Welcome to the Running Shoe Rx forums, for communication between sports medicine professionals, serious runners and industry insiders about running shoes and related topics.
You are currently viewing our running shoe forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community you will have access to post running shoe topics and running shoe reviews (as well as answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global running shoe community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence based?
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the current practice of prescribing distance running shoes featuring elevated cushioned heels and pronation control systems tailored to the individual's foot type is evidence based.
DATA SOURCES: Medline (1950-May 2007), CINAHL (1982-May 2007), EMBASE (1980-May 2007), PsychInfo (1806-May 2007), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2nd Quarter 2007), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (2nd Quarter 2007), SPORTSDiscus (1985-May 2007) and AMED (1985-May 2007) Review
METHODS: English language articles were identified via keyword and MeSH searches of the above electronic databases. Via these searches and the subsequent review process, controlled trials or systematic reviews were sought where the study population included adult recreational or competitive distance runners, the exposure was distance running, the intervention evaluated was a running shoe with an elevated cushioned heel and pronation control systems individualised to the wearers foot type and the outcomes measured included either running injury rates, distance running performance, osteoarthritis risk, physical activity levels or overall health and wellbeing. The quality of these studies and their findings were then evaluated
RESULTS: No original research was identified either directly or via the findings of the six systematic reviews identified which met the study criteria.
CONCLUSION: The prescription of this shoe type to distance runners is not evidence based.
Re: Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence based?
Here is a news report from today on this story: Sports shoe claims still untested: scientists
Quote:
Scientists say there is no evidence to support the widespread belief that running shoes with sophisticated cushioning or heel supports prevent injury.
Researcher Craig Richards from the University of Newcastle says his team searched almost 60 years of articles relating to running, shoes and injury prevention, and found no published tests on whether hi-tech shoes have a real world benefit.
"We searched all the articles we could identify in the major databases since 1950," Dr Richards told ABC Radio's PM program.
"None of them have actually been control trials and most of them are just reiterating expert opinion or referring to studies which have been performed in a laboratory which don't actually have any real world meaning.
"The bottom line is that these shoes have been experimental for the last 20 years and [are] still experimental."
Dr Richards admits some will argue with his findings.
"To health professionals, to runners to shoe retailers and to the sort of shoes that manufacturers have been producing this is absolutely heretical," he said.
"This is why it is such an interesting finding and one which really needs to be pursued by some careful scientific research now, to establish whether these shoes are good for you, whether they do nothing for you or whether they are actually harmful for you."
President of the Australasian Podiatry Council Brenden Brown says that does not mean consumers should necessarily jump off the treadmill and throw away their shoes.
"I think that it's quite easy to say to say that there are no studies out there suggesting that these shoes in fact work, but there are many products that we use in medicine, health and everyday life [and] there aren't studies to back up their use," he said.
Ben Ly, who manages a fitness centre in inner Sydney, says high quality performance footwear does make a difference to training.
"If you look at the Olympics that were in you know, the 70s and the 60s when they were running in pure flat based shoes on tartan [sic], a lot of people were probably getting more stress fractures than ever before," he said.
"There was no orthotics, there was no inbuilt arch.
"Flat feet is a growing problem. A lot of people are getting pronation in the ankle which relates to knee pain which relates to knee injury, which relates to the hip to the back. It all relates to everything, it all starts at your feet."
Liz Brett, a sports and recreation manager and former Australian Olympic volleyballer, also recommends people spend money on shoes to reduce the risk of injury.
"I do chat to people who come to the UTS fitness centre occasionally and particularly those who aren't wearing proper running shoes who are on the treadmill, I'll often go up and ask them if they've considered purchasing a pair of running shoes," she said.
"You can hear it, you can hear the slapping when you're on the treadmills and you think, it's just an injury waiting to happen."
But she admits she hopes she has not fallen victim to a marketing con job.
"Bloody hope not. I've spent too much money over the years on [shoes] to be conned," she said.
"While there may not be enough information out there or enough research on this particular topic, I do think it's fair to say that there really are good shoes that improve not necessarily improve performance but certainly reduce the risk of injury."
Re: Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence based?
I cannot agree more. I have until now not seen any proper sensible research on running shoes. The large brands have their "laboratories", but whatever the results of their research may be, it always ends up in shoes people like: it must look good (so the customer picks it as first choice from the wall in the store), then it must feel good (this means in most cases: it must feel soft), and sometimes the retailer will look if the runner runs properly on it.
I sell myself (as a former physical therapist, but also as a runner and former coach) running shoes, and the big problem of the running shoes these days is, that they are made way to soft. The "specialist brands" (e.g. Saucony) are less looking at functionality than they used to. And the reason is clear: they will sell much more shoes, because now they reach the "bulk" of the runners of today. I often see my job as trying to find the less harmful shoe for a runner, than advising the most proper shoe.
Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence based?
Linear Mode
