8,101
edits
Changes
From Fellrnr.com, Running tips
no edit summary
The design and selection of most running shoes does not match the available science, and understanding this will help you know [[What to Look for in Running Shoes]]. The commonly held beliefs follow this logic: Runners get injured due to impact and excessive [[Pronation]], running shoes reduce impact and pronation, and therefore running shoes reduce injury. Unfortunately, every part of this rationale seems to be flawed. There are other aspects of shoe design, such as the raise heel or arch support that have even less evidence to support them.
* '''Injuries due to impact. '''There is surprisingly little evidence that impact forces cause injuries, and there is even some evidence that lower impact forces are associated with higher injury rates. It's been suggested that excessive impact can result in injury, while more moderate impact can produce important adaptations that are necessary for improved performance.
* '''Injuries due to over pronation. '''The science around [[Pronation]] and injury rates is quite mixed. Part of the problem is science does not generally look at pronation directly, but uses arch height with the assumption that low arches pronate more. There is some evidence that high or low arches have slightly higher injury rates, or that different arch heights have different patterns of injury.
[[File:The myth of arches and shoe types.jpg|none|thumb|500px|This image probably originated with the "The Running Shoe Book"<ref name="runningshoebook"/>.]]
=Impact & Injury=
The relationship between impact and injury is less clear than one might suppose. It has been suggested that while excessive impact can result in injury, lower levels of impact are the [[Supercompensation| stimulus for improved strength and performance]]<ref name="Hreljac-2004"/><ref name="Nigg-1997"/> (See . [[SupercompensationFile:Footstrike Impact.png|none|thumb|300px|Footstrike impact metrics.]]There are various ways of evaluating impact, and not all studies use the same metric or are not clear on which metric is used. * Active Peak is the greatest force or acceleration detected during foot strike. * Peak Impact is the greatest force seen during the initial landing.* Loading Rate is how rapidly the forces build up and can either be averaged over parts of this section of the graph or an instantaneous peak can be used. (That would be peak rate of change of impact, not peak impact.) * Where the impact is measured from may be important. Impact can be measured as force between the foot and the ground using a pressure plate, the acceleration of the foot/shoe, or the acceleration of the tibia. * Impact is sometimes normalized to body weight, but not always.* Not all studies have evaluated impact when the subjects have had time to adapt to a particular shoe (or lack of shoes). It seems reasonable to me that a runner's impact levels will be different in unfamiliar footwear. There is evidence that the impact seen in running does not result in injury:
* Impact forces are not related to injury rates in epidemiologic studies<ref name="Nigg-1997"/>.
* The A study of three runners found that impact forces at the heel are not related to the forces at common injury sites such as the ankle, Achilles, or knee.<ref name="Scott-1990"/>.
* A study of 131 runners showed that injury rates were highest in those with the lowest impact levels<ref name="Bahlsen1988"/>.
* The impact forces of 210 notice runners were evaluated for the symmetry of their impact forces and their subsequent injury rates<ref name="Bredeweg-2013"/>. The injured runners had greater symmetry than the uninjured, and there was no difference between the impact forces on the injured side compared with the uninjured side. (However, see the results on the companion study below). * Another study of the 210 notice runners mentioned above found that Loading Rate was related to the injury rate of male (but not female) runners, though the female runners had a higher Loading Rate than the males<ref name="Bredeweg-2013-2"/>. However, when time spend running was considered, the relationship between Loading Rate and injury disappeared. * A review of the available research in 2007 found no relationship between impact and injury rates<ref name="van Gent-2007"/>. * A review of the available research in 1992 found no evidence that injury rates were related to hard or soft surfaces<ref name="van Mechelen-1992"/>. (Of course, you can't assume too much about the impact rates from the surface.) However, there is also some evidence of a relationship between higher impact and stress fractures, but not other types of injury:
* A study that compared 20 runners who had never been injured with 20 runners that had prior injuries found that peak impact rates were higher in those that had been previously been injured<ref name="Hreljac-2000"/>.
* A study of five female runners who had previously had a stress fracture showed higher peak impact forces than subjects without stress fractures<ref name="GrimstonNigg1994"/>.
* A meta-analysis of 13 studies found that while there was no correlation between rates of stress fracture and impact, there was a relationship for the rate of loading<ref name="Zadpoor-2011"/>.
* A study of 20 female runners with a previous history of unilateral tibial stress fractures showed they had high rates of impact, but not greater peak impact than matched controls<ref name="Milner-2006"/>. Strangely the injured runners were no more asymmetric than the controls, with higher impact levels in both injured and uninjured legs.
* A comparison of runners with previous tibial stress fractures found that the injured runners had greater braking and impact forces than the controls<ref name="ZifchockDavis2006"/>. However, the injured runners
It seems possible that Loading Rate is related to stress fractures, but it seems unlikely that impact is related to other injury types. (It's estimated that stress fractures account for 0.7% to 20% of clinical injuries<ref name="Fredericson-2006"/>.)
=Pronation, Arch Height & Injury=
The evidence for the correlation between pronation and injury is rather mixed. This is compounded by the use of arch height as a proxy for pronation.
[[File:ImpactAndInjuryBahlsen1988.jpg|none|thumb|300px| A graph of peak vertical impact force and the frequency of running-related injuries<ref name="Bahlsen1988"/>.]]
=Running Shoes & Impact=
There is good evidence that increased cushioning does not reduce impact, and may even increase it.* A study of 14 runners using three different midsole harnesses (25, 35, 45 Shore) at three different speeds showed no difference in impact measured with a force plate for the different shoes<ref name="Robbins-1990NiggBahlsen1987"/>. The impact did increase with increasing pace, and based on my shoe reviews the three shoes are relatively soft (most are ~45 Shore, with some Hoka shoes going as soft as 35 Shore). * Comparing shoes with the same midsole hardness but fore/heel heights of 0mm/4mm, 8mm/12mm, 16mm/20mm, plus barefoot found there were no impact changes between the shod conditions<ref name="WrightNeptune1998HamillRussell2011"/>. The runners only had 5-10 minutes to adapt to each condition, and it's unclear if any of the runners had barefoot experience. The impact for the barefoot condition was lower than shod, but the runners changed to a forefoot landing when barefoot. * There was no difference found in impact forces between two shod conditions where one type of shoe provided 50% more cushioning than the control shoe<ref name="ClarkeFrederick2008"/>.* A study of 93 runners that compared three hardness shoes (40, 52, & 65 Shore) showed that the softer shoes had the greatest impact peak<ref name="Garcia AznarBaltich2015"/>. Based on my measurements of running shoes, the range of firmness in this test goes from somewhat soft to remarkably firm. The impact ranged from 1.70x Body Weight (BW) for the hardest shoe, to 1.64x BW for the medium and 1.54x BW for the hardest. The impact was measured using a force plate and used the impact peak, not the active peak (see diagram above) which is why the impact is much lower than other studies that report 2.0-2.4x BW. The study found that running increased their joint stiffness in the softer shoes, which may be the cause of the greater impact. * Highly cushioned Minimax shoes and conventional shoes may result in more knee stress than minimalist shoes<ref name="NiggBahlsen1987Sinclair-2016"/>. HoweverThe study looked at 20 male runners and measured impact with a pressure plate while filming the leg movement. The leg movement was then used to estimate knee stress based on a model that used knee movement and angle. The Minimax shoes were Hoka, the minimalist shoes were Vibram FiveFingers, but the conventional shoes were not specified. The runners were not familiar with the non-traditional shoes, and only had 5 minutes familiarization. The study also found greater contact forces in the non-minimalist shoes. * Runners who normally run in shoes have greater impact forces when running barefoot, but this is reversed with as a runner becomes adapted to being barefoot experience<ref name="Robbins-1990"/><ref name="Divert-2005"/><ref name="Robbins-1987"/>. * In a study somewhat related to shoes and impact, a study looked at impact and running surface and found there were not impact differences between concrete, synthetic track, natural grass, and a treadmill<ref name="FuFang2015"/>. The study used a pressure sensor in the shoe's insole and an accelerometer attached to the Tibia, with the runners wearing non-cushioned, minimalist shoes. As noted above, the interaction of impact and injury rates is unclear.
=Running Shoes & Pronation Control=
The evidence indicates that even Motion Control shoes can only reduce pronation by around 1.5%, which is unlikely to be enough to make any real-world difference.
* A meta-analysis of 5 studies showed that motion control shoes can reduce pronation when compared with barefoot or simple cushioned shoes, but only by about 2%<ref name="Cheung-2011"/>.
* A study compared a Motion Control shoe (MC) with a Cushioned shoe (CT) with 20 high arched (HA) and 20 low arched (LA) runners<ref name="Butler-2006"/>. The motion control shoe was the New Balance 1122 and the cushioned shoe was the New Balance 1022. The change in pronation (in degrees) is shown below.
{| class="wikitable"
!
! CT
* A study of 10 male runners compared "normal" running shoes with and without a 10 degree orthotic wedge showed the orthotic reduced pronation by 6.7 degrees<ref name="PerryLafortune1995"/>.
* A study of 25 inexperienced, over-pronating female runners looked at differences in pronation in motion control and cushioned shoes, before and after a 1.5 Km (~1 mile) run<ref name="CheungNg2008"/>. These runners only averaged 2.1 Km (1.3 miles) per week and had pronation of more than 6 degrees. The Motion Control shoes reduced pronation by 3.3 degrees before the run, but after just this short run the Motion Control shoes made no difference. The motion control shoes were Adidas Supernova Control and the cushioned shoes were Adidas Supernova Cushion. The results are shown below:
{| class="wikitable"
!
! CT
|}
* A study of 10 experienced rear foot runners were tested with shoes of varying heel flare<ref name="Clarke-1983"/>. This heel flare is how much wider the heel is at the bottom than the top, and the flared heels reduced pronation from 12.6 to 11.1 degrees (1.5 degree decrease) when compared with any heel without any flare. In practice, it's rare for a shoe to be this narrow at its base, and other studies have not shown this effect<ref name="Nigg-1987"/><ref name="Stacoff-2001"/>. [[File:Clarke-1983-Heel-Flare.jpg|none|thumb|200px]]
* A study of 7 people compared pronation when stepping down from a platform in shoes and when barefoot<ref name="FukanoFukubayashi2014"/>. The shoe was the Adidas Response Cushion and the platform was 4 inches/10 cm high. Pronation with shoes was less (17.9 degrees) than when barefoot (20.5 degrees). However, because the reduction was so small, the study concluded that it was impractical to alter pronation with this type of footwear.
=Running Shoes & Achilles Strain =
* A study of 12 male runners looked at foot strike for shoes with 0mm, 4mm, and 8mm of drop, plus barefoot<ref name="ChambonDelattre2013"/>. The barefoot condition was midfoot strike rather than rear foot strike in the shoes. The different drop conditions were not significantly different, though there was a trend towards more rear foot strike with the 8mm drop than with 0mm and 4mm drops.
* A drop of 15mm or 7.5mm did not produce a significant reduction in Achilles tendon stress<ref name="Dixon-1998"/>.
* A study comparing the minimal Vibram FiveFingers with Hoka Minimax shoes suggests there may be more Achilles tendon stress in minimal shoes<ref name="SinclairRichards2015"/>. However, the group size was small (n=12), and there's no indication that the runners had experience with either type of footwear. =Running Shoes & Injury Rates & Shoes=Several studies have found there is no evidence to support the idea that running shoes can reduce injury rates<ref name="RichardsMagin2009"/><ref name="van Gent-2007"/><ref name="van Mechelen-1992"/>. One 2015 study did show a reduced injury rate with motion control shoes.
* A study of 247 runners over 5 months showed no difference in injury rates between firm and softly cushioned shoes<ref name="TheisenMalisoux2013"/>.
* Three studies compared evaluated the idea that shoe type should be determined by arch height<ref name="KnapikTrone2014"/>. Runners were put into two groups, with one group assigned shoes based on the shape of the arch, and the other group just assigned a stability shoe regardless of their arch. These studies found no difference in injury rates. The studies were done by the US Army (2168 men, 951 women), Air Force (1955 men, 718 women), and Marine Corps (840 men, 571 women).
** The neutral runners had higher levels of pain in the neutral shoe than the stability shoe. The pronating runners had higher levels of pain in the stability shoe than the neutral shoe. This is the opposite of most recommendations for shoe and foot type.
** Note that while the overall sample size was reasonable (81), each individual subgroup was quite small (5 to 18 runners) and variation within subgroup of results was large. The subgroups also varied significantly in weight, BMI, age, and years of running experience.
* A study of 372 recreational runners assigned them randomly either a neutral or motion controlled shoe and found that those in the neutral shoe had a higher injury rate<ref name="MalisouxChambon2016"/>. The study is unusual in that it blinded both the subjects and the testers to the type of shoe used. The shoe type is not identified in the study, other than to say they were commercially available and modified so the runner would not know the brand or type. Both types of shoe were a 10 mm drop, and the motion control shoes had a [[Pronation| Medial Post]] made of both firmer foam and a plastic insert. The study found that those in the neutral shoe had nearly twice the injury rate of those in the motion control shoes. When the subjects were divided by their [[Pronation]], the study found that the injury rates were only different in those runners with Pronation (~25% of both groups). The study also noted that the greatest predictor of injury is a history of prior injuries, and both groups had ~75% of previously injured runners.
* An intriguing study suggests of 264 runners preparing for a marathon found that runners who swapped between multiple shoes had lower injury rates than those who only used a single pair at a time<ref name="MalisouxRamesh2015"/>. However, the data is self-reported and there were other differences between the groups, such as the multiple shoe runners having run more half-marathons than the single shoe group.
=Shoes and Running Economy=
''Main article: [[The Science of Running Economy]]''
Studies have consistently shown that heavier shoes reduce running economy<ref name="LussianaFabre2013"/><ref name="Burkett-1985"/><ref name="Sobhani-2014"/><ref name="Wierzbinski-2011"/>. Each 100g/3.5oz added to the weight of each shoe reduces running economy by about 1%<ref name="Franz-2012"/><ref name="Wierzbinski-2011"/><ref name="Frederick 1985"/><ref name="Frederick-1984"/>. Studies of cushioning and Running Economy have provided conflicting information. I believe this conflict is due to some studies using a cushioned treadmill to compare barefoot and shod conditions. Not surprisingly, if a study uses a cushioned treadmill, the cushioning provided by the shoe does not confer any additional advantage over the barefoot condition. Analyzing the research, I conclude that a well cushioned running shoe can improve Running Economy by an estimated 2-3.5% compared with a weight matched un-cushioned shoe<ref name="Franz-2012"/><ref name="Wierzbinski-2011"/><ref name="Tung-2014"/>. Note that running shoes provide less cushioning in colder temperatures<ref name="DibSmith2005"/>. There are indications that a highly flexible shoe that is modified with a springy carbon fiber plate might be more efficient than a highly flexible shoe on its own<ref name="OhPark2017"/><ref name="Roy-2006"/>. =Heel Counters=The [[Heel Counter]] is intended to link the heel of the foot to the shoe, * A study found that a rigid heel counter did not prevent slippage within the shoe any better than a flexible heel counter<ref name="Gheluwe-1995"/>. * A source of confusion in biomechanical studies is that it is much easier to measure the movement of a heel counter than the foot within. Studies can assume that changes in the movement of the heel counter reflect the equivalent changes at the foot. One study found the pronation of the foot can be twice as large as the pronation when measured on the shoe<ref name="Stacoff-2001"/>, and another found there were significant differences between the movement of the heel and the movement of the heel counter<ref name="Stacoff-1992"/>. * One study found that cutting the bottom of the heel counter away reduced [[Running Economy]] by 2.4%<ref name="Jorgensen1990"/>, a relatively large change. Personally, I suspect this reduction in economy is due to the discomfort of the modified shoe, but the results are intriguing. <br/>[[File:HeelCounterRemoved.jpg|none|thumb|150px|The removed heel counter.]]* Some runners are concerned that a rigid heel counter may irritate the Achilles tendon. I found no research to support or refute this concern, but personally I see it as relatively unlikely. I suspect that irritation of the Achilles tendon by a shoe is more likely to be due to the extreme rear of the upper coming up to high, or curving inwards to cup around the heel too far. Note that pain in this area could also be due to the irritation of the bursa, rather than the tendon (retrocalcaneal bursitis).
=Minimalist & Barefoot Running=
Most research looks at factors that might be related to injury risk, rather than injury rates directly. I found no studies The one study so far that evaluated compared barefoot or /minimalist running and injury rates found broadly similar injury rates. So while This suggests that minimalist or barefoot and minimalist running tends to have lower impact, it's unclear if this will have any bearing on neither increases nor reduces the risk of injury rates. Of greater concern is However, there remains some compelling evidence that the transition to barefoot or minimalist footwear is correlated with higher injury rates, especially stress fractures in the foot.* A study comparing 107 barefoot runners with 94 shod controls found similar injury rates<ref name="Altman-2016"/>. The barefoot runners had fewer injuries per runner, but ran less miles, so the injury rate (injuries per mile) was similar. ** The barefoot runners ran 75% of their mileage barefoot and the remainder in minimal shoes, characterized by no arch support, no reinforced heel counter and no midsole. (That's a pretty good definition of a minimalist shoe.) The barefoot runners had been barefoot for an average of 1.7 years, and 63% began running barefoot 6–12 months before the study. That's a reasonably good adaptation period and should avoid any injuries related to the transition, ** The study attempted to ensure the two groups were similar, but there are far more men in the barefoot group (88%) than the shod group (73%). ** The runners' average mileage was 25 miles/week in the shod group and 15 miles in the barefoot group. (The study required a minimum of 10 miles/week.) ** There were 346 running related injuries, just under half of them clinically diagnosed. There were significantly more injuries per runner for the shod runners, but when the injury rate is normalized by the mileage the barefoot runners have a non-significantly higher injury rate.<br/>[[File:Altman-2016-Rates.jpg|center|thumb|300px|Injury rates per runner and normalized to mileage.]]** The barefoot runners had more foot injuries, but fewer injures elsewhere, most noticeably in the hip.<br/>[[File:Altman-2016-Injuries.jpg|center|thumb|300px|Location if injuries for both groups. It's important to note this is given as the number of injuries, not the percentage normalized which is a little misleading as there are more shod runners than barefoot.]]** The barefoot runners had far more injuries to the sole of the foot (plantar surface), mostly cuts. ** Shod runners may have had far more plantar fasciitis. (This re-enforces my belief that arch supports contribute to plantar fasciitis.)
* A review of 23 studies found moderate evidence for higher [[Cadence]] and lower impact, but noted a lack of high quality evidence<ref name="PerkinsHanney2014"/>. Examples include:
** Barefoot running can produce reduce impact forces compared with cushioned shoes<ref name="Divert-2005"/>
** Compared with barefoot, running shoes reduced the ability to estimate surface angle, with a greater estimation error with thicker shoes<ref name="Sekizawa-2001"/><ref name="Robbins-1995"/>.
* There are some instances of Metatarsal Stress fractures in runners who had changed to minimalist shoes, with no other changes in their training habits<ref name="GiulianiMasini2011"/>.
* A study of 99 runners were randomly assigned a traditional cushioned shoe (Nike Pegasus), partial-minimalist shoes (Nike Free 3.0 V.2) or minimalist shoes (Vibram 5-Finger Bikila)<ref name="RyanElashi2013"/>. The runners had a minimum of 5 years' experience and had no injuries in the previous 6 months. The runners took part in a 12 week training program in which they gradually adopted their assigned footwear. They increased their time in the assigned footware footwear from 10 min (19%) in week 1 to 115 min (58%) in week 12. ** Runners in the two minimalist traditional shoes had a greater rate lower incident of injury compared (#4/32 runners) than the partially minimalist (#12/32 runner) or minimalist (#7/35 runners). ** The only statistically significant difference in pain scores for the shoe conditions was in shin and calf pain, with runners in the partially minimalist and minimalist shoes having greater pain scores than the traditional shoes. Runners with However, the underlying data is a little more complex. Below are shown the pain scores before and after the trial for each shoe type. As you can see, the pain goes up by the partly minimal shoes (Nike Free) had greatest percentage for the highest overall injury ratepartially minimalist, but this rise is from a much lower initial level. Runners in The absolute level of pain is lowest for the partially minimalist shoes condition, making this study tricky to interpret. {| class="wikitable" ! Time! Traditional! Partial Minimalist! Minimalist|-| Baseline| 7.3 (9.7)| 4.9 (6.8)| 5 Fingers.3 (11.8) had the greatest shin and calf pain|-| 12 weeks| 18.4 (13.9)| 13.9 (9.6)| 28.8 (22. 3|}
* A study looked at bone marrow edema in 36 experienced runners transitioning to Vibram FiveFingers (VFF) shoes<ref name="RidgeJohnson2013"/>. The runners were randomly assigned VFF or their normal running shoes, with the VFF runners gradually transitioning based on the recommendations of Vibram at that time. Only 1 of the 17 runners in the control group showed signs of a bone marrow edema, compared with 9 of the 19 VFF runners.
* In 2014, Vibram settled a lawsuit that they made false and unsubstantiated claims that their FiveFingers shoes could reduce injury rates.
=Personal Observations=
While this page is dedicated to the current scientific research, I do want to add a few personal observations as a counterpoint.
* My testing of [[Running Sensors]] has made me realize how many ways there are of measuring the impact forces of running. I believe that this warrants much deeper scientific research.
** Impact can be measured as simple acceleration, or as "jerk" which is the rate of change of acceleration. In some situations, the human body can adapt to a continuous level of acceleration much better than it can to a rapidly changing level of acceleration. This can be observed when an aircraft takes off, and the initial buildup of acceleration seems quite dramatic, but after 10-20 seconds the steady acceleration is harder to notice.
** The impact forces can be measured on the ground, on the shoe, on the tibia (lower leg), or on the torso. Each location is likely to have a different result.
* I've observed some potentially interesting patterns during my initial testing using [[TgForce]], [[RunScribe]], [[MilestonePod]], [[Moov Now]], and [[Wahoo TICKR Run]].
** When use a forefoot foot strike the impact measured on my shoe is typically a little higher than when I heel strike. However, the impact measured on my tibia is vastly lower. When heal striking, the impact on my shoe is typically in the 7-9g range, and 5-7g on my Tibia. When I land on my forefoot the impact on my shoe is 8-12g but the Tibial impact is 2-4g.
** When comparing [[Maximalist]] shoes with minimally or cushioned shoes I'm typically finding that the impact measured on my shoe is a little higher with the more cushioned shoes, but the Tibial impact is virtually the same regardless of cushioning. (There is a very slight suggestion that more cushioned shoes have fractionally lower Tibial impact.)
=References=
<references>
<ref name="OhPark2017">Keonyoung Oh, Sukyung Park, The bending stiffness of shoes is beneficial to running energetics if it does not disturb the natural MTP joint flexion, Journal of Biomechanics, volume 53, 2017, pages 127–135, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/00219290 00219290], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.01.014 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.01.014]</ref>
<ref name="RichardsMagin2009">C E Richards, P J Magin, R Callister, Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence-based?, British Journal of Sports Medicine, volume 43, issue 3, 2009, pages 159–162, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/0306-3674 0306-3674], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2008.046680 10.1136/bjsm.2008.046680]</ref>
<ref name="Clement-1980">DB. Clement, JE. Taunton, A guide to the prevention of running injuries., Can Fam Physician, volume 26, pages 543-8, Apr 1980, PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21293616 21293616]</ref>
<ref name="Boling-2009">MC. Boling, DA. Padua, SW. Marshall, K. Guskiewicz, S. Pyne, A. Beutler, A prospective investigation of biomechanical risk factors for patellofemoral pain syndrome: the Joint Undertaking to Monitor and Prevent ACL Injury (JUMP-ACL) cohort., Am J Sports Med, volume 37, issue 11, pages 2108-16, Nov 2009, doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0363546509337934 10.1177/0363546509337934], PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19797162 19797162]</ref>
<ref name="Nigg-1997">Nigg, Benno M. "Impact forces in running." Current Opinion in Orthopaedics 8.6 (1997): 43-47.</ref>
<ref name="Bahlsen1988">author Alexander Bahlsen, The Etiology of Running Injuries: A Longitudinal, Prospective Study, 1988</ref>
<ref name="Johnston-2003">CA. Johnston, JE. Taunton, DR. Lloyd-Smith, DC. McKenzie, Preventing running injuries. Practical approach for family doctors., Can Fam Physician, volume 49, pages 1101-9, Sep 2003, PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14526862 14526862]</ref>
<ref name="Heil1992">Barbara Heil, Running Shoe Design and Selection Related to Lower Limb Biomechanics, Physiotherapy, volume 78, issue 6, 1992, pages 406–412, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/00319406 00319406], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9406(10)61525-8 10.1016/S0031-9406(10)61525-8]</ref>
<ref name="Divert-2005">C. Divert, G. Mornieux, H. Baur, F. Mayer, A. Belli, Mechanical comparison of barefoot and shod running., Int J Sports Med, volume 26, issue 7, pages 593-8, Sep 2005, doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-821327 10.1055/s-2004-821327], PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16195994 16195994]</ref>
<ref name="Robbins-1987">SE. Robbins, AM. Hanna, Running-related injury prevention through barefoot adaptations., Med Sci Sports Exerc, volume 19, issue 2, pages 148-56, Apr 1987, PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2883551 2883551]</ref>
<ref name="ClarkeFrederick2008">T. Clarke, E. Frederick, L. Cooper, Effects of Shoe Cushioning Upon Ground Reaction Forces in Running, International Journal of Sports Medicine, volume 04, issue 04, 2008, pages 247–251, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/0172-4622 0172-4622], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1026043 10.1055/s-2008-1026043]</ref>
<ref name="NiggBahlsen1987">B.M. Nigg, H.A. Bahlsen, S.M. Luethi, S. Stokes, The influence of running velocity and midsole hardness on external impact forces in heel-toe running, Journal of Biomechanics, volume 20, issue 10, 1987, pages 951–959, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/00219290 00219290], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(87)90324-1 10.1016/0021-9290(87)90324-1]</ref>
<ref name="Stacoff-2001">A. Stacoff, C. Reinschmidt, BM. Nigg, AJ. Van Den Bogert, A. Lundberg, J. Denoth, E. Stüssi, Effects of shoe sole construction on skeletal motion during running., Med Sci Sports Exerc, volume 33, issue 2, pages 311-9, Feb 2001, PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11224823 11224823]</ref>
<ref name="Gheluwe-1995">Van Gheluwe, Bart, Rudi Tielemans, and Philip Roosen. "The influence of heel counter rigidity on rearfoot motion during running." Sort 100 (1995): 250.</ref>
<ref name="Stacoff-1992">A. Stacoff, C. Reinschmidt, E. Stüssi, The movement of the heel within a running shoe., Med Sci Sports Exerc, volume 24, issue 6, pages 695-701, Jun 1992, PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1602942 1602942]</ref>
<ref name="FukanoFukubayashi2014">Mako Fukano, Toru Fukubayashi, Changes in talocrural and subtalar joint kinematics of barefoot versus shod forefoot landing, Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, volume 7, issue 1, 2014, pages 42, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1757-1146 1757-1146], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13047-014-0042-9 10.1186/s13047-014-0042-9]</ref>
<ref name="ChambonDelattre2013">N. Chambon, N. Delattre, E. Berton, N. Guéguen, G. Rao, The effect of shoe drop on running pattern, Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, volume 16, issue sup1, 2013, pages 97–98, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1025-5842 1025-5842], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2013.815919 10.1080/10255842.2013.815919]</ref>
<ref name="Frederick-1984">Frederick, E. C., Physiological and ergonomics factors in running shoe design. Applied Ergonomics 15(4): 281-287, 1984</ref>
<ref name="Frederick 1985">Frederick , E. C. The energy cost of load carriage on the feet during running. In: Winter, D.A., R. W. Norman, R. P. Wells, K. C. Hayes, and A. E. Patla (Editors), Biomechanics IX-B Human Kinetics Publ., Champaign, IL, pp.295-300, 1985</ref>
<ref name="DibSmith2005">Mansour Y Dib, Jay Smith, Kathie A Bernhardt, Kenton R Kaufman, Kevin A Miles, Effect of Environmental Temperature on Shock Absorption Properties of Running Shoes, Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, volume 15, issue 3, 2005, pages 172–176, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1050-642X 1050-642X], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.jsm.0000165348.32767.32 10.1097/01.jsm.0000165348.32767.32]</ref>
<ref name="Milner-2006">CE. Milner, R. Ferber, CD. Pollard, J. Hamill, IS. Davis, Biomechanical factors associated with tibial stress fracture in female runners., Med Sci Sports Exerc, volume 38, issue 2, pages 323-8, Feb 2006, doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000183477.75808.92 10.1249/01.mss.0000183477.75808.92], PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16531902 16531902]</ref>
<ref name="van Mechelen-1992">W. van Mechelen, Running injuries. A review of the epidemiological literature., Sports Med, volume 14, issue 5, pages 320-35, Nov 1992, PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1439399 1439399]</ref>
<ref name="Bredeweg-2013-2">SW. Bredeweg, B. Kluitenberg, B. Bessem, I. Buist, Differences in kinetic variables between injured and noninjured novice runners: a prospective cohort study., J Sci Med Sport, volume 16, issue 3, pages 205-10, May 2013, doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2012.08.002 10.1016/j.jsams.2012.08.002], PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22921763 22921763]</ref>
<ref name="Bredeweg-2013">SW. Bredeweg, I. Buist, B. Kluitenberg, Differences in kinetic asymmetry between injured and noninjured novice runners: a prospective cohort study., Gait Posture, volume 38, issue 4, pages 847-52, Sep 2013, doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.04.014 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.04.014], PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23673088 23673088]</ref>
<ref name="Fredericson-2006">M. Fredericson, F. Jennings, C. Beaulieu, GO. Matheson, Stress fractures in athletes., Top Magn Reson Imaging, volume 17, issue 5, pages 309-25, Oct 2006, doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RMR.0b013e3180421c8c 10.1097/RMR.0b013e3180421c8c], PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17414993 17414993]</ref>
<ref name="Jorgensen1990">U. Jorgensen, Body load in heel-strike running: The effect of a firm heel counter, The American Journal of Sports Medicine, volume 18, issue 2, 1990, pages 177–181, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/0363-5465 0363-5465], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/036354659001800211 10.1177/036354659001800211]</ref>
<ref name="Altman-2016">AR. Altman, IS. Davis, Prospective comparison of running injuries between shod and barefoot runners., Br J Sports Med, volume 50, issue 8, pages 476-80, Apr 2016, doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-094482 10.1136/bjsports-2014-094482], PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26130697 26130697]</ref>
<ref name="ZifchockDavis2006">Rebecca Avrin Zifchock, Irene Davis, Joseph Hamill, Kinetic asymmetry in female runners with and without retrospective tibial stress fractures, Journal of Biomechanics, volume 39, issue 15, 2006, pages 2792–2797, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/00219290 00219290], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.10.003 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.10.003]</ref>
<ref name="HamillRussell2011">Joseph Hamill, Elizabeth M. Russell, Allison H. Gruber, Ross Miller, Impact characteristics in shod and barefoot running, Footwear Science, volume 3, issue 1, 2011, pages 33–40, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1942-4280 1942-4280], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2010.542187 10.1080/19424280.2010.542187]</ref>
<ref name="Garcia AznarBaltich2015">Jose Manuel Garcia Aznar, Jennifer Baltich, Christian Maurer, Benno M. Nigg, Increased Vertical Impact Forces and Altered Running Mechanics with Softer Midsole Shoes, PLOS ONE, volume 10, issue 4, 2015, pages e0125196, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1932-6203 1932-6203], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125196 10.1371/journal.pone.0125196]</ref>
<ref name="SinclairRichards2015">J. Sinclair, J. Richards, H. Shore, Effects of minimalist and maximalist footwear on Achilles tendon load in recreational runners, Comparative Exercise Physiology, volume 11, issue 4, 2015, pages 239–244, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1755-2540 1755-2540], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.3920/CEP150024 10.3920/CEP150024]</ref>
<ref name="MalisouxRamesh2015">L. Malisoux, J. Ramesh, R. Mann, R. Seil, A. Urhausen, D. Theisen, Can parallel use of different running shoes decrease running-related injury risk?, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, volume 25, issue 1, 2015, pages 110–115, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/09057188 09057188], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sms.12154 10.1111/sms.12154]</ref>
<ref name="FuFang2015">Weijie Fu, Ying Fang, David Ming Shuo Liu, Lin Wang, Sicong Ren, Yu Liu, Surface effects on in-shoe plantar pressure and tibial impact during running, Journal of Sport and Health Science, volume 4, issue 4, 2015, pages 384–390, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/20952546 20952546], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2015.09.001 10.1016/j.jshs.2015.09.001]</ref>
<ref name="Sinclair-2016">J. Sinclair, J. Richards, J. Selfe, J. Fau-Goodwin, H. Shore, The Influence of Minimalist and Maximalist Footwear on Patellofemoral Kinetics During Running., J Appl Biomech, Mar 2016, doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jab.2015-0249 10.1123/jab.2015-0249], PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26959346 26959346]</ref>
<ref name="MalisouxChambon2016">Laurent Malisoux, Nicolas Chambon, Nicolas Delattre, Nils Gueguen, Axel Urhausen, Daniel Theisen, Injury risk in runners using standard or motion control shoes: a randomised controlled trial with participant and assessor blinding, British Journal of Sports Medicine, volume 50, issue 8, 2016, pages 481–487, ISSN [http://www.worldcat.org/issn/0306-3674 0306-3674], doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095031 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095031]</ref>
<ref name="Roy-2006">JP. Roy, DJ. Stefanyshyn, Shoe midsole longitudinal bending stiffness and running economy, joint energy, and EMG., Med Sci Sports Exerc, volume 38, issue 3, pages 562-9, Mar 2006, doi [http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000193562.22001.e8 10.1249/01.mss.0000193562.22001.e8], PMID [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16540846 16540846]</ref>
<references/>
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Injury]]
