Shoe Cushioning Influences the Running Injury Risk According to Body Mass: A Randomized Controlled Trial Involving 848 Recreational Runners

An Investigation Into the Measurement of Injury Severity in Running-Related Injury Research: A Scoping Review

Understanding injury severity is essential to inform injury prevention practice. The aims of this scoping review were to investigate how running-related injury (RRI) severity is measured, compare how it differs across studies, and examine whether it influences study outcomes (i.e., injury rates and risk factor identification). This scoping review was prospectively registered with Open Science Framework. A systematic electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscuss, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases. Included studies were published in English between January 1980 and December 2023, investigated RRIs in adult running populations, and included a measure of injury severity. Results were extracted and collated. Sixty-six studies were included. Two predominant primary criteria are used to define injury severity: the extent of the effect on running and/or the extent of the physical description. When secondary definition criteria are considered, 13 variations of injury severity measurement are used. Two approaches are used to grade injury severity: a categorization approach or a continuous numerical scale. Overall, the measurement of RRI severity is relatively inconsistent across studies. Less than half of studies report incidence rates per level of injury severity, while none report specific risk factors across levels, making it difficult to determine if the approach to measuring injury severity influences these study outcomes. This lack of information is possibly contributing to inconsistent rates of RRIs reported, and the lack of clarity on risk factors.

Could footwear stiffness reduce the development of proinflammatory markers in long-distance runners?

PURPOSE

Strenuous running triggers the coordination of pro- and anti-inflammatory, as well as immunoregulatory cytokines, which are upregulated in response to inflammatory stimulus and thus considered a precursor to overuse injury. The aim of this study was to correlate injury risk to footwear stiffness normalized against each runner's weight, i.e. the midsole's ability to resist deformation in response to the applied force.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experienced runners participated in a 2h 15 ​min intensity-controlled run, averaging 85 ​% of their threshold heart rate. Venous blood, collected in the field prior to and immediately after the race, was subjected to multi-parameter flow cytometry, to monitor the plasma levels of interleukin (IL)-2, IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα). Footwear stiffness was determined utilizing an automated drop test, recreating footfall pattern, impact speed and weight of each runner. Plasma level increase was analyzed for each cytokine, using one-way ANOVA and the data associated to footwear stiffness through the calculation of Pearson correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

Only IL-6 levels exhibited a statistical significant increase pre-to post-race, corresponding to F (1,8) ​= ​24.0417 with a critical value of 4.4139. The increase in IL-6 levels was also found to produce a strong correlation to footwear stiffness, expressed in a Pearson coefficient of r (8) ​= ​0.79 ​at ρ ​= ​0.0063 (P ​< ​0.05).

CONCLUSION

The significant increase in pro-inflammatory markers, such as IL-6 which are associated with injury, would suggest that runners using compliant footwear are at lower risk of overuse injury than the ones running on stiffer midsoles.

Technologically advanced running shoes reduce oxygen cost and cumulative tibial loading per kilometer in recreational female and male runners

Technologically advanced running shoes (TARS) improve performance compared to classical running shoes (CRS). Improved race performance has been attributed to metabolic savings in male runners, but it remains unclear if these same benefits are experienced among females and in recreational runners. The mechanisms behind these benefits are still not fully understood despite the need for optimisation, and their influence on injury mechanisms has not been explored. Here we combined biomechanical, physiological, and modelling approaches to analyse joint mechanics, oxygen uptake, and tibial load in nineteen male and female recreational runners running with CRS and TARS at their individual lactate threshold speed (12.4 ± 1.9 km/h). Oxygen uptake was 3.0 ± 1.5% lower in TARS than in CRS. Ankle dorsiflexion, joint moment and joint power were reduced in TARS compared to CRS at various phases of stance including midstance, while knee joint mechanics were mostly similar throughout. There were no significant differences for tibial bending moment during the stance phase but cumulative tibial damage per kilometre was 12 ± 9% lower in TARS compared to CRS. Our results suggest that running with TARS reduces oxygen cost in recreational female and male runners, which may partly be explained by differences in lower limb joint mechanics. The lower cumulative tibial bone load with TARS may allow runners to run longer distances in this type of shoe compared to CRS.

Gait asymmetry in spatiotemporal and kinetic variables does not increase running-related injury risk in lower limbs: a secondary analysis of a randomised trial including 800+ recreational runners

Objective

To investigate asymmetry in spatiotemporal and kinetic variables in 800+ recreational runners, identify determinants of asymmetry, investigate if asymmetry is related to greater running injury risk and compare spatiotemporal and kinetic variables between the involved and uninvolved limb at baseline in runners having sustained an injury during follow-up.

Methods

836 healthy recreational runners (38.6% women) were tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed at baseline and followed up for 6 months. From ground reaction force recordings, spatiotemporal and kinetic variables were derived for each lower limb. The Symmetry Index was computed for each variable. Correlations and multiple regression analyses were performed to identify potential determinants of asymmetry. Cox regression analyses investigated the association between asymmetry and injury risk. Analysis of variance for repeated measures was used to compare the involved and uninvolved limbs in runners who had sustained injuries during follow-up.

Results

107 participants reported at least one running-related injury. Leg length discrepancy and fat mass were the most common determinants of asymmetry, but all correlation coefficients were negligible (0.01-0.13) and explained variance was very low (multivariable-adjusted R2<0.01-0.03). Greater asymmetry for flight time and peak breaking force was associated with lower injury risk (HR (95% CI): 0.80 (0.64 to 0.99) and 0.96 (0.93 to 0.98), respectively). No between-limb differences were observed in runners having sustained an injury.

Conclusion

Gait asymmetry was not associated with higher injury risk for investigated spatiotemporal and kinetic variables.

Trial registration number

NCT03115437.

Maximalist Shoes: Separating Science From Hype

One of the most discussed but misunderstood topics in foot and ankle is shoe wear choices and the purported benefits of each type of shoe versus their actual scientific advantages. All foot and ankle care providers should be familiar with the various shoe wear types available to patients to improve their overall foot health. Recently, mainstream popularity and media coverage of maximalist shoes has created increased interest in the science and potential clinical benefits of maximalist shoes. The purpose of this review is to present the current biomechanical evidence of maximalist shoes and to help inform the foot and ankle community of their potential therapeutic applications.Levels of Evidence: Level V.

Towards functionally individualised designed footwear recommendation for overuse injury prevention: a scoping review

Injury prevention is essential in running due to the risk of overuse injury development. Tailoring running shoes to individual needs may be a promising strategy to reduce this risk. Novel manufacturing processes allow the production of individualised running shoes that incorporate features that meet individual biomechanical and experiential needs. However, specific ways to individualise footwear to reduce injury risk are poorly understood. Therefore, this scoping review provides an overview of (1) footwear design features that have the potential for individualisation; and (2) the literature on the differential responses to footwear design features between selected groups of individuals. These purposes focus exclusively on reducing the risk of overuse injuries. We included studies in the English language on adults that analysed: (1) potential interaction effects between footwear design features and subgroups of runners or covariates (e.g., age, sex) for running-related biomechanical risk factors or injury incidences; (2) footwear comfort perception for a systematically modified footwear design feature. Most of the included articles (n = 107) analysed male runners. Female runners may be more susceptible to footwear-induced changes and overuse injury development; future research should target more heterogonous sampling. Several footwear design features (e.g., midsole characteristics, upper, outsole profile) show potential for individualisation. However, the literature addressing individualised footwear solutions and the potential to reduce biomechanical risk factors is limited. Future studies should leverage more extensive data collections considering relevant covariates and subgroups while systematically modifying isolated footwear design features to inform footwear individualisation.

Reference Values and Determinants of Spatiotemporal and Kinetic Variables in Recreational Runners

Background

Identifying atypical lower limb biomechanics may help prevent the occurrence or recurrence of running-related injuries. No reference values for spatiotemporal or kinetic variables in healthy recreational runners are available in the scientific literature to support clinical management.

Purpose

To (1) present speed- and sex-stratified reference values for spatiotemporal and kinetic variables in healthy adult recreational runners; (2) identify the determinants of these biomechanical variables; and (3) develop reference regression equations that can be used as a guide in a clinical context.

Study Design

Descriptive laboratory study.

Methods

This study involved 860 healthy recreational runners (age, 19-65 years [38.5% women]) tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed in randomly allocated, standardized running shoes with either hard or soft cushioning. Twelve common spatiotemporal and kinetic variables-including contact time, flight time, duty factor, vertical oscillation, step cadence, step length, vertical impact peak (VIP), time to VIP, vertical average loading rate, vertical stiffness, peak vertical ground-reaction force (GRF), and peak braking force-were derived from GRF recordings. Reference values for each biomechanical variable were calculated using descriptive statistics and stratified by sex and running speed category (≤7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and ≥15 km/h). Correlations and multiple regression analyses were performed to identify potential determinants independently associated with each biomechanical variable and generate reference equations.

Results

The mean running speed was 10.5 ± 1.3 km/h and 9 ± 1.1 km/h in men and women, respectively. While all potential predictors were significantly correlated with many of the 12 biomechanical variables, only running speed showed high correlations (r > 0.7). The adjusted R2 of the multiple regression equations ranged from 0.19 to 0.88.

Conclusion

This study provides reference values and equations that may guide clinicians and researchers in interpreting spatiotemporal and kinetic variables in recreational runners.

Clinical Relevance

The reference values can be used as targets for clinicians working with recreational runners in cases where there is a clinical suspicion of a causal relationship between atypical biomechanics and running-related injury.

The biomechanical effects of insoles with different cushioning on the knee joints of people with different body mass index grades

Background: Enhancing knee protection for individuals who are overweight and obese is crucial. Cushioning insoles may improve knee biomechanics and play a significant protective role. However, the impact of insoles with varying cushioning properties on knee joints in individuals with different body mass index (BMI) categories remains unknown. Our aim was to investigate the biomechanical effects of insoles with different cushioning properties on knee joints across different BMI grades. Methods: Gravity-driven impact tests were used to characterize the cushioning properties of three types of Artificial Cartilage Foam (ACF18, 28, and 38) and ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) insoles. Knee joint sagittal, coronal, and vertical axis angles and moments were collected from healthy-weight (BMI 18.5-23.9 kg/m2, n = 15), overweight (BMI 24.0-27.9 kg/m2, n = 16), and obese (BMI ≥28.0 kg/m2, n = 15) individuals randomly assigned four different insoles during a drop jump. The Kruskal-Wallis test and mixed model repeated measures analysis of variance were used to compare differences among cushioning and biomechanical data across various insoles, respectively. Results: ACF showed higher cushioning than EVA, and ACF38 was the highest among the three types of ACF (all p < 0.001). During the drop jump, the knee flexion angles and moments of the ACF insoles were lower than those of the EVA insoles, the knee adduction angles of the ACF18 and ACF28 insoles were lower than those of the EVA insoles, and ACF18 insoles increased the first cushion time (all p < 0.05) for all participants in whom biomechanical variables demonstrated no interactions between insoles and BMI. Regarding the BMI-dependent biomechanical variables, compared with the EVA insoles, ACF28 insoles decreased the knee flexion angle and ACF38 insoles decreased the knee adduction and rotation moment in the healthy-weight group; ACF18 insoles decreased the knee flexion angle and ACF38 insoles decreased the knee moment in the overweight group; ACF28 insoles decreased the knee flexion and adduction moment, and ACF38 insoles decreased the knee flexion angle and rotation moment in the obese group (all p < 0.05). Conclusion: Insoles with higher cushioning properties could improve knee biomechanics and provide better knee joint protection in people across different BMI ranges.

Adolescents running in conventional running shoes have lower vertical instantaneous loading rates but greater asymmetry than running barefoot or in partial-minimal shoes

Footwear may moderate the transiently heightened asymmetry in lower limb loading associated with peak growth in adolescence during running. This repeated-measures study compared the magnitude and symmetry of peak vertical ground reaction force and instantaneous loading rates (VILRs) in adolescents during barefoot and shod running. Ten adolescents (age, 10.6 ± 1.7 years) ran at self-selected speed (1.7 ± 0.3 m/s) on an instrumented treadmill under three counter-balanced conditions; barefoot and shod with partial-minimal and conventional running shoes. All participants were within one year of their estimated peak height velocity based on sex-specific regression equations. Foot-strike patterns, peak vertical ground reaction force and VILRs were recorded during 20 seconds of steady-state running. Symmetry of ground reaction forces was assessed using the symmetry index. Repeated-measures ANOVAs were used to compare conditions (α=.05). Adolescents used a rearfoot foot-strike pattern during barefoot and shod running. Use of conventional shoes resulted in a lower VILR (P < .05, dz = 0.9), but higher VILR asymmetry (P < .05) than running barefoot (dz = 1.5) or in partial-minimal shoes (dz = 1.6). Conventional running shoes result in a lower VILR than running unshod or in partial-minimal shoes but may have the unintended consequence of increasing VILR asymmetry. The findings may have implications for performance, musculoskeletal development and injury in adolescents.

A novel characterisation protocol of mechanical interactions between the ground and a tibial prosthesis for long jump

The mechanical study of Running Specific Prostheses (RSPs) is often limited to the blade. The setup developed and presented herein is a simple experiment, based on a mechanical testing machine and a camera, that assesses two indicators relevant to coaches and athletes in the field of athletics: secant stiffness and energy dissipation. The influence of four parameters on global prosthesis behaviour is evaluated: the load line offset, the prosthesis-ground angle, the sole type and the flooring type. The load line offset and the flooring type have little to no influence on their behaviour. The prosthesis-ground angle impacts the stiffness: an increase in the angle brings a significant decrease in stiffness, which strongly impacts the performance. The type of sole modifies the kinematics of the blade tip's interaction with the ground. However, this effect is less likely to enhance the sports practice since athletics imposes the use of spikes. The camera images allow assessing the local behaviour of the sole, thus enabling to follow its strain through the compression process.

Lower impact forces but greater burden for the musculoskeletal system in running shoes with greater cushioning stiffness

In a recent randomised trial investigating running shoe cushioning, injury risk was greater in recreational runners who trained in the shoe version with greater cushioning stiffness (Stiff) compared to those using the Soft version. However, vertical impact peak force (VIPF) was lower in the Stiff version. To investigate further the mechanisms involved in the protective effect of greater cushioning, the present study used an intra-subject design and analysed the differences in running kinematics and kinetics between the Stiff and Soft shoe versions on a subsample of 41 runners from the previous trial. Data were recorded in the two shoe conditions using an instrumented treadmill at 10 km.h^-1. VIPF was confirmed to be lower in the Stiff version compared to the Soft version (1.39 ± 0.25 vs. 1.50 ± 0.25 BW, respectively; p = 0.009, d = 0.42), but not difference was observed in vertical loading rate (p = 0.255 and 0.897 for vertical average and instantaneous loading rate, respectively). Ankle eversion maximal velocity was not different (p = 0.099), but the Stiff version induced greater ankle negative work (-0.55 ± 0.09 vs. -0.52 ± 0.10 J.kg^-1; p = 0.009, d = 0.32), maximal ankle negative power (-7.21 ± 1.90 vs. -6.96 ± 1.92 W.kg^-1; p = 0.037, d = 0.13) and maximal hip extension moment (1.25 ± 0.32 vs.1.18 ± 0.30 N.m.kg^-1; p = 0.009, d = 0.22). Our results suggest that the Stiff shoe version is related to increased mechanical burden for the musculoskeletal system, especially around the ankle joint.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03115437.

Effects of arch support doses on the center of pressure and pressure distribution of running using statistical parametric mapping

Insoles with an arch support have been used to address biomechanical risk factors of running. However, the relationship between the dose of support and running biomechanics remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of changing arch support doses on the center of pressure (COP) and pressure mapping using statistical parametric mapping (SPM). Nine arch support variations (3 heights * 3 widths) and a flat insole control were tested on fifteen healthy recreational runners using a 1-m Footscan pressure plate. The medial-lateral COP (COPML) coordinates and the total COP velocity (COPVtotal) were calculated throughout the entirety of stance. One-dimensional and two-dimensional SPM were performed to assess differences between the arch support and control conditions for time series of COP variables and pressure mapping at a pixel level, respectively. Two-way ANOVAs were performed to test the main effect of the arch support height and width, and their interaction on the peak values of the COPVtotal. The results showed that the COPVtotal during the forefoot contact and forefoot push off phases was increased by arch supports, while the COP medial-lateral coordinates remained unchanged. There was a dose-response effect of the arch support height on peak values of the COPVtotal, with a higher support increasing the first and third valleys but decreasing the third peak of the COPVtotal. Meanwhile, a higher arch support height shifted the peak pressure from the medial forefoot and rearfoot to the medial arch. It is concluded that changing arch support doses, primarily the height, systematically altered the COP velocities and peak plantar pressure at a pixel level during running. When assessing subtle modifications in the arch support, the COP velocity was a more sensitive variable than COP coordinates. SPM provides a high-resolution view of pressure comparisons, and is recommended for future insole/footwear investigations to better understand the underlying mechanisms and improve insole design.

A escolha do calçado por corredores amadores: caracterização e associação com o histórico de lesão auto reportada

RESUMO O calçado é um elemento importante para a prática de corrida. As evidências sobre os impactos das características do calçado e de sua prescrição nas lesões de corredores são restritas. Dessa forma, os objetivos deste estudo foram investigar o processo de escolha do calçado por corredores e verificar se variáveis relacionadas ao calçado e seu processo de escolha estavam associadas à presença e recorrência de lesão no último ano. Foi realizado um estudo observacional com 254 corredores que responderam um questionário autoadministrado sobre características demográficas, a prática esportiva, o calçado e o processo de sua escolha, e lesões ocorridas nos últimos 12 meses. O teste qui-quadrado foi empregado para verificar se havia diferença na distribuição das respostas de cada questão, enquanto o teste de regressão logística para verificar se as variáveis relacionadas ao calçado e ao processo de escolha predizem a presença e recorrência de lesão no último ano. Os resultados indicaram que a maioria dos corredores possui tênis específico para a prática esportiva e considera algumas características ao adquiri-lo, como o amortecimento intermediário e a diferença na altura do solado entre a parte posterior e a anterior de aproximadamente 10mm. A maioria indica conhecer seu tipo de pisada, mas não a considera na escolha do calçado. Além disso, a maioria não usa palmilha e não recebeu orientação para a escolha do calçado. O modelo obtido com a regressão não foi significativo. Assim, apesar de os corredores considerarem as características do calçado ao adquiri-lo, essas características e o processo de escolha não foram associados à presença e recorrência de lesão nos últimos 12 meses.

Selection of running shoes by amateur runners: characterization and association with the self-reported history of injury

ABSTRACT Running shoes are an essential element for sports practice. Evidence on the effect of the shoe characteristics and prescription in running injuries are scarce. Thus, this study aimed to investigate runners's process of choosing running shoes and to verify whether the variables related to running shoes and their selection process are associated with the presence and recurrence of injuries in the previous year. An observational study was conducted with 254 runners who answered a self-reported questionnaire about demographics, sports practice, shoe characteristics and selection criteria, and injuries in the last 12 months. The chi-square test evaluated whether there was a difference in the distribution of answers to each question. The logistic regression evaluated whether the variables related to shoes and selection criteria predicted injury’s presence and recurrence in the previous year. The results showed that most runners had specific shoes for sports practice and considered some characteristics of the shoes to choose them, including intermediate cushioning and a difference in the heel-to-toe drop of approximately 10mm. Most respondents indicated knowing their foot type but not considering it when choosing shoes. Besides, most individuals did not use foot orthotics and did not receive guidance to select their shoes. The model obtained with the regression was not significant. Therefore, despite considering shoe characteristics when choosing it, these features and the selection criteria were not associated with the presence and recurrence of injuries in the previous 12 months.

Strategies to prevent and manage running-related knee injuries: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent and manage knee injuries in runners.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus up to May 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a primary aim of evaluating the effectiveness of intervention(s) to prevent or manage running-related knee injury.

RESULTS

Thirty RCTs (18 prevention, 12 management) analysed multiple interventions in novice and recreational running populations. Low-certainty evidence (one trial, 320 participants) indicated that running technique retraining (to land softer) reduced the risk of knee injury compared with control treadmill running (risk ratio (RR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.63). Very low-certainty to low-certainty evidence from 17 other prevention trials (participant range: 24 -3287) indicated that various footwear options, multicomponent exercise therapy, graduated running programmes and online and in person injury prevention education programmes did not influence knee injury risk (RR range: 0.55-1.06). In runners with patellofemoral pain, very low-certainty to low-certainty evidence indicated that running technique retraining strategies, medial-wedged foot orthoses, multicomponent exercise therapy and osteopathic manipulation can reduce knee pain in the short-term (standardised mean difference range: -4.96 to -0.90).

CONCLUSION

There is low-certainty evidence that running technique retraining to land softer may reduce knee injury risk by two-thirds. Very low-certainty to low-certainty evidence suggests that running-related patellofemoral pain may be effectively managed through a variety of active (eg, running technique retraining, multicomponent exercise therapy) and passive interventions (eg, foot orthoses, osteopathic manipulation).

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020150630.

Running shoes for preventing lower limb running injuries in adults

BACKGROUND

Lower-limb running injuries are common. Running shoes have been proposed as one means of reducing injury risk. However, there is uncertainty as to how effective running shoes are for the prevention of injury. It is also unclear how the effects of different characteristics of running shoes prevent injury.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of running shoes for preventing lower-limb running injuries in adult runners.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus and SPORTDiscus plus trial registers WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving runners or military personnel in basic training that either compared a) a running shoe with a non-running shoe; b) different types of running shoes (minimalist, neutral/cushioned, motion control, stability, soft midsole, hard midsole); or c) footwear recommended and selected on foot posture versus footwear not recommended and not selected on foot posture for preventing lower-limb running injuries. Our primary outcomes were number of people sustaining a lower-limb running injury and number of lower-limb running injuries. Our secondary outcomes were number of runners who failed to return to running or their previous level of running, runner satisfaction with footwear, adverse events other than musculoskeletal injuries, and number of runners requiring hospital admission or surgery, or both, for musculoskeletal injury or adverse event.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The certainty of the included evidence was assessed using GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials in the analysis which included a total of 11,240 participants, in trials that lasted from 6 to 26 weeks and were carried out in North America, Europe, Australia and South Africa. Most of the evidence was low or very low certainty as it was not possible to blind runners to their allocated running shoe, there was variation in the definition of an injury and characteristics of footwear, and there were too few studies for most comparisons. We did not find any trials that compared running shoes with non-running shoes. Neutral/cushioned versus minimalist (5 studies, 766 participants) Neutral/cushioned shoes may make little or no difference to the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with minimalist shoes (low-certainty evidence) (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.01). One trial reported that 67% and 92% of runners were satisfied with their neutral/cushioned or minimalist running shoes, respectively (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.12). Another trial reported mean satisfaction scores ranged from 4.0 to 4.3 in the neutral/ cushioned group and 3.6 to 3.9 in the minimalist running shoe group out of a total of 5. Hence neutral/cushioned running shoes may make little or no difference to runner satisfaction with footwear (low-certainty evidence). Motion control versus neutral / cushioned (2 studies, 421 participants) It is uncertain whether or not motion control shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with neutral / cushioned shoes because the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low certainty (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.81). Soft midsole versus hard midsole (2 studies, 1095 participants) Soft midsole shoes may make little or no difference to the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with hard midsole shoes (low-certainty of evidence) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10). Stability versus neutral / cushioned (1 study, 57 participants) It is uncertain whether or not stability shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with neutral/cushioned shoes because the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low certainty (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.31). Motion control versus stability (1 study, 56 participants) It is uncertain whether or not motion control shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with stability shoes because the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low certainty (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.43 to 8.40). Running shoes prescribed and selected on foot posture (3 studies, 7203 participants) There was no evidence that running shoes prescribed based on static foot posture reduced the number of injuries compared with those who received a shoe not prescribed based on foot posture in military recruits (Rate Ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13). Subgroup analysis confirmed these findings were consistent between males and females. Therefore, prescribing running shoes and selecting on foot posture probably makes little or no difference to lower-limb running injuries (moderate-certainty evidence). Data were not available for all other review outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most evidence demonstrates no reduction in lower-limb running injuries in adults when comparing different types of running shoes. Overall, the certainty of the evidence determining whether different types of running shoes influence running injury rates was very low to low, and as such we are uncertain as to the true effects of different types of running shoes upon injury rates. There is no evidence that prescribing footwear based on foot type reduces running-related lower-limb injures in adults. The evidence for this comparison was rated as moderate and as such we can have more certainty when interpreting these findings. However, all three trials included in this comparison used military populations and as such the findings may differ in recreational runners.  Future researchers should develop a consensus definition of running shoe design to help standardise classification. The definition of a running injury should also be used consistently and confirmed via health practitioners. More researchers should consider a RCT design to increase the evidence in this area. Lastly, future work should look to explore the influence of different types or running shoes upon injury rates in specific subgroups.

A qualitative examination of the factors affecting the adoption of injury focused wearable technologies in recreational runners

Purpose

Understanding the perceived efficacy and ease of use of technologies will influence initial adoption and sustained utilization. The objectives of this study were to determine the metrics deemed important by runners for monitoring running-related injury (RRI) risk, and identify the facilitators and barriers to their use of injury focused wearable technologies.

Methods

A qualitative focus group study was undertaken. Nine semi-structured focus groups with male (n = 13) and female (n = 14) recreational runners took place. Focus groups were audio and video recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analysed. A critical friend approach was taken to data coding, and multiple methods of trustworthiness were executed.

Results

Excessive loading and inadequate recovery were deemed the most important risk factors to monitor for RRI risk. Other important factors included training activities, injury status and history, and running technique. The location and method of attachment of a wearable device, the design of a smartphone application, and receiving useful injury-related information will affect recreational runners’ adoption of injury focused technologies.

Conclusions

Overtraining, training-related and individual-related risk factors are essential metrics that need to be monitored for RRI risk. RRI apps should include the metrics deemed important by runners, once there is supporting evidence-based research. The difficulty and/or ease of use of a device, and receiving useful feedback will influence the adoption of injury focused running technologies. There is a clear willingness from recreational runners to adopt injury focused wearable technologies whilst running.

Running Injury Paradigms and Their Influence on Footwear Design Features and Runner Assessment Methods: A Focused Review to Advance Evidence-Based Practice for Running Medicine Clinicians

Many runners seek health professional advice regarding footwear recommendations to reduce injury risk. Unfortunately, many clinicians, as well as runners, have ideas about how to select running footwear that are not scientifically supported. This is likely because much of the research on running footwear has not been highly accessible outside of the technical footwear research circle. Therefore, the purpose of this narrative review is to update clinical readers on the state of the science for assessing runners and recommending running footwear that facilitate the goals of the runner. We begin with a review of basic footwear construction and the features thought to influence biomechanics relevant to the running medicine practitioner. Subsequently, we review the four main paradigms that have driven footwear design and recommendation with respect to injury risk reduction: Pronation Control, Impact Force Modification, Habitual Joint (Motion) Path, and Comfort Filter. We find that evidence in support of any paradigm is generally limited. In the absence of a clearly supported paradigm, we propose that in general clinicians should recommend footwear that is lightweight, comfortable, and has minimal pronation control technology. We further encourage clinicians to arm themselves with the basic understanding of the known effects of specific footwear features on biomechanics in order to better recommend footwear on a patient-by-patient basis.

Spatiotemporal and Ground-Reaction Force Characteristics as Risk Factors for Running-Related Injury: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial Including 800+ Recreational Runners

BACKGROUND

Running biomechanics may play a role in running-related injury development, but to date, only a few modifiable factors have been prospectively associated with injury risk.

PURPOSE

To identify risk factors among spatiotemporal and ground-reaction force characteristics in recreational runners and to investigate whether shoe cushioning modifies the association between running biomechanics and injury risk.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Recreational runners (N = 848) were tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed in randomly allocated, standardized running shoes (with either hard or soft cushioning). Typical kinetic and spatiotemporal metrics were derived from ground-reaction force recordings. Participants were subsequently followed up for 6 months regarding running activity and injury. Cox regression models for competing risk were used to investigate the association between biomechanical risk factors and injury risk, including stratified analyses by shoe version.

RESULTS

In the crude analysis, greater injury risk was found for greater step length (subhazard rate ratio [SHR], 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02; P = .038), longer flight time (SHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01; P = .028), shorter contact time (SHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P = .030), and lower duty factor (defined as the ratio between contact time and stride time; SHR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98; P = .005). In the stratified analyses by shoe version, adjusted for previous injury and running speed, lower duty factor was associated with greater injury risk in those using the soft shoes (SHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; P = .042) but not in those using the hard shoes (SHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.04; P = .348).

CONCLUSION

Lower duty factor is an injury risk factor, especially for softer shoe use. Contrary to widespread beliefs, vertical impact peak, loading rate, and step rate were not injury risk factors in recreational runners.

REGISTRATION

NCT03115437 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Relevance of Frequency-Domain Analyses to Relate Shoe Cushioning, Ground Impact Forces and Running Injury Risk: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial With 800+ Recreational Runners

Cushioning systems in running shoes are used assuming that ground impact forces relate to injury risk and that cushioning materials reduce these impact forces. In our recent trial, the more cushioned shoe version was associated with lower injury risk. However, vertical impact peak force was higher in participants with the Soft shoe version. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the effect of shoe cushioning on the time, magnitude and frequency characteristics of peak forces using frequency-domain analysis by comparing the two study groups from our recent trial (Hard and Soft shoe group, respectively). The secondary objective was to investigate if force characteristics are prospectively associated with the risk of running-related injury. This is a secondary analysis of a double-blinded randomized trial on shoe cushioning with a biomechanical running analysis at baseline and a 6-month follow-up on running exposure and injury. Participants (n = 848) were tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed in their randomly allocated shoe condition. The vertical ground reaction force signal for each stance phase was decomposed into the frequency domain using the discrete Fourier transform. Both components were recomposed into the time domain using the inverse Fourier transform. An analysis of variance was used to compare force characteristics between the two study groups. Cox regression analysis was used to investigate the association between force characteristics and injury risk. Participants using the Soft shoes displayed lower impact peak force (p < 0.001, d = 0.23), longer time to peak force (p < 0.001, d = 0.25), and lower average loading rate (p < 0.001, d = 0.18) of the high frequency signal compared to those using the Hard shoes. Participants with low average and instantaneous loading rate of the high frequency signal had lower injury risk [Sub hazard rate ratio (SHR) = 0.49 and 0.55; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.25–0.97 and 0.30–0.99, respectively], and those with early occurrence of impact peak force (high frequency signal) had greater injury risk (SHR = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.05–2.53). Our findings may explain the protective effect of the Soft shoe version previously observed. The present study also demonstrates that frequency-domain analyses may provide clinically relevant impact force characteristics.

Clinical Trial Registration:https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier: 9NCT03115437.

Leg and Joint Stiffness Adaptations to Minimalist and Maximalist Running Shoes

The running footwear literature reports a conceptual disconnect between shoe cushioning and external impact loading: footwear or surfaces with greater cushioning tend to result in greater impact force characteristics during running. Increased impact loading with maximalist footwear may reflect an altered lower-extremity gait strategy to adjust for running in compliant footwear. The authors hypothesized that ankle and knee joint stiffness would change to maintain the effective vertical stiffness, as cushioning changed with minimalist, traditional, and maximalist footwear. Eleven participants ran on an instrumental treadmill (3.5 m·s-1) for a 5-minute familiarization in each footwear, plus an additional 110 seconds before data collection. Vertical, leg, ankle, and knee joint stiffness and vertical impact force characteristics were calculated. Mixed model with repeated measures tested differences between footwear conditions. Compared with traditional and maximalist, the minimalist shoes were associated with greater average instantaneous and average vertical loading rates (P < .050), greater vertical stiffness (P ≤ .010), and less change in leg length between initial contact and peak resultant ground reaction force (P < .050). No other differences in stiffness or impact variables were observed. The shoe cushioning paradox did not hold in this study due to a similar musculoskeletal strategy for running in traditional and maximalist footwear and running with a more rigid limb in minimalist footwear.

Evolution of distance running shoes: performance, injuries, and rules

Over the last 50 years, the development of running shoes has been mainly focused on improving the protection and comfort of the runner and her/his foot. Although there have been tentative attempts by companies to make shoes a tool for improving athletic performance, this goal has only recently been achieved. Indeed, the year 2016 was a real turning point when Nike launched its first shoe benefiting from the advanced footwear technology. Advanced footwear technology (AFT) mostly consists of an increased sole thickness, a curved and stiff plate embedded or below the shoe midsole, and an outsole with a marked concave shape. This innovation turned to a game changer in the world of distances running performance. Indeed, between 2016 and 2019, many male and female runners broke personal best times, national records, area, and world records in distance from 5 km to the marathon. The present article aimed at describing the magnitude of these performance enhancements in distance running as well as and the possible underlying performance-enhancement mechanisms associated with the advanced footwear technology. It also reviewed the existing literature on the safety aspects of "classical" construction shoes and AFT shoes. It concluded on a possible shoe mechanical tests-based protocol to maintain fair distance running competitions while not totally preventing manufacturers to innovate, and some thoughts on the nature and goals of further studies to be conducted to assess the safety (macro- and micro-traumatic) AFT in both elite and recreational runner populations.

Can the "Appropriate" Footwear Prevent Injury in Leisure-Time Running? Evidence Versus Beliefs

Leisure-time running is one of the most popular forms of physical activity around the world. It can be practiced almost everywhere and requires mainly a pair of "appropriate" running shoes. However, the term appropriate is ambiguous, and the properties of running footwear have always generated hot debates among clinicians, coaches, and athletes, whatever the level of practice. As the main interface between the runner's foot and the ground, the shoe potentially plays an important role in managing repetitive external mechanical loads applied to the musculoskeletal system and, thus, in injury prevention. Consequently, over the last decades, running shoes have been prescribed based on matching shoe features to foot morphology. This strategy aligns with the popular belief that footwear is one of the main extrinsic factors influencing running-related injury risk. Despite a seemingly sound strategy for shoe prescription and constant progress in running-footwear technology, the injury rate remains high. Therefore, our aim in this narrative literature review is to clarify whether the prescription of appropriate footwear to prevent injury in running is evidence based, the result of logical fallacy, or just a myth. The literature presented in this review is based on a nonsystematic search of the MEDLINE database and focuses on work investigating the effect of shoe features on injury risk in runners. In addition, key elements for a proper understanding of the literature on running footwear and injury risk are addressed. In this literature review, we outline (1) the main risk factors and the mechanisms underlying the occurrence of running-related injury, (2) important methodologic considerations for generating high-level evidence, (3) the evidence regarding the influence of running-shoe features on injury risk, (4) future directions for research, and (5) final general recommendations.

Sex-Specific Differences in Running Injuries: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

BACKGROUND

Running is a popular sport with high injury rates. Although risk factors have intensively been investigated, synthesized knowledge about the differences in injury rates of female and male runners is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically investigate the differences in injury rates and characteristics between female and male runners.

METHODS

Database searches (PubMed, Web of Science, PEDro, SPORTDiscus) were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines using the keywords "running AND injur*". Prospective studies reporting running related injury rates for both sexes were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the risk ratios (RR) for the occurrence of injuries in female vs. male runners. Potential moderators (effect modifiers) were analysed using meta-regression.

RESULTS

After removal of duplicates, 12,215 articles were screened. Thirty-eight studies were included and the OR of 31 could be pooled in the quantitative analysis. The overall injury rate was 20.8 (95% CI 19.9-21.7) injuries per 100 female runners and 20.4 (95% CI 19.7-21.1) injuries per 100 male runners. Meta-analysis revealed no differences between sexes for overall injuries reported per 100 runners (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90-1.10, n = 24) and per hours or athlete exposure (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, n = 6). Female sex was associated with a more frequent occurrence of bone stress injury (RR (for males) 0.52, 95% CI 0.36-0.76, n = 5) while male runners had higher risk for Achilles tendinopathies (RR 1. 86, 95% CI 1.25-2.79, n = 2). Meta-regression showed an association between a higher injury risk and competition distances of 10 km and shorter in female runners (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00-1.69).

CONCLUSION

Differences between female and male runners in specific injury diagnoses should be considered in the development of individualised and sex-specific prevention and rehabilitation strategies to manage running-related injuries.

Effect of shoe cushioning on landing impact forces and spatiotemporal parameters during running: results from a randomized trial including 800+ recreational runners

AbstractIn a recent randomized trial including 800+ recreational runners, injury risk was lower in those who received the Soft shoe version compared to those using the Hard version (Hazard ratio = 1.52; 95% Confidence Interval = 1.07-2.16). Here, we investigated the effect of shoe cushioning on ground reaction forces (GRF) and spatiotemporal parameters in the same cohort, with a special focus on Vertical Impact Peak Force (VIPF) and Vertical Instantaneous Loading Rate (VILR). Healthy runners (n = 848) randomly received one of two shoe prototypes that differed only in their cushioning properties (Global stiffness: 61 ± 3 and 95 ± 6 N/mm in the Soft and Hard versions, respectively). Participants were tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed. GRF data was recorded over 2 min. VIPF was higher in the Soft shoe group compared to the Hard shoe group (1.53 ± 0.21 vs. 1.44 ± 0.23 BW, respectively; p < 0.001). However, the proportion of steps with detectable VIPF was lower in the Soft shoe group (84 vs. 97%, respectively; p < 0.001) and Time to VIPF was longer (46.9 ± 8.5 vs. 43.4 ± 7.4 milliseconds, respectively; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed for VILR (60.1 ± 13.8 vs. 58.9 ± 15.6 BW/s for Soft and Hard shoe group, respectively; p = 0.070) or any other kinetic variable. These results show that the beneficial effect of greater shoe cushioning on injury risk in the present cohort is not associated with attenuated VIPF and VILR. These GRF metrics may be inappropriate markers of the shoe cushioning-injury risk relationship, while delayed VIPF and the proportion of steps displaying a VIPF could be more relevant.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03115437..

Factors Affecting Training and Physical Performance in Recreational Endurance Runners

Endurance running has become an immensely popular sporting activity, with millions of recreational runners around the world. Despite the great popularity of endurance running as a recreational activity during leisure time, there is no consensus on the best practice for recreational runners to effectively train to reach their individual objectives and improve physical performance in a healthy manner. Moreover, there are lots of anecdotal data without scientific support, while most scientific evidence on endurance running was developed from studies observing both recreational and professional athletes of different levels. Further, the transference of all this information to only recreational runners is difficult due to differences in the genetic predisposition for endurance running, the time available for training, and physical, psychological, and physiological characteristics. Therefore, the aim of this review is to present a selection of scientific evidence regarding endurance running to provide training guidelines to be used by recreational runners and their coaches. The review will focus on some key aspects of the training process, such as periodization, training methods and monitoring, performance prediction, running technique, and prevention and management of injuries associated with endurance running.