NY Times DESTROYS shoe industry: "The idea that any running shoe can prevent you from getting hurt doesn’t hold water."

A shoe will never prevent injury. However that doesn't mean you should just cheap out because a shoe can definitely cause injury.

Don''t we (experienced runners) already know this? It all depends on if you like how it feels on, if you prefer cushion, minimalism, springy-ness or some mix of all three. Pretty much every runner I've talked about shoes with seems to really only care about the comfort and the durability. The only people who think otherwise are probably very inexperienced or incredibly naive. The only people who need to know this are those who just started running or have never closely examined the one piece of equipment necessary for the sport.

I'll add the somewhat unrelated note that my twin and I have preferred fairly different types of shoes since we started running! Curious to know if this is common among twins...

We were always told not to run in old worn-out shoes. Does that contribute to injury probability?

Even the New York Times is like a broken clock.

Not really but their running related articles by hobby writers are usually very bad.

I swear shin splints are a thing made up by sprinters so they don’t have to workout,

i’ve literally never had one, ever

I would caution everyone to take this article with a HUGE grain of salt.

For this story the Times only conferred with a small group of "experts". I want to call particular attention to Dr Kevin Vincent and his colleague, Dr Klein from the University of Florida Running Clinic. Dr Vincent is an avowed minimalist-footwear proponent. He has been a long time advocate for Zero Shoes and Vibram Five Fingers. The Times article leans heavily on his questionable and erroneous views about footwear. This dude has a video up on YouTube that is over an hour long, taken from a USF stream done in 2021. In the video he was pushing the bogus notion that to be a "real" runner everyone must shun modern shoes and wear 0mm drop shoes such as Zero Shoes. Zero shoes is a scam product that was featured on Sharktank. This doctor probably gets a kick back for promoting this terrible advice.

Surely the body composition of the average runner (the median in this sense) has completely changed in the last 40 years.

The article cites "rates" of injury, but the total number of "runners" has swelled dramatically since the 80s; and the proportion of these "runners" that are older, heavier, and more out of shape has done so too.

Therefore, you're not really comparing the same population.

Rates of injury may have remained constant, but participation rates among those that more vulnerable to injury have drastically increased. Which would indicate some sort of improvement on the injury prevention front.

Based on 56 years of running I found that a running shoe won't prevent injury, but can certainly cause it. I ran in a highly rated brand for several years and they wore ok except that both my achillies gave me problems. When I finally changed shoes that problem disappeared. The shoe that was recommended by a running store employee and I tried soon caused hamstring problems. After recovery from that I switched again this time making my own choice based on more research and have enjoyed them without injury(Adidas Bostons 5 thru 8) even up to the present.

So, “you’ve never had one” is your entire rationale for “these don’t exist”?

Missed opportunity in this article to educate the unaware on the uselessness of stability shoes. This article goes astray by conflating the results of the Cochrane review with one expert's biased view that "super shoes" and in general cushioned and rockered footwear are somehow "bad" for runners.

Had the author of the article just focused on the Cochrane Review's results which confirmed that stability shoes offer no injury reduction benefit then this article could have produced some useful conclusions.

For example, the article could have pointed out the futility of those gimmicky 3D foot scanning machines that store like Fleet Feet, to name one example, use to dupe customers into thinking they "need" unnecessary expensive stability shoes and pricey orthotic insoles products. It's quite common for customers to walk into one of these stores and walk out with not just a pair of shoes but also a $50 pair of insoles.

Instead of using the Cochrane meta analysis to bring attention to the Stability vs Neutral shoe debate the author tapped a known evangelist for the long dead minimalist movement, Dr Kevin Vincent. As a result, cushioned shoes and plated shoes, the best shoes that currently exist, were lampooned by this author and his biased agenda driven "expert" source.

They're real. Ask a fit bike racer a few days after they decide to run.

Sample size of study is far too small to make any conclusions. Most running/T&F studies have too small of sample size.

Think of all the people over the past (50 to 60) years who have run at least 10 miles per week, 11,xxx, too small.

12 randomized trials comprising over 10,000 respondents is plenty to draw pretty firm causal conclusions about the samples drawn from and about the shoes used in the sample. The problem is less with sample size and more with it not applying to newer technologies (e.g., super shoes) that were never tested.

In any event, in our shoe review data we find little systematic evidence that a type of shoe, e.g., stability or motion control, do much for user satisfaction or injury. But we do find high levels of dissatisfaction with specific models of shoes. Paraphrasing, there are no good or bad "types" of shoes, but there are good models of shoes.

He's also never had an intelligent thought so he doesn't think they exist

I agree with their thesis. Because it's the actions of a wise runner that prevents the injury. Alternate running shoes weekly, exchange for new pairs when due, and don't trust your favorite brand to stay without being altered or tweeked by the short company. These are some of the actions to prevent injuries.

I'd say 80% of my injuries come from muscle imbalances, mobility restrictions, being off/alignment. 20% from over-training. Barely 0% from shoes as if I buy a bad shoe, I return it immediately after try-on, test. I know what will injure me. I have been injured in shoes, though, but it was definitely when I was younger. At this point (45 and 4:40 mile), the new technology helps tremendously in racing and recovery.

This is pure Gell-Mann amnesia.

You know it's going to be a dubious slog when the writer uses the term "running sneakers" in the second graf.