Military Boots…Do they really protect your feet?

“It’s all about the running shoes” it’s a phrase you’ve heard at least once if you’re a sports enthusiast. And if you’re a veteran jogger you’ve probably be a millionaire if you had one dollar every time you’ve been preached about sports shoes. Amongst the zillion informed opinions (seems everyone is becoming an expert in biomechanics and sportswear these days), product commercials and marketing stunts you can still (after endless ponderings) pick the footwear that suits you best.

Ever wondered what happens when you can’t pick the type of running shoe you use? Or even when the shoes you use for physical training isn’t even a sport model? How can this be, you ask? Well, there are several professional categories that require constant physical training to stay fit for their jobs and some of them need to wear uniform. Military staff– for example – need to constantly train in uniform which include boots as footwear. Besides being uncomfortable, military boots are associated with injuries.

Why not switching from boots to running shoes when training for combat? – you may ask. Bingo! It’s actually the first question that came to my mind. Simple and easy – just use sports footwear when training for combat, no brainer. Well, there is a reason military women and man train in boots – it’s because in actual combat situation you won’t have your favorite sneakers in your backpack, along high protein bars and hand grenades. If you’re deployed you actually need to walk, run and climb in military boots.

of course, several studies were conducted to assess impact. Can you guess the result? It should be a massive pro-running shoes results, right? Well my friend, wrong. A statistical analysis based on existing literature “Physical Training in Boots and Running Shoes: A Historical Comparison of Injury Incidence in Basic Combat Training” (Knapik, J., Jones, B. and Steelman, R. (2015). Military Medicine, 180(3), pp.321-328) showed that while running shoes are more comfortable, the statistical difference in injury incidence is irrelevant (that sounds like a tongue twister!). In plain English, even though the military used running shoes instead of boots during basic combat training their feet were still injured in the same way.

Ok, one may argue that a lot happened in footwear production since 1982, and would be right. In a more recent study “Cypriot and Greek Army Military Boot Cushioning: Ground Reaction Forces and Subjective Responses”(Paisis, P., Hanley, B., Havenetidis, K. and Bissas, A. (2013). Military Medicine, 178(4), pp.e493-e497) running shoes, military boots, and military boots with two types of insoles were compared. The ground reaction forces on a 5% treadmill walking and running were measured. What are ground reaction forces? Well, with the risk of being a total nerd – this goes back to Newton’s third law – called the “action and reaction” law.

Basically, the law says that for each force applied in a point there is an equal reaction force acting in opposite way. Applied to walking, jogging, running, and basically any type of biped action this means that the surface we stand on, walk on, jog on and etcetera replies with the force we deliver through our actions. There are factors that influence these forces – such as the type of surface, or the slope but in the end the ground reacts to our force (weight, mainly) and acceleration with equal weapons. And these weapons tend to hurt mainly our feet, closely followed by joints, ligaments and muscles. OK, boring scientific transgression over.

 Still, due to high frequency of footwear related injuries, some countries introduced running shoes for their troops. US Army did that in 1982, with the purpose to reduce this type of injuries. And of course, several studies were conducted to assess impact. Can you guess the result? It should be a massive pro-running shoes results, right? Well my friend, wrong. A statistical analysis based on existing literature “Physical Training in Boots and Running Shoes: A Historical Comparison of Injury Incidence in Basic Combat Training” (Knapik, J., Jones, B. and Steelman, R. (2015). Military Medicine, 180(3), pp.321-328) showed that while running shoes are more comfortable, the statistical difference in injury incidence is irrelevant (that sounds like a tongue twister!). In plain English, even though the military used running shoes instead of boots during basic combat training their feet were still injured in the same way.

Ok, one may argue that a lot happened in footwear production since 1982, and would be right. In a more recent study “Cypriot and Greek Army Military Boot Cushioning: Ground Reaction Forces and Subjective Responses”(Paisis, P., Hanley, B., Havenetidis, K. and Bissas, A. (2013). Military Medicine, 178(4), pp.e493-e497) running shoes, military boots, and military boots with two types of insoles were compared. The ground reaction forces on a 5% treadmill walking and running were measured. What are ground reaction forces? Well, with the risk of being a total nerd – this goes back to Newton’s third law – called the “action and reaction” law.

Basically, the law says that for each force applied in a point there is an equal reaction force acting in opposite way. Applied to walking, jogging, running, and basically any type of biped action this means that the surface we stand on, walk on, jog on and etcetera replies with the force we deliver through our actions. There are factors that influence these forces – such as the type of surface, or the slope but in the end the ground reacts to our force (weight, mainly) and acceleration with equal weapons. And these weapons tend to hurt mainly our feet, closely followed by joints, ligaments and muscles. OK, boring scientific transgression over.

Going back to the study comparing running shoes (RS), military boots (MB) and military boots with two types of insoles (MBI1, MBI2) again, the results were confusing. The only categorical conclusion was that RS are more comfortable while MB, MBI1 and MBI2 are not (duh, that was an easy one). In walking, again, RS proved to be superior when it comes to ground forces. But in running, all bets were off – no relevant differences were measured between RS and all types and MB.

So where does that leaves us? What conclusion can be drawn? Sure, RS are more comfortable but about no help when actually running. Sure, insoles may help but not when really needed. My conclusion is that if you want to base decisions on evidence than more evidence needs to be produced. Studies are scarce and old. The samples are low, hence large scale impact studies need to be designed and conducted. Also, better criteria needs to be included.

So, my friends, what should we do with this inconclusive conclusions (yep, pun intended). Does that even affect us, the mere mortals? We don’t train in combat boots. We use running shoes. Usually for running, not for war theaters and law enforcement. But YES, we can learn from this that basically no miraculous running shoe will save you from injuries. No insole, no matter how ergonomic will help unless used in the right conditions. Just assume that our feet are unique, however unromantic this may sound, and try to refine the best solution for them.

Try shoes, try insoles, try braces or orthoses if they work for you. And in the long run keep in mind that what works for you may not work for everyone and vice versa.