Search

"Super-shoes" are designed to improve endurance running performance by reducing the metabolic demands of running. Although the research on "super-shoes" is still developing and has mostly been studied in male runners, it is not clear how possible mediating factors, such as foot strike pattern, influence the metabolic cost and joint mechanics in competitive female runners. Purpose: The objective of this study is to assess the influence of "super-shoes" on metabolic cost and joint mechanics in competitive female runners and to understand how foot strike patter may influence the footwear effects. Methods: Eighteen competitive female runners ran four 5-min bouts on a force instrumented treadmill at 12.9 km⋅h-1 in 1) Nike Vaporfly Next% 2™(SUPER) and 2) Nike Pegasus 38™(CON) in a randomized and mirrored order. Results: Metabolic power was improved by 4.2% (P < 0.001; d = 0.43) and metatarsophalangeal (MTP) negative work (P < 0.001; d = 1.22), ankle negative work (P = 0.001; d = 0.67), and ankle positive work (P < 0.001; d = 0.97) were all smaller when running in SUPER compared with CON. There was no correlation between foot strike pattern and the between-shoe (CON to SUPER) percentage change for metabolic power (r = 0.093, P = 0.715). Conclusions: Metabolic power improved by 4.2% in "super-shoes" (but only by ~3.2% if controlling for shoe mass differences) in this cohort of competitive female runners, which is a smaller improvement than previously observed in men. The reduced mechanical demand at the MTP and ankle in "super-shoes" are consistent with previous literature and may explain or contribute to the metabolic improvements observed in "super-shoes"; however, foot strike pattern was not a moderating factor for the metabolic improvements of "super-shoes." Future studies should directly compare the metabolic response among different types of "super-shoes" between men and women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Introduction/purpose: Previous results about shoe longitudinal bending stiffness (LBS) and running economy (RE) show high variability. This study aimed to assess the effects of shoes with increased LBS on RE and performance in trained and national runners. Methods: Twenty-eight male runners were divided into two groups according to their 10-km performance times (trained, 38-45 min and national runners, <34 min). Subjects ran 2 - 3 min (at 9 and 13 km·h-1 for trained, and 13 and 17 km·h-1 for national runners) with an experimental shoe with carbon fiber plate to increase the LBS (Increased LBS) and a control shoe (without carbon fiber plate). We measured energy cost of running (W·kg-1) and spatiotemporal parameters in visit one and participants performed a 3000 m time trial (TT) in two successive visits. Results: Increased LBS improved RE in the trained group at slow (11.41 ± 0.93 W·kg-1 vs 11.86 ± 0.93 W·kg-1) and fast velocity (15.89 ± 1.24 W·kg--1 vs 16.39 ± 1.24 W·kg-1) and only at the fast velocity in the national group (20.35 ± 1.45 W·kg-1 vs 20.78 ± 1.18 W·kg-1). The improvements in RE were accompanied by different changes in biomechanical variables between groups. There were a similar improvement in the 3000 m TT test in Increased LBS for trained (639 ± 59 vs 644 ± 61 s in control shoes) and national runners (569 ± 21 vs 574 ± 21 s in control shoes)withmore constant pace in increased LBS compared with control shoes in both groups. Conclusions: Increasing shoe LBS improved RE at slow and fast velocities in trained runners and only at fast velocity in national runners. However, the 3000m TT test improved similarly in both levels of runners with increased LBS. The improvements in RE are accompanied by small modifications in running kinematics that could explain the difference between the different levels of runners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the ongoing debate surrounding the fairness of advanced footwear technology (AFT) and pacing lights in athletics. The authors conducted studies to assess the benefits of AFT spikes, finding that athletes ran faster in specific AFT spike models compared to traditional spikes. They also found evidence of improved running performance using AFT spikes in middle-distance events. In contrast, the impact of pacing lights on performance was found to be negligible. The authors argue that targeting technology-assisted pacing is unfair, as AFT has a much larger effect on performance. They also emphasize the need for objective assessments based on scientific evidence when considering technological advances in sports. [Extracted from the article]