How the new running shoe technologies influence biomechanics and injury outcomes in recreational runners
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.519Keywords:
Running, overuse injuries, biomechanics, FootwearAbstract
The biomechanical study of 38 male and female recreational runners demonstrates the relationship between the four most frequently used footwear technologies and the biomechanical loading of the lower extremities in running. Running in the four midsole technologies (1. NEUTRAL (N_RS): neutral, cushioning running shoes, 2. SUPPORT (S_RS): support, motion control running shoes, 3. MAX (M_RS): maximalist, carbon-fiber plate running shoes, and 4. UTEC (U_RS): running shoes with a U-shaped midsole construction and highly cushioning foam) indicate a strong impact of midsole technology on the kinetics of the lower extremities. Midsole construction and material of the four running shoe categories systematically modulate the joint moments at the foot, the ankle joint, and the knee joint and thus the mechanical loading of the biological structures of the lower extremities in every step when running. The data demonstrates no significant differences in running kinetics between NEUTRAL running shoes and SUPPORT running shoes while MAX running shoes increase and UTEC running shoes decrease ankle joint and knee joint loading during the stance phase. A 12-month standardized and randomized intervention trial surveyed 1697 recreational runners who
used one of the four dedicated running shoe categories in more than 75% of their runs. The results demonstrate a strong relation between the development of running-associated injuries in general and knee and Achilles tendon problems in particular and the footwear categories. While neutral and support running shoes show no significant differences in the development of running-related injuries, M_RS increase and U_RS decrease this risk, especially the occurrence of knee pain. Other risk factors, like age, gender, BMI, running distance, average speed, surface as well as foot morphology and leg axis, only have a minor effect on the development of running-related injuries in the 12-months survey. Running shoe midsole technologies provide access to a sophisticated causal explanation of overload injuries of biological structures of the lower extremity during running and the resulting running-related injuries.
Metrics
References
Cavanagh PR, Vandervelde AE. The running shoe book. Anderson World, Inc. Mountain View, Ca, 1980.
Knapik JJ, Jones BH, Steelman RA. Physical training in boots and running shoes: a historical comparison of injury
incidence in basic combat training. Military Med 2015; 25:e638-645.
Dempster J, Dutheil F, Ugbolue UC. The prevalence of lower extremity injuries in running and associated risk
factors: A systematic review. Physical Activity and Health 2021; 5(1):133-145.
Nigg BM. The role of impact forces and foot pronation: a new paradigm. Clin J Sport Med 2001; 11:2-9.
Nigg BM, Baltich J, Hoerzer S, Enders H. Running shoes and running injuries: mythbusting and a proposal for
two new paradigms: ‘preferred movement path’ and ‘comfort filter’. Br J Sports Med 2015; 49:1290-1204.
Walter SD, Hart LE, McIntosh JM, et al. The Ontario cohort study of running-related injuries. Arch Intern Med
; 149:2561-2564.
Theisen, D, Malisoux L, Genin J et al. Influence of midsole hardness of standard cushioning shoes on running
re lated injury risk. Br J Sports Med 2014; 48:371-376.
Malisoux L, Chambon N, Delattre N, Gueguen N, Urhausen A, Theisen D. Injury risk in runners using standard
or motion control shoes: a randomized controlled trial with participant and assessor blinding. Br. J Sports Med
; 50:481-487.
Relph N, Greaves H, Armstrong R, Prior TD, Spencer S, Griffiths IB, Langley, B. Runnings shoes for preventing
lower limb running injuries in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2022, Issue 8. Art. No. CD013368.
Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Frank JH, Farina EM, Luo G, Kram R. A comparison of the energetic cost of running in
marathon racing shoes. J Sports Med 2019, 48:1009-1019.
Willwacher S, Mai P, Helwig J, et al. Does advanced footwear technology improve track and road
performance? An explorative analysis based on the 100 best yearly performances n the world between 2010
and 2022. Sports Med – Open 2024, 10:14-23.
Joubert DP, Oehlert GM, Jones EJ, Burns GT. Comparative effects of advanced footwear technology in track
spikes and road-racing shoes on running economy. Int J of Sports Physiology and Performance 2024,19(7): 705
Tenforde A., Hoening T, Saxena A, Hollander K. Bone Stress injuries in runners using carbon fiber plate
footwear. Sports Medicine 2023, 53: 1499-1505.
Brueggemann G-P, Hirschhäuser E, Esser T. Die Biomechanik des Laufens mit unterschiedlichen
Sohlentechnologien (The biomechanics of running with different midsole technologies). Orthopädieschuhtechnik
; 07/08:30-37.
Stefanyshyn DJ, Stergiou P, Lun VMY, et al. Knee angular impulse as a predictor of patellofemoral pain in
runners. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34:1844-1851.
Hamill, J et al. A prospective study of iliotibial band syndrome in runners. Clin. Biomech. 2007;23(8):1018-25.
Sobhani S, van den Heuvel ER, Dekker R, et al. Biomechanics of running with rocker shoes. J Sci and Med in
Sport 2017; 20:38-44.
Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Kram R. The biomechanics of competitive male runners in three marathon racing
shoes: A randomized crossover study. Sports Med 2019; 49:133-143.
Cigoja, S. et al. Increasing the midsole bending stiffness of shoes alters gastrocnemius medialis muscle
function during running. Scientific Reports 2021; 11:749.
Downloads
Posted
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Gert-Peter Brüggemann, Tanja Esser, Eva Hirschhaeuser, Sebastian Rehorst (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
