I found that literature review a bit odd.
When they discuss Rear Foot Strike, they mention plantar fasciitis all over the place.
Higher impact transients related to increased vertical loading rates and tibial shock, as seen in RFS, are associated with bone and soft-tissue injuries, such as tibial stress fractures and plantar fasciitis. To date, no proven correlation exists between increased GRF and tibial stress fractures in runners.Still, high-impact loading variables have been seen in runners who use the RFS pattern and have a history of plantar fasciitis and patellofemoral pain.
And:
Patellofemoral pain and plantar fasciitis are common injuries in runners and may be a result of excessive eversion at heel strike. This motion stretches the plantar fascia and deltoid ligaments and could cause injury.
And:
A review of >2,000 running-related injuries revealed that patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS), iliotibial band syndrome, plantar fasciitis, Achilles and patellar tendinitis, and various stress fractures are the most common.
Yet, when they discuss Forefoot Strike, this is what they say:
Moreover, FFS [forefoot strike] running seems to create a new injury profile, with potentially high risks of metatarsal stress fractures, plantar fasciitis, and puncture wounds (with true BR [barefoot running]).
How is plantar fasciitis a "new injury profile" when it is endemic among shod runners? And they end up with a summary table that, regarding plantar fasciitis, says that it is a "Possibly higher risk" for barefoot (FFS) running and "Lower risk" for shod (RFS) running. Their citation for their comments (and the table) on plantar fasciitis is "Murphy K, Curry EJ, Matzkin EG:
Barefoot running: Does it prevent injuries? Sports Med 2013;43(11):1131-1138", but when I look at that study (which is also a literature review), I just cannot find where they support their conclusions regarding minimalist running and plantar fasciitis. They seem to be plucked from thin air.
So I wonder . . .
