injury risk in runners using standard or motion control shoes: a randomised controlled trial with participant and assessor blinding
by：Glory Footwear
2020-04-30
Background/objective this randomized controlled trial investigated whether the use of running shoes in the motion control system changed the risk of injury in regular leisure
Compared to standard shoes, time runners, if this effect depends on the shape of the foot.
Methods for leisure runners (n=372)
Obtained motion control or standard version of the regular running shoe model and followed up for 6 months on running activities and injuries.
The foot shape was analyzed using the foot posture index method.
According to HRs and 95% CIs, Cox regression analysis was used to compare the risk of injury between the two groups and control the potential confounding factors.
Hierarchical analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of the motion control system in runners with foot, neutral and pronouncing feet.
As a result, participants who received Sports Control shoes had a lower overall risk of injury (HR=0. 55; 95% CI 0. 36 to 0. 85)
By contrast, those accept standard shoes.
This positive effect is only observed in the formation of the rotary foot runner (n=94; HR=0. 34; 95% CI 0. 13 to 0. 84);
There is no difference between neutral runners (n=218; HR=0. 78; 95% CI 0. 44 to 1. 37)
Or foot (n=60; HR=0. 59; 95% CI 0. 20 to 1. 73).
Runners who use standard shoes to spin their feet are at higher risk of injury compared to runners with neutral feet (HR=1. 80; 95% CI 1. 01 to 3. 22).
Conclusion participants who accepted Sports Control shoes had a lower overall risk of injury.
According to the secondary analysis, people who spin the front foot may benefit the most from this shoe type.
Background/objective this randomized controlled trial investigated whether the use of running shoes in the motion control system changed the risk of injury during normal leisure
Compared to standard shoes, time runners, if this effect depends on the shape of the foot.
Methods for leisure runners (n=372)
Obtained motion control or standard version of the regular running shoe model and followed up for 6 months on running activities and injuries.
The foot shape was analyzed using the foot posture index method.
According to HRs and 95% CIs, Cox regression analysis was used to compare the risk of injury between the two groups and control the potential confounding factors.
Hierarchical analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of the motion control system in runners with foot, neutral and pronouncing feet.
As a result, participants who received Sports Control shoes had a lower overall risk of injury (HR=0. 55; 95% CI 0. 36 to 0. 85)
By contrast, those accept standard shoes.
This positive effect is only observed in the formation of the rotary foot runner (n=94; HR=0. 34; 95% CI 0. 13 to 0. 84);
There is no difference between neutral runners (n=218; HR=0. 78; 95% CI 0. 44 to 1. 37)
Or foot (n=60; HR=0. 59; 95% CI 0. 20 to 1. 73).
Runners who use standard shoes to spin their feet are at higher risk of injury compared to runners with neutral feet (HR=1. 80; 95% CI 1. 01 to 3. 22).
Conclusion participants who accepted Sports Control shoes had a lower overall risk of injury.
According to the secondary analysis, people who spin the front foot may benefit the most from this shoe type.
There are hundreds of running shoes on the market.
While there is a growing focus on the design, technology and functionality of running shoes
The incidence of related injuries has not changed significantly over the past few decades.
1 a variety of biochemical variables, such as strike mode, 2 impact force, 3 feet posture, or pre-rotation of the foot, 4, 5, are considered to be risk factors for injury.
Footwear functions such as buffer technology, stability and motion control system (
Sports Control shoes)
, Designed to mitigate these risk factors, is widely used as a selling point by shoe manufacturers.
Some people think that foot posture is a risk factor for injury.
Although there is no evidence that this approach reduces damage, this often results in an attempt to match the shoe to the foot shape of the runner.
4-6 specifically, Sports Control shoes are usually specified for rotary foot runners, while neutral stability shoes are recommended for those with neutral feet, and buffer shoes are recommended for those with rotary feet.
Several studies failed to demonstrate the above benefits --
Prescription strategies, 7-10, are described, although they are either underpowered or executed in the military population, and 7-8 limits the applicability of the results to long-distance runners.
In addition, in a prospective cohort study of more than 900 novice runners, it was reported that the more swirling foot posture had nothing to do with the risk of injury, 11 question the use of running shoes featuring a motion control system designed to reduce foot rotation.
Running in shoes equipped with this technology increases the risk of runningrelated pain.
Although these results are preliminary, it is worrying that a large number of running shoes have motion control functions, and many runners may not be aware of this fact when buying shoes.
So, in this study, we1)
Investigate whether running shoes equipped with motion control function change the risk of injury in regular leisure
Time runners and (2)
If this effect depends on the foot shape.
Our main assumption is that the risk of injury varies when running in motion-controlled shoes compared to the standard (neutral)
At the same time, potential confusions are controlled.
Our second hypothesis is that the difference in risk of injury depends on the foot shape.
Materials and Methods articles and research designs this randomized controlled trial (unregistered)
Recruit casual runners regardless of fitness level.
The research report follows the CONSORT statement.
The expected injury rate of the two groups was 22% and 35% respectively, and the expected power was 0. 8 and an α-level of 0.
05, a total of 364 runners are required to test our main assumptions.
All participants received a complete description of the study programme and provided written informed consent for participation.
All procedures are studied by the National Ethics Committee (ref 201211/04).
In March to April 2014, participants were recruited through advertisements on local newspapers and professional Internet sites.
After registering online, contact participants by phone to verify inclusion criteria: health, 18-65 years old, regular running (
At least once a week)
In the 12 months before the study, at least 6 months, there was no taboo for running activities, and there was no previous taboo (
Compared to standard shoes, time runners, if this effect depends on the shape of the foot.
Methods for leisure runners (n=372)
Obtained motion control or standard version of the regular running shoe model and followed up for 6 months on running activities and injuries.
The foot shape was analyzed using the foot posture index method.
According to HRs and 95% CIs, Cox regression analysis was used to compare the risk of injury between the two groups and control the potential confounding factors.
Hierarchical analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of the motion control system in runners with foot, neutral and pronouncing feet.
As a result, participants who received Sports Control shoes had a lower overall risk of injury (HR=0. 55; 95% CI 0. 36 to 0. 85)
By contrast, those accept standard shoes.
This positive effect is only observed in the formation of the rotary foot runner (n=94; HR=0. 34; 95% CI 0. 13 to 0. 84);
There is no difference between neutral runners (n=218; HR=0. 78; 95% CI 0. 44 to 1. 37)
Or foot (n=60; HR=0. 59; 95% CI 0. 20 to 1. 73).
Runners who use standard shoes to spin their feet are at higher risk of injury compared to runners with neutral feet (HR=1. 80; 95% CI 1. 01 to 3. 22).
Conclusion participants who accepted Sports Control shoes had a lower overall risk of injury.
According to the secondary analysis, people who spin the front foot may benefit the most from this shoe type.
Background/objective this randomized controlled trial investigated whether the use of running shoes in the motion control system changed the risk of injury during normal leisure
Compared to standard shoes, time runners, if this effect depends on the shape of the foot.
Methods for leisure runners (n=372)
Obtained motion control or standard version of the regular running shoe model and followed up for 6 months on running activities and injuries.
The foot shape was analyzed using the foot posture index method.
According to HRs and 95% CIs, Cox regression analysis was used to compare the risk of injury between the two groups and control the potential confounding factors.
Hierarchical analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of the motion control system in runners with foot, neutral and pronouncing feet.
As a result, participants who received Sports Control shoes had a lower overall risk of injury (HR=0. 55; 95% CI 0. 36 to 0. 85)
By contrast, those accept standard shoes.
This positive effect is only observed in the formation of the rotary foot runner (n=94; HR=0. 34; 95% CI 0. 13 to 0. 84);
There is no difference between neutral runners (n=218; HR=0. 78; 95% CI 0. 44 to 1. 37)
Or foot (n=60; HR=0. 59; 95% CI 0. 20 to 1. 73).
Runners who use standard shoes to spin their feet are at higher risk of injury compared to runners with neutral feet (HR=1. 80; 95% CI 1. 01 to 3. 22).
Conclusion participants who accepted Sports Control shoes had a lower overall risk of injury.
According to the secondary analysis, people who spin the front foot may benefit the most from this shoe type.
There are hundreds of running shoes on the market.
While there is a growing focus on the design, technology and functionality of running shoes
The incidence of related injuries has not changed significantly over the past few decades.
1 a variety of biochemical variables, such as strike mode, 2 impact force, 3 feet posture, or pre-rotation of the foot, 4, 5, are considered to be risk factors for injury.
Footwear functions such as buffer technology, stability and motion control system (
Sports Control shoes)
, Designed to mitigate these risk factors, is widely used as a selling point by shoe manufacturers.
Some people think that foot posture is a risk factor for injury.
Although there is no evidence that this approach reduces damage, this often results in an attempt to match the shoe to the foot shape of the runner.
4-6 specifically, Sports Control shoes are usually specified for rotary foot runners, while neutral stability shoes are recommended for those with neutral feet, and buffer shoes are recommended for those with rotary feet.
Several studies failed to demonstrate the above benefits --
Prescription strategies, 7-10, are described, although they are either underpowered or executed in the military population, and 7-8 limits the applicability of the results to long-distance runners.
In addition, in a prospective cohort study of more than 900 novice runners, it was reported that the more swirling foot posture had nothing to do with the risk of injury, 11 question the use of running shoes featuring a motion control system designed to reduce foot rotation.
Running in shoes equipped with this technology increases the risk of runningrelated pain.
Although these results are preliminary, it is worrying that a large number of running shoes have motion control functions, and many runners may not be aware of this fact when buying shoes.
So, in this study, we1)
Investigate whether running shoes equipped with motion control function change the risk of injury in regular leisure
Time runners and (2)
If this effect depends on the foot shape.
Our main assumption is that the risk of injury varies when running in motion-controlled shoes compared to the standard (neutral)
At the same time, potential confusions are controlled.
Our second hypothesis is that the difference in risk of injury depends on the foot shape.
Materials and Methods articles and research designs this randomized controlled trial (unregistered)
Recruit casual runners regardless of fitness level.
The research report follows the CONSORT statement.
The expected injury rate of the two groups was 22% and 35% respectively, and the expected power was 0. 8 and an α-level of 0.
05, a total of 364 runners are required to test our main assumptions.
All participants received a complete description of the study programme and provided written informed consent for participation.
All procedures are studied by the National Ethics Committee (ref 201211/04).
In March to April 2014, participants were recruited through advertisements on local newspapers and professional Internet sites.
After registering online, contact participants by phone to verify inclusion criteria: health, 18-65 years old, regular running (
At least once a week)
In the 12 months before the study, at least 6 months, there was no taboo for running activities, and there was no previous taboo (
