Carbon Plate Shoes Improve Metabolic Power and Performance in
                    Recreational Runners

Anders Nielsen; Jesper Franch; Christian Heyde; Mark de Zee; Uwe Kersting; Ryan Godsk Larsen

doi:10.1055/a-1776-7986

International Journal of Sports Medicine, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Int J Sports Med 2022; 43(09): 804-810
DOI: 10.1055/a-1776-7986

Training & Testing

Carbon Plate Shoes Improve Metabolic Power and Performance in Recreational Runners

Anders Nielsen

¹Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg East, Denmark

,

Jesper Franch

²Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg, Denmark

,

Christian Heyde

³Future Sport Science Team, Adidas AG, Herzogenaurach, Germany

,

Mark de Zee

²Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg, Denmark

,

Uwe Kersting

²Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg, Denmark

⁴Institute of Biomechanics and Orthopaedics, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany

,

Ryan Godsk Larsen

²Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg, Denmark

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

This study compared metabolic power (MP) and time trial (TT) running performance between Adidas Adizero Adios (AAA) and Nike VaporFly 4% (NVP). Thirty-seven runners completed three laboratory sessions and two field sessions (n=30). After familiarization (visit 1), participants completed eight 6-min treadmill running bouts (four with each shoe, counterbalanced) at their preferred pace, and MP was assessed using indirect calorimetry (visits 2 and 3). During visits 4 and 5, participants completed two outdoor TTs (~3.5 km) in NVP and AAA (counterbalanced). Compared with AAA, NVP exhibited superior MP (NVP: median=13.88 (Q1–Q3=12.90–15.08 W/kg; AAA: median=14.08 (Q1–Q3=13.12–15.44 W/kg; z=−4.81, p<.001, effect size=.56) and TT (NVP=793±98 s; AAA=802±100 s, p=.001; effect size=.09). However, there was no relationship between changes in MP and changes in TT between shoes (r=.151 p=.425, 95% confidence interval=[−.22; .48]). Our results demonstrate that NVP, compared with AAA, improves MP and TT in recreational runners. The lack of correlation between changes in MP and TT indicates that factors other than improved MP contribute to faster short-distance TT with NVP.

Key words

running shoes - nike vaporfly - adidas adios - running economy - running performance

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Barnes KR, Kilding AE. Strategies to improve running economy. Sports Med 2015; 45: 37-56
2 Conley DL, Krahenbuhl GS. Running economy and distance running performance of highly trained athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1980; 12: 357-360
3 Fletcher JR, Esau SP, MacIntosh BR. Economy of running: beyond the measurement of oxygen uptake. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2009; 107: 1918-1922
4 Margaria R, Cerretelli P, Aghemo P. et al. Energy cost of running. J Appl Physiol 1963; 18: 367-370
5 di Prampero PE, Atchou G, Bruckner JC. et al. The energetics of endurance running. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1986; 55: 259-266
6 Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Spiering BA. et al. Altered running economy directly translates to altered distance-running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2016; 48: 2175-2180
7 Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Frank JH. et al. A comparison of the energetic cost of running in marathon racing shoes. Sports Med 2018; 48: 1009-1019
8 Worobets J, Wannop JW, Tomaras E. et al. Softer and more resilient running shoe cushioning properties enhance running economy. Footwear Sci 2014; 6: 147-153
9 Madden R, Sakaguchi M, Tomaras EK. et al. Forefoot bending stiffness, running economy and kinematics during overground running. Footwear Sci 2016; 8: 91-98
10 Fuller JT, Bellenger CR, Thewlis D. et al. The effect of footwear on running performance and running economy in distance runners. Sports Med 2015; 45: 411-422
11 Hunter I, McLeod A, Valentine D. et al. Running economy, mechanics, and marathon racing shoes. J Sports Sci 2019; 37: 2367-2373
12 Kipp S, Kram R, Hoogkamer W. Extrapolating metabolic savings in running: implications for performance predictions. Front Physiol 2019; 10: 79
13 Fuller JT, Thewlis D, Tsiros MD. et al. Effects of a minimalist shoe on running economy and 5-km running performance. J Sports Sci 2016; 34: 1740-1745
14 Hébert-Losier K, Finlayson SJ, Driller MW. et al. Metabolic and performance responses of male runners wearing 3 types of footwear: Nike Vaporfly 4%, Saucony Endorphin racing flats, and their own shoes. J Sport Health Sci . 2020 Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.11.012
15 Kipp S, Byrnes WC, Kram R. Calculating metabolic energy expenditure across a wide range of exercise intensities: the equation matters. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2018; 43: 639-642
16 Peronnet F, Massicotte D. Table of nonprotein respiratory quotient: an update. Can J Sport Sci 1991; 16: 23-29
17 Mündermann A, Nigg BM, Stefanyshyn DJ. et al. Development of a reliable method to assess footwear comfort during running. Gait Posture 2002; 16: 38-45
18 Hurst P, Board L. Reliability of 5-km running performance in a competitive environment. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2017; 21: 10-14
19 Sinclair J, Mcgrath R, Brook O. et al. Influence of footwear designed to boost energy return on running economy in comparison to a conventional running shoe. J Sports Sci 2016; 34: 1094-1098
20 Roy JPR, Stefanyshyn DJ. Shoe midsole longitudinal bending stiffness and running economy, joint energy, and EMG. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006; 38: 562-569
21 Montain SJ, Ely MR, Cheuvront SN. Marathon performance in thermally stressing conditions. Sports Med 2007; 37: 320-323
22 Butler RJ, Davis IS, Hamill J. Interaction of arch type and footwear on running mechanics. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34: 1998-2005
23 Fuller JT, Thewlis D, Tsiros MD. et al. Six-week transition to minimalist shoes improves running economy and time-trial performance. J Sci Med Sport 2017; 20: 1117-1122