U.S. Army Captain Michael Kelvington, commander of the Battle company, 1-508 Parachute Infantry battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, bows next to remains of Gulam Dostager, a member of Afghan Local Police who was killed in the blast of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) during the joint Tor Janda (Black Flag in Pashtu) operation, in Zahri district of Kandahar province, southern Afghanistan May 25, 2012.  REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov  (AFGHANISTAN - Tags: MILITARY CIVIL UNREST CONFLICT TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Members of the U.S. Navy Blue Angels fly over the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan as part of the 25th annual Fleet Week celebration in New York, May 23, 2012.  REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz (UNITED STATES - Tags: MILITARY ANNIVERSARY TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

Fleet Week

The U.S. Navy takes Manhattan for a week.  Slideshow 

Photo

The SpaceX mission

A privately owned unmanned rocket blasts off on a mission to be the first commercial flight to the International Space Station.  Slideshow 

Custom running shoes might not prevent injuries

Related Topics

Joggers wearing shorts run along Stanley Park's seawall in Vancouver, British Columbia February 20, 2010. REUTERS/Andy Clark

Joggers wearing shorts run along Stanley Park's seawall in Vancouver, British Columbia February 20, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Andy Clark

NEW YORK | Wed Jul 7, 2010 5:26pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Buying running shoes? A new study suggests that wearing sneakers tailored to your foot shape might not protect you against injuries.

New Balance, the maker of shoes used in the study, helps runners choose the best shoe for them by determining their foot shape, among other factors, in the company's online "Find your Total Fit" feature.

But "simply measuring the foot morphology with (this type of) technique is not sufficient for prescribing footwear if your objective is to prevent injuries," Dr. Bruce Jones, an investigator on the study who manages the injury prevention program at the U.S. Army Public Health Command in Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, told Reuters Health.

Shoe companies market different sneaker models to runners based on how their feet roll and distribute their weight when they hit the ground -- a term referred to as pronation.

Overpronators have feet that roll too far inward on each stride, while the feet of underpronators don't roll enough. Shoes are marketed under the assumption that by adjusting for some of these differences, runners can improve their mechanics and thus prevent injury.

Pronation is generally measured by taking a flat footprint and examining how much of the foot is in contact with the ground when the runner is standing still, a method used by many running specialty stores. But Marine Corps recruits who were fitted for sneakers this way got injured just as frequently as those who were all given a basic shoe made for runners who pronate normally.

Dr. Joseph Knapik, an epidemiologist at Aberdeen, led the study of about 1,400 Marine Corps recruits. The recruits -- both men and women -- all had their foot shape analyzed and were randomly assigned to one of two groups.

One group got a running shoe that was marketed for their type of pronation: runners whose footprints indicated they were overpronators got a motion control shoe, underpronators got a cushion shoe, and those with normal pronation got a stability shoe.

Members of the other group were all assigned stability shoes, regardless of their foot shape and pronation. Then the recruits wore their assigned shoes, alternating with combat boots, for 12 weeks of training.

During the study, Knapik and his colleagues kept track of different kinds of injuries in the recruits, including overuse injuries and injuries to tendons and ligaments as well as bones and muscles.

In every way the study team measured injuries, there was little difference in how often members of the two groups got injured. This was true for both men and women.

In all, about 42 percent of men assigned custom fitted shoes and 41 percent of men in the stability shoe group got injured over the 12-week training period. For women, approximately 37 percent in custom fitted shoes and about 45 percent in stability shoes regardless of their foot type were injured -- a difference that was not statistically significant.

The results are published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine.

The findings agree with similar studies the investigators have done with Army and Air Force recruits. When they combined data from the three studies, there still wasn't a significant difference in injury rates based on shoe assignment.

New Balance representatives could not be reached for comment.

One explanation of the findings, said Dr. Joseph Hamill, an exercise scientist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, is that the footprint technique for assigning running shoes doesn't work.

"It's not going to prevent injuries by assigning shoes based on a static measurement," Hamill, who was not involved with the study, told Reuters Health.

To do a more thorough analysis, runners need to be monitored on a treadmill, or with more specialized equipment. But that's often not feasible -- for Marine Corps recruits or for recreational runners. And Jones said it's not clear that technique would be more helpful.

"There's no evidence that dynamic measurements make a difference either," he said. This could be, he added, because people with different foot shapes actually get injured at similar rates to begin with.

The message to runners is not to focus too much on motion control, cushion, and stability labels, Jones said. "What it means," he said, "is that you can choose the shoe you like most and that feels the best."

The study was supported by the Naval Health Research Center. The investigators report that they had no conflicts of interest in this study.

SOURCE: link.reuters.com/tex35m The American Journal of Sports Medicine, published online June 24, 2010.

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
Cwolf88 wrote:
The key problems are the number of variables involved. All of the shoe companies sell shoes based on foot shape, not just New Balance.

First, there are high rates of entry osteopenia (see Lappe et al, FLW) which worsen due the inadequate menu (see USARIEM 1995). When Lappe gave Navy trainees 800 IU of D and 2,000 mg of calcium, Navy BCT stress fractures went down 20%. Shoes don’t affect osteopenia (realizing osteopenia by itself is not specifically predictive).

Second, Army BCT Soldiers put in 8-11 miles per day marching to class, etc. in boots. Running shoes are only worn for PT. So, most of the exposure is in boots. If you visit the Army boot issue points, you’ll see a high re-issue rate due to initial mis-fittings. Boots are designed for men and are too high and too stiff in the smaller sizes. The USMC boot appears to be better, but no data.

Third, running shoes are designed for running and the military uses them for marching, doing calisthenics, and frequently get them wet. Running shoes appear to be seriously worn out early in training. All of which is why New Balance designed a new military PT shoe which should be available this fall.

The entire shoe business is an inexact science at best. Foot shape and foot biomechanics do not line up exactly. Shoe fitting is equally inexact; many folks wear the wrong sizes. How many get their feet measured before buying a shoe? How many know a high arched foot measuring at a size 12 (which may not be the actual shoe size) should wear a wider or bigger shoe?

Finally, how many trainees are evaluated for foot problems at the beginning of training? THe answer is they only see the podiatrist after they break. Even then, they are not fully evaluated. Even then, what data is there for their interventions?

Jul 08, 2010 9:05am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Cwolf88 wrote:
The key problems are the number of variables involved. All of the shoe companies sell shoes based on foot shape, not just New Balance.

First, there are high rates of entry osteopenia (see Lappe et al, FLW) which worsen due the inadequate menu (see USARIEM 1995). When Lappe gave Navy trainees 800 IU of D and 2,000 mg of calcium, Navy BCT stress fractures went down 20%. Shoes don’t affect osteopenia (realizing osteopenia by itself is not specifically predictive).

Second, Army BCT Soldiers put in 8-11 miles per day marching to class, etc. in boots. Running shoes are only worn for PT. So, most of the exposure is in boots. If you visit the Army boot issue points, you’ll see a high re-issue rate due to initial mis-fittings. Boots are designed for men and are too high and too stiff in the smaller sizes. The USMC boot appears to be better, but no data.

Third, running shoes are designed for running and the military uses them for marching, doing calisthenics, and frequently get them wet. Running shoes appear to be seriously worn out early in training. All of which is why New Balance designed a new military PT shoe which should be available this fall.

The entire shoe business is an inexact science at best. Foot shape and foot biomechanics do not line up exactly. Shoe fitting is equally inexact; many folks wear the wrong sizes. How many get their feet measured before buying a shoe? How many know a high arched foot measuring at a size 12 (which may not be the actual shoe size) should wear a wider or bigger shoe?

Finally, how many trainees are evaluated for foot problems at the beginning of training? THe answer is they only see the podiatrist after they break. Even then, they are not fully evaluated. Even then, what data is there for their interventions?

Jul 08, 2010 9:05am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Cwolf88 wrote:
The key problems are the number of variables involved. All of the shoe companies sell shoes based on foot shape, not just New Balance.

First, there are high rates of entry osteopenia (see Lappe et al, FLW) which worsen due the inadequate menu (see USARIEM 1995). When Lappe gave Navy trainees 800 IU of D and 2,000 mg of calcium, Navy BCT stress fractures went down 20%. Shoes don’t affect osteopenia (realizing osteopenia by itself is not specifically predictive).

Second, Army BCT Soldiers put in 8-11 miles per day marching to class, etc. in boots. Running shoes are only worn for PT. So, most of the exposure is in boots. If you visit the Army boot issue points, you’ll see a high re-issue rate due to initial mis-fittings. Boots are designed for men and are too high and too stiff in the smaller sizes. The USMC boot appears to be better, but no data.

Third, running shoes are designed for running and the military uses them for marching, doing calisthenics, and frequently get them wet. Running shoes appear to be seriously worn out early in training. All of which is why New Balance designed a new military PT shoe which should be available this fall.

The entire shoe business is an inexact science at best. Foot shape and foot biomechanics do not line up exactly. Shoe fitting is equally inexact; many folks wear the wrong sizes. How many get their feet measured before buying a shoe? How many know a high arched foot measuring at a size 12 (which may not be the actual shoe size) should wear a wider or bigger shoe?

Finally, how many trainees are evaluated for foot problems at the beginning of training? THe answer is they only see the podiatrist after they break. Even then, they are not fully evaluated. Even then, what data is there for their interventions?

Jul 08, 2010 9:05am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.