Comments on: Can Rotating Running Shoes Reduce Injury Risk? – New Study Suggests Yes!

By: Rotating Running Shoe Models May Reduce Injuries The Motivated Runner

Rotating Running Shoe Models May Reduce Injuries The Motivated Runner — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 05:12:28 +0000

[…] Can Rotating Running Shoes Reduce Injury Risk? (runblogger.com) […]

By: Mizuno Wave Hitogami | You know, running.

Mizuno Wave Hitogami | You know, running. — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:35:24 +0000

[…] The Hitogami were almost exactly what I’d wanted them to be. Of course, they’re lightweight. They’re in the marathon racer category, I’d say, like the 1400 and Adioseses. Mizuno have gone clever in their marketing and classify them as a performance trainer, so as not to scare off anyone who won’t step into a racer. Smart, those Runbirds. They’re lower profile: The stack is enough that you feel protected, but not so much that you can’t feel the ground. For those of you who think that the Hitogami’s 9mm offset, or whatever it is exactly, is too high, I’d still suggest that you give them a go. I think the offset is only important in relation to the whole shoe. I’ve run in some 4mm drop shoes that blew fish. Generally, I do prefer a lower shoe, but the most important thing to me is that the shoe disappears on my foot. That’s pretty much the all-encompassing, umbrella thing that I want. I love the Kinvara (3) and they’re 4mm. I also run a rotation of 1400, Cloudracer, Launch and A5 and…you see where this is going, don’t you? You don’t have to believe me, but believe Pete, who is a scientist and makes a living doing this. […]

By: Graham Chapman

Graham Chapman — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:24:24 +0000

Like you Peter, I’ve been doing this for years. It’s nice to see some science to back it up (so too reading about it in Tread Lightly). Years ago, I used to get desperate when my favourite shoe was discontinued or radically revamped. I think a lot of runners are too dependent on their favourites, almost locked-in to a particular brand and model due to the fear of injury from trying something new.
Nowadays, I find I can run in a wide variety of shoes and have loads on the go at the same time; I am liberated from my reliance on one shoe. Somewhat ironically the shoes I don’t run in now are the ones I dared not deviate from before.
I don’t spend any more money on shoes now, because they last so much longer. Also, I’m less choosey now which means I can generally pick up the bargains.

By: stephan uzzell

stephan uzzell — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:50:51 +0000

Interesting… But maybe not quite as simple as that: http://www.runnersworld.com/running-tips/the-pros-and-cons-of-stride-variability

According to Dr. Reed Ferber, the head of the University of Calgary’s Running Injury Clinic (incidentally, how many universities have a running injury clinic?) stride variability is good when healthy, but maybe not so great when you’re coming back from injury.

By: Peter Larson

Peter Larson — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:32:20 +0000

In reply to marc. The hazard ration for cross training was closer to 1 than that for running in multiple shoes, so don't think so. I'm still no expert on this type of research though.

By: marc

marc — Mon, 09 Dec 2013 18:43:42 +0000

Am I reading this right? It seams cross training (volunm in other sport) has a stronger relationship than switching shoes.

By: Josse

Josse — Mon, 09 Dec 2013 04:49:13 +0000

I have alway been a big believer in shoe rotation. I usually have 3-4 pairs that I switch. I try to wear a different one everyday. I think it also helps you get more miles out of your shoes. I also run on the dirt for the soft surface and it’s just fun.

By: Scott Douglas

Scott Douglas — Sat, 07 Dec 2013 20:22:08 +0000

In reply to Peter Larson.

From full text:

Acknowledgements
The present study was financially supported by a grant from the
National Research Fund awarded to Laurent Malisoux (AFR
ref.1189878).

By: Peter Larson

Peter Larson — Sat, 07 Dec 2013 15:37:18 +0000

In reply to Zed. I need to get the full text, funding sources are typically disclosed but I don't think this was a shoe industry study.

By: Zed

Zed — Sat, 07 Dec 2013 07:51:11 +0000

Are we sure that this study wasn’t funded by a special interest group with ties to shoe manufacturers?

j/k :P

The evidence and conclusions strike me as sound prima facie and I don’t mean to cast aspersions on the study and the people who conducted it (and if nothing else, I can offer myself as an example of someone who seems to have benefited from having a shoe rotation by having fewer injuries), but ever since coming across a study a few years ago claiming that low testosterone in men in their 20s and 30s is underdiagnosed—this study is the one that’s been used as a defense by doctors who’ve been caught supplying athletes with testosterone—and then later finding out that the study received funding from the makers of AndroGel, well, I’ve become even more wary of the news. (Dig up the lawsuit against Solvay, the former maker of AndroGel… opne of the key pieces of evidence against the company was an internal document about how they planned on increasing sales of AndroGel by 36.5% by “influencing” primary care physicians is chilling.)

By: Tom B

Tom B — Sat, 07 Dec 2013 01:34:50 +0000

I call hogwash! Show me the report so I can STOP buying shoes. Actually, since I changed my form (a 2 year process) and finally found my ‘groove’, shoe purchases dropped significantly.

I can see changing from trail to pavement in shoes, but I disagree with rotation reducing injury, study or not (there’s a study for every angle). I say find your shoe, then stick with it if it treats you right.

Good marketing strategy though!

By: Peter Larson

Peter Larson — Fri, 06 Dec 2013 22:51:36 +0000

In reply to Todd B. Not sure, but possible.