I previously had a go at the issue of what is an ideal drop¹ for a running shoe and started with the conclusion:
Straight to it: based on my understanding of the current knowledge, the evidence and discarding all the logical fallacies, I can find no evidence and no rationale for any blanket recommendations for any ideal drop in a running shoe. Yet, everywhere you go there are some pretty strongly held opinions with lots of the typical rhetoric and propaganda as to what it should be. Given the strength of those opinions I was surprised to find how little evidence backs it up.
Of course the fan boys did not like that conclusion, even though I never actually concluded that one drop was better than another! One even went as far as arguing using the ‘natural’ logical fallacy that we should be using the natural logical fallacy to conclude that 0 drop was better! (if that actually makes any sense to you!). When I wrote the previous post I did comment on the lack of evidence, which is an incy wincy bit embarrassing as there was some evidence that I missed. This study just turned up in my alerts – it was from August 2013 (not sure why it turned up so late!).
The study from Nicolas Chambon and colleagues from the Aix-Marseille Université looked at 12 runners running in barefoot and running shoes with 0, 4 and 8mm drops (4 different conditions) on a treadmill while measuring kinetic and kinematic data. The only data on this study is the extended abstract, so a more full publication would be needed to check some of the details to properly judge the study; however nothing jumps out at me as being an issue from the information provided in the abstract.
What did they find:
Here is the table of their results:
- the barefoot condition was different in most of the parameters measured from the shoe conditions
- there were very few differences in the parameters measured between the 0, 4 and 8mm drop conditions
- interestingly, the impact peak when barefoot was highest!
What can we conclude from this? The authors conclusion was:
This study suggests that if a fore-foot strike pattern is not clearly adopted, runners cannot benefit from the potential advantages of barefoot or minimalist running shoe concerning reduction of impact magnitude.
The only rider that I would put on that conclusion is that we are assuming that the impact transient is something that we should be concerned with. As I keep saying, the evidence that it is a problem is hardly compelling.
As always, I go where the evidence takes me until convinced otherwise, and the evidence tells me that there is not a lot of difference in running pattern when running in 0, 4 or 8mm drop shoes, let alone being able to conclude that one is better than another.
1. Drop is the different between the height of the forefoot and height of the rearfoot in the shoe.
Chambon, N., Delattre, N., Berton, E., Gueguen, N., & Rao, G. (2013). The effect of shoe drop on running pattern Footwear Science, 5 (sup1) DOI: 10.1080/19424280.2013.799585
Last updated by Craig Payne.
- Effect of shoe drop on running mechanics
- What is the ideal ‘drop’ for a running shoe?
- Is the drop of a running shoe associated with injury risk?
- Effect of 0 and 4mm drop running shoes on running economy
- Heel striking in a cushioned shoe with a 10mm drop and he still managed to break the world marathon record!
- Impact Reduction Through Changing to Midfoot Strike Pattern vs Low Drop Footwear
- Effect of fatigue on navicular drop – my ‘Nobel Ig Prize’ for Biomechanics Research
- Foot strike pattern and ground-contact time – effect on economy of running
- The Effect of Foot Strike Pattern on Achilles Tendon Load During Running
- Running shoe midsole hardness has no effect on running injury rate
- The Re-emergence of the Minimal Running Shoe
- Is the rearfoot pattern the most frequent foot strike pattern among recreational shod distance runners?