Recent quotes:

Despite transition period, maximal running shoes may still increase risk of injury -- ScienceDaily

The results showed there were no changes in running mechanics over time in either type of shoes. The study did show increased impact forces and loading rates in the maximal shoe, supporting results of the earlier study. There was no difference in those biomechanics after the transition to the maximal shoes. "The concern in the maximal shoes is that you have this mass you're repeatedly loading. How are you attenuating that?" Pollard said. "We also saw changes in ankle kinematics, or the angular movement in the joints. With the maximal shoes we saw prolonged eversion, which likely increases stress on the legs and could lead to injury."

Maximal running shoes may increase injury risk to some runners -- ScienceDaily

"We were surprised by these results," said Christine Pollard, director of the FORCE Lab and an associate professor of kinesiology. "We thought we would see the opposite. Typically, increased cushioning results in a reduction in the impact peak and loading rate of the vertical ground reaction force. We suspect that the large amount of cushioning across the entire midsole caused the runners to rely more on the shoe than on their own internal structures to attenuate these forces."

50 Years of (Mostly) Fantastic Footwear Innovation | Runner's World

The guide, in the April 1967 issue, featured 14 “flats.” Eleven of those models came from three brands: Adidas, New Balance, and Tiger. The reviews spent as much time discussing each brand’s overall reputation as it did detailing the differences in the fairly similar shoe offerings. Each review included selected quotes, most being some variation of “Absolutely the best racing shoe I’ve ever worn.” The guide listed “best” shoes in two categories. The Tiger Road Runner topped the training category; Tiger’s Marathon led the racing shoe list.

Does a Shoe’s Heel-to-Toe Drop Matter? | Runner's World

Researchers at the Luxembourg Institute of Health followed 533 recreational runners for six months while the subjects did all of their running in models with a 0-, 6-, or 10-millimeter drop. The shoes’ respective stack heights were 21 millimeters in the heel and forefoot; 21 millimeters in the heel and 15 millimeters in the forefoot; and 24 millimeters in the heel and 10 millimeters in the forefoot. The shoes were otherwise identical. With injury defined as a leg or lower-back pain that resulted from running and cut into planned training for at least one day, 25 percent of the runners reported being injured during the six-month study period. The study’s main finding was that injury rates among the three groups were similar—runners got injured at roughly the same rate whether their shoes had a heel-to-toe drop of 0, 6, or 10 millimeters.