Injuries Observed in Minimalist Runners
ABSTRACT Minimalist runners have been shown to have a different gait pattern with lower impact forces than habitually shod runners. Running in minimalist footwear has been promoted as a means of reducing or eliminating running injuries by returning to a more natural gait.
Ten experienced runners, age 21 to 57 (mean, 43) years, were identified with injuries within 1 year of transition from traditional to minimalist running footwear. Patients were interviewed to determine their running history, injury history, transition to minimalist footwear, and their new injury including its treatment and recovery.
Ten patients who ran with traditional footwear ran an average of 25.9 (range, 6 to 45) miles/week for an average of 18.9 (range, 1 to 40) years presented with injuries 2.8 (range 1 to 10) months after switching to minimalist footwear. Their injuries included eight metatarsal stress fractures, a calcaneal stress fracture, and a plantar fascia rupture. All patients had a successful recovery and returned to their previous level of running.
Injuries including stress fractures and plantar fascia rupture have been observed in minimalist runners.
SourceAvailable from: Jonathan SinclairThe Foot and Ankle Online Journal 01/2014; · 1.47 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Claims of injury reduction related to barefoot running has resulted in interest from the running public; however, its risks are not well understood for those who typically wear cushioned footwear. Examine how plantar loading changes during barefoot running in a group of runners that ordinarily wear cushioned footwear and demonstrate a rearfoot strike pattern (RFSP) without cueing or feedback alter their foot strike pattern and plantar loading when asked to run barefoot at different speeds down a runway. Forty-one subjects ran barefoot at three different speeds across a pedography platform which collected plantar loading variables for 10 regions of the foot; data were analyzed using two-way mixed multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). A significant foot strike position (FSP)×speed interaction in each of the foot regions indicated that plantar loading differed based on FSP across the different speeds. The RFSP provided the highest total forces across the foot while the pressures displayed in subjects with a non-rearfoot strike pattern (NRFSP) was more similar between each of the metatarsals. The majority of subjects ran barefoot with a NRFSP and demonstrated lower total forces and more uniform force distribution across the metatarsal regions. This may have an influence in injuries sustained in barefoot running. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.The Foot 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.foot.2015.02.001
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Synopsis The running shoe has gone through significant changes since its inception. The purpose of this paper is to review these changes, the majority of which have occurred over the past 50 years. Running footwear began as being very minimal and then evolved to become highly cushioned and supportive. However, over the past 5 years, there has been a reversal of this trend with runners seeking more minimal shoes that allow their feet more natural motion. This abrupt shift towards footwear without cushioning and support has led to reports of injuries associated with minimal footwear. In response to this, the running footwear industry shifted again towards the development of lightweight, partial minimal shoes that offer some support and cushioning. In this paper, studies comparing the mechanics between running in minimal, partial minimal, and traditional shoes are reviewed. The implications for injuries in all 3 conditions are examined. The extension of the use of minimal footwear for other populations besides runners is discussed. Finally, areas for future research into minimal footwear are suggested. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, Epub 11 September 2014. doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.5521.Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 09/2014; 44(10):1-19. DOI:10.2519/jospt.2014.5521 · 2.38 Impact Factor