Search

Introduction/Purpose: Shoe longitudinal bending stiffness (LBS) is often considered to influence running economy (RE) and thus, running performance. However, previous results are mixed and LBS levels have not been studied in advanced footwear technology (AFT). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of increased LBS from curved carbon fiber plates embedded within an AFT midsole compared to a traditional running shoe on RE and spatiotemporal parameters. Methods: Twenty‐one male trained runners completed three times 4 min at 13 km/h with two experimental shoe models with a curved carbon fiber plate embedded in an AFT midsole with different LBS values (Stiff: 35.5 N/mm and Stiffest: 43.1 N/mm), and a Control condition (no carbon fiber plate: 20.1 N/mm). We measured energy cost of running (W/kg) and spatiotemporal parameters in one visit. Results: RE improved for the Stiff shoe condition (15.71 ± 0.95 W/kg; p < 0.001; n2 = 0.374) compared to the Control condition (16.13 ± 1.08 W/kg; 2.56%) and Stiffest condition (16.03 ± 1.19 W/kg; 1.98%). However, we found no significant differences between the Stiffest and Control conditions. Moreover, there were no spatiotemporal differences between shoe conditions. Conclusion: Changes in LBS in AFT influences RE suggesting that moderately stiff shoes have the most effective LBS to improve RE in AFT compared to very stiff shoes and traditional, flexible shoe conditions while running at 13 km/h. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ethylene and vinyl acetate (EVA) and polyether block amide (PEBA) are recently the most widely used materials for advanced footwear technology (AFT) that has been shown to improve running economy (RE). This study investigated the effects of these midsole materials on RE and biomechanics, in both fresh and worn state (after 450 km). Methods: Twenty‐two male trained runners participated in this study. Subjects ran four 4‐min trials at 13 km‧h−1 with both fresh EVA and PEBA AFT and with the same models with 450 km of wear using a randomized crossover experimental design. We measured energy cost of running (W/kg), spatiotemporal, and neuromuscular parameters. Results: There were significant differences in RE between conditions (p = 0.01; n2 = 0.17). There was a significant increase in energy cost in the worn PEBA condition compared with new (15.21 ± 1.01 and 14.87 ± 0.99 W/kg; p < 0.05; ES = 0.54), without differences between worn EVA (15.13 ± 1.14 W/kg; p > 0.05), and new EVA (15.15 ± 1.13 w/kg; ES = 0.02). The increase in energy cost between new and worn was significantly higher for the PEBA shoes (0.32 ± 0.38 W/kg) but without significant increase for the EVA shoes (0.06 ± 0.58 W/kg) (p < 0.01; ES = 0.51) with changes in step frequency and step length. The new PEBA shoes had lower energy cost than the new EVA shoes (p < 0.05; ES = 0.27) with significant differences between conditions in contact time. Conclusion: There is a clear RE advantage of incorporating PEBA versus EVA in an AFT when the models are new. However, after 450 km of use, the PEBA and EVA shoes had similar RE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]