Similar risk for injury found with traditional vs minimalist running shoes

Compared with soldiers in the U.S. Army who wore stability, cushioning or motional-control shoes, soldiers who wore minimalist running shoes were younger and had higher physical performance scores. However, investigators found no significant differences between the groups regarding risk for injury after controlling for other variables.

Maximalist shoes fail to cushion impact of running. Medscape

by Monica Jaramillo, Healio August 30, 2016

Researchers evaluated 1,332 male soldiers in the U.S. Army brigade. Investigators collected data on participants’ personal characteristics and collected their Army Physical Fitness Test scores. At the brigade, a fitness performance test was administered and investigators identified type of footwear worn via visual inspection.

For foot strength, less is more. Runner’s Rationale

The shoe types were classified as either stability, cushioning and motion-control (known as traditional shoes) or minimalist running shoes (MRS). The Defense Medical Surveillance System was used to determine injuries sustained from the previous 12 months. Investigators determined mean differences between the groups regarding personal characteristics, training and fitness performance metrics by the shoe type.

Results showed 57% of soldiers wore cushioning shoes, 24% wore stability shoes, 17% wore MRS and 2% wore motion-control shoes. Investigators noted soldiers who wore MRS were younger compared with soldiers who wore either stability, cushioning or motion-control shoes.

Soldiers who wore MRS also performed more push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups and run a 2-mile run faster than soldiers who wore traditional shoes. No difference was seen between soldiers who wore MRS and those who wore stability, cushioning or motion-control shoes with regard to injury risk after investigators controlled for other factors.

Source Healio