Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study (Page 2)

Didn't read the article, just the links. I'm glad that most of those issues were addressed, however, I still question the overall value of the study. If anything, like you said, it provides some data, and a caution for runners transitioning. However, there has always been a caution for those transitioning.

What I would like to see is a study that addresses the long term use of minimalist footwear. A lot of the claims are that it will reduce injury "in the long run" by teaching runners to run more naturally, the way the foot was designed to.

/\/\/
THIS!

The result of this "scientific study" anybody can get by talking to the salesperson at the local Nike or Running Store - its a joke!
12 weeks - with 99 subjects??????

.... C´Mon r u kidding?

What, specifically, do you take issue with? Why do you believe that 99 subjects over 12 weeks is a joke? Do you have any sort of science or engineering background? My guess is no.

To the haters who are pooping on the 99 I've got to ask, how many subjects do you believe are required for a valid scientific study and why?

Clueless.

Does the injury rate change over time? More at the beginning of the study for minimalist and less at the end as people adapt to the shoes.

The study is a little humorous since the Vibrams did so much better than the Nike minimalists. This points to how backwards the logic is in many of these discussions that focus on shoes first, and form second. The central point should be that anyone with good form can run in various shoes without injury.

The humor regarding Vibrams is that you can't heel strike with any degree of comfort in them, so you have to have a decent forefoot or midfoot strike; of course you won't have injuries in them assuming you've transitioned carefully.

It won't be too long until most researchers look at this in the proper order of importance to injury, first form, second shoes that don't inhibit good form, third shoes properly designed for the conditions they're used in. Right now, those three ideas are pretty scrambled. My own little experience after PF in 2011 was to work in that order, to get rid of my heel strike, settle on a closet full of shoes that don't encourage heel strike (etc), and pick the right cushion and grip for the street/trail/race I'll run that day. Now that I've gotten rid of that friggin PF, I run 35 mpw and see why running ultra marathons is totally doable for people with good form. One of the quips in BTR is that the best athletes had identical strides no matter what they were wearing.

Edited by Pacific John 2013-12-25 1:29 PM

I wouldn't consider myself as a "hater pooping on the 99," since I've not actually read the study. However, you can't argue that a larger sample size wouldn't provide results that are more statistically significant.

Also as to "how many subjects do you believe are required for a valid scientific study and why?" The answer is completely dependent on what you are trying to discern. For example, if you are looking for something that is dependent on a factor that has a low percentage of occurring, then you would need a larger sample.

And again, not to criticize this study, since I haven't read it, and don't know how they drew their conclusions, but for the sake of discussion. First, there were 3 groups in 3 different shoes, and the injuries were distributed as 4/32 in traditional, 12/32 in what they considered "partial minimalist," and 7/35 in full minimalist.

One thing to note is that there was not a statistically significant difference between "full minimalist," and traditional. Which could provide a possibility that it was the shoe itself, not the style. So a larger study with different shoes in their respective classes would be a good idea, no?

Furthermore, with regards to their inclusion and exclusion criteria. Is it possible that were factors that were not considered that could have an impact on increasing the number of injuries? I think so. For example, and this is just an example, considering form, there is some evidence that suggests that heel strikers are more prone to injury. This was not a factor considered in the criteria for the study. With a smaller sample size, there is more of a possibility for an uneven distribution of heel strikers between the groups, or an uneven distribution of other factors not considered.

That said. People who design these studies do not have unlimited resources, and have to work with what they can get. I am happy they had the opportunity to look into this as there is not a great deal of information out there. Its just that I can see this study being cited in a Runner's World, article in the next few months warning runners of the "dangers of running in minimalist shoes." Hopefully, Runners World has a bit more discretion, but you know what I mean. I don't think the study should be dismissed by any means, but it should not be taken as proof of anything.

#3 is spot on for me, I had knee pain forever running in "traditional" running shoes. Minimalist shoes relieved that, but caused ankle pain due to too fast a switch. They did though help me greatly change my running form.

I now run in various shoes often to keep things changing. I can say I LOVE minimalist shoes for trail running though, but on the road give me a little more cushion for the pushin.