The Fall of Motion-Control Shoes
Motion-Control Shoes
Christopher McDougall, author of the bestselling Born to Run, recently wrote on his blog about a “correction” in the March 2012 issue of Runner’s World. The correction has to do with how Runner’s World reviews shoes, and where motion-control shoes fit in to those reviews. To refresh your memory, motion-control shoes were created and recommended for moderate to severe over-pronators. Lately, though, new information has come out questioning the usefulness of the shoe. McDougall says:
In the March 2012 issue, [Runner’s World] began slinking away from the once hugely-profitable, and now discredited, “motion-control” shoe. They did it so quietly even I missed it, even though I’d been shocked to hear RW’s shoe reviewer, Warren Greene, hint as much at a seminar more than a year ago.
After following the links and doing a little research, it seems that the major shoe companies are “phasing out” motion-control shoes. I tried to find some studies that talked about the benefits of motion-control shoes, but it turns out there aren’t any. That’s right; no publicly released studies have ever been done on the benefits of motion-control shoes by the shoe companies selling that type of shoe—and making millions off of them.
However, information on how bad they are is slowly coming to light. Benno Nigg, PhD, author of The Biomechanics of Running Shoes, and one of the folks who’s credited with creating the original concept and design of the motion-control shoe has gone on record saying:
It’s important to realize that modern running shoes, even the ones equipped with ‘anti-pronation’ features actually cause pronation—they don’t control it. A runner, male or female, who pronates about eight degrees while running barefoot, will often pronate about 20 degrees while wearing ‘anti-pronation’ running shoes.
To sum it up, those shoes you are wearing to control your over-pronation are probably making things worse. It makes you wonder if the shoe companies have some proprietary information on the benefits of motion-control shoes that they aren’t sharing, or if it’s just another cog in the running shoe marketing machine by the major shoe manufacturers. Another question to ponder is Runner’s World’s role in the marketing of motion-control shoes. They are the ones pushing those shoes on the public, and most folks get their information on new running shoes from the magazine.
Have you been wearing motion-control shoes? Do you think they’ve helped you?
I have used motion control shoes in the past (along with orthodics…), I always had the same foot issues. I now wear Vibram five fingers, and no longer have ANY foot problems. I have ran 2 Ragnars,several small 5k type races, and now training for a half. I ALWAYS just wear the Vibrams. I wonder what they will be saying in 10 years about Vibrams! HA! We shall see! So far, my feet have never felt better!
The most startling part of the research I did was the fact that there are zero studies on the benefits of motion-control shoes. Think about that for a second. A major shoe company is selling a product to us, claiming that if you are a serious overpronator you MUST have these shoes, and there is nothing to support the claim. This was my point about Runner’s World. Why didn’t they ever step up and say ‘you’ve got these groovy new shoes, but where is the evidence that shows how important they are?” Nope, they simply pass on the marketing information they were given from the shoe company.
As a minimalist runner, I think all motion control shoes belong on the trash heap! So it’s good to hear they are going by the wayside. Still, go into most shoe stores today and they are going to try to see if you pronate and recommend stability or some other like shoe. Needless and overzealous “control” in my opinion!
I walked in to the local New Balance store to get a new pair of shoes for my 5 year old. She has a moderate pronation in her right foot, and they wanted to put her in a pair of support shoes. Remember, at that age, the little ones are all still midfoot strikers–they haven’t had their feet messed up like most of us adults have. And they want to put her in a support shoe! I look over on the rack and I see a pair of NB Minumus’s in her size and I tell the clerk I want those. He looks at me like I’m stupid and tells me those shoes aren’t good for her.
I bought them anyway. My daughter LOVES them.
This is one of my big things about having a kid… I don’t want to put them in shoes that are going to mess their feet/gait up! I will feel a little bad if someone gives me shoes for my kid, but I’m feeling pretty adamant that I don’t want them wandering around in shoes that are overly supportive.
I love that you got her a pair of NB Minimus… I didn’t even know they made them for kids! Awesome!
All kids naturally run with a midfoot strike. My hope is that by getting her in minimal shoes early, she will keep that strike, and not shift to the crappy heel strike that most adults have–the strike that I’m working hard at trying to ‘lose’.
Of course, now my wife wants to get the same color Minumus’ for her so they can match!
I know this is not a very popular statement but I run in motion control shoes (Nike Zoom Structure). I own vibrams, have taken MovNat workshops, occassionally run barefoot but I love my motion control running shoes. I have done my research, seen podiatrists, consulted my paleo friends but my Nike Zooms are the only shoes that consistently allow me to run without pain and injury. My running mantras are don’t get injured and to be awesome… so if my shoes help me with the former then I’ll pick up the slack with the latter.
We’ve been talking about this a lot at The RUNiverse: whatever works for you is what you should do. If those shoes work better than something else, wear the hell out of them. It’s funny how you mention it not being a popular statement, Amber, because the “cool” think right now is minimal or barefoot running. It will take away all your injuries and allow you to run 2 minutes faster! These blanket statements do get a little ridiculous, don’t they?
One last note, I looked up your shoe, and Nike now classifies the Nike Zoom Structure+ 15 as a moderate stability shoe, not motion-control.
A moderate stability is nowhere near the ‘controversy’ of motion control! Even high-stability shoes like the Brooks Adrenaline have a good share & appreciation in the market. But I do think the full-on motion control shoes are in their last years!
But like Chris said, there is a certain level of paying attention to what works for you, articles be damned! A running shoe store moved me into high stability shoes from neutral and my running suffered. Now I’m in more minimal shoes and living that. To each their own!
Great post Chris! I’m hoping we will see a huge decrease in “stability” shoe sales as well. I would love to see the day when there are no “stability” shoes on the wall at the specialty running shoe store.
I do have to question Nigg’s quote:
“It’s important to realize that modern running shoes, even the ones equipped with ‘anti-pronation’ features actually cause pronation—they don’t control it. A runner, male or female, who pronates about eight degrees while running barefoot, will often pronate about 20 degrees while wearing ‘anti-pronation’ running shoes.”
The dense gray bar on the inside of a “stability” running shoe and the additional arch support etc. on a motion control shoe do not allow the talus, a bone that sits on top of the calcaneus (heel) to move. In other words, there is no free space for the talus to move because it is being blocked by the artificial support that is built into the shoe.
If anything, both running shoes will force the foot into supination at a time that the foot should be pronating and/or loading for better shock absorption.
Overtime, the cushioning system breaks down, and the foot does not have any choose but to go out, i.e., supination. Then, everything from above reacts to the static position of the foot, and the entire chain is at a huge mechanical disadvantage.
Cheers!
Good point Rick! It was always my understanding that the motion control shoes not only eliminated “excessive pronation” but all natural pronation too.
Yes, that is correct Jill. Pronation is normal. But the neuromuscular (fascial) system has to be able to control the lengthening (loaading) phase, stabilize and then pull everything back home. You and I are 3-5 times stronger when the foot, and the entire chain can load in all three planes of motion. So, a “stability” running shoe blocks the talus and the ability of the muscles to lengthen which makes the athlete weaker and of course, more susceptible to an injury, e.g., plantar fasciitis.
If we just look at real motion of the forefoot relative to the rearfoot (talus and calcaneus), then the forefoot is pronating at the same time the rearfoot is supinating
in order to have efficient propulsion. A traditional neutral shoe and/or a “stability” shoe with a trustic system (plastic piece) throughout the waste of the shoe does not allow for natural motion(s) between the forefoot, midfoot and rearfoot. The truth is, the human foot should be pronating and/or supinating at the right time, in the right plane and at the right joint.
And yet, the shoe companies keep pumping out these shoes that are going to “help” our foot…and we keep buying them.
Thanks for the comments, Rick!
*(loading)* phase
I am amazed at some of the comments posted here! Hoping for a day when there are no support shoes in a shop??!?! Why? If you don’t like them, don’t buy them. Why spoil it for those of us who like them?
I am intrigued by all of the sudden experts in barefoot/minimal running – where were you 10 years ago, before the fad took off? Why did nobody comment then? What were you wearing before the companies started making minimal shoes?
It is yet another fashion – the Emperor’s new clothes – “yeah, I never liked control shoes, but I’ve seen that the same company that touted them 10 years ago is now selling minimal shoes. I believe them this time.” Fashion nonsense.
I’m late to this discussion but I hope some of you are still around. My 13 yr old son has had serious pronation in both feet for years. When he’s bare footed, his arch area is firmly smushed into the floor. About 2 years ago, he started wearing Brooks Beast running shoes. His feet were turned back in and had less fatigue. Up to this point, i thought we fixed it for now. So is this not good for him?
Even though I’m a huge fan of minimalist running shoes for myself, I fully put my 2 year old in custom-fitted orthotics to help with her moderate pronation. I’m pretty sure most of my running friends gave me the stink-eye over it, but I chose to trust her physical therapist. At a certain point, I think pronation is something that needs to be addressed. It sounds like your son may be at that point, and if these shoes seemed to help, I’d go with that over what people who haven’t seen his feet say online. If in doubt, I’d talk to a physical therapist. I know our physical therapist was generally fine with pronation until it was bad enough for the achilles tendon to turn outward (you can tell by looking down the back of the ankle).
Just my thoughts after going through this with my own child. I’m certainly not an expert.
I am not an expert either, but I would be wary of any barefoot runner evangelist telling you that his shoes are bad.
I am afraid that many are hipsters and fashion-victims who jump on the latest diets, fashions and fads and then become dictatorial about them, lecturing anyone who’ll listen that because it ‘worked for them’ it MUST work for everyone. It won’t.
If your sons shoes are showing results, I’d be tempted to say stick with it!
I am 52 years old and have had operations to repair torn menisci in each knee within the past 4 years. I am at 270 lbs. During my rehab last fall they tried to address my 2 foot issues: extreme flat feet and severe over pronation. I was fitted with orthodics and recommended to by the Brooks Beast. I did both to the tune of nearly $500.
Are you saying that the sneakers are of little value or both? I can say that I do not run, I walk on the treadmill. At this point many of my normal back issues seem to have subsided. I cannot say if it is the shoes, the orthodic or the combination of the two.
Thoughts?
Greg.
If you are feeling good and don’t have issues… I’d say keep doing what you’re doing. But if you have continued troubles, I would explore building strength with more minimal shoes. I’ve read research that says flat feet are the result of feet being “casted” or encased in too stiff of shoes for years and that once people have spent significant time barefoot and strengthening their feet, the arch was restored.
Absolute nonsense – thousands of people are born with flat feet and it’s diagnosed before they start wearing shoes.
“’ve read research that says flat feet are the result of…” This is probably propaganda from the ‘Emperor’s New Shoes’ brigade, telling everyone that minimal shoes are the only way forward.
Whilst there isn’t any conclusive empirical evidence in favour of support shoes, there isn’t any against it either. Same goes for minimal shoes. So, if you don’t believe one camp, certainly don’t believe the other.
Me? I don’t need empirical evidence; I have found that I can run in supportive shoes without problems and don’t need some over-priced slippers that offer no benefits.
HI!
I was just getting ready to buy another pair. I was convinced by a physical therapist a few years ago to buy orthopedics and Brooks Addiction shoes. 4 pairs later and I still get sore knees.
I am a very athletic 31 year old guy (obstacle course races/plyometric training/american ninja warrior:) but my arches continue to flaten and my feet severely pronate. It makes my ankles and knees sore! To date the best shoes I have worn were North Face Double Track trail shoes. They were “decent” at best…
What type of shoes do your recommend? I mean this sincerely as I don’t have the time/resources to try/buy 5 different pairs.
Thank you!!!
Larry