Are structured and motion control trainers a waste of money?

First of all I do not work for a shoe company but I just don't get the it's all corporate bullshit and they are just trying to sell us expensive crap.

I do agree that some shops oversell their "expertise" and that a certain large sports shop chain in the south east would sell motion control shoes to a pink poodle chasing a duck in the park if it got the chance.

There are not enough trials on this issue; most of them that have been done are associated with university students training for their first half marathon; remember those days when everything hurt in rotation.

There need to be more research and it needs to be more than a survey by a Phd student.

Is all this about not spending a lot of money or not getting ripped off, or the suspicion that if your spending a lot of money you must be being ripped off?

I suspect that many of you would happily take a pair of the type of shoes your criticising gratis, but just get antsy when asked to part with money.

Dont worry one day you will be able to download a pair off a pirate website

I run in Brooks Adreneline GTS have done since version 8 and they are worth the money. GTS 11 are a dream to run in .

From my own experience, motion control shoes/devices are really just fixing a fault with a opposing fault rather than fixing the source of the problem. And the problem with feet are that in many cases they (the feet) are just weak and unconditioned. 

I find myself that when out of shape, unfit and overweight I need all the support and motion control I can get. But maybe things have changed over the past 20 years. I do know that I need a slight arch support since I'm inclined to become more flat footed as I become tired. The solution there is to train to avoid it.

Ben Davies 15 wrote (see)

I would certainly defend the principle of pronation control.  I worked in a running shop for nearly three years, and met an awful lot of peoples feet.  If you have a person who is running in a neutral shoe who suffers from shin splints, then 9 times out of ten the problem disappears if you put them in a support shoe. 

I agree with the above.  But I was in a neutral shoe with no injuries.  THey said I have a light overpronation in my right foot and sold me stability shoes.  I can now barely walk, let alone run!

I think this is all just part of the BBC's "companies are bad" campaign.

I think they had decided what they wanted the conclusion to be before they started to make the program as they often do...

Would have liked them to talk a bit more about electrolytes and long distance endurance events - but I guess the slot (8pm BBC1) meant it was aimed at the masses who spend less than an hour doing something.

I think most of the people who buy sports drinks are trying to get over hangovers....

I think these last two posts are unfair on the programme. They consistently asked manufacturers of various products to back up their advertising and marketing claims with scientific evidence, which it's not a bad thing to require of them, but hardly anyone could come up with any. That is very frightening, to my mind.

I'm not disagreeing with you, would have just liked them to investigate a bit further and deeper in some areas - particularly the sports nutrition part. But in a primetime slot this wasn't going to happen.

By the way I run in minimalist running sandals and take no supplements during training just trying to get my diet right instead.  But when doing a marathon or a half-ironman I do take energy gels and electrolytes in my drink as well as water. 

The most useful thing anyone can do is simply to find out what's comfortable and helpful for them. If that means barefoot trainers or huge wedges of support - fine. If it means drinking only water or gulping shedloads of Lucozade, fine. Part of it might be physical, a lot of it is certainly in the mind.

I thought it was a decent programme and was fairly balanced. I don't totally agree with the 'wear whatever is comfortable' conclusion about shoes but I also don't think that is the main focus of the programme.

For me the crucial message was that sports drinks are full of sugar, and for the majority of people doing casual exercise the benefit of the exercise doesn't outweigh the nagitives of taking on all that sugar. The scary bit was how their marketing had brainwashed kids who now believe the drink is necessary.

'Lite' sports drinks are obviously a joke and I'm pleased they reported that as such.

shawk wrote (see)

'Lite' sports drinks are obviously a joke and I'm pleased they reported that as such.

No carbs, but useful to keep ion/electrolyte levels up - Time and a place thing?

Ian M wrote (see)

Not really (imo)
Not unless you're planning a few hours worth of exercise in hot conditions. In which case I doubt they'd be carrying a 'Lite' sports drink. Most people aren't exactly short of salts in their diet in the first place.

Not sure if salt in diet is relevant.  Its salt etc lost during long runs/bikes etc from the body and the need to replace that as well as water during and immediately after those long runs to keep everything balanced.  I normally have one of those nuun tablets or similar - which I guess is kind of a "lite" sports drink.

Tiny Runner 85 wrote (see)

Ben Davies 15 wrote (see)

I would certainly defend the principle of pronation control.  I worked in a running shop for nearly three years, and met an awful lot of peoples feet.  If you have a person who is running in a neutral shoe who suffers from shin splints, then 9 times out of ten the problem disappears if you put them in a support shoe. 

I agree with the above.  But I was in a neutral shoe with no injuries.  THey said I have a light overpronation in my right foot and sold me stability shoes.  I can now barely walk, let alone run!

Tiny Runner - I'd say that suggests you don't actually pronate at all! At least not to the degree that would require correction with support shoes. Years ago (before I understood what the terms meant and before I understood my own feet) I was given gait analysis, told I pronated, and sold a pair of support shoes. Like you, it wrecked my legs. Since then I've learned that rolling outwards on my feet when I walk and wearing down the outside edge of every pair of shoes I own actually makes me an under-pronator and the least likely candidate to be fitted with pronation support shoes. I've now been running pretty much trouble free in neutral Asics shoes for 8 years.

I think a lot of shop staff don't actually understand the biomechanics of the foot very well at all. If you watch gait analysis videos in slow motion, when neutral runners land on their foot, there's a very slight sort of natural 'spring' in and out that I suspect is often mistaken for pronation by poorly trained shoe fitters. The foot lands, it seems to tilt inwards, but then it bounces back again. Now, I'm not an expert or even a particularly well informed amateur, but I suspect that proper pronation is not just when the foot tilts in the way slightly, it's when it fails to spring back properly, and a lot of people don't understand the difference.

What I mean is, most of the time when shoes cause injuries, I think it's more likely that the failure is not in the construction of the shoe, it's because the shoe and the foot have been incorrectly paired up. I know loads of people with genuine pronation problems whose running difficulties were quickly solved with pronation support shoes. I do also agree though that a lot of foot and ankle problems could be sorted out with strengthening exercises for whatever the weak bit is that's causing the bother in the first place!

Peter Collins wrote (see)

I think these last two posts are unfair on the programme. They consistently asked manufacturers of various products to back up their advertising and marketing claims with scientific evidence, which it's not a bad thing to require of them, but hardly anyone could come up with any. That is very frightening, to my mind.

Peter, if that is very frightening, then you need to get out a bit.

The companies did come up with scientific evidence, it was just considered to be not very robust which is a very different thing. As usual, I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between the left wing BBC's right-on anti-corporate opinions and the company advertising.

To follow on from this, what about nutritional supplements, like protein shakes?  I've been taking Myofusion for a couple of months now - £37.99 for a 2.2kg tub, and I'm beginning to think the programme's right about that sort of thing: namely that it doesn't make a great deal of difference.  I reckon I might just stick with my usual weights routine and chuck the supplement - surely by now I should be noticing some sort of difference, whether it's how I feel, or the progress I've made?

I would say on the part of stability shoes. 

 They work for me.

Previous I had a pair of off the shelf Asics shoes that didnt fit properly and the end resilt i was basically over stretching my right foor big toe and it was bloody painful.

 went for a GAIT and got a pair of stability NB 940 4E and I havent had any problems since.

Yes, why would anyone need an energy drink if you are under 16 or running under an hour.??? esp the example of a U9's football team downing full sugar Lucozade - its madness. All I had [in the old days] was water/juice and a orange at half time ......

anyway 

Merrowman wrote (see)

Ian M wrote (see)

Not really (imo)
Not unless you're planning a few hours worth of exercise in hot conditions. In which case I doubt they'd be carrying a 'Lite' sports drink. Most people aren't exactly short of salts in their diet in the first place.

Not sure if salt in diet is relevant.  Its salt etc lost during long runs/bikes etc from the body and the need to replace that as well as water during and immediately after those long runs to keep everything balanced.  I normally have one of those nuun tablets or similar - which I guess is kind of a "lite" sports drink.

As I understand, current thinking has changed on salt availablity.
 Sodium Balance and Performance

• Dogma: We need to supplement with sodium to complete long-distance endurance events.
• Science: The body self-regulates blood sodium concentration via several mechanisms, including sodium sparing in sweat and urine. When one “drinks to thirst,” blood sodium concentration invariably rises during prolonged exercise; it never falls.

One of the most persistent beliefs in ultrarunning is that we must ingest sodium for optimal performance, if not survival. Not so, claims Noakes. He points out several studies, including sodium deprivation studies involving prolonged exercise over several days, that demonstrates that the body will maintain blood sodium levels in a deprivation state.

In explaining this phenomenon, Noakes points out our biological mechanisms to preserve sodium in both sweat and urine – pointing out that these studies measured sodium concentrations next to nothing during prolonged exercise and sodium deprivation. Moreover, blood sodium concentrations stayed within normal ranges – so long as athletes and subjects drank only to thirst.

• Dogma: Heavy sodium concentrations in sweat – evidenced by salt-staining on skin and clothing – identifies a person as a “salty sweater”, and that these people need even more sodium supplementation.
• Science: The self-regulation of sodium concentration results in sodium excesses being secreted; salty secretions will cease when sodium balance is achieved.

Simply put, the presence of salt deposits on skin and clothing are due to the body ridding of excesses, and when sodium balance is achieved – or if a blood sodium deficit is perceived – the body will conserve it from sweat and urine.

• Dogma: Sodium supplementation stops and prevents Exercise-Associated Muscle Cramping (EAMC)
• Science: There is no scientific evidence that shows sodium (or other electrolyte) deficits in those with muscle cramping.

This is another interesting dogma that has thrived, pre-dating even Gatorade. The original belief of salt deficits and cramps was based, according to Noakes’ review of research, on studies of a single miner in the 1920s, who showed salt and fluid losses in association with cramps.

http://www.irunfar.com/2012/07/waterlogged-a-dogma-shattering-book.html

I have to agree about stability shoes - I don't think they're a waste of money.  When I first started running, I did what a lot of people do and headed on out with any old pair of trainers.  After lots of aches and pains, I got my gait tested, got a pair of proper running shoes and was fine for around a year or so after that.