The Effects of Carbon-Plated Shoes on High Mileage Runners
Long distance running is evolving rapidly. Shoe technology is evolving with it, but with each new technology comes risk to the athlete. Modern race shoes have been affectionately nicknamed “super shoes” for their almost unbelievable boost to racing performance. However, running in carbon plated shoes long term, they cause weakness in foot and calf muscles leading to injuries.
The modern carbon-plated shoe most commonly has a curved carbon plate throughout the outsole. In professional athletics there is a one plate limit and as such most commercial shoes also follow this rule. Some examples of modern carbon-plated shoes include the Nike Vaporfly, the Nike Alphafly, and the Adidas Adizero Adios Pro series’ of shoes. The curved nature of the modern carbon plates leads to the rocker effect that is sought after by manufacturers and athletes. Many people focus too much on the stiffness of the plate however stiffness is only helpful if it pushes the athlete forward. The rocker effect is what helps the athlete’s foot roll through their stride while the stiffness gives them a boost at the end. A flat plate doesn’t do this and as such the performance returns are much lower. This distinction is the reason the flat carbon plate is no longer relevant and not included in the carbon-plated shoes produced and studied today.
The shoe’s redistribution of load is the primary concern when it comes to weakness. Weakness in the context of elite and consistent runners is seen on a completely different scale to that of a normal person. The most dangerous weakness is not the overall weakest muscle in a runner, it is the weakness with the most disparity compared to the surrounding muscles. These kinds of weaknesses lead to the overuse of the surrounding muscles and a much higher risk of injury.
A person with two weak hips is less likely to get injured than a person with one weak hip because of our bodies ability to overcome issues by cheating for a short time. If a redistribution of load is done because of a weakness it causes short term gain, because the athlete can continue to run, but often ends in an injury because the areas that are suddenly under greater stress eventually fail and pick up an injury of some sort. If load redistribution is done by something else, a different type of shoe for example, the end result is the same. Any area that suddenly comes under greater stress will eventually fail and become injured.
Injury risk is something that every athlete tries to minimize. For most athletes this includes being smart on their playing field but for long distance runners it is about maintaining strength throughout all muscles, no matter how small. Muscle strength disparities in localized areas have been proven to increase the risk of injury. One of the most crucial ways of avoiding this is maintaining a consistent form. On an athlete by athlete basis many different shoes cause issues including ankle eversion. Ankle eversion is when a person’s sole moves away from the body’s midline, or if an athlete picks up the outside of their foot and only uses the inside. This can be a very small change and go unnoticed but over time it can create new or exacerbate old muscle imbalances.
Overuse injuries are the kind of injury most common for long distance runners. The term overuse injuries is a broad overarching term that includes many different types of injuries. For runners these injuries are often not from pure overuse but quick redistribution in load to a new muscle that can not handle it for the type of mileage most long distance runners run in their weekly training. These injuries are the main focus of studies when talking about distance running due to acute injuries being much more similar to a game of chance. Coaches and trainers have a much better chance at preventing overuse injuries and as such they focus their efforts on doing so. Overuse injuries exclude some of the most common injuries in the normal world and instead are made up of injuries like stress fractures, strains, and aggravated muscles, tendons, and nerves. They are often nebulous and difficult to pin down.
Long distance is often defined in race distance and is 5000 meters or more. Training as a long distance runner has weekly mileage goals and to be considered an experienced long distance runner the bare minimum is 40 miles a week. Less than that is good for inexperienced or shorter distance runners and does not constitute long term or heavy use of a carbon plated running shoe. For consistent use one must run in the carbon plated shoe for at least 6 miles at a time. The use of the shoe should be proportional to the weekly mileage. 15 miles a week for a 40 miles a week total athlete is consistent use whereas for an 80 mile a week runner it is purely complementary use. At minimum 40 percent of weekly mileage needs to be in the carbon plated shoe for it to be considered consistent use and this must be maintained for at least a month to see long term effects. To study the effects, shorter distances can be used but will fail to fully encompass all long term effects for a long distance runner.
The standard use of a carbon plated running shoe is to use them during workouts and races and not during recovery or steady state runs. Steady state consists of runs that are not for the purpose of recovery or to workout, essentially a neutral run. This style of usage is typically minimal and reduces the risk. Training in this way was encouraged by the fact that most shoes with carbon plates were expensive and geared toward racing and performance. As more people start to enjoy the benefits of running in a carbon plated shoe however, more shoes have carbon plates.
One example of a shoe that is closer to a recovery shoe, than a race shoe is the Nike Zoom Fly 5. The earlier generations of this shoe were widely considered good workout shoes, but the Zoom Fly 5 was different. It was heavier and had a less fast foam. Whether that be through a miss on Nikes part or a calculated move towards every day trainer, the result was increased day to day use. With the shoe feeling more like a recovery day trainer people started racking up the mileage. Another example is the previous generation, the Nike Zoom Fly 4. This had no issue being a fast workout shoe but was so well liked by many that they stretched the usage. This had the same result as the Zoom Fly 5, people were wearing a shoe with a carbon plate more than they had in the past. This is the type of consistent use that can lead to injuries. Training that isn’t mindful and the overuse of workout shoes may be acceptable for hobby joggers but over 40 miles a week this can become a real issue that most certainly constitutes consistent and long term use.
References
Kiesewetter, P., Bräuer, S., Haase, R., Nitzsche, N., Mitschke, C., & Milani, T. L. (2022). Do Carbon-Plated Running Shoes with Different Characteristics Influence Physiological and Biomechanical Variables during a 10 km Treadmill Run? Applied Sciences, 12(15), 7949. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12157949
Hata, K., Noro, H., Takeshita, T., Yamazaki, Y., & Yanagiya, T. (2022). Leg stiffness during running in highly cushioned shoes with a carbon-fiber plate and traditional shoes. Gait & Posture. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2022.03.021
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
I’d like some feedback on the structure of the argument. With multiple definitions and definitions within definitions I feel like I almost just threw definitions all over the page. I’d like it to come together into a more unified argument or be better divided in to clear categories but I’m not sure which is better or if theres a third and better option. Any general advice would also be welcome.
Can I start by asking you to divide the work into paragraphs, please, Student12121?
One sure way to help readers understand your structure is to take advantage of the obvious technique of developing ONE MAIN IDEA per paragraph. It’s a good way to doublecheck your structure, too, once you’ve decided where the place the breaks.
I’m going to ask again, Student12121.
Please give your work a title and break the huge block of text into paragraphs that develop ONE MAIN IDEA each. Thanks. You’ll stay at the bottom of the queue until you respond.
After asking twice and getting no response, I have taken your work out of the Feedback Please category, Student12121.
Once you’ve reacted to my first requests, please return this post to the FP category.
Thanks.
—DSH
You never returned this post to the Feedback Please category, Student12121, but I had to come back myself when I tried to provide feedback for your Causal Rewrite. Terms I saw there, such as “eversion,” were unfamiliar; I needed to see if you defined them for readers here in your first 1000 words.
While I’m here, I’ll grade and provide feedback for your Definition argument first.
Without even beginning to read it, I see your References are not compliant with standard APA style. Please provide bibliographic information (Title, Author, etc.) for your sources AND the links to urls.
Soooo wordy. “has kicked off . . . with the introduction of . . . being added to” and “when it comes to . . . when it comes to” and “can lead to . . . leading to.”
Every advance in shoe technology creates a possibility of damage to long distance runners. Shoes “improved by” a curved carbon plate, affectionately nicknamed “super shoes” for their extreme performance boost, cause foot and calf muscle weakness that leads to injury.
—True, this is not your Causal argument, but you STARTED a causal explanation and then didn’t finish it. The curve creates a rocker effect. But what’s so good about a rocker effect, and why did it lead to the abandonment of the flat plate? What was the purpose of the flat plate in the first place?
—This is where your paragraph should end.
—It’s causal ABOUT weakness, but it still doesn’t explain the purpose or value of the curved plate, so readers unfamiliar will be mystified.
—Are you suggesting that a NONPLATE shoe distributes load evenly, and that the curved plate redistribution necessarily makes things worse?
—Do runners without plates suffer no injuries resulting from load distribution?
—I do appreciate the explanation of “weakness disparity.” That’s fascinating.
—This is another paragraph.
—The causal explanation is quite helpful, halfway.
—Readers who are following your explanation will undoubtedly be asking themselves, “but what about redistribution that ISN’T caused by a weakness”?
—In just a few words, you could resolve that question for them.
—That bold sentence doesn’t do it, and it sounds like a pure repetition of something you’ve already said.
—Most of the explanation sounds reasonable, if repetitious.
—But the “hard to measure” claim does not create an increased risk. It might make it harder to connect the plate with injury, but that’s not the same thing.
I hope this is helpful so far, Student12121.
I have a long queue waiting for feedback, so I’ll have to move on to others for now, but I’ll be happy to return for another round once you’ve made significant improvements. Please don’t confine yourself to the first few paragraphs. Improve everything you can before you ask for additional feedback.
Some good early improvements, and you did divide your paragraphs as recommended, but nothing beyond the early sections.
Regraded.