe, that is right for everyone. same thing with form, some people can heelstrike and have no problems, others use forefoot or midfoot. to be honest the fastest person i know runs with the Brooks Adrenaline with a Powerstep Pinnacle insert. that is some pretty beefy support right there, but he runs about 90-100 miles a week all around 5:45-6:00 pace with no injuries.

J.O. wrote:

Yes they are bad. Your feet are supposed to pronate.

No, they won't soon become obsolete, because there are too many people working in the business who don't understand basic biomechanics.

Not everyone pronates the appropriate amount. That should be pretty obvious.

This is interesting. What I find fascinating is that if people get injured switching to minimalist shoes you always hear: "they made the transition too fast." However, if you are injured using "normal" trainers, it is because they are "bio-mechanically horrible." So not matter what the situation, minimalists are always correct even if you are injured using their shoes!

J.O. wrote:

Yes they are bad. Your feet are supposed to pronate.

This struck me as hilarious just now. I've seen numerous pro-minimalist/barefoot video clips where one of the faults cited about traditional built up stability running shoes is that they don't actually affect pronation like they claim to.

So which is it minimalists?

Is it possible to alter your pronation pattern and thus the type of shoe you use? For example, I am a moderate pronator. If I did a lot of arch strengthening exercises and a wise amount of barefoot running, could I change my foot strike and strengthen arch profile to the point that I don't need a stability shoe? Is there any benefit to doing this?

Check out Jay Johnson's blog. his argument is that overpronation originates with the hip strength or lack thereof.