Comments on: Minimalist Running Results in Fewer Injuries?: Survey Suggests that Traditionally Shod Runners are 3.41 Times More Likely to Get Hurt

By: Website

Website — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:33:44 +0000

These article really makes sense. I totally agree being a minimalist myself. Pointing out the main point of this post is avoid excessive tension to our feet. Too much of something is bothering when time comes.

By: John L

John L — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to Alex T.

I find the opposite to be true. My running friends that refuse to acknowledge the benefits of minimalism, either out of stubbornness or because they tried it and got hurt, seem far more inclined to attack or dismiss it than the converts are to promote it. If you mention their injuries they are also quick to point out that their traditional shoes didn't cause them, but if someone gets an injury in a minimalist shoe it's always the shoe's fault. I too am interested in seeing objective data from a controlled study.

By: Eshan

Eshan — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

No one wants to admit they're heel strikers, especially if they run in minimal shoes or barefoot. I've found that some may not even know, or they refuse to admit it to themselves. The statistic for heel striking among minimal runners seems wrong to me, and the statistic for heel striking among barefoot runners is almost definitely wrong.

By: Alex T

Alex T — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I suspect the switch to minimalist shoes is generally difficult and is done in order to deal with some injury. Those are two good reasons to convince yourself (and others) that the change was a good one and to downplay any subsequent injuries. That makes me reluctant to trust these figures.

I'd like to believe them, but that actually makes me even more suspicious :)

By: Pete Larson

Pete Larson — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to Greg Strosaker.

That's a problem for sure - minimalist isn't really a category in my opinion, more of a spectrum, so I don't know what the criteria they used to define a minimalist shoe were.

----
Pete Larson's Web Links:
My book: Tread Lightly - http://ow.ly/bdUO0
Blog: https://runblogger.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/oblinkin
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Runbl...

By: MAF

MAF — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Sounds like an interesting study. Can you post the full report or provide a link?

While no one study or survey is conclusive on this topic, there does seem to be a preponderance of both scientific and anecdotal evidence pointing toward reduced injury rates from transitioning away from running with an overstride/heelstrike in traditional shoes. It certainly fits my experience and that of many of my running partners, if you factor out the superficial transition-related injuries.

I would also like to see the breakdown of results by age and number of years of running experience. I ran injury-free for many years in traditional shoes but then began to experience a never-ending string of injuries when I hit forty or so. That's what prompted my switch to minimalist running.

By: Luke

Luke — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Great write up Pete!! Couple of thoughts. As you said, I think we need to take these results with a grain of salt. In my opinion you could not draw a line between foot strike type and injury for the reason you stated (self reporting is inaccurate). In regards to traditional v minimalist, you did mention the minimalist had higher mileage and faster pace, which would possibly dismiss arguments that minimalist runners are "more careful". We also know that increased mileage is one of the very few risk factors for injury that is consistently seen in the literature, and would therefore expect to see higher injuries in the minimalist group. One factor not mentioned was previous injury history between the two groups, as previous injury does predispose to future injury. For all the studies weaknesses, I don't think you can totally ignore the 46.7% vs. 13.7% which is a significant difference in a population of 661 traditional and 227 minimalist runners. Look forward to seeing more studies in the future!!

By: Greg Strosaker

Greg Strosaker — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to Pete Larson.

Oops, sorry, missed that (though I shouldn't have). Still indicates a bit, I think, the type of respondent that the study attracted. I believe you have cited estimates of the running population that run in "minimalist" shoes previously and it was lower than 25%, yes? Though, again, I suppose that depends on the definition of minimalist shoes. I, for example, wouldn't call the Kinvaras "minimalist", but I guess we don't have an indication as to whether the runners reporting in this study would have?

By: MattAtAFX

MattAtAFX — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Excellent blog Peter. Very well thought-out and discussed.

By: Pete Larson

Pete Larson — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to MAF.

The full text is not posted, but should be soon at the Army Medical Journal linked in the text above.

By: Pete Larson

Pete Larson — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In reply to Paul.

I don't think that lie is uncommon :) But, will be interesting to see how you feel in a year.

I'm an example of someone who didn't get injured in traditional shoes, didn't get injured in transition, and hasn't been injured since the switch. I did battle low-grade PF for awhile, but never altered my running in any way so it would not have been reportable in the study.

----
Pete Larson's Web Links:
My book: Tread Lightly - http://ow.ly/bdUO0
Blog: https://runblogger.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/oblinkin
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Runbl...

By: Greg Strosaker

Greg Strosaker — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

No surprise that you were able to dissect this study and get to the heart of the issue. I just have trouble believing any study that relies on self-reporting, especially when passions and prejudice drive the responses to a far greater degree than candid self-assessment. While the signal is strong, the utility of the study is pretty weak. Just the fact that ~60% of respondents had made a shoe-type change indicates that the survey was completed largely by those with a point to make, thus introducing a huge selection bias.