Search

Abstract The NIKE Vaporfly shoe was introduced in May 2017 as part of the original #Breaking2 Project (an event aimed to run the first marathon under 2 h). This new advanced shoe technology (NAST) changed the footwear design conception. The aim of this study was (i) to analyse the effect of NAST in men’s marathon performance, (ii) to analyse whether the changes in the environmental constraints (temperature and wind) and orography of the marathons, age and birthplace of the runners has changed from 2015 to 2019 and (iii) to analyse the impact of NAST on the historical 50 best performances. Data from top-100 men's marathon performances were collected in that timeframe. The shoes used by the athletes were identified (in 91.8% of the cases) by publicly available photographs. External and environmental conditions of each marathon and age and birthplace of the runners were also analysed. Marathon performances improved from 2017 onwards between 0.75 and 1.50% compared to 2015 and 2016 (p

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess the effects of adding shoe mass on running economy (RE), gait characteristics, neuromuscular variables and performance in a group of trained runners.MethodsEleven trained runners (6 men and 5 women) completed four evaluation sessions separated by at least 7 days. The first session consisted of a maximal incremental test where the second ventilatory threshold (VT2) and the speed associated to the VO2max (vVO2max) were calculated. In the next sessions, RE at 75, 85, and 95% of the VT2 and the time to exhaustion (TTE) at vVO2max were assessed in three different shoe mass conditions (control, +50 g and +100 g) in a randomized, counterbalanced crossover design. Biomechanical and neuromuscular variables, blood lactate and energy expenditure were measured during the TTE test.ResultsRE worsened with the increment of shoe mass (Control vs. 100 g) at 85% (7.40%, 4.409 ± 0.29 and 4.735 ± 0.27 kJ⋅kg−1⋅km−1, p = 0.021) and 95% (10.21%, 4.298 ± 0.24 and 4.737 ± 0.45 kJ⋅kg−1⋅km−1, p = 0.005) of VT2. HR significantly increased with the addition of mass (50 g) at 75% of VT2 (p = 0.01) and at 75, 85, and 95% of VT2 (p = 0.035, 0.03, and 0.03, respectively) with the addition of 100 g. TTE was significantly longer (∼22%, ∼42 s, p = 0.002, ES = 0.149) in the Control condition vs. 100 g condition, but not between Control vs. 50 g (∼24 s, p = 0.094, ES = 0.068).ConclusionOverall, our findings suggest that adding 100 g per shoe impairs running economy and performance in trained runners without changes in gait characteristics or neuromuscular variables. These findings further support the use of light footwear to optimize running performance.

The aim of this study was to analyze the acute effects of high vs low-intensity cycling efforts, combined with plyometrics, on vertical jump performance. Twenty-four physically active men (mean ±SD: 23 ± 2 years, 72.1 ± 10.1 kg, 1.73 ± 0.07 m) were randomly divided into two groups: experimental group (EXP, n = 16) and control group (CON, n = 8). EXP competed 2 experimental trials in a random order: (a) short high-intensity interval exercise (HI + Plyo) [5 × 10 s of cycling (“all-out”)/50 s active rest] or (b) low-intensity continuous exercise (LO + Plyo) [5 min of cycling at 75% of the HRmax)], along with 3 × 10 plyometric bounds (drop jumps)/1 min rest between sets. CON used a preconditioning activity of 13 min of low intensity cycling at ~60% of HRmax. Both EXP interventions significantly increased (p ≤ 0.05) the countermovement jump (CMJ) height at 1 min, 3 min, 6 min and 9 min compared to baseline, while the CON remained unchanged. There were no significant differences in CMJ performance enhancement between HI + Plyo (largest 11.2% at 9 min) and LO + Plyo (largest 15.0% at 3 min) at any time-point, suggesting that the plyometric component may be most important, with HR recovery taking slightly longer following HI + Plyo. The findings suggest that CMJ performance can be enhanced following high or low-intensity cycling combined with plyometric preconditioning activities in active males, the optimum recovery period likely to be individual-specific.

Speed climbing will be a new discipline in Paris 2024. The physical requirements of speed climbing are different from the other climbing modalities due to the short event time requiring higher level of strength and power. These parameters have been measured through the Force Velocity (F-V) profile in different climbing disciplines. However, there are no known results evaluating different speed climbing abilities to establish whether F-V relationship is a determining factor between performance levels. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the upper and lower limbs F-V profile in different speed climbing abilities considering sex. Twenty six speed climbers were divided into two groups based on their level of performance: international level (men n = 7 and women n = 2) and national level (men n = 8 and women n = 7). Participants performed pull-ups and squat incremental tests and F-V profile variables [Maximum theorical values of force (F 0 ), velocity (V 0 ) and power (P max )], one-repetition maximum value (1RM) and %1RM where peak power was expressed were collected using a linear encoder. There were significant differences in F 0 , relative force, %1RM where peak power was expressed, and 1RM in pull-ups ( p < 0.05) between groups. However, there were not significant differences between groups in squat variables. No significant sex differences were found in any variable. There were moderate-strong correlations between running time and 1RM (pull-ups and squat), F 0 and FV-slope (pull-ups) ( p < 0.05) analyzed in the whole group. In conclusion, F 0 and 1RM in pull-ups were significantly higher in international climbers. Therefore, national climbers should focus their training on improving force by training with heavy loads. Additionally, squat F-V profile variables do not seem to be as important as in the pull-up for performance.