Why ‘one size does not fit all’ when it comes to running

I wanted to repost this excellent blog from Craig Payne at Running Research Junkie. Please read it for a thought provoking and balanced discussion on some of the issues we currently face in footwear and biomechanics.

I have been promising these thoughts for a while. When you look at all the studies on running economy, the bulk of them are either showing that heel striking is more economical or that there is no difference between forefoot/midfoot vs rearfoot striking in running economy. The evidence does not support the rhetoric and propaganda from the fan boys for the one size fits all. However, if you look closely at the data in these studies there is a lot of variability from one runner to another which means for some runners forefoot/midfoot striking is probably more economical and for some runners heel striking appears to be more economical. Why is that? When you look at all the studies on injury rates between heel striking vs midfoot/forefoot striking or barefoot/minimalist vs shod running, the bulk of them are showing no differences. The evidence does not support the rhetoric and propaganda  from the fan boys for the one size fits all. However, there is no doubt that some individuals who changed the way they run are getting less injuries and there is equally no doubt that some get more. Why is that? When you look at all the research on the kinematic and kinetic effects of running shoes and foot orthotics on runners maybe that the mean change is x% with a p value of 0.0x, but when you look at the data on individuals the responses are usually in both directions and are subject specific. Why is that? Clinically, we have all heard the cliché that we treat individuals and not means or p values.