Inside Outdoor Winter 2017

n independent study by PhDs Han-

nah M. Rice, Steve T. Jamison and

Irene S. Davis, published in July

2016’s

Medicine and Science in Sports

and Exercise

, proffered an interest-

ing conclusion. They were seeking a relationship

between forces exerted on a runner’s body wearing

traditional running shoes landing on their heel or

forefoot, versus runners using minimalist footwear

but landing on their forefoot.

The big picture reason is straightforward: running-

related injuries. As any dedicated runner knows, in-

juries are part of the process. In search of remedies,

some runners shifted away from rearfoot striking on

the promise of fewer injuries landing on their mid

or forefoot, typically in minimalist footwear. So the

researchers asked themselves, what are the links to

the type of shoe a runner uses to their foot strike and

what are the associated impact?

Noting the absence of literature comparing rear

and forefoot strike against traditional and minimalist

footwear categories, the authors elected to take a

closer look and report their findings. For the manu-

factures of minimalist footwear battling it out with

maximalist and traditional footwear, the team’s

conclusions were encouraging.

Twenty-nine runners jogging at an 8:30 per

mile pace (3.13 m/s), were divided into three

groups. Two of which were rear and forefoot strik-

ers, using traditional footwear. Traditional meaning

New study muddles the

midsole debate

Emest

Shiwanov

Minimal

Strikes Back

Inside

Outdoor

Winter

2017