Risk of injury was not not significantly different between the Vibram and Nike Pegasus groups

A total of 23 injuries were reported among the 99 runners during training and 12 weeks ( an injury = 23.2 %). Results damage between groups were distributed as follows: 4/32 (13%) in the Nike Pegasus was wounded , 12/32 (38%) in the Nike Free 3.0 v2 were injured , 7/35 (20%) in the VFF has been Bikilagrupy wounded. The risk of injury was significantly higher in the Nike Free , both in comparison with groups Vibram and Nike Pegasus . The risk of injury is not without significant changes between Vibram and Nike Pegasus groups .
Results for pain during surgery were mostly not - well , with one clear calf / shin whole minimalist runners to be much higher.
Based on the statistical analysis of results , the authors conclude "Based on the case of claims data , there is a greater likelihood of incurring losses minimalist shoes , especially with partial state minimalist . " ( I agree a bit with this preparation , ponieważryzyko damage was not elevated in Vibram Group )
comment
The first point I'll make towielkość sample. People complain that the sample sizes here are small, zwłaszczaliczba injured persons in each group. I did take , saying that studies like this are time consuming , expensive, and not easy to implement . So we have to work with what we have . With that said, I believe that the small sample made ​​it impossible to identify a number of possible significant differences between groups ( np.grupa Pegasus was over 70 % were women , and the free and the VFF group were closer to 50-50 male - female ) . Czywyższa rate of injury ( 20% vs 13%) in the Vibram Group represents a significant difference on a larger sample was recruited ? Perhaps, but again we have to work with the data in front of us . We use statistics because statistics say here and no difference in risk between the two groups.
For example , if we ignore the statistics and trend recording game data , it turns out that a group of Nike Frees had the slightest pain in the lower leg / calf (4 mm Safety decline in the calf / shin vs 12mm and 0 mm ? ), But knee pain ( justified in most cases due to the lack of interaction with the shape change of less pillow? ) . But it can not do this because statistics say that the differences are not significant.
injury rate in the group Nike Free 3.0 was actually quite high, and the risk of injury was significantly higher than in the two other shoes. Kaplan- Meier Jednakżekrzywej (Figure 2 in the paper ) , as well as data in the tables in the fifth Vibram uzupełniającychryzyko injury are not significantly different from Pegasus (e.g., confidence intervals for the risk of a considerable reduction compared with the Pegasus VFF overlap zero confidence intervals for relative risk VFF relatively Pegasus patch 100 % or 1 - statisticians , correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation) ! .
So in fact, this study shows that the transition to riding a full small shoe is more risky ( or better ) when it comes to injuries , than to continue to work in the traditional shoe the Pegasus . It moves at a slower but minimal shoe Nike Free 3.0, which means higher risk , and the authors speculate that this may be due to the moderate amount of cushion in the open , it is not enough to encourage the modification of the form and is not 't enough to protect racers , who continue to operate as in the strongly damped shoe Pegasus . It makes sense for me personally ( and interesting, because Nike Free 5.0 Breathe Mens Teal Blue was my gateway - shoes to minimalism ! ) .