Background/aimThis randomised controlled trial investigated if the usage of running shoes with a motion control system modifies injury risk in regular leisure-time runners compared to standard shoes, and if this influence depends on foot morphology.MethodsRecreational runners (n=372) were given either the motion control or the standard version of a regular running shoe model and were followed up for 6 months regarding running activity and injury. Foot morphology was analysed using the Foot Posture Index method. Cox regression analyses were used to compare injury risk between the two groups, based on HRs and their 95% CIs, controlling for potential confounders. Stratified analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of motion control system in runners with supinated, neutral and pronated feet.ResultsThe overall injury risk was lower among the participants who had received motion control shoes (HR=0.55; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85) compared to those receiving standard shoes. This positive effect was only observed in the stratum of runners with pronated feet (n=94; HR=0.34; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.84); there was no difference in runners with neutral (n=218; HR=0.78; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.37) or supinated feet (n=60; HR=0.59; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.73). Runners with pronated feet using standard shoes had a higher injury risk compared to those with neutral feet (HR=1.80; 95% CI 1.01 to 3.22).ConclusionsThe overall injury risk was lower in participants who had received motion control shoes. Based on secondary analysis, those with pronated feet may benefit most from this shoe type.

Many studies have highlighted differences in foot strike pattern comparing habitually shod runners who ran barefoot and with running shoes. Barefoot running results in a flatter foot landing and in a decreased vertical ground reaction force compared to shod running. The aim of this study was to investigate one possible parameter influencing running pattern: the midsole thickness. Fifteen participants ran overground at 3.3 ms(-1) barefoot and with five shoes of different midsole thickness (0 mm, 2 mm, 4 mm, 8 mm, 16 mm) with no difference of height between rearfoot and forefoot. Impact magnitude was evaluated using transient peak of vertical ground reaction force, loading rate, tibial acceleration peak and rate. Hip, knee and ankle flexion angles were computed at touch-down and during stance phase (range of motion and maximum values). External net joint moments and stiffness for hip, knee and ankle joints were also observed as well as global leg stiffness. No significant effect of midsole thickness was observed on ground reaction force and tibial acceleration. However, the contact time increased with midsole thickness. Barefoot running compared to shod running induced ankle in plantar flexion at touch-down, higher ankle dorsiflexion and lower knee flexion during stance phase. These adjustments are suspected to explain the absence of difference on ground reaction force and tibial acceleration. This study showed that the presence of very thin footwear upper and sole was sufficient to significantly influence the running pattern.

Overall, injury risk was not modified by the drop of standard cushioned running shoes. However, low-drop shoes could be more hazardous for regular runners, while these shoes seem to be preferable for occasional runners to limit injury risk.

Shoe drop appears to be a key parameter influencing running pattern, but its effects on vGRF differ depending on the task (treadmill vs. overground running) and must be considered with caution. Unlike shod conditions, kinematics of barefoot condition was not altered by treadmill running explaining opposite conclusions between the tasks.