Zephyr11

Not quite. There is more to what kind of shoe will work for you is based on more than just your pronation. That's probably how dminor gets away with MC shoes with neutral pronation, because if his stride were completely neutral, the posting would stop his natural foot motion (since it would be rolling too late for it to need to correct anything, and would be stopping it from rolling when it's supposed to), and he would turn himself into a supinator, and also likely be torquing his knees/hips/femur/IT band/etc. However, it's possible the rest of his stride is making up for that, and he's still better off in a MC shoe than a neutral shoe. On the other hand, if you watch just my feet, you'd conclude that I overpronate. However, the rest of my stride is neutral enough that even stability shoes wreck my knees...I need a shoe with zero posting, and do fine doing distance races in minimal spikes and flats. I've had a number of running-specific stores not notice this and try to put me in stability shoes, and every time, I just got hurt. Finally had one see the rest of the picture, and I've been doing fairly high mileage in the same neutral shoe (Nike Pegasus) for 7 years. But minimal shoes don't work for everyone...they only work for people with neutral strides. Otherwise, you risk torquing your legs and setting yourself up for injury. Similarly, people who don't have good form can still run fairly injury free, provided they're in shoes that are correct for their stride and foot motion.

And it's very, very rare to run injury free for a lifetime. Find me a runner who's never been injured, and I'll find you a runner who's eventually going to be injured. Yes, you can probably go without ever having a serious career-ender. But something...some Achilles or patellar tendinitis, shin splints, compartment syndrome, an ankle sprain, ITBS, plantar fasciitis, a pulled/torn muscle, maybe a stress fracture...something will happen, assuming you run for long enough. Could be from overtraining, could be from wrong or worn out shoes, could be too much too soon, could be a biomechanical issue, could be a muscle imbalance (either genetic or accidentally trained), or could be a freak accident like an ankle roll. Doesn't matter if you're a healthy weight, an overweight person trying to get in shape, or an anorexic starving themselves in an attempt to get faster (though obviously the latter two will be injured more than the healthy weight person, assuming all other factors are equal). We were definitely meant to run...we're very efficient at it (long distances at least...even Olympic-caliber sprinters fail at short distances compared to a ton of other animals) and it's something we learn naturally. I can't argue with that, and honestly, I wouldn't want to. But injuries are almost inevitable anyway. Yeah, I guess if you trained perfectly, were meticulous about finding the correct shoe and replacing it every 300-500 miles, and never took any risks, you could probably go without being injured...but who does that? If you never take risks in your training, you'll always be stuck in the same rut...and you'll never find what the "perfect" training is without taking some risks along the way. And replacing shoes that often is expensive. Yeah, I could replace my shoes every month when I hit the recommended mileage. But I think I'm pretty in-tune with my shoes...I can sort of tell when the foam is shot and the shoes need to be replaced, and depending on what kind of surfaces I'm doing the majority of my running on, it can vary between 1200-2000+ miles (granted, I'm fairly light, but that's still a crapload of mileage). Yeah, I guess I'm tempting injury, but most of my injuries have something else as their root cause...and it's a lot cheaper to not waste shoes that are still in decent condition.

It's like mountain biking really. You could always ride trails within your skill level, never take any risks, and never fall. But you'll never get better that way...and honestly, what fun is that?

Halebopp

I don't think that the motion control posting can really save you from a rolled ankle, that's not what the technology is designed to do.

The arguement with motion control shoes, or really any developed running shoe, is several fold.

The human body is not designed to wear 14 oz motion control shoes. We are supposed to have some degree of pronation-it's our natural shock absorber. A lot of these shoes are thrown on people and eliminates that completely, causing more injuries.

Modern running shoes encourage poor form. Because the foot is covered in soft foam, heel striking becomes much more common. This type of gait bypasses the natural ball of the foot landing (which absorbs shock), causing more stress to be transmitted up the legs. In fact modern "motion control" shoes have the posting set back in the heel. This technology is designed not for a healthy forefoot strike, but for the injury causing heel strike. Motion control shoes cater to heel strikers (who do this because of their shoes), which isn't healthy. Kind of a bad cycle...

Modern shoes weaken the foot because its trapped and not allowed to work as it should. "When the muscles in the forefoot are weakened, we lose our ability to spread our toes. This forces our feet to overly rely on the mid-foot muscles, which in turn draw heavily upon the ankles, and so on up the leg."

Another issue is the large heel present on almost all commercial running shoes. Having a large drop from the heel to the forefoot is not healthy, because look at your foot! At rest its just flat on the ground. The heel is not naturally 15-20 mm higher than the forefoot, as it is in most shoes. Having this high heel shortens the achilles tendon and the calf muscles, and can cause other biomechanical problems. All the muscles have to compensate for this rise in the heel.

patentcad

On the other hand if you get injured in any way - knee issues, shin splints, etc. you are quickly toast as a runner. That's what happened to me. By age 32 my running career was over after two knee surgeries. But I've been cycling ever since.

Running is very tough on the body compared to cycling.

adidas

Thanks for all of the replys everyone. I guess my biking will have to share some time with my running, whether he likes it or not haha. I dont plan on doing any races or events in either sport, I just like to stay in shape and have fun at the same time. Its a nice stress reliever to ride or run after work. I actually injured my back over the weekend lifting, so as of right now, Im out of both activities. But once Im feelin good again, I should be able to get back into routine.

indygreg

Let me clarify some. I in NO way think that any runner can be injury free for life. No way. No athlete that trains fairly hard will be injury free. Sorry if I implied that. I just reacted to what I felt like was a post that says what I hear from people so often - 'if you run, you will not be able to walk when you are old', 'you will ruin your knees by the time you are middle age' and so on.

I do firmly believe nearly no runner should be in MC shoes. I will stop short of staying none because that cannot be said. A ton more stability and MC shoes are sold than neutral. And I think most neutral shoes are too not all that neutral. The issue is several fold . . . common wisdom says if you get hurt in any way, you need more shoe or to build up more muscle. These are said without any analysis. The most efficient runners (marathon) do not have massive quads or calves. Muscle is not the issue. These become cycles that are bad. A runner gets hurt and they move to more shoe which covers up their bad stride which leads to getting hurt. Then more shoe and insoles. The issue is never addressed.

This was me. I was on this cycle for 2 years and it was no fun. Now I run in flats or barefoot (where I can) and I am not light in weight. I run without pain most outside of when I really go hard or overly long. And that is not injury pain.

And I know I will get laid up again from time to time. I just do not believe that running will force me to stop running at some point.

And I agree that cycling is much better on the body. Well, except wrecks are just a bit worse on a bike.

and Halebop - I agree with your post 100%.

ProFail

I run for fitness and when my bike is in the shop. I stretch before I head out and have never gotten hurt EVAR. Also, running IS ridiculously strenuous, especially the first and last three hundred or so yards.



As a side note, a lot of my friends never realized that they had flat or highly arched feet. I personally have very flat feet and could never run before I got motion control shoes. I think I naturally over-pronated.

heckler

that is like saying nascar is safe....as long as you keep it under 50mph

seriously i think both sides are right. If you run very well (form) you can run moderate distances (3-6miles) ok, but most runners i know don't do moderate distances. they push to the point that our bodies are not supposed to run maybe they also have shoes that don't utilize our natural shock absorbing qualities, but to be honest i was under the impression that our stride was more for sprinting purposes (fight or flight and all that, not designed to run at a leisurely 8min mile pace away from predators). in sprinting events you find more minimalist shoes, keeping some of our natural movement (and lighter) but to compensate for the long distances people need the padding and MC what have you.

my gf does halves and 10 miles alot and when she was running track and doing distance etc, she was normally sidelines with some sort of injury 20% of the time. running in pain maybe another 20%. lots of micro fractures and shin splints etc. my aunt ran half marathons in her 20s now she is 50 with 2 new knees...
not that these people run perfect or have great form (i think they do but am no expert) but i think they are pretty representative of the normal running populace. bikers seem to only have problems that are preexisting, from crashing, or a bad fit.

indygreg

Look at good marathoners - the fast ones and the ones that put in over 100 miles a week. They are not running in MC shoes. They are running in very minimalist shoes. People are never going to agree on this and there are no facts. Just IMHO you do not need padding and control to run long distances. You only really need protection from the surfaces we run on. A flat or minimalist shoe provides just a bit of padding and protection . . which make a paved path more like a dirt path or grass field. There are some reasons that countries with a ton less roads and shoes produce better distance runners. Their people are thin (which of course may not be their choice), they do not sit all day, they do not have padding in their shoes, or shoes at all. they walk or run everywhere they go, etc.
We are largely overweight. We sit all day. We wear shoes that have raised heals. We have foot, back, leg pain from doing any activity. Again, there are not facts, just clues.

Halebopp

Ok...so where is this "point that our bodies are not supposed to run"? I think runners and non runners have a much different view of this, seeing as a 3 mile run to someone out of shape feels awful, but to us runners its just a light warmup. People were meant to run. Not sprinting. Ever see a human try to outrun a leopard? A grizzly bear? A lion? It ain't happening bud. But put if you put these same animals against a human over 30 miles it would be a totally different story. I know its the steriotypical example, but african bushmen track game for periods of time up to several DAYS, runnning along at a slow but sustainable pace.

In fact, Long-distance running may have been a driving force behind evolution of the modern human body.
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4021811.stm

The article says:

"early human beings may have needed to run long distances to help hunt prey or scavenge animal carcasses on the African savannah.

Without the development from running, humans would be much more like apes with shorter legs, smaller heads and a hunched posture, the scientists said.

While humans are poor sprinters in comparison with many animals, they perform well when it comes to long-distance running."


This is an exerpt from this essay on the tullyrunners.com website, which is an interesting read (though i do not agree with all of it)

"Certain Native American tribes ran as a way of life - hundreds of miles a week, year after year. There were no reports of injury. So from that, I sensed that something other than the running is behind the injury problem. Native American Indians ran with bare feet or in moccasins that are essentially a thin but rugged material covering the foot. Moccasins allow foot muscles to flex in ways that modern footwear does not. In addition, Africans run without shoes (until they get really good and snare a contract from Nike).

When studies were done to try to understand why Africans have emerged as leaders in long distance running, it was found that between Africans and Westerners, there are no inherent genetic differences. That means Africans have made their gains through differences related to their culture. They are poorer, walk around shoeless, and lack the kind of technology that allows us to sit around or drive etc. - hence they are better at running - a simple formula. Pounding or shock to the legs, which leads to injury, does not come from running as we all have been told. By landing lightly on the ball of the foot, and flexing the leg, the shock is naturally distributed and dissipated by the body's own shock absorbers.

If pounding should come from running in and of itself, Native American Indians would have spent countless hours with the Medicine Man rather than out there running their 300+ miles a week, and podiatry would be the fastest growing occupation in Africa. Pounding comes from the shoes, which inhibit our natural ability to discern how to land our feet.

Halebopp

Anyhow, indygreg's got it, we were meant to run.

mx_599

i would at least run once a week. the trade off is not equal.

mx

mx_599

i have poor arches, as does a huge percent of the population. why can't i have support and orthotics?

mx

Mr. Underbridge

In my opinion, running once a week won't do much, you won't get anywhere. You'll have to keep your mileage low and won't see that much improvement. I'd say at least twice a week.

As for the tradeoff, I find that I can ride a bike all day if I want, but it's hard to run that long without a lot of stress on the body. Since I can do waaaaay more time in the saddle, I find I can burn more calories by biking.

Regarding cardio - I'd say it's true that for me at least, riding at my most efficient cadence is less of a cardio workout than running. But if you want the cardio, drop down a couple of gears and start spinning like a demon, and let me know how your lungs feel. You have to work up to that, because it takes better riding form than a beginner usually has to spin at (for example) 120 RPM. I can't do that for too long, but believe me, my lungs will tell me about it when I do. And I am a runner, I can run a 5K at a little under 7 minute splits.

mx_599

i was merely suggesting running x 1/week to stave off the inevitable painful DOMS that i am experiencing after not running for the past couple yrs.

once would do that much.

i was referring to what the OP was talking about regarding "tradeoff". i don't know if that cardio stuff was directed at me or the forum.

mx

Mr. Underbridge

Yeah, 1 time a week is probably good enough to tread water and stave off the "holy CRAP, that was a 9 minute mile" thing.

Sorry, the cardio stuff was meant to previous responses re: running vs. biking, and I didn't feel like quoting everybody else. My bad for the confooozing.

indygreg

You can. They sell millions of stability and MC shoes a year. Also orthotics. To each their own.

My point is that a huge percent of the population should not have poor arches. IMHO shoes with too much arch support, stability, raised heel and padding have lead to this epidemic. I do not for a second believe that a huge percent of people were born with bad feet.

That is my belief, but there are no facts or indisputable evidence. I listened to a kook like I am now a few years ago and I broke my cycle (weak foot > pain > more shoe > weaker foot > pain) and now I run barefoot and in flats. And my feet and leg pains are all gone.

I think that the way I was doing it (and so many currently do) is a no win situation. Well it is a huge win for makers of shoe and orthotics. So many runners were like me . . . believing a shoe was the answer to their pain. I spend so much money on so many shoes and ortho combinations. Now I wear a much cheaper show that last longer (since it does not have to do the work for me).

Again, this is just my take. People should do what they want to. I do believe that way too many people do not ask 'is this working' enough. I tried to fix it going down more shoe road and eventually I asked that question. I then tried the minimalist route and I asked it again. The minimalist way works for me. Your mileage may vary.

BP302

Swim. Then you'll know you've done something harder than running or biking. Mountain biking and road biking can be easy or hard. It depends on how hard you push on the pedals. It's no different that running. You can run fast or you can run slow. How high you get your heart rate up depends on the effort that you put into the workout. There is no harm in being a well rounded athlete. Cross-train. It does a body good!

mx_599

interesting.

i chatted with a sports medicine doctor for a couple hours and this topic came up. he basically used an analogy of how common corrective vision is needed in society as compared to inefficient feet; whether it be over-, under pronators, or other problems.

cool

mx

dminor 

I'm thinking of moving this thread to the Runner's World .com Forums

mx_599

gz_

Anyways, from what I've read running is something like ~100cal/mi and biking is ~35cal/mi. So you need to bike about 3x as many miles to burn the same number of calories. However, I tend to run ~8mph (7:15min/mi) and bike around 16mph so it takes 50% more time on the bike to burn the same number of calories as running, i.e. when I have the time I bike and when I don't I run.

As noted above though, biking isn't anywhere near as stressful on the joints so on the weekend I can bike 100mi burning a pound of flesh and feel just fine the next day and can do it again or run. Anyways, I do both but if you really want a great exercise take up swimming, burns more cal/hr than running, less stress on the joints than biking, and works more muscles than both combined. But tediously boring and totally devoid of schwag.

indygreg

swimming is like anything else, once you get decent at it, it is no harder than running or cycling. At that point it becomes how hard and long you train. I have swam much of my life and recently gave it up as a regular fitness activity. I just stopped loving it and the big downside is you need a pool or lake to do it. Running and cycling are more flexible as you can do them more often and where you want.

But swimming is a wonderful activity.