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]

In the quest to uncover the underlying mechanisms responsible for the performance-enhancing benefits imparted by advanced footwear technology (AFT), footwear researchers are employing an individual-level approach. In doing so, they hope to unveil individual-specific responses to AFT otherwise masked by a group-level approach. Classifying an individual's response on the basis of running economy (RE) is a logical strategy given that the intended purpose of AFT is to enhance performance; however, caution should be taken when doing so. Metabolic measurement devices are far from perfect, and given the known errors associated with metabolic measurements we would like to reiterate a suggestion first made 40 years ago: when seeking to quantify the interindividual variability of improvement in RE associated with running in AFT, the best practice is to rely on a minimum of two same-day measurements of 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 recent and rapid developments in track spike innovation have been followed by a wave of record-breaking times and top performances. This has led many to question what role "super spikes" play in improving running performance. To date, the specific contributions of new innovations in footwear, including lightweight, resilient, and compliant midsole foam, altered geometry, and increased longitudinal bending stiffness, to track running performance are unknown. Based on current literature, we speculate about what advantages these features provide. Importantly, the effects of super spikes will vary based on several factors including the event (e.g., 100 m vs. 10,000 m) and the characteristics of the athlete wearing them. Further confounding our understanding of super spikes is the difficulty of testing them. Unlike marathon shoes, testing track spikes comes with a unique challenge of quantifying the metabolic energy demands of middle-distance running events, which are partly anaerobic. Quantifying the exact benefits from super spikes is difficult and we may need to rely on comparison of track performances pre- and post- the introduction of super spikes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]