The Long Run

Earlier in my running career I had a hard time understanding shoe category nomenclature. "Motion Control" seemed like a desirable thing, but so did "Cushioning." Did I have to choose between these virtues? And "Stability?" It seemed like I needed a ration of that.

In other words, yes, I needed a lightweight, stable shoe that was well-cushioned and controlled my motion. But the very existence of these categories suggested that I couldn't get all that at the same time.

And then it appeared to me, upon further investigation, that shoes exist along a gradient, sort of like road bike geometry. When I started bicycle racing, in the 70s, there were "touring, "road race," and "criterium" geometries. Did that mean you couldn't adequately race a criterium on a road race bike? Well, no. These bikes had (approximately) 72, 73, and 74-degree seat tube angles, respectively, and at most a centimeter of difference in their bottom bracket heights and chainstays. These geometries existed along a gradient and you might very well choose a crit bike for road racing if that geometry suited your particulars.

In shoes, the gradient goes as follows. The lightest shoes are racing flats, and they have very little in the way of motion control features, that is, if you're going to overpronote (if your ankle is going to roll to the inside and your arch is going to flatten out as you plant your foot) there's nothing in the racing flat to stop you from doing so.

You add a little bit of structure and a bit more midsole, and you have a cushioned shoe. Add a bit more structure, and perhaps build your midsole out of a variety of densities, with a more robust, less pliable, foam on the medial side of the shoe, and you've got a stability shoe. Really build up the medial side of the shoe, and maybe add some sort of plastic or carbon plug or gizmo to keep your foot in place and, presto, you have a motion control shoe.

Not always, but generally, the weight of a shoe will rise as your shoe goes from cushioning to stability to motion control, because the manufacturer is adding more features to keep the foot from rolling to the medial side. These features may or may not make the shoe feel harder upon landing, depending on how well these motion control features are executed—in other words, a motion control shoe might also exhibit plenty of cushioning, or it might not.

If you have a need for motion control, and you want cushioning, well, that's a reasonable enough request. But if you're vascilating between these two virtues, don't go to your retailer's cushioning section. If you're an overpronator you're going to need either a stability or a motion control shoe, depending on how much you weigh, how badly you overpronate, how beat up your feet already are, and how often you want to replace your shoes (I can often get by with a stability shoe, but because it's got a less robust set of motion control features I'll break the shoe down more quickly and will have to replace my shoes more often).

As for this category of shoes—cushioning—who is a candidate for shoes in this group? Two distinct profiles of triathlete will buy cushioned shoes.

First, there are those of you who are lighter in build and have a good footfall—i.e., don't need motion control features—and will use cushioned shoes for training. An example might be the Reebok Premier Lite (right). I laced these up today for the first time and went on a 75-minute run. No blisters, no hot spots, very lightweight. Nice shoes. But I need a bit more motion control for my training shoes. So while it fits great and runs nicely, it's a better shoe for somebody who's a better structural runner and I am.

If I didn't know what the shoe was I was running in today, I'd have sworn that I'd laced on a pair of Asics® Gel® DS Trainer VIII. Aside from having an absurd amount of letters, numbers and brand associations in its name, this is another example of a popular cushioned shoe. I mention it because the DS Trainer is often listed as a "stability" shoe. My point is that these designations are arbitrary, and while I don't know, I suspect that the shoe dogs at these various companies often flip a coin when deciding how to position their newest shoe model.

Then there are people like me. I'm a bit heavier (165lbs.-170lbs.) and I need training shoes with reasonably strong motion control features. I can often use a stability shoe for training, that is, I'm mostly along the gradient toward motion control. But what will I race in? I can't race in a racing flat, because I'm too heavy and while my racing flat won't need much medial bolstering, it needs enough to hold up my orthotic. I can usually get by with a fairly lightweight cushioned shoe when I race.

The Adidas Rotterdam is also a shoe that fits into the cushioned category, and it's one in which I've been racing this year. I ran a 10-mile footrace in Rotterdams, as well as several triathlons from sprint to Olympic distance. Then I ran a half marathon footrace in them and found that I might've stretched the envelope a bit. My legs were sore for several days afterward, and when I race a triathlon the following weekend that ended with a 10-mile run I opted for a shoe with a bit more beef.

Either of the shoes above—the Reebok or the Asics—would make a good racing flat for triathlons, and I've seen them used quite a bit for that purpose. In parsing what I've written above I think you can see a pattern. You don't have a lot of options when it comes to the style of shoe in which you ought to train. Your feet will tell you what you need to train in. That will also dictate the broad category of shoes in which you can race, that is, you can move up one category along the gradient, or maybe two. But if you must train in motion control shoes, forget ever racing in "racing flats" per se. Nose around in the "cushioned" or "stability" categories for your racing shoes, and the longer the race distance, the more conservative you'll need to be in your selection.

BACK TO FOOTWEAR 2003
BACK TO THE LONG RUN