Logical fallacies in the running shoe debate: let the evidence guide prescription

NewsBot · Oct 23, 2018

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
Editorial in BJSM:
Logical fallacies in the running shoe debate: let the evidence guide prescription

For the past 40 years, running shoes have been prescribed on the basis of matching shoe features to foot morphology to prevent running-related injuries (RRI). Yet, traditional shoe prescription has not prevented RRIs—consider five quality randomised controlled trials (RCT) and observational cohort studies.1–5 In contrast, a recent investigation6 found that motion control shoes protected against injury in experienced runners who had pronated feet. There are likely important methodological reasons for the discrepancies between these studies, such as differing definitions of RRI and various experience levels among runners. Nonetheless, there remains a lack of conclusive evidence to support traditional shoe prescription to prevent RRIs.7
Click to expand...

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Phlebological insole

Physiological remoulding of lower limb skin as a cause of diabetic foot ulcer

Pathological and normal variability of foot bones in osteological collections

Psychological dysfunction following calcaneal fractures

Physiological lower leg edema in the late afternoon

'biological plausibility' and 'theoretical coherence'

Foot morphological between ethnic groups

Share This Page