Minimalist Shoes and Implications for the Runner
I am honored to feature Miami-based Physical Therapist BRUCE WILK, PT, OCS in today's blog article about BAREFOOT RUNNING using minimalist shoes. Bruce's focus has been on running injuries and shoe function. He is seeing a growing
number of manufacturers defects. Any PT that learned his tests sees that
there is a problem that contributes to injuries. Thank you to Bruce and his associates / fellow therapists for the following article.
The novelty of running in minimalist shoes has been a growing trend in recent years. Some shoe companies make claims in the media and on their Web sites claiming that they “facilitate a natural, injury preventive running gait.”1 Most of these shoes offer significantly less support and are purported to alter the runner’s stride so that they run more “efficiently.” As a result of this widespread marketing towards minimalist shoes, many runners are purchasing these shoes in hopes of improving their running and eliminating their current running related injuries. Unfortunately, since many of these runners may already be injured or have existing altered running biomechanics, they may be causing or aggravating existing musculoskeletal impairments or biomechanical inefficiencies.
In our clinic, we commonly see acute and often severe injuries such as metatarsal stress fractures or navicular drop correlating to minimalist shoe usage. Overuse injuries such as tendonitis and various muscle strains of the lower extremities have also been observed.
One of the popular minimalist shoe manufacturers is Newton Running. The Newton Running1 shoe is designed to promote a more “natural" way of running. In its attempt to promote a natural landing, most of the company’s shoe designs have a forefoot posting that encourages the runner to land on their forefoot/midfoot. However, we have observed clinically that the forefoot posting creates a torsional fulcrum at the midfoot if the runner isn’t biomechanically sound. The torsion appears to occur most notably during the stance phase of the runner’s gait. The midfoot of the minimalist shoe has a space or an effective “gap” between the heel of the shoe and the higher forefoot posting. As the runner naturally moves through the pronation component during the stance phase of gait, “torsion” or twisting occurs and the midfoot collapses since, in this gap, there is no part of the shoe making contact with the ground. The unstable fulcrum at the midfoot combined with an underlying weakness or muscle imbalance can predispose a runner to an acute or repetitive stress injury. This torsion is amplified when the increased ground reaction forces of running are added.
A recent patient in our office illustrated this problem. J.R. is a 35 y/o male referred to physical therapy with complaints of severe pain in his left lateral shin. J.R. is a consistent runner, having previously completed two full marathons within the past 3 years. He reported that his symptoms began during mile 22 of his last full marathon. Although he finished the race, J.R. reported that his pain became progressively worse after its initial onset. When asked about any changes to his training or racing methods, he mentioned that he decided to run the race in the Newton minimalist shoes with Superfeet orthoses2 in an attempt to improve his previous marathon time and reduce his risk for injury. J.R carefully followed Newton’s website tips on “adjusting to your running shoes1” when he initially transitioned into the new minimalist shoes. Prior to this transition, J.R. was running in Nike stability3 shoes with Superfeet orthoses,2 which he had purchased from the same store that later sold him the Newton shoes with Superfeet orthoses. J.R. originally purchased the stability shoes and orthoses after suffering an injury 10 months prior. At that time, after negative x-ray results, he was diagnosed with plantar fasciitis. The podiatrist’s prescribed treatment was simply sending J.R. to this running store for Superfeet orthoses and a new pair of shoes. The store sold him the Nike stability shoes with Superfeet orthoses, and he reported having no problems while running in the stability shoes.
Shoe inspection (his minimalist shoes) revealed
mechanical breakdown of the left shoe’s medial platform
and upper into pronation (Figure 1). No visible changes
or faults in the right shoe were observed. Current
examination of his orthoses revealed breakdown of the
medial side of the left orthotic at the arch.
Also noted was a “crack” in the orthotic that was present at the platform where the most breakdown occurred (Figure 2). This finding was consistent with the region of breakdown described in the left shoe. There was no significant breakdown of the right or left sides of the stability shoe and there was no obvious medial deformity present in the shoe itself.
Physical examination of J.R. revealed moderate edema located in the left lateral ankle
and foot. There was a
palpable deficit in the left peroneus longus tendon, 6
inches proximal to the left lateral malleolus with the
patient reporting a subjective pain level of 8/10. J.R.
denied that this deficit was present prior to his most
recent injury. These findings suggested a probable tear.
No additional diagnostic imaging was completed at that
time. He had a hypermobile subtalar joint toward
overpronation observed during weightbearing. J.R.
additionally reported difficulty with weight bearing
activities such as walking, standing, transitional
movements, as well as morning pain and stiffness getting
out of bed. He demonstrated an antalgic gait pattern and
was unable to functionally weight bear onto his first
ray while performing a heel raise.
There is existing data indicating that one of the predictors of a future running injury is a prior running injury within the past year.4 Moreover, the rate of injury has been shown to be higher with minimalist footwear in those runners who have transitioned from a more supportive shoe5 and remains higher after their transition period with sustained usage than runners not using minimalist shoes.6 We postulated that he was running asymptomatically while in the stability shoe because he had the adequate medial support he needed to manage his functional weakness. However, when transitioning into the minimalist shoe, we felt that the combination of this functional instability in his left lower extremity combined with an unsupportive shoe, led to the breakdown of the orthotic--which ultimately led to his running related injury. Examination of this patient’s equipment/footwear was crucial to his assessment; guided treatment decisions, and contributed to the successful return of this patient to his running program.
In addition to proper equipment, focus was placed on correct running biomechanics to return the patient back to their sport safely and to encourage independent function. During the later stages of rehabilitation, sports specific exercises including plyometrics and stride development (eg, cadence and turnover) were also important components. J.R. was instructed in a return-to-training program as well as a graded injury-specific exercise progression. Upon discharge, J.R. was able to return to full function (including running) and he subsequently ran his personal best at his next half marathon. Addressing all of these issues combined with immediately getting him out of minimalist shoes, and into a more supportive shoe, was important in effectively managing this case.
After J.R’s injury, Newton shoes recently released a disclaimer on their website stating, “Pre-existing conditions or injuries may mean our shoes are not right for you. If you have an injury, a biomechanical issue, an anomaly or a predisposition to a particular type of injury, consult your physician, coach, or orthotics supplier before using Newton shoes1.” This statement alone excludes the majority of the running population from safely running in Newton shoes. Injury rates are higher for both runners who transition to minimalist footwear5,6 and for runners with current injury or injury within the last year.4,7 Thus, for a recently injured runner, transitioning to Newton shoes only multiplies risk factors.
New trends in athletic footwear frequently dominate the marketplace and are often directed at the novice runner or someone that suffers from current or previous running injuries. However, in contrast, Newton’s recent website disclaimer clarifies that Newton shoes are only for the small percentage of runners who have not been injured and are not at risk for injury. As physical therapists, we should be aware of the growing trend in minimalist shoes. It has been proposed that runner’s who have “intact neuromuscular systems” can increase the strength of their feet with the use of minimalist shoes.8 Those runners trying the shoe should have at least three consistent years of running experience and no injuries within the past year because runners who do not meet these criteria are more at risk for sustaining a new injury.7 In addition, the runner must gradually introduce the minimalist shoe into their training program so that their body is able to adapt to the decreased support these shoes offer. Minimalist shoes may be appropriate for some runners or in specific instances, but we believe they should NOT be marketed as a blanket solution for the general runner. Certainly in J.R.’s case, the minimalist shoe appears to have amplified his predisposition to injury.
This case was seen at Orthopedic Rehabilitation Specialists, an outpatient physical therapy clinic in Miami, FL. At the time of the case, the patient, J.R., was under the care of Sokunthea Nau, DPT. We understand that running injuries are multifactoral based on both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Although the change in footwear may be related to the injury described in this case, the authors cannot establish a cause-effect relationship between footwear and running injury for this patient. Therefore, the opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official. However, as musculoskeletal specialists, we must be able to identify possible risk factors for injury to include: less than 3 years of running experience, a running injury within the last year, and transitioning to minimalist footwear.
REFERENCES
2 Physical Therapist, Orthopedic Rehabilitation Specialists, Miami, FL.
3 Assistant Director/Physical Therapist, Orthopedic Rehabilitation Specialists, Miami, FL.
4 Physical Therapist, Orthopedic Rehabilitation Specialists, Miami, FL
5 Director/Physical Therapist, Orthopedic Rehabilitation Specialists, Miami, FL.
Article taken with permission from Mr. Wilk from http://www.wilkpt.com/articles.html
The novelty of running in minimalist shoes has been a growing trend in recent years. Some shoe companies make claims in the media and on their Web sites claiming that they “facilitate a natural, injury preventive running gait.”1 Most of these shoes offer significantly less support and are purported to alter the runner’s stride so that they run more “efficiently.” As a result of this widespread marketing towards minimalist shoes, many runners are purchasing these shoes in hopes of improving their running and eliminating their current running related injuries. Unfortunately, since many of these runners may already be injured or have existing altered running biomechanics, they may be causing or aggravating existing musculoskeletal impairments or biomechanical inefficiencies.
In our clinic, we commonly see acute and often severe injuries such as metatarsal stress fractures or navicular drop correlating to minimalist shoe usage. Overuse injuries such as tendonitis and various muscle strains of the lower extremities have also been observed.
One of the popular minimalist shoe manufacturers is Newton Running. The Newton Running1 shoe is designed to promote a more “natural" way of running. In its attempt to promote a natural landing, most of the company’s shoe designs have a forefoot posting that encourages the runner to land on their forefoot/midfoot. However, we have observed clinically that the forefoot posting creates a torsional fulcrum at the midfoot if the runner isn’t biomechanically sound. The torsion appears to occur most notably during the stance phase of the runner’s gait. The midfoot of the minimalist shoe has a space or an effective “gap” between the heel of the shoe and the higher forefoot posting. As the runner naturally moves through the pronation component during the stance phase of gait, “torsion” or twisting occurs and the midfoot collapses since, in this gap, there is no part of the shoe making contact with the ground. The unstable fulcrum at the midfoot combined with an underlying weakness or muscle imbalance can predispose a runner to an acute or repetitive stress injury. This torsion is amplified when the increased ground reaction forces of running are added.
A recent patient in our office illustrated this problem. J.R. is a 35 y/o male referred to physical therapy with complaints of severe pain in his left lateral shin. J.R. is a consistent runner, having previously completed two full marathons within the past 3 years. He reported that his symptoms began during mile 22 of his last full marathon. Although he finished the race, J.R. reported that his pain became progressively worse after its initial onset. When asked about any changes to his training or racing methods, he mentioned that he decided to run the race in the Newton minimalist shoes with Superfeet orthoses2 in an attempt to improve his previous marathon time and reduce his risk for injury. J.R carefully followed Newton’s website tips on “adjusting to your running shoes1” when he initially transitioned into the new minimalist shoes. Prior to this transition, J.R. was running in Nike stability3 shoes with Superfeet orthoses,2 which he had purchased from the same store that later sold him the Newton shoes with Superfeet orthoses. J.R. originally purchased the stability shoes and orthoses after suffering an injury 10 months prior. At that time, after negative x-ray results, he was diagnosed with plantar fasciitis. The podiatrist’s prescribed treatment was simply sending J.R. to this running store for Superfeet orthoses and a new pair of shoes. The store sold him the Nike stability shoes with Superfeet orthoses, and he reported having no problems while running in the stability shoes.
Shoe inspection (his minimalist shoes) revealed
mechanical breakdown of the left shoe’s medial platform
and upper into pronation (Figure 1). No visible changes
or faults in the right shoe were observed. Current
examination of his orthoses revealed breakdown of the
medial side of the left orthotic at the arch. Also noted was a “crack” in the orthotic that was present at the platform where the most breakdown occurred (Figure 2). This finding was consistent with the region of breakdown described in the left shoe. There was no significant breakdown of the right or left sides of the stability shoe and there was no obvious medial deformity present in the shoe itself.
Physical examination of J.R. revealed moderate edema located in the left lateral ankle
and foot. There was a
palpable deficit in the left peroneus longus tendon, 6
inches proximal to the left lateral malleolus with the
patient reporting a subjective pain level of 8/10. J.R.
denied that this deficit was present prior to his most
recent injury. These findings suggested a probable tear.
No additional diagnostic imaging was completed at that
time. He had a hypermobile subtalar joint toward
overpronation observed during weightbearing. J.R.
additionally reported difficulty with weight bearing
activities such as walking, standing, transitional
movements, as well as morning pain and stiffness getting
out of bed. He demonstrated an antalgic gait pattern and
was unable to functionally weight bear onto his first
ray while performing a heel raise. There is existing data indicating that one of the predictors of a future running injury is a prior running injury within the past year.4 Moreover, the rate of injury has been shown to be higher with minimalist footwear in those runners who have transitioned from a more supportive shoe5 and remains higher after their transition period with sustained usage than runners not using minimalist shoes.6 We postulated that he was running asymptomatically while in the stability shoe because he had the adequate medial support he needed to manage his functional weakness. However, when transitioning into the minimalist shoe, we felt that the combination of this functional instability in his left lower extremity combined with an unsupportive shoe, led to the breakdown of the orthotic--which ultimately led to his running related injury. Examination of this patient’s equipment/footwear was crucial to his assessment; guided treatment decisions, and contributed to the successful return of this patient to his running program.
In addition to proper equipment, focus was placed on correct running biomechanics to return the patient back to their sport safely and to encourage independent function. During the later stages of rehabilitation, sports specific exercises including plyometrics and stride development (eg, cadence and turnover) were also important components. J.R. was instructed in a return-to-training program as well as a graded injury-specific exercise progression. Upon discharge, J.R. was able to return to full function (including running) and he subsequently ran his personal best at his next half marathon. Addressing all of these issues combined with immediately getting him out of minimalist shoes, and into a more supportive shoe, was important in effectively managing this case.
After J.R’s injury, Newton shoes recently released a disclaimer on their website stating, “Pre-existing conditions or injuries may mean our shoes are not right for you. If you have an injury, a biomechanical issue, an anomaly or a predisposition to a particular type of injury, consult your physician, coach, or orthotics supplier before using Newton shoes1.” This statement alone excludes the majority of the running population from safely running in Newton shoes. Injury rates are higher for both runners who transition to minimalist footwear5,6 and for runners with current injury or injury within the last year.4,7 Thus, for a recently injured runner, transitioning to Newton shoes only multiplies risk factors.
New trends in athletic footwear frequently dominate the marketplace and are often directed at the novice runner or someone that suffers from current or previous running injuries. However, in contrast, Newton’s recent website disclaimer clarifies that Newton shoes are only for the small percentage of runners who have not been injured and are not at risk for injury. As physical therapists, we should be aware of the growing trend in minimalist shoes. It has been proposed that runner’s who have “intact neuromuscular systems” can increase the strength of their feet with the use of minimalist shoes.8 Those runners trying the shoe should have at least three consistent years of running experience and no injuries within the past year because runners who do not meet these criteria are more at risk for sustaining a new injury.7 In addition, the runner must gradually introduce the minimalist shoe into their training program so that their body is able to adapt to the decreased support these shoes offer. Minimalist shoes may be appropriate for some runners or in specific instances, but we believe they should NOT be marketed as a blanket solution for the general runner. Certainly in J.R.’s case, the minimalist shoe appears to have amplified his predisposition to injury.
This case was seen at Orthopedic Rehabilitation Specialists, an outpatient physical therapy clinic in Miami, FL. At the time of the case, the patient, J.R., was under the care of Sokunthea Nau, DPT. We understand that running injuries are multifactoral based on both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Although the change in footwear may be related to the injury described in this case, the authors cannot establish a cause-effect relationship between footwear and running injury for this patient. Therefore, the opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official. However, as musculoskeletal specialists, we must be able to identify possible risk factors for injury to include: less than 3 years of running experience, a running injury within the last year, and transitioning to minimalist footwear.
REFERENCES
- Newton Running. www.Newtonrunning.com. 2011. Accessed June 4, 2012.
-
Superfeet, Inc. www.Superfeet.com/activity/running-walking.aspx. Accessed March 6, 2012
- Nike, Inc. www.Nikerunning.nike.com/nikeos/p/nikeplus/en_US/commerce/men?hf=10002^4294909548&t=Men%27%20Stability%20Run. Accessed March 6, 2012.
-
O’Connor FG, Wilder RP. Textbook of Running Medicine. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2001:5.
-
Gutierrez GM, Olin E. Muscle Activity and Tibial Shock During the Initial Transition From Shod to Barefoot Running. Oral Presentation at the 23rd Congress of the International Society of Biomechanics (ISB), July 2011. Proceedings of the 23rd ISB Congress. Brussels, Belgium.
-
Leong R. The Effects of Footwear Habits of Long-Distance Runners on Running Related Injury: A Prospective Cohort. Running Training Plan. http:www.runningtraining. Accessed March 6, 2012.
-
Macera C, Pate R, Powell K, et al. Predicting lower extremity injuries among habitual runners. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149(11):2565-2568.
-
Davis I. What can we learn from watching children run? J Am Med Athl Assoc. 2011;24 (3):7-8.
Address correspondence to:
Christopher Jagessar, 8720 North Kendall Drive Suite
206, Miami, FL 33176.
E-mail: chris@wilkpt.com
E-mail: chris@wilkpt.com
Christopher Jagessar, PT, OCS, ATC1
Sokunthea Nau, DPT2
Jeffery T. Stenback, PT, OCS3
Annmarie Garis, DPT4
Bruce R. Wilk, PT, OCS5
1Physical Therapist,
Orthopedic Rehabilitation Specialists, Miami, FL.
Sokunthea Nau, DPT2
Jeffery T. Stenback, PT, OCS3
Annmarie Garis, DPT4
Bruce R. Wilk, PT, OCS5
2 Physical Therapist, Orthopedic Rehabilitation Specialists, Miami, FL.
3 Assistant Director/Physical Therapist, Orthopedic Rehabilitation Specialists, Miami, FL.
4 Physical Therapist, Orthopedic Rehabilitation Specialists, Miami, FL
5 Director/Physical Therapist, Orthopedic Rehabilitation Specialists, Miami, FL.
Article taken with permission from Mr. Wilk from http://www.wilkpt.com/articles.html
Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI am grateful you agreed to have this article republished. Thank you again, Bruce. I hope to visit your clinic someday!
ReplyDeleteGreat article Mark!
ReplyDeleteVery nice post. You talk about interesting shoes. this shoes is best in this situation. But you must know about plantar fasciitis. Some shoes protect us from plantar fasciitis. so be careful about it. Thanks for this post. I am waiting for your next post.
ReplyDeleteMinimalist shoes are taking the business by tempest on account of supports by medicinal services experts, mentors, and competitors. The definition is somewhat fluffy and developing right now and not everybody concurs but rather, having perused and listened to an assortment of conclusions, I needed to add my sentiment to the perplexity.If you want Orthopedic Walking Shoes Visit our website.
ReplyDeleteExtra wide fitting footwear for those that require stylish comfortable shoes up to ... See what it takes to manufacture a pair of high quality shoes in this 6 minute .
ReplyDeleteJohn I. Hinton
Who thinks about the conservation of the most prominent shoe knows that it is so critical to utilize shoe trees, these gadgets are set to firmly imitate the state of the foot in the shoe and the gear is kept up flawless condition.
ReplyDeleteWhat you wear on your feet is ostensibly the most critical thought when strolling or climbing. The right strolling boots can mean the distinction between a charming walk and an uncomfortable, even hazardous, one. Our strolling boots aide will help you choose the ideal pair of strolling boots for your walk or trek.
ReplyDeleteThese 6 stages will help your feet stay astonishing. Smooth It Out. Make it a propensity to utilize a pumice stone or foot record on clammy heels and calluses. Doing as such will keep your feet looking great in open-back shoes. Saturate. On the off chance that your heels are extremely dry and split, see a podiatrist or dermatologist for a solution treatment.
ReplyDeleteThe importance to differentiate between running shoes are extremely important for runners who want to avoid pain and injury. The comfort of your feet and knees are two of many problems, which can occur when using the wrong running shoe for the wrong activity.
ReplyDeleteBarefoot and minimalistic running stated to gain prominence in 2010 and forced manufacturers to start in the production of barefoot-simulating, lightweight and minimalistic shoes.
ReplyDeleteThese minimalist shoes and implications for the Runner is very good choice. Because they are very comfortable and easy to run with. So I can recommend these shoes for you if you are runner and want to find running shoes. Thanks for your amazing post.
ReplyDeleteAccidentally, I did TERRIBLE harm to my feet! I thought foot torment in high heels was typical and simply the value you pay for style.For baseball game we need best shoes and also need best softball bats.
ReplyDeleteStrolling is, no ifs ands or buts, one of the most ideal approaches to take in another city. By walking, you can recognize the points of interest that breath life into a destination. It's anything but difficult to forget about time ...
ReplyDeleteVery Nice shoes , i just fall in love with this shoes
ReplyDeleteI bought a pair but it seems like it is not for me. I don't think this is the best achilles tendonitis shoes, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteIt was Mother Nature's intention that we live our life in comfort and barefoot. However, with the onset of a civilized world this was not possible.I find this website for Shoes for Edema you can visit this site.
ReplyDelete