Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums


    Dismiss Notice
    Dismiss Notice
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

The Effect of Running Shoes on Lower Extremity Joint Torques

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by NewsBot, Jan 5, 2010.

  1. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    The Effect of Running Shoes on Lower Extremity Joint TorquesD. Casey Kerrigan, Jason R. Franz, Geoffrey S. Keenan, Jay Dicharry, Ugo Della Croce, Robert P. Wilder
    Volume 1, Issue 12, Pages 1058-1063 (December 2009)
  2. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Press Release:
    Running shoes may cause damage to knees, hips and ankles
    Greater stresses on joints than running barefoot or walking in high-heeled shoes observed
  3. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    The media going overboard on this. Lets take a closer look:

    1. It was done on a treadmill and we all know the gait differences between the two, so how can they extrapolate the results to overground running?
    2. None of the runners were acclimated to the particular model shoe used - Brooks Adrenaline (nor do we know if it was even suitable for them) - the gait may have been different after using the shoe for a while.
    3. None of the participants were habitual barefoot runners, so their gait may well have been different if they were experienced barefoot runners.

    How can the media (and the authors) jump to a conclusions about increased risk for knee OA!

    I have seen headlines on this story say:
    Running Shoes are still bad!
    Running shoes may cause damage to knees, hips and ankles
    Running May Be Good For You, But Running Shoes Aren't

    Can someone explain to me how these headlines are supported by the research?
  4. Craig:

    Here is the most likely explanation for the bizarre headlines......MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!!

    D. Casey Kerrigan.....head researcher finding that barefoot is better than shoes

    D. Casey Kerrigan....100% equity holder in JKM Technologies

    http://www.virginia.edu/bov/meetings/03oct/FINAL '03 AUG 29 ED POLICY COMM BOOK.pdf

    D. Casey Kerrigan.....developer of new running shoe technology, the CDC Suspension System, OESH Brand


    Now let me guess. She will next proclaim that her patented shoe "device" (or Brooks shoes will proclaim it for her) is the only shoe design that truly mimics barefoot running and will eliminate all those nasty joint torques that are so bad for runners.

    By the way, a Brooks Adrenaline is not a neutral shoe. It is a support shoe, "for mild to moderate pronators" which is closer, in Brooks lingo, to a motion control shoe than to a neutral shoe.


    Amazing how the internet allows us to see through the true financial purposes of "researchers" much more clearly than before.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  5. Bruce Williams

    Bruce Williams Well-Known Member

    you once again nailed it on all points. I find it interesting that they studied torque and not forces in these studies as well.

    Essentially no study has shown that running injuries have risen over the years despite the use of running shoes. I think this says a lot more about people running greater distance races adn training more than it does about the shoes.

    Also, none of the studies that were retrospective identified the types of shoes that were studied as far as being neutral / cushioned, stability or motion control types of shoes.

    In this study Kevin is right that the Brooks Adrenaline is a moderate motion controlling shoe. Why did they not see whether the Nike Free caused similar torques while they were doing this study?

    There is no such thing as "barefoot technology", withthe exception of our naked feet. As Kevin states, everyone else is probably selling something. While I don't disagree with that, it should be disclosed adn they should mention it in the papers.

    I will be interviewed on this paper by WebMD shortly and hope to point some of these thinds out.
  6. If I could ask a couple of questions.

    I tried to put in table 3 in from the articile but it become a big mess.

    If you measure torque in (Nm · kg-1m-1) and say you look at the 1st measurement

    Barefoot SHOD P Value
    Hip flexion torque (Nm · kg-1m-1) 1.18 0.36 1.20 0.41 0.06 .422

    The results are said to be significant by the authors but is .02 of torque change really significant? Or is a reality the change is unsignificant but the % change so great because the numbers are small and thats why the used % in writing up the piece to make it seem more significant.

    Also how accurate is it to measure torque in the human body?

    The headins barefot,shod and Pvalue are over the figure they represent when I wrote the post but not when I saved it, sorry can´t seem tp fix it.
  7. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Never allowing the facts to get in the way you can always count on the barefoot running community to jump onto this sort of research and use it to promote their own agenda's.

    Running shoes cause damage to knees, hips and ankles - official study
  8. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Gotta love that headline. At least the press release actually said: Running shoes MAY cause damage to knees, hips and ankles (even though the research did not actually show that!)

    I wrote this elsewhere on this:
    Here is another headline that was in my in-box this morning: Running Barefoot Better than Running with Shoes --- can somewhat actaully show me how that sort of conclusion can be reached from the actual reseach that was done?
  9. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    BTW: I not opposed to barefoot running....its just the fanaticism and irrationalty of so many of its supporters. How they blindly accepted and reported the above research is a perfect example of exactly what I am saying.
  10. Craig:

    Barefoot running is just another passing fad within a very small segment of the worldwide running community that will soon die down within the next 5-10 years. Once enough people get injured while running barefoot and start to see that it is not the panacea that the barefoot zealots claim it is, then we will be back to what intelligent runners have been doing for the past 40 years........running in shoes.

    Here is what I would ask any of the barefoot runners to answer for me......if barefoot running is so great then why has no runner won an international marathon while barefoot since Abebe Bikila won the Rome Olympic Marathon in 1960?......49+ years ago!!!

    If the very small community of barefoot runners want more runners to consider going barefoot while running, then maybe they should try to get someone to start winning races while running barefoot. Maybe then, the rest of the more talented runners in the world will start to take them seriously. As far as I can tell so far, it is only the slow runners who want to run barefoot, maybe because it gets them more attention when they are running in the back of the pack of the race??

    By the way, I just watched the California International Marathon in Sacramento a month ago.....11,000 runners......and not a single one barefoot! If barefoot running is so great....then why aren't more people doing it?!
  11. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Way to go Bruce:
    From medicinenet.com
  12. But is it significant. If I got from say .25 to .5 that a 100% raise. If that was interst ratesis would not really change a great deal what I pay back to the bank.

    If I was writting a report in the paper If I wrong a headline which sain Interst rates up to .5% most people would this big deal, But if I wrote intest rates up 100% people would stress and think thats a big deal.

    So was the small changes in torque change really significant ?
  13. Bruce Williams

    Bruce Williams Well-Known Member

    Thanks Craig!
  14. Bruce Williams

    Bruce Williams Well-Known Member

    I'd like to know as well. I'd say it's a red herring,
    and that is why they tend to study the forces more
    than the torques, but I don't know for sure.
    Nice job on figuring out the error in the numbers!
  15. Bruce:

    You and Joe Hamill offered some very common-sense rebuttals to the over-reaching conclusions that Kerrigan et al guessed on in their article. I don't know if I would have been so nice.

    Good job!!
  16. Bruce Williams

    Bruce Williams Well-Known Member

    Thanks Kevin!
  17. Anyone that wants to see the reason why the research by D. Casey Kerrigan is so heavily biased toward the idea that running with shoes may cause osteoarthritis of the knees just needs to look at the company that Kerrigan is involved in and their new product, the CDC Suspension System.

    From that website, here is the first line of the biography on D. Casey Kerrigan:

    Dr. D. Casey Kerrigan is the medical world's leading researcher in the study of biomechanics, human movement, and gait.

    Funny, I have never heard of her before this paper!

    And, in their recently published paper on joint torques effects of running shoes, I believe this last sentence of the paper is very instructive as to the belief system they would like everyone to follow toward their impending new shoe design product which, I'm sure, will be on the market soon:


    All one needs to do, to see the obvious promotional bias in Kerrigan's et al's paper, is to read the very nicely done, and much more objective paper published in the Journal of Biomechanics by a group of Belgium biomechanists:

  18. You guys should have your own program. I can hear the voice over

    Stay tuned when next, Private Detective´s Craig Payne and Kevin Kirby with their Media Manager Bruce Williams bust another badly published paper and expose the self promotion .
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  19. Bruce Williams

    Bruce Williams Well-Known Member

    I had the reporter read over those lines specifically
    and said the same thing you did above.
    Despite her few sentences of obvious bias, she listed
    any points that neither proved or disproved her claims.
    I think the journal reviewers should be strongly chastised,
    as well as the publisher for allowing her to leave in those
    biased statements that are ultimately unprovable and
  20. Bruce Williams

    Bruce Williams Well-Known Member

    Actually that's not a bad idea Mike! Kevin and Craig,
    just think how many researchers we could regularly
    piss off!!!
    Hats off to the opinionated Podiatrists!
  21. Bruce, Mike and Craig:

    If the paper is from a researcher that has no bias toward promoting a product they have financial interest in, then I don't have much of a problem.

    However, when it is so obvious that the lead reasearcher has patented a shoe product, is a co-owner of a company that is making that shoe product, produces biased research conclusions that obviously are geared toward promoting an eventual release of a shoe product, and then makes sure that every media outlet is informed of their research with sensational headlines suggesting running shoes cause ostoearthritis so they can get some free lead-in advertising for their shoe product that supposedly will help prevent osteoarthritis.....that is when I have a problem.
  22. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    I do not necessarily object to researchers with agendas or financial interests. I just object when it is not made explicit and disclosed or when the tone of the article is reflecting the agenda, when it should be written neutrally (ie the way the research in question immediatly starts talking about osteoarthrtis)
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2010
  23. Jeremy Long

    Jeremy Long Active Member

    I'm in agreement with Craig and Kevin. There are clear transparency issues. Most of the world's athletic shoe companies perform outstanding R&D research, and they all certainly have the agenda of selling more shoes. Moreover, consumers (mostly) recognize that these companies have an interest in selling more products. Dr. Kerrigan appears to be using her professional credentials to potentially mislead consumers.
  24. Paulo Silva

    Paulo Silva Active Member

  25. Paulo Silva

    Paulo Silva Active Member

  26. Paulo Silva

    Paulo Silva Active Member

    my favorite:

    from msnbc
  27. Bruce Williams

    Bruce Williams Well-Known Member

  28. Bruce Williams

    Bruce Williams Well-Known Member

    He says studies are coming out but sites no studies to
    ratify his claims. His ideas add nothing to the discussion
  29. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Even the TV news are jumping on the research (shame they did not do a critical appraisal of the quality of the research).

    I still just do not get why the media is highlighting this ....

    I came across a number of bloggers just parroting the spin with no critical appraisal. For eg, one of them put a lot of emphasis on this sentence from the paper:

    "there is no clinical evidence to support that modern running footwear promoted long-term health in runners"

    What I do not get is that the paper could have easily said: "there is no clinical evidence to support that modern running footwear causes any harm in runners" .... why do they choose to not point this out as well. ... is it becasue they have some sort of agenda that they pushing???
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  30. Certainly seems that way.
  31. Paulo Silva

    Paulo Silva Active Member

    I did posted it for two reasons:

    Would like to discuss more about what is described as "lifted heels in running shoes", this is a matter I didn't found papers about it yet, and in this response Ian Adamson talks about it. Can you help me on this?

    English is not my mother tongue, so don't know for you, but for me his title Director of Education @ Newton Running sounds very funny:rolleyes:
  32. Griff

    Griff Moderator


    I think he's probably referring to the pitch that all shoes have (i.e they are higher at the back than they are at the front). If memory serves me correctly I think I read a post from Simon Bartold on here once which said that as an example most Asics road running shoes have a 10mm pitch (heel raise effectively). As for evidence to back up this chaps claims that this interferes with gait in a negative way and maybe even causes injury (which is what he is suggesting without saying it in my opinion) then I don't know of any.

    Infact if anything Asics must believe the opposite, as they have introduced this 10mm raise into a range of their football/rugby boots (as worn by Toby Flood for example)

  33. Bruce Williams

    Bruce Williams Well-Known Member

    Ian is right. Simon B. touted the study and the use of the 10mm pitch on football shoes at the APMA scientific conference in Toronto last year and said the shoes would be out soon.

    I think much of the pitch or heel height in athletic shoes comes because of the generally accepted claim that AJ equinus leads to more foot pronation. So, add heel height and your shoes could potentially counter that in theory. Apparently ASICS thinks so and Simon apparently did the study to prove that.

    Other need for heel height is to accomodate buit in cushioning systems, gels, air, etc.
    Personally I think a shoe company would do well to make a line of shoes that dispenses with that and then can lower the heel height without necessarily lowering the overall pitch due to AJE. It would be worth studying. There is a ton of literature out that is not in favor of cushioning.

    Also, the guy from that specific link owns or works for Newton shoes. I think their claim is that they represent the midfoot striking community adn I assume they don't have heel cushioning built into their shoes. I've never held one of their shoes specifically so I don't know what the construction is. I think most of their claims are hype adn they apparently want to capture the Chi Running or Poise running shoe markets. they probably have as well. I can't say they are wrong in their claims, but they have no information to back their claims and regularly relay on anecdotal evidence or customer testimonials.
    let the buyer beware!

    My 2 cents.
    Bruce Williams
  34. We discussed them here- there is also a link to their "science bit"
  35. Griff

    Griff Moderator


    Just stumbled across a nice debate between you and Ken Bob Saxton in the February edition of Runners World (US version): http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-238-267--13401-0,00.html

    Also a commentary on it from a barefoot blog here: http://barefoot-running.com/blog/?p=139

    Great stuff. Was this a face to face showdown/pistols at dawn?

  36. Ian:

    It was a phone conference call. The debate included about three times more dialogue than this, but was, of course, edited for the magazine. What is interesting is that it seems that only the people who are barefoot runners take the time to write in to comment on these articles, whereas, when I talk to my runner-patients, most of them think these barefoot runners are kind of odd. I guess the shoe-only runners don't think it is important enough to throw in their comments in these blogs.
  37. RobinP

    RobinP Well-Known Member

    You don't get much barefoot running in the UK - particularly the Isle of Man. It's too cold and the roads are crap!

  38. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    yeah... and 'aint it amazing that NONE of the barefoot fanatics ever mention that Abebe Bakila followed up his Rome feat in 1964 with a pair of custom made adidas shoes... won the marathon again.. AND broke the world record... hmmm

  39. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    I was led to believe that Bikila won Gold at Tokyo 64 in Pumas? Both the Dassler brothers were persuing him at the time however. And indeed the main reason he ran barefoot in Rome 60 in the first place was that he was a late entry to the team and there were no shoes left that fitted him (but unsure if thats factually correct).
  40. Paulo Silva

    Paulo Silva Active Member

    Puma's company history page:


    Wikipedia last minute team entry related here, (no sources presented)


Share This Page