8,101
edits
Changes
From Fellrnr.com, Running tips
no edit summary
The design and selection of running shoes does not match the available science. The commonly held beliefs follow this logic: Runners get injured due to impact and excessive pronation[[Pronation]], running shoes reduce impact and pronation, and therefore running shoes reduce injury. Unfortunately, every part of this rationale seems to be flawed.
* '''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 [[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.
* '''Running shoes reduce impact. '''There is good evidence that''' '''increased cushioning does not reduce impact forces. Runners who normally run in shoes will have higher impact when initially running barefoot, but after adaptation the impact forces are actually lower without shoes.
* '''Running shoes reduce pronation'''. Motion control shoes (the highest level of anti-pronation) only reduce pronation by about 2% when compared with a simple cushioned shoe. It seems unlikely that this is enough to produce any real world affect.
