Injury rates in military boots vs running shoes

NewsBot · Apr 15, 2015

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
Physical Training in Boots and Running Shoes: A Historical Comparison of Injury Incidence in Basic Combat Training
Joseph J. Knapik; Bruce H. Jones; Ryan A. Steelman
Military Medicine Volume 180 Issue 3, March 2015, pp. 321-328

For many years, U.S. Army soldiers performed physical training (PT) in a modified duty uniform and combat boots. The belief that PT in combat boots was associated with injuries lead to the introduction of running shoes for PT in 1982. A historical comparison was conducted examining injuries before and after the change to running shoes in Basic Combat Training (BCT). Searches in literature databases and other sources identified 16 studies with quantitative data on injury incidence during 8-week BCT cycles. Employing studies with similar injury definitions (n = 12), injury incidence was compared in the boot and running shoe periods using meta-analyses, χ2 statistics, and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The boot and shoe periods demonstrated little difference in overall injury incidence (men: RR[boot/shoes] = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.91–1.18, p = 0.50; women: RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.85–1.05, p = 0.27) or in lower extremity injury incidence (men: RR[boot/shoes] = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.64–1.30, p = 0.66; women: RR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.89–1.27, p = 0.51). These analyses provided little support for a reduction in injury risk after the switch from boots to running shoes for PT in BCT. A large randomized, prospective cohort study should be conducted to determine if injury rates are different when PT is conducted in running shoes versus boots.
Click to expand...

Admin2 · Apr 15, 2015

Related Threads:
Other threads tagged with military
Military footwear
Risk Factors for Musculoskeletal Injuries for Soldiers Deployed to Afghanistan

Dr. Steven King · Apr 22, 2015

Aloha,

Were the PT activities similar for tennis shoes and combat boots?

If using softer more shock absorbing running shoes allowed the soldiers to train-run farther distances than in the current heavier 2 pound combat boot would we perhaps see more injuries because of the difference in PT activities?

I know for certain a commander would not have his-her troops run five miles in combat boots unless they were some kind of trouble or earning their wings.

I know for certain that a commander should also think twice about allowing her-his soldier to enter the battle field geared up in their lightweight foam PT running shoes.

It has been said you should train the way you fight but here is direct contrast to that piece of age old advice.

Mahalo,
Steve

American Society of Testing Materials Subject Matter Expert on Committees
-F13 Pedestrian and Walkway Safety (Footwear Safety)
-E54.4 Homeland Security Applications and Personal Protective Equipment (Body Armor)
Co-PI SBIR A11-109 "Advanced Composite Insoles for the Reduction of Stress Fractures." US Department of Defense and Army Medical Research and Materials Command.

NewsBot · Nov 26, 2021

Prescribed footwear and orthoses are not prophylactic in preventing lower extremity injuries in military tactical athletes: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Scott L Paradise et al
BMJ Mil Health. 2021 Nov 16

Introduction: Military members are exposed to high cumulative physical loads that frequently lead to injury. Prescribed footwear and orthoses have been used to prevent injury. The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to assess if prescribed prophylactic footwear or foot orthoses reduced the risk of lower extremity injury in military tactical athletes.

Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SportDiscus, and Defense Technical Information Center databases were searched for randomised controlled trials published at any time that compared foot orthoses or prescribed footwear (to include shock-absorbing insoles and socks) with a placebo intervention or a no-treatment control. Methodological quality was assessed and the number of injuries, population at risk and duration of the study epoch were extracted and relative risk (RR) calculated. An omnibus meta-analysis was performed assessing all prescribed footwear and orthoses intervention studies, with subgroup analyses conducted on studies with similar interventions (ie, basketball athletic shoes, athletic shoes (prescribed by foot type), foot orthoses, shock-absorbing insoles, socks, tropical combat boots).

Results: Of 1673 studies identified, 22 were included. Three of eight studies that employed orthoses demonstrated significantly reduced overuse injuries compared with no-treatment controls (RR range: 0.34-0.68); one study showed neoprene insoles significantly decreased overuse injuries (RR: 0.75). There were no other significant effects in the individual studies and no protective effects observed in the omnibus meta-analysis or in the component subanalyses.

Conclusions: Prescribed footwear and orthoses do not appear to have a prophylactic effect on lower quarter musculoskeletal injuries in military members and cannot be recommended at this time.
Click to expand...

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

Dr. Steven King Well-Known Member

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Effects of minimalist and traditional running shoes on injury rates

New studies on injury rates between forefoot and rearfoot striking

Loading rates associated with running injury

Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: a retrospective study

Comparison of ankle injury rates in boots and shoes

Female Athletes Have Higher Injury Rates

Lisfranc injury

Share This Page