Advertisement

Sports Medicine

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 331–342 | Cite as

A Randomized Crossover Study Investigating the Running Economy of Highly-Trained Male and Female Distance Runners in Marathon Racing Shoes versus Track Spikes

  • Kyle R. BarnesEmail author
  • Andrew E. Kilding
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Running economy represents a complex interplay of physiological and biomechanical factors that are able to adapt chronically through training, or acutely through other interventions such as changes in footwear. The Nike Vaporfly (NVF) shoe was designed for marathon running on the roads and has been shown to improve running economy by ~ 4% compared with other marathon shoes, however, during track racing, distance runners traditionally wear a much lighter shoe with an embedded spike plate around the forefoot.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine if, and to what extent, the NVF shoes improve running economy compared with established track spikes (Nike Zoom Matumbo 3 [NZM]) and marathon racing shoes (Adidas Adizero Adios 3 [ADI]).

Methods

Twenty-four highly-trained runners (12 male, 12 female) ran 4 × 5 min trials on a treadmill while wearing each of the four shoe conditions: NVF, NZM, ADI, and the NVF matched in weight to the ADI shoe (NVF +), during three separate visits—visit 1: familiarization; visit 2: 14 and 18 km·h−1 for men, 14 and 16 km·h−1 for women; visit 3: 16 km·h−1 for men, 15 km·h−1 for women, plus a maximal rate of oxygen uptake (VO2max) test for both sexes. We measured the rates of oxygen uptake (VO2), carbon dioxide production and biomechanical measures while running at each velocity and shoe condition.

Results

The NVF shoe improved running economy by 2.6 ± 1.3% compared with the NZM, 4.2 ± 1.2% compared with ADI, and 2.9 ± 1.3% when matched in weight of the ADI shoe. Among the 24 subjects, the difference in running economy over the four velocities between the NVF and NZM shoes ranged from + 0.50 to − 5.34%, and − 1.72 to − 7.15% for NVF versus ADI. Correlations between changes in running economy and changes in biomechanical variables were either trivial or small, but unclear.

Conclusion

The NVF enhanced running economy compared with track spikes and marathon shoes, and should be considered a viable shoe option for track and road racing.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all of the athletes who participated in this study, as well as Katelyn Simon, Jordan Juzwiak, Jackie Magusin, Samantha Behl, Jen Gottardo, and Katelyn Erickson for their help with data collection. The authors have no professional relationship or affiliation with Nike Inc. or Adidas AG.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethics approval was obtained from the Grand Valley State University Institutional Review Board (protocol number 18-021-H-GVSU).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

Funding

Funding for this study was received through a College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Research Cluster Grant and Center for Scholarly and Creative Excellence at Grand Valley State University.

Conflict of interest

Kyle R. Barnes and Andrew E. Kilding declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    di Prampero PE, Atchou G, Bruckner JC, Moia C. The energetics of endurance running. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1986;55(3):259–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Joyner MJ. Modeling: optimal marathon performance on the basis of physiological factors. J Appl Physiol. 1991;70(2):683–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Daniels JT. A physiologist’s view of running economy. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1985;17(3):332–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daniels JT, Daniels N. Running economy of elite male and elite female runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992;24(4):483–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barnes KR, Kilding AE. Running economy: measurement, norms and determining factors. Sports Med Open. 2015;1:8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barnes KR, Kilding AE. Strategies to improve running economy. Sports Med. 2015;45(1):37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Frank JH, Farina EM, Luo G, Kram R. A comparison of the energetic cost of running in marathon racing shoes. Sports Med. 2018;48(4):1009–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Spiering BA, Kram R. Altered running economy directly translates to altered distance-running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48(11):2175–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nike. Breaking2. 2018. https://www.nike.com/us/en_us/c/running/breaking2. Accessed 18 June 2018.
  10. 10.
    Hoogkamer W, Kram R, Arellano CJ. How biomechanical improvements in running economy could break the 2-hour marathon barrier. Sports Med. 2017;47(9):1739–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Low T, Hunter I, McLeod A, Valentine D, Ward J, Hager R. Running economy and marathon racing shoes. Estes Park: Rocky Mountain American Society of Biomechanics; 2018.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anderson N, Valentine D, McLeod A, Ward J, Hager R, Hunter I. The benefit of different marathon shoes through various running mechanics. Estes Park: Rocky Mountain American Society of Biomechanics; 2018.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gonzalez L, McLeod A, Valentine D, Ward J, Hager R, Hunter I. A comparison of running mechanics in marathon racing shoes. Estes Park: Rocky Mountain American Society of Biomechanics; 2018.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hunter I. 2017 USATF 10 k Footstrikes. 2017. http://biomechanics.byu.edu/2017footstrikes.html. Accessed 20 June 2018.
  15. 15.
    Tam E, Rossi H, Moia C, Berardelli C, Rosa G, Capelli C, et al. Energetics of running in top-level marathon runners from Kenya. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(11):3797–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heck H, Mader A, Hess G, Mucke S, Muller R, Hollmann W. Justification of the 4-mmol/l lactate threshold. Int J Sports Med. 1985;6(3):117–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Franz JR, Wierzbinski CM, Kram R. Metabolic cost of running barefoot versus shod: is lighter better? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(8):1519–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ferris DP, Liang K, Farley CT. Runners adjust leg stiffness for their first step on a new running surface. J Biomech. 1999;32(8):787–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kipp S, Byrnes WC, Kram R. Calculating metabolic energy expenditure across a wide range of exercise intensities: the equation matters. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2018;43(6):639–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peronnet F, Massicotte D. Table of nonprotein respiratory quotient: an update. Can J Sport Sci. 1991;16(1):23–9.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med. 2000;30(1):1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Borg G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1970;2(2):92–8.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barnes KR, McGuigan MR, Kilding AE. Lower-body determinants of running economy in male and female distance runners. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(5):1289–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hopkins WG. Spreadsheets for analysis of controlled trials, with adjustment for a subject characteristic. Sportscience. 2006;10:46–50.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(1):3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hopkins WG. A spreadsheet for deriving a confidence interval, mechanistic inference and clinical inference from a p value. Sportscience. 2007;11:16–20.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frederick EC, Daniels JT, Hayes JW. The effect of shoe weight on the aerobic demands of running. In: Bachl N, Prokop L, Suckert R, editors. World congress of sports medicine, 1984. Vienna: Urban and Schwarzenberg; 1984. p. 616–25.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kerdok AE, Biewener AA, McMahon TA, Weyand PG, Herr HM. Energetics and mechanics of human running on surfaces of different stiffnesses. J Appl Physiol. 2002;92(2):469–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smith JAH, McKerrow AD, Kohn TA. Metabolic cost of running is greater on a treadmill with a stiffer running platform. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(16):1592–7.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tung KD, Franz JR, Kram R. A test of the metabolic cost of cushioning hypothesis during unshod and shod running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(2):324–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fuller JT, Bellenger CR, Thewlis D, Tsiros MD, Buckley JD. The effect of footwear on running performance and running economy in distance runners. Sports Med. 2015;45(3):411–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Roy JP, Stefanyshyn DJ. Shoe midsole longitudinal bending stiffness and running economy, joint energy, and EMG. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(3):562–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Worobets J, Wannop JW, Tomaras E, Stefanyshyn D. Softer and more resilient running shoe cushioning properties enhance running economy. Footwear Sci. 2014;6:147–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shorten MR. The energetics of running and running shoes. J Biomech. 1993;26(Suppl 1):41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ker RF, Bennett MB, Bibby SR, Kester RC, Alexander RM. The spring in the arch of the human foot. Nature. 1987;325(7000):147–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Carrier DR, Heglund NC, Earls KD. Variable gearing during locomotion in the human musculoskeletal system. Science. 1994;265(5172):651–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stefanyshyn D, Fusco C. Increased shoe bending stiffness increases sprint performance. Sports Biomech. 2004;3(1):55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moore IS, Jones AM, Dixon S. The pursuit of improved running performance: can changes in cushioning and somatosensory feedback influence running economy and injury risk? Footwear Sci. 2014;6(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Warne JP, Warrington GD. Four-week habituation to simulated barefoot running improves running economy when compared with shod running. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2012;24(3):563–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Frederick EC, Clarke TE, Larsen JL. The effects of shoe cushioning on the oxygen demands of running. In: Nigg BM, Kerr BA (eds). Biomechanical aspects of sport shoes and playing surfaces. Proceedings of the international symposium on biomechanical aspects of sport shoes and playing surfaces. Calgary. The University of Calgary; 1983. pp. 107–14.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Quealy K, Katz J. Nike says its $250 running shoes will make you run much faster. What if that’s actually true? New York Times. 18 Jul 2018.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Movement ScienceGrand Valley State UniversityAllendaleUSA
  2. 2.Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, Level 2, AUT-Millennium CampusAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations