Page 114 - Journal of Special Operations Medicine - Winter 2015

An Ongoing Series

Injuries and Footwear (Part 1)

Athletic Shoe History and Injuries in
Relation to Foot Arch Height and Training in Boots

Joseph J. Knapik, ScD; Rodney Pope, PhD; Robin Orr, PhD; Tyson Grier, MS

ABSTRACT
This article traces the history of the athletic shoe, exam- technical developments involving changes in the mate-
ines whether selecting running shoes based on foot arch rials, structure, shape, and cushioning. Recently, there
height influences injuries, and examines historical data has been a trend toward the use of “minimalist shoes,”
on injury rates when physical training (PT) is performed which have very little cushioning and a structure that
in boots versus running shoes. In the 1980s and into the differs from conventional running shoes. Some have
2000s, running shoe companies were advertising special- even suggested that shoes be abandoned altogether in
ized shoes with “motion control,” “stability,” and “cush- favor of barefoot running. 2, 3
ioning,” designed for individuals with low, normal, and
high arches, respectively. Despite marketing claims that This is the first of a two-part article that will address the
these shoes would reduce injury rates, coordinated stud- association between injuries and running footwear. In
ies in Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps basic train- Part 1, we cover the history of running shoes and look at
ing showed that assigning or selecting shoes on this basis some of the major changes and technical developments
had no effect on injury rates. Consistent with this finding, introduced over time. One of the major developments
biomechanical studies have shown that the relationships in the 1980s that continued into the 2000s was the in-
between arch height, foot joint mobility, and rear-foot troduction of running shoes designed for individuals
motion are complex, variable, and frequently not as with different arch heights. We will examine studies that
strong as often assumed. In 1982, the US Army switched have assessed if selecting shoes on the basis of foot arch
from PT in boots to PT in running shoes because of the height influenced injury incidence. Additionally, we will
belief that boots were causing injuries and that running look at a study that did a historical comparison of in-
shoes would reduce injury rates. However, a historical jury incidence since the US Army switched from physical
comparison of injury rates before and after the switch to training in boots to training in running shoes in 1982. In
running shoes showed virtually no difference in injury Part 2 (to be published in the next edition of the Journal
risk between the two periods. It is not clear at this point if of Special Operations Medicine), we will examine the
the type of footwear effects injury incidence. association between injuries and minimalist footwear.

Keywords: injury, foot; shoe, athletic; physical training
Some Running Shoe History
Running shoes have a long history that can be traced in
some detail at least back to the 18th century. In 1832 in
Introduction
England, Wait Webster patented a process for attaching
Running is an activity performed by virtually all mili- rubber to leather and developed a shoe called a plim-
tary personnel and this is encouraged because there is soll. In 1852, Joseph William Foster added spikes to
substantial evidence that running increases the aerobic plimsolls and this is generally credited as the first spiked
fitness of the muscle groups in the lower body that are running shoe (Figure 1A). Foster founded J.W. Foster
important for many of the tasks performed by the mili- and Sons in Bolton, England, to manufacture and sell
tary. Virtually all running in the military is performed these shoes, and this company later became Reebok. In
1
in running shoes. Running shoes have a long history of the United States in 1894, the Spalding Company was

102