Posted on 12/22/2024 6:30:49 AM PST by ConservativeMind
Runners wearing thick-heeled sneakers were more likely to get injured than those wearing flatter shoes, a recent study has found.
The study, one of the largest and most comprehensive of its kind, also found that runners with thicker heels could not accurately identify how their foot landed with each step, a likely factor in the high injury rates. Because flatter shoes are associated with less injury, the researchers say they are likely the best option for most runners to help improve sensation with the ground and learn to land in a controlled manner. But transitioning to a different shoe type or foot strike pattern can also risk injury and must be done gradually, something that lead author Heather Vincent, Ph.D., knows from personal experience.
"I had to teach myself to get out of the big, high-heeled shoes down to something with more moderate cushioning and to work on foot strengthening," said Vincent. "It may take up to six months for it to feel natural. It's a process."
Both foot strike patterns and shoe type have been linked to running injuries in past studies, but the interaction between the two has been difficult to identify from small groups of runners.
What became clear after controlling for factors like age, weight, running volume and competitiveness was that shoes with thicker heels confused runners about their gait—confusion that was strongly linked to injury.
"The shoe lies between the foot and the ground, and features like a large heel-to-toe drop make it more challenging for runners to identify how they're striking the ground. That clouds how we retrain people or determine if someone is at risk for future injury," Vincent said. "The runners who correctly detected mid- or fore-foot striking had very different shoes: lower heel-to-toe drop; lighter; wider toe box."
(Excerpt) Read more at medicalxpress.com ...
cross country shoes keep you up on the balls of your feet.
I will dispute this study. I have ran ultras and never had injuries. Western States 100 mile is the most famous that I completed. Of course I turned my ankle because of gnarly single track trails.
I had to switch to a mid foot strike in my 40s. Took a while but with that and going to the nearly naked ASICS shoes, I had fewer nagging injuries.
Running is not good for you, it’s not good for your back and it’s not good for your feet. Try walking... It’s a more sensible exercise method and it doesn’t typically lead to injury.
I love my Hoka Bondi’s. Thick soled and plush. Never had a problem.
Or heavier runners wear thicker soles. And are more prone repetitive stress injury due to physics.
Jogging is a stupid exercise for anyone not built like a scarecrow. Preferably a petite scarecrow. The most common serious sports injuries are jogging injuries. The rest are not close.
Walk or sprint if you have any kind of muscle.
Walking briskly is so biomechanically superior over jogging it’s in a different league than jogging and offers effectively the same cardiovascular benefits.
As a runner since 1972, I disagree. I’ve tried the flat soled shoes, using them for months. MAYBE if I only ran on pavement and ran slow enough, but...
If you rely on the thick soles to protect you, you can overstride and cause injuries. But I often run on trail. Foot placement is critical on a trail if you want to stay upright, and it is EASY to put your foot down precisely while wearing a thick enough sole to protect you from rocks.
“What became clear after controlling for factors like age, weight, running volume and competitiveness was that shoes with thicker heels confused runners about their gait...”
Total hogwash! It is IMPOSSIBLE to do that. The variables are too complex and how each runner does it has more factors. NO ONE knows how to control for all of those and an statistician who says they can is a fool.
The pretense that one can juggle numbers to adjust for 20 different things is the heart of why so many studies are only useful for wiping one’s butt.
Writing from the point of over 50 years experience, currently running around 15 miles a week with 50% on rocky, southern Arizona desert trail...ANYONE who wears one set or type of shoes regularly WILL figure out - subconsciously - the way to run with the least impact on their joints and feet. They may not be able to DESCRIBE it, but they will be able to DO it!
I blend my workout, jog first mile, walk three more.
Interesting. My running daughter prefers the “barefoot” type of shoes when she runs - says it helps her feel the ground when she is running.
That said, my late husband - a long distance and marathon runner - had numerous surgeries on his hip, knee and ankle that he swears was caused by running on hard surfaces like roads and sidewalks in his younger days.
I’ve been a runner since 1999. I hate running but I love the results. In Sea Girt NJ, there is a running store that helped me tremendously. They asked me to bring my running shoes in to see the wear pattern. After they saw how they were worn, I was able to find the best shoes for my gait. Much later, I stupidly bought a pair of thick heeled shoes. Shortly after I developed shin splints. Had no idea how painful they were.
God didn’t give mankind a too short heel, he made it right from the start.
It’s a vanity thing, imo. The taller heel is mostly a fashion matter. People, especially women, like to appear taller, longer legged; even if exercising. Just look at the literal pains they go through when wearing high heel formal footwear.
My wife, who as a late teen-early 20s woman, has tried walking and standing in a 4” heel a few times, and says there is no such thing as a comfortable high heel shoe. Obviously, the higher the heel, the less comfortable the shoe.
It’s simple physics: the more you elevate the heel in a shoe, the more the foot wants to slide downhill in the shoe. And the center of gravity between the toes and heel is moved closer to the toes, requiring the toes to work harder with less relief. The ankle has to work harder (especially with spike heels). Plus, there is the need for a woman arch her back more (push her rear rearward) to maintain center of gravity.
This.
Brookes were the best thing that ever happened to my runs.
The flat Converse were ruining people before shoe-tech improved.
**Running is not good for you, it’s not good for your back and it’s not good for your feet. Try walking... It’s a more sensible exercise method and it doesn’t typically lead to injury.**
That’s why I run 120 yard sprints up an inclined section of road about 3 times a week. Sprinting requires a tight yet smooth motion; therefore it is less jarring, as there is no relaxing of of muscles. It’s 100% go hard.
I run up, walk down, maybe 4 times, the first pass at maybe 75%. I mix that with a 3 or 4 mile bike ride at a brisk pace a couple times a week. There are a couple of tough hills.
That, and the usual floor exercises, chin ups, and some weights. I do that about 3 times a week.
I did more 15 years ago. I’m 70 now, and not trying to build muscle, just maintain conditioning and muscle tone.
There’s a community of “barefoot” advocates out there that would say that most of the time shoes are unneeded and unhelpful. They liken it to wearing gloves - sometimes helpful, but you wouldn’t want to do it all day long and your hands would suffer if you did. I wouldn’t say I’m sold on their position, but I can see their point.
Try that run in some cowboy boots and see how you feel!🤠
Every hooker knows this.
I have run/jogged for about 50 years. No problems with anything as far as I know. You just have to do it in moderation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.