OBJECTIVE: To investigate if running distance to first running-related injury varies between foot postures in novice runners wearing neutral shoes. DESIGN: A 1-year epidemiological observational prospective cohort study. SETTING: Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 927 novice runners equivalent to 1854 feet were included. At baseline, foot posture on each foot was evaluated using the foot-posture index and categorised into highly supinated (n=53), supinated (n=369), neutral (n=1292), pronated (n=122) or highly pronated (n=18). Participants then had to start running in a neutral running shoe and to use global positioning system watch to quantify the running distance in every training session. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A running-related injury was defined as any musculoskeletal complaint of the lower extremity or back caused by running, which restricted the amount of running for at least 1 week. RESULTS: During 1 year of follow-up, the 1854 feet included in the analyses ran a total of 326 803 km until injury or censoring. A total of 252 participants sustained a running-related injury. Of these, 63 were bilateral injuries. Compared with a neutral foot posture, no significant body mass index-adjusted cumulative risk differences (RD) were found after 250 km of running for highly supinated feet (RD=11.0% (-10% to 32.1%), p=0.30), supinated feet (RD=-1.4% (-8.4% to 5.5%), p=0.69), pronated feet (RD=-8.1% (-17.6% to 1.3%), p=0.09) and highly pronated feet (RD=9.8% (-19.3% to 38.8%), p=0.51). In addition, the incidence-rate difference/1000 km of running, revealed that pronators had a significantly lower number of injuries/1000 km of running of -0.37 (-0.03 to -0.70), p=0.03 than neutrals. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study contradict the widespread belief that moderate foot pronation is associated with an increased risk of injury among novice runners taking up running in a neutral running shoe. More work is needed to ascertain if highly pronated feet face a higher risk of injury than neutral feet.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate if running distance to first running-related injury varies between foot postures in novice runners wearing neutral shoes. DESIGN: A 1-year epidemiological observational prospective cohort study. SETTING: Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 927 novice runners equivalent to 1854 feet were included. At baseline, foot posture on each foot was evaluated using the foot-posture index and categorised into highly supinated (n=53), supinated (n=369), neutral (n=1292), pronated (n=122) or highly pronated (n=18). Participants then had to start running in a neutral running shoe and to use global positioning system watch to quantify the running distance in every training session. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A running-related injury was defined as any musculoskeletal complaint of the lower extremity or back caused by running, which restricted the amount of running for at least 1 week. RESULTS: During 1 year of follow-up, the 1854 feet included in the analyses ran a total of 326 803 km until injury or censoring. A total of 252 participants sustained a running-related injury. Of these, 63 were bilateral injuries. Compared with a neutral foot posture, no significant body mass index-adjusted cumulative risk differences (RD) were found after 250 km of running for highly supinated feet (RD=11.0% (-10% to 32.1%), p=0.30), supinated feet (RD=-1.4% (-8.4% to 5.5%), p=0.69), pronated feet (RD=-8.1% (-17.6% to 1.3%), p=0.09) and highly pronated feet (RD=9.8% (-19.3% to 38.8%), p=0.51). In addition, the incidence-rate difference/1000 km of running, revealed that pronators had a significantly lower number of injuries/1000 km of running of -0.37 (-0.03 to -0.70), p=0.03 than neutrals. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study contradict the widespread belief that moderate foot pronation is associated with an increased risk of injury among novice runners taking up running in a neutral running shoe. More work is needed to ascertain if highly pronated feet face a higher risk of injury than neutral feet.
Authors: Michael B Bade; Timothy L Chi; Kelly C Farrell; Amanda J Gresl; Laura J Hammel; Bradley N Koster; Ashley B Leatzow; Emily C Thomas; Thomas G McPoil Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2016-02
Authors: Érica Q Silva; Andreia N Miana; Jane S S P Ferreira; Henry D Kiyomoto; Mauro C M E Dinato; Isabel C N Sacco Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen; Michael Lejbach Bertelsen; Erik Thorlund Parner; Henrik Sørensen; Martin Lind; Sten Rasmussen Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2014-05
Authors: Suzanne J Snodgrass; Kathleen E Ryan; Andrew Miller; Daphne James; Robin Callister Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 3.390