Page 117 - Journal of Special Operations Medicine - Winter 2015

Figure 3 Minimalist running shoes. (A) Vibram FiveFingers. Figure 4 A typical display in a military post exchange
(B) Merrell Barefoot. (C) Adidas Adipure. (D) Nike Free showing shoes categorized by arch height.
Run+. (E) FILA Skeletoes. (F) Saucony Hattori.

shoe models were used differed because of the different
policies of the three Services. In the Air Force and Ma-
rine Corps studies, only three New Balance shoes were
used, one for each foot type. The Army study provided
19 different shoes from five different shoe companies,
to be an important vehicle for improving the aerobic fit- but the E group was still assigned an appropriate shoe
ness that all Soldiers need for their occupational tasks based on arch height. Recruits then did their usual basic
1
and that Soldiers’ feet will likely need the protection training (9, 6, or 12 weeks for Army, Air Force, and
provided by running footwear because of the surfaces Marines, respectively) and injuries were tracked in all
Soldiers typically run on. three Military Services.
Figure 5 Injury incidence in control groups (stability shoe
Running Shoes, Foot Arch Height, and Injuries regardless of arch height) and experimental groups (shoe
assigned or selected based on arch height). (A) Army basic
As noted, for over 30 years (1980s into the 2000s), run- training. (B) Air Force basic training. (C) Marine Corps
ning shoe companies had suggested that injuries could basic training.
be reduced by selecting running shoes on the basis of
foot arch height. Prior to 2007, the US military ser-
vices had generally followed these recommendations.
For example, during basic training in-processing, new
recruits could select or were assigned a running shoe
based on their arch height (Figure 2). Many military
post exchanges contained wall displays advertising vari-
ous types of running shoes categorized by foot shape, as
shown in Figure 4. However, whether selecting shoes on
the basis of foot arch height would reduce injuries was
an assumption that had not been tested.

In 2007, coordinated studies were conducted in Army,
Air Force, and Marine Corps basic training. 29–31 Foot
arch height was determined by expert evaluators using
the template in Figure 2. Recruits in all three Services
were randomized into either an experimental (E) group A summary of the results of the studies 29–31 is shown in
or control (C) group. The E group was provided a run- Figure 5. There was very little difference in injury inci-
ning shoe based on arch height: E group recruits with dence between those in the E or C groups among either
arch heights judged to represent low, medium, or high male or female recruits in any of the Military Services.
foot arches received motion control, stability, or cush- Because the Army study used a number of different run-
ioned shoes, respectively. The C group was provided ning shoes, it was possible to examine injury incidence
with a stability shoe regardless of plantar shape. Which by running-shoe models. Figure 6 shows that for the

Injuries and Footwear 105