Thursday, July 23, 2009
A new prospective study shows that when a running shoe store recommends a specific type of trainer for you, based on your foot type (you may stand on a type of light box or do a "wet test" for foot print, to be told based on your arch the kind of shoe you need), that is supposed to be more helpful to your stride etc etc, injury levels do not seem to be decreased.
The cool thing in the study is that it had a high no. of participants and a goodly fix of stats and it was able to look at stats for a standard set of tasks, Basic Combat Training (BCT).Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research:May 2009 - Volume 23 - Issue 3 - pp 685-697doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181a0fc63Original Research
Knapik, Joseph J; Swedler, David I; Grier, Tyson L; Hauret, Keith G; Bullock, Steven H; Williams, Kelly W; Darakjy, Salima S; Lester, Mark E; Tobler, Steven K; Jones, Bruce H
Knapik, JJ, Swedler, DI, Grier, TL, Hauret, KG, Bullock, SH, Williams, KW, Darakjy, SS, Lester, ME, Tobler, SK, and Jones, BH. Injury reduction effectiveness of selecting running shoes based on plantar shape. J Strength Cond Res 23(3): 685-697, 2009-Popular running magazines and running shoe companies suggest that imprints of the bottom of the feet (plantar shape) can be used as an indication of the height of the medial longitudinal foot arch and that this can be used to select individually appropriate types of running shoes. This study examined whether or not this selection technique influenced injury risk during United States Army Basic Combat Training (BCT). After foot examinations, BCT recruits in an experimental group (E: n = 1,079 men and 451 women) selected motion control, stability, or cushioned shoes for plantar shapes judged to represent low, medium, or high foot arches, respectively. A control group (C: n = 1,068 men and 464 women) received a stability shoe regardless of plantar shape. Injuries during BCT were determined from outpatient medical records. Other previously known injury risk factors (e.g., age, fitness, and smoking) were obtained from a questionnaire and existing databases. Multivariate Cox regression controlling for other injury risk factors showed little difference in injury risk between the E and C groups among men (risk ratio (E/C) = 1.01; 95% confidence interval = 0.88-1.16; p = 0.87) or women (risk ratio (E/C) = 1.07; 95% confidence interval = 0.91-1.25; p = 0.44). In practical application, this prospective study demonstrated that selecting shoes based on plantar shape had little influence on injury risk in BCT. Thus, if the goal is injury prevention, this selection technique is not necessary in BCT.
What was found to influence injury? Suprise surprise: general fitness.
The present study found a number of risk factors thatSo next time a buddy says they're getting a particular kind of "stabilization" shoe to help so they don't ankle roll or whatever, they may want to consider these results.
conﬁrmed previous work in BCT. Higher injury risk pro-
gressively increased with progressively lower aerobic ﬁtness,
lower muscular endurance, older age, less physical activity,
and more cigarette smoking, similar to results in much of the
BCT literature (1,9,14,16,22,28,29,37,41,43).
Indeed, what this study did not look at, intriguingly, is what would happen if INSTEAD of using sneakers of any kind, thin soled shoes like tiger Tai Chi's or similar were used. In other words, all other things being equal, would the promises of proprioceptive joy offered by the less is more approach to foot wear, where the twist test of a shoe means more joint mobilization in the foot, more proprioceptive signals shot out to the brain to judge where we are in space, could actually improve injury reduction? My *guess* would be, based on folks's reports of feeling better in less foot wear, that going the other way - out of cushy soles of any kind - just might.
- VFF b2d index - the many wonderful effects of foot freedom