A Randomized Crossover Study Investigating the Running Economy of Highly-Trained Male and Female Distance Runners in Marathon Racing Shoes versus Track Spikes
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.
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]).
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.
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.
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.
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
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.
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.
- 9.Nike. Breaking2. 2018. https://www.nike.com/us/en_us/c/running/breaking2. Accessed 18 June 2018.
- 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.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.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.Hunter I. 2017 USATF 10 k Footstrikes. 2017. http://biomechanics.byu.edu/2017footstrikes.html. Accessed 20 June 2018.
- 20.Peronnet F, Massicotte D. Table of nonprotein respiratory quotient: an update. Can J Sport Sci. 1991;16(1):23–9.Google Scholar
- 22.Borg G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1970;2(2):92–8.Google Scholar
- 24.Hopkins WG. Spreadsheets for analysis of controlled trials, with adjustment for a subject characteristic. Sportscience. 2006;10:46–50.Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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
- 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.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