ADVERTISEMENT
What A Recent Study Revealed About Runners And Motion Control Shoes
I have just returned from Melbourne, Australia, where I participated in the Australasian Podiatry Conference 2017. One outstanding research paper presented at this conference caught my attention and deserves sharing with my American podiatric sports medicine colleagues.
Laurent Malisoux, MS, PhD, who is affiliated with the Sports Medicine Research Laboratory at the Luxembourg Institute of Health, is a major contributor to research and insight into the role of footwear and running injuries. He presented the results of a high quality study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, which evaluated the role of foot type, shoe construction and rate of injury in runners.1
This randomized controlled trial focused on 372 recreational runners over a period of six months and documented the rate and location of injury sustained from running activity.1 The aim of the study was to determine whether motion control running shoes (that contained a dual-density midsole and medial arch reinforcement) or standard running shoes would affect the rate of injury from running. Using a Foot Posture index, researchers classified the study participants as having one of five foot types (highly supinated, supinated, neutral, pronated and highly pronated).2
The results of the study revealed:
- Participants who wore motion control shoes had a lower risk of running injury.
- When researchers looked specifically at foot type, only those with pronated feet demonstrated a reduced injury rate in motion control shoes.
- Overall, regardless of shoe type, runners with pronated feet had a higher injury risk.
- These runners with pronated feet had a higher rate of injury when wearing standard running shoes in comparison to motion control running shoes.
While the results of this study are not surprising to anyone who treats running injuries, there have been previous studies that actually suggested that shoe type and foot type do not affect injury rates in runners.3-6 However, Malisoux pointed out that the studies by Knapik and coworkers were limited to military populations who were also engaged in high-level fitness activities beyond running while Ryan’s study had a small sample size and lacked blinding of participants.3-6 It is actually surprising that there are so few studies evaluating foot morphology and injury risk.
The study published by Malisoux and coworkers verified a conclusion that many of us have made regarding the recommendation of types of running shoes to our patients. Runners with pronated feet are less likely to have injury if they wear motion control running shoes rather than standard shoes.
What is surprising to learn from this study is the suggestion that runners with supinated feet are not at higher risk of injury if they wear motion control shoes. This refutes the claim made by advocates of minimalist footwear that so-called “over-controlling” running shoes are detrimental to certain foot types. Across the board, injury rates were lower for all foot types with motion control running shoes in the study by Malisoux and colleagues although there was only statistical significance in the population with a pronated foot type.
For those patients with neutral and supinated foot types, neither the design nor construction of a running shoe appear to affect injury rate. For now, we will still have to rely on intuitive thinking when making shoe recommendations to our patients with neutral and supinated foot morphology.
References
1. Malisoux L, Chambon N, Delattre N, Gueguen N, Urhausen A, Theisen D. Injury risk in runners using standard or motion control shoes: a randomized controlled trial with participant and assessor blinding. Br J Sports Med. 2016; 50(8):481-7.
2. Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB. Normative values for the Foot Posture Index. J Foot Ankle Res. 2008; 1(1):6.
3. Knapik JJ, Trone DW, Tchandja J, et al. Injury-reduction effectiveness of prescribing running shoes on the basis of foot arch height: summary of military investigations. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014; 44(10):805–12.
4. Knapik JJ, Brosch LC, Venuto M, et al. Effect on injuries of assigning shoes based on foot shape in air force basic training. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(1Suppl):S197–211.
5. Knapik JJ, Trone DW, Swedler DI, et al. Injury reduction effectiveness of assigning running shoes based on plantar shape in Marine Corps basic training. Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38(9):1759–67.
6. Ryan MB, Valiant GA, McDonald K, et al. The effect of three different levels of footwear stability on pain outcomes in women runners: a randomised control trial. Br J Sports Med. 2011; 45(9):715–21.