Injuries and footwear (Part 1): Athletic shoe history and injuries in relation to foot arch height and training in boots

Joseph J Knapik, Rodney Pope, Robin Orr, Tyson Grier

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

This article traces the history of the athletic shoe, examines whether selecting running shoes based on foot arch height influences injuries, and examines historical data on injury rates when physical training (PT) is performed in boots versus running shoes. In the 1980s and into the 2000s, running shoe companies were advertising specialized shoes with "motion control," "stability," and "cushioning," designed for individuals with low, normal, and high arches, respectively. Despite marketing claims that these shoes would reduce injury rates, coordinated studies in Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps basic training showed that assigning or selecting shoes on this basis had no effect on injury rates. Consistent with this finding, biomechanical studies have shown that the relationships between arch height, foot joint mobility, and rear-foot motion are complex, variable, and frequently not as strong as often assumed. In 1982, the US Army switched from PT in boots to PT in running shoes because of the belief that boots were causing injuries and that running shoes would reduce injury rates. However, a historical comparison of injury rates before and after the switch to running shoes showed virtually no difference in injury risk between the two periods. It is not clear at this point if the type of footwear effects injury incidence.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)102-108
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals
Volume15
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2015

Fingerprint

Shoes
Sports
Foot
Running
Wounds and Injuries
Foot Joints
Military Personnel
Marketing
History
Air

Cite this

@article{c780e41ed21043e3b9da13be6edbda6f,
title = "Injuries and footwear (Part 1): Athletic shoe history and injuries in relation to foot arch height and training in boots",
abstract = "This article traces the history of the athletic shoe, examines whether selecting running shoes based on foot arch height influences injuries, and examines historical data on injury rates when physical training (PT) is performed in boots versus running shoes. In the 1980s and into the 2000s, running shoe companies were advertising specialized shoes with {"}motion control,{"} {"}stability,{"} and {"}cushioning,{"} designed for individuals with low, normal, and high arches, respectively. Despite marketing claims that these shoes would reduce injury rates, coordinated studies in Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps basic training showed that assigning or selecting shoes on this basis had no effect on injury rates. Consistent with this finding, biomechanical studies have shown that the relationships between arch height, foot joint mobility, and rear-foot motion are complex, variable, and frequently not as strong as often assumed. In 1982, the US Army switched from PT in boots to PT in running shoes because of the belief that boots were causing injuries and that running shoes would reduce injury rates. However, a historical comparison of injury rates before and after the switch to running shoes showed virtually no difference in injury risk between the two periods. It is not clear at this point if the type of footwear effects injury incidence.",
author = "Knapik, {Joseph J} and Rodney Pope and Robin Orr and Tyson Grier",
note = "2015.",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "102--108",
journal = "Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals",
issn = "1553-9768",
publisher = "U.S. Special Operations Command",
number = "4",

}

Injuries and footwear (Part 1) : Athletic shoe history and injuries in relation to foot arch height and training in boots. / Knapik, Joseph J; Pope, Rodney; Orr, Robin; Grier, Tyson.

In: Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals, Vol. 15, No. 4, 01.12.2015, p. 102-108.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Injuries and footwear (Part 1)

T2 - Athletic shoe history and injuries in relation to foot arch height and training in boots

AU - Knapik, Joseph J

AU - Pope, Rodney

AU - Orr, Robin

AU - Grier, Tyson

N1 - 2015.

PY - 2015/12/1

Y1 - 2015/12/1

N2 - This article traces the history of the athletic shoe, examines whether selecting running shoes based on foot arch height influences injuries, and examines historical data on injury rates when physical training (PT) is performed in boots versus running shoes. In the 1980s and into the 2000s, running shoe companies were advertising specialized shoes with "motion control," "stability," and "cushioning," designed for individuals with low, normal, and high arches, respectively. Despite marketing claims that these shoes would reduce injury rates, coordinated studies in Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps basic training showed that assigning or selecting shoes on this basis had no effect on injury rates. Consistent with this finding, biomechanical studies have shown that the relationships between arch height, foot joint mobility, and rear-foot motion are complex, variable, and frequently not as strong as often assumed. In 1982, the US Army switched from PT in boots to PT in running shoes because of the belief that boots were causing injuries and that running shoes would reduce injury rates. However, a historical comparison of injury rates before and after the switch to running shoes showed virtually no difference in injury risk between the two periods. It is not clear at this point if the type of footwear effects injury incidence.

AB - This article traces the history of the athletic shoe, examines whether selecting running shoes based on foot arch height influences injuries, and examines historical data on injury rates when physical training (PT) is performed in boots versus running shoes. In the 1980s and into the 2000s, running shoe companies were advertising specialized shoes with "motion control," "stability," and "cushioning," designed for individuals with low, normal, and high arches, respectively. Despite marketing claims that these shoes would reduce injury rates, coordinated studies in Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps basic training showed that assigning or selecting shoes on this basis had no effect on injury rates. Consistent with this finding, biomechanical studies have shown that the relationships between arch height, foot joint mobility, and rear-foot motion are complex, variable, and frequently not as strong as often assumed. In 1982, the US Army switched from PT in boots to PT in running shoes because of the belief that boots were causing injuries and that running shoes would reduce injury rates. However, a historical comparison of injury rates before and after the switch to running shoes showed virtually no difference in injury risk between the two periods. It is not clear at this point if the type of footwear effects injury incidence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84976272648&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 102

EP - 108

JO - Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals

JF - Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals

SN - 1553-9768

IS - 4

ER -