Descriptive differences in physiological and biomechanical ...
Transcript of Descriptive differences in physiological and biomechanical ...
Descriptive differences in physiological
and biomechanical parameters between
running shoes
- a pilot study with a single-subject experimental
design
Alexander Wolthon
THE SWEDISH SCHOOL OF SPORT
AND HEALTH SCIENCES
Master’s degree Project 52:2020
Sports Science: 2018-2020
Supervisor: Filip Larsen
Co-supervisor: Toni Arndt
Examinor: Erik Hemmingsson & Magnus Lindwall
Abstract
Running performance has increased immensely during the last few years, coinciding with
multiple shattered world records in relatively short amount of time. Improvements in footwear
material and design are likely reasons for this increase in running performance. Previous studies
on the effect of footwear on running economy (RE), a determinant of running performance,
have not included participant-blinding. Furthermore, they have yet to compare multiple carbon-
fiber plated running shoes available for purchase, what differences there are across price ranges
and shoe categories, and if there is such a thing as a placebo-effect.
Aim: (1) Descriptively compare a set of heterogeneous running shoes, with regards to running
economy, Foot Strike Type (FST), vertical oscillation, ground contact time, stride length and
cadence; including (2) a ‘sham’ and ‘normal condition’ of the same running shoe model; and
(3) explore the participant’s perception of the study-specific blinding protocol.
Method: A Single Subject Experimental Study (N=1), comparing nine different shoe
conditions using a crossover design. The assessment of RE was conducted using indirect
calorimetry with mixing-chamber in a climate-controlled facility. Spatiotemporal parameters
were assessed using a Garmin HRM-Run™, and foot strike type was visually assessed using a
frame-by-frame approach based on 2D-video at 240 fps.
Results: The average running economy across all shoe tests varied between 16.02 to 17.02
W/kg, with the ‘worst’ shoe costing 6.24% W/kg more than the ‘best’ shoe. The descriptive
difference between the ‘sham’ and ‘normal condition’ were negligible and within the range of
measurement error. Spatiotemporal parameters were overall descriptively similar between the
shoes, with a few outliers who differed with regards to measure of central tendency or
dispersion. FST differed between the shoes including the ‘sham’ and ‘normal condition’, but
were overall consistent with the participant’s habitual FST. The study-specific blinding
procedure was perceived to work well, but may also be improved in some remarks.
Conclusion: Descriptive difference in some, but not all, physiological and biomechanical
parameters were observed between the shoe conditions in this study, including the ‘sham’ and
‘normal condition’. Blinding procedures in experimental footwear research may be feasible and
adopted with future studies.
Sammanfattning
Prestation inom löpning har ökat drastiskt de senaste åren, tillsammans med flera nya
världsrekord under relativt kort tid. Förbättrade löparskor med avseende på material och design
är en sannolik orsak till denna ökning i prestation. Tidigare studier som studerat effekten av
löpskor på löpekonomi (RE), en avgörande faktor för löpprestation, har inte genomförts med
deltagarblinding. Dessutom har tidigare studier inte undersökt flera olika löpskor med
kolfiberplatta, vilka skillnader det kan finnas mellan pris- eller skokategori, eller ifall
placeboeffekter kan påverka utfallet.
Syfte: (1) Deskriptivt jämföra ett heterogent urval av löpskor, med avseende på löpekonomi,
fotisättning, höjdförflyttning, markkontakttid, steglängd och stegfrekvens; (2) hur dessa
variabler skiljer sig mellan ’sham’ och ’normal condition’; och (3) undersöka deltagarens
uppfattning om det studie-specifika blindningsprotokollet.
Metod: En Single Subject Experimental Study (N=1), som jämför nio olika skointerventioner
baserat på en crossover-design. Bedömningen av RE utfördes via indirekt kalorimetri med
blandningskammare i ett klimatkontrollerat rum. Höjdförflyttning, markkontakttid, steglängd
och stegfrekevens bedömdes via en Garmin HRM-Run™, och fotisättning bedömdes via en
frame-by-frame metod baserat på 2D-videoinspelning i 240 fps.
Resultat: Den genomsnittliga löpekonomin för respektive skotest varierade från 16.02 till
17.02 W/kg, där den ’sämsta’ skon kostade 6.24% W/kg mer än den ’bästa’ skon. Den
deskriptiva skillnaden mellan ’sham’ och ’normal condition’ var försumbar och inom ramen
för tekniskt mätfel. Skotesterna var deskriptivt lika varandra med avseende på spatiotemporala
parametrar, men några skor dokumenterades som outliers med avseende på antingen central-
eller spridningsmått. Fotisättning skiljde sig mellan skorna, inklusive ’sham’ och ’normal
condition’, men generellt var FST likt deltagarens habituella FST. Det studiespecifika
blindningsprotokollet uppfattades fungera väl av studiedeltagaren, men kan möjligtvis
förbättras i några avseenden.
Konklusion: Deskriptiva skillnader mellan vissa, men inte alla, fysiologiska och biomekaniska
variabler observerades mellan interventionsskorna i denna studie, inklusive mellan ’sham’ och
’normal condition’. Det kan eventuellt vara genomförbart med blindningsprotocol inom
experimentell skoforskning, vilket kan tänkas bli vanligt i framtida forskning.
Table of Contents
1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 A New Running Paradigm ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 Running Performance Physiology ................................................................................. 1
1.2.1 Maximal Oxygen Uptake ....................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Lactate Thresholds and Fractional Utilization of VO2max .................................... 3
1.2.3 Running Economy................................................................................................. 5
1.3 Running Shoes ............................................................................................................. 6
1.3.1 Performance and Regulation.................................................................................. 6
1.3.2 Effect on Running Economy and Mechanisms of Action ....................................... 6
1.3.3 Previous Studies .................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Aims and Research Questions ...................................................................................... 8
2 Method ............................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Design ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Population.................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Ethics ........................................................................................................................... 8
2.4 Intervention ................................................................................................................. 9
2.5 Equipment and Calibration ........................................................................................... 9
2.6 Preparation..................................................................................................................10
2.7 Experimental Procedure ..............................................................................................10
2.7 Statistics .....................................................................................................................11
3 Results ...............................................................................................................................12
3.1 Running Economy ......................................................................................................11
3.2 Spatiotemporal Variables ............................................................................................15
3.3 Foot Strike Type .........................................................................................................20
3.4 Self-Reported Outcomes .............................................................................................20
3.5 Qualitative Assessment ...............................................................................................21
4 Discussion .........................................................................................................................22
4.1 Blinding Protocol ........................................................................................................22
4.2 Physiological and Biomechanical Parameters ..............................................................23
4.3 External Validity and Inter-Individual Variation .........................................................25
4.4 Novelty and Strengths .................................................................................................26
4.5 Limitations..................................................................................................................26
4.6 Future Directions ........................................................................................................27
5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................29
6 References .........................................................................................................................30
Table and figures
Table I. Descriptive of person-related characteristics ........................................................ 12
Table II. Descriptive of shoe-related characteristics .......................................................... 13
Figure 1. Raincloud plot of Running Economy ..................................................................... 14
Table III. Cardiorespiratory variables................................................................................ 14
Figure 2. Raincloud plot of Ground Contact Time ................................................................ 16
Table IV. Pairwise comparison for Ground Contact Time ................................................. 16
Figure 3. Raincloud plot of Cadence ..................................................................................... 17
Table V. Pairwise comparison for Cadence .......................................................................... 17
Figure 4. Raincloud plot of Stride Length ............................................................................. 18
Table VI. Pairwise comparison for Stride Length .............................................................. 18
Figure 5. Raincloud plot of Vertical Oscillation .................................................................... 19
Table VII. Pairwise comparison for Vertical Oscillation ................................................... 19
Figure 6. Graphical illustration of foot strike classification ................................................... 20
Figure 7. Graphical illustration of self-reported items .......................................................... 21
Table VIII. Shoe-condition sequences based on a Williams design ....................................... 27
Supplementary Appendices
Supplementary Appendix 1: Shoes and Setup
Supplementary Appendix 2: Rating Scales, Questionnaire and Shoe Catalogue
Supplementary Appendix 3: Frame-By-Frame Analysis of FST
Supplementary Appendix 4: Literature Review
1
1 Background
1.1 A New Running Paradigm
Participation in the New York City Marathon increased between the years of 2006 and 2016
(Nikolaidis et al., 2018). Similarly, half-marathon and marathon participation in Switzerland
increased by more than 500% between the years of 1999 and 2014 (Knechtle et al., 2016). These
findings highlight the immense growth in running popularity, and that more people now than
ever participate in competitive running races. Moreover, running performance is at a level never
seen before, which is illustrated by the male world record (WR) of 02:01:39
(hours:minutes:seconds) at the Berlin Marathon, September 2018; the unofficial marathon of
01:59:40 in Vienna, October 2019; the female WR of 02:14:04 at the Chicago Marathon,
October 2019; the male 10-km WR of 00:26:24 in Valencia, January 2020; and more (World
Athletics, 2020).
1.2 Running Performance Physiology
Numerous physiological parameters (Saltin & Åstrand, 1967; Costill et al., 1973; Farrell et al.,
1979; Conley & Krahenbuhl, 1980), and peak treadmill velocity (Noakes et al., 1990) have
been found to be strongly associated with running performance. Based on the framework by
Bassett and Howley (2000), as far as physiological parameters go, Maximal Oxygen Uptake
(VO2max), Fractional Utilization of VO2max (%VO2max), Lactate Threshold (LT), and Running
Economy (RE), are determinants of endurance performance. Indeed, Farrell et al. (1979) found
that the running velocity at LT (LTV) could predict marathon performance to 98%.
Furthermore, McLaughlin et al. (2010) found that VO2max, %VO2max and RE could explain
95.4% the variance in 16-km performance among well-trained distance runners. After including
peak treadmill velocity in their prediction model, they were able to explain 97.8% of the
variance in performance. Consequently, physiologist have attempted to model the best possible
marathon performance based on the aforementioned parameters and have come up with
01:57:48 (Joyner, 1991), although this is purely hypothetical and based on the assumption that
it is possible to have exceptional values in all relevant physiological parameters simultaneously.
Interestingly, this could be improbable as there may be a trade-off between VO2max and RE
(Larsen et al., 2011b; Flockhart, & Larsen, 2019).
2
1.2.1 Maximal Oxygen Uptake
Cellular metabolism enabling running activity is supported by both anaerobic and aerobic
metabolic pathways, with a shift in the predominant pathway depending on the relative running
intensity (De Feo et al., 2003; Nilsson et al., 2019). During long-distance running, oxidative
phosphorylation is perhaps the most important metabolic pathway (Spriet, 2007), and is as it
sounds, related to oxygen. Therefore, VO2max correspond with the upper limit of the
cardiorespiratory system to transport oxygen to working muscles to maintain aerobic
metabolism which long-distance running is dependent on (Bassett & Howley, 2000). Oxygen
uptake (VO2) is linearly and curvilinearly related to running velocity at submaximal speeds,
among average- and sub elite runners respectively (Batliner et al., 2017); and it is therefore not
surprising that higher VO2max is associated with better long-distance running performance, and
alone able to explain 90.2% of the performance in a 16-km race (McLaughlin et al., 2010).
VO2max is defined as a plateau in VO2 despite increased workload (Saltin & Åstrand, 1967),
hence ‘maximal’ oxygen uptake. Numerous exercise methods exist in order to assess this (Beltz
et al., 2016), using either maximal- (Andersen, 1995), or submaximal (Åstrand & Ryhming,
1954; Björkman et al., 2016) workload tests. VO2max is trainable and improvements can be
achieved by different training protocols, with similar improvements when comparing training
intensities above 60% of VO2max according to a recent meta-regression and meta-analysis
(Scribbans et al., 2016). However, another meta-analysis showed that there may be a small
beneficial effect with training at higher intensity (Milanović et al., 2015), although this should
be interpreted with caution as the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the mean difference
between low- and high-intensity training was close to zero.
It has been extensively debated which factors limit VO2max and consequently prevent
runners from exercising at maximal capacity for longer periods of time, with proposed
mechanisms ranging from central oxygen delivery, to neural control systems within the brain
and spinal cord (Basset & Howley, 1997; Bergh et al., 2000; Levine, 2008; Robergs, 2017;
Noakes, 2018). It is however most probable that oxygen delivery and transport capacity, best
explained by cardiac output (CO) and the oxygen transport coefficient for blood, are the major
limiting factors of VO2max (Di Prampero, 2003), although other factors (e.g. mitochondrial
function) play an important role as well (Cardinale et al., 2019). Interestingly, the limiting
3
capacity and importance of the cardiac system on VO2max is something Nobel Laurate Hill et
al. (1923; 1924) proposed almost a century ago.
Therefore, the physiological mechanisms which contribute to the improvements in VO2max
after a training period could be a product of increased CO (Daussin et al., 2007), increased
blood volume (Sawka et al., 2000), and/or mitochondrial adaptation (McInnis & Gibala, 2017;
Cardinale et al., 2019; Larsen et al., 2020), and be dependent on the training modality used. For
example, despite similar improvements in VO2max, differences in CO adaptation were observed
in a randomized trial comparing training at different intensities, with higher intensity providing
no improvements in CO (Macpherson et al., 2011). However, contradictory results have been
published, and a recent review discussed that it is difficult to draw strong conclusions on how
certain training methods relate to specific physiological adaptation pathways leading to
improvements in VO2max (McInnis & Gibala, 2017).
1.2.2 Lactate Thresholds and Fractional Utilization of VO2max
Although VO2max is a strong predictor of long-distance performance (McLaughlin et al., 2010),
equally interesting is what fraction of VO2max that can be utilized and maintained for longer
periods of running. This physiological parameter is strongly linked with LTV (Costill et al.,
1973) which itself is a better predictor of endurance performance than VO2max in a homogenous
group of runners (Farrell et al., 1979). Additionally, it is speculated that runners would be
required to stop running due to fatigue before having covered a fourth of a marathon if they
were running 5-10% faster than their ideal marathon pace (i.e. running faster than their LTV)
(Coyle, 2007).
The concept of LT is not straightforward as there are at least 25 definitions available (Faude
et al., 2009). Commonly used definitions are: LT1, sometimes called the aerobic threshold,
which correspond to the first increase in blood lactate (BLa) above resting values; and LT2,
sometimes called the anaerobic threshold (Svedahl & MacIntosh, 2003), onset of blood lactate
accumulation, lactate turnpoint or maximal lactate steady state, which correspond to a rapid
increase of BLa (Faude et al., 2009). To complicate things further, some define these parameters
as fixed BLa values (+ 0.2, + 0.5, or + 4.0 mmol/L) above resting values; others visually inspect
a given lactate curve composed of BLa and intensity, and select the point on the curve that
corresponds to an inclination angle of 45 or 51°; others use mathematical models (e.g. Dmax) to
4
determine which running intensity best correspond to the LT (Faude et al., 2009). Associated
with the LT is an increase in pulmonary ventilation (VE) and CO2 output (VCO2). It is debated
whether increased VCO2 is a cause or effect of increased VE (Hopker et al., 2011; Whipp &
Ward, 2011), however this increase is defined as the gas exchange threshold, the anaerobic
ventilatory threshold, or simply the ventilatory threshold (Gosh, 2004).
The importance of the LT is somewhat understood when reviewing the possible
physiological explanations behind it (Walsh & Banister, 1988; Ferguson et al., 2018). The
metabolic energy systems providing runners with energy are not solely aerobic or anaerobic,
instead there will be a shift in the predominant pathway depending on intensity of effort (De
Feo et al., 2003; Nilsson et al., 2019). Exercise intensity above LT will lead to a more
predominant anaerobic pathway activation (glycolysis) because the aerobic pathways
(oxidative phosphorylation) cannot provide enough energy to supply the increased energy
demand. BLa will begin to accumulate as an end-product from the accelerated glycolysis
(Ferguson et al., 2018), and act as an oxidizable energy substrate to support energy production
(Brooks 2007; 2018). Moreover, BLa accumulation contribute to a decrease in pH, causing the
working muscle to become acidic, although it does not appear that acidosis itself is a cause of
fatigue (Westerblad, 2016). The physiological mechanism underlying the fatigue-phenomenon
above LT is not well understood, however it is a reality which do inhibit running performance.
The LT or %VO2max is not determined by the cardiac system as VO2max is, but more so
influenced by the metabolic environment within the working muscles. Therefore,
mitochondrial- (Hashimoto & Brooks, 2008), capillary- (Tesch & Wright, 1983), and muscle
fiber characteristics (Ivy et al., 1980) all play their part, and can be improved by training
although adaptation may differ depending on the training stimulus applied (Joyner & Coyle,
2007; MacInnis & Gibala, 2017). For example, adaptation of the mitochondria may be more
pronounced when performing training at high intensity compared with low intensity at similar
training volume (Gibala, 2009; Popov, 2018). Specifically, it is observed that exercise-induced
lactate-rich metabolic environments which is more common at higher intensities, is associated
with a greater mitochondrial biogenesis (Norrbom et al., 2004), which may be due to the lactate
molecule itself acting as a signal promoting adaptation (Hashimoto & Brooks, 2008).
Consequently, it is therefore reasonable that high intensity training is better at improving LT
than low intensity training (Londeree, 1997).
5
1.2.3 Running Economy
RE is traditionally defined as the amount of oxygen cost per bodyweight per minute or km (ml
O2/kg/min, or ml O2/kg/km) (Barnes & Kilding, 2015), however it is argued that it should be
defined as energy expenditure (W/kg, instead (Shaw et al., 2014; Beck et al., 2018). Therefore,
in the context of this study it will be defined as energy expenditure (W/kg; Joule/(kg·s)), derived
from the following formula {RE [W/kg] = (VO2 [L/min] · RER caloric equivalent [kcal/L O2]
· 4184 [Joule/kcal]) / (60 [seconds/min] · bodyweight [kg])}, which is based on RER caloric
equivalents (Peronnet & Massicotte, 1991).
As previously stated, RE is a determinant of long-distance performance (Bassett &
Howley, 2000), and like %VO2max it is not as dependent on the cardiac system as VO2max is.
Instead, RE is more dependent on biomechanics and peripheral physiological factors (Saunders
et al., 2004; Barnes & Kilding, 2015; Fletcher & MacIntosh, 2017). For example, ground
contact time and vertical oscillation have been found to be associated with running economy
(Folland et al., 2017), and ankle kinematics at initial-contact could be a relevant parameter as
well although there is currently limited evidence for this (Anderson et al., 2019). Moreover,
dietary strategies may be of importance (Burke et al., 2019), for example seen by reductions in
the oxygen cost of exercise by the ingestion of nitrates (Larsen et al., 2007; Larsen et al., 2010;
Jones et al., 2018), which seem to affect mitochondrial function (Larsen et al., 2011a; Larsen
et al., 2012).
Based on the framework by Hoogkamer et al. (2017) and Kipp et al. (2019) it was proposed
through mathematical modelling and specific biomechanical strategies, that improvements in
RE would allow runners to maintain a faster running velocity, and thus enable mankind to break
the 2-hour marathon barrier. Not long after, with some biomechanical aid (Hoogkamer et al.
2017), the Nike sponsored Eliud Kipchoge managed to do so, averaging ~21.16 km/h (02:50
min:sec/km) (World Athletics, 2020). Knowing that Nike was in contact with physiologist
Andrew Jones (University of Exeter, 2019), it can be speculated that dietary factors had an
important role to play as well.
RE is commonly assessed using indirect calorimetry, either by the breath-by-breath or
mixing-chamber method. During these assessments, participants are required to run below their
LT to achieve a physiological steady-state (Barnes & Kilding, 2015). The VO2 kinetic response
6
to exercise depends on the intensity of the effort, but can be broken down in three phases; 1) a
fast increase in VO2 which last for 15-25 seconds, possibly due to increased cardiac output and
pulmonary blood flow (Weissman et al., 1982); 2) an exponential increase in VO2 uptake which
last for about 3 minutes, possibly due to metabolic change within the working muscles (Whipp
& Wawrd, 1990); and 3) a physiological steady-state where VO2 remain at a stable level.
However, running above the LT will lead to bLA accumulation, and VO2 will continue to
increase at a slow rate preventing a physiological steady-state. This slow increase of VO2 is
called the ‘slow-component of VO2’ (Xu & Rhodes, 1999).
1.3 Running Shoes
1.3.1 Performance and Regulation
Running shoes are constructed with many purposes, of which one has been to mitigate abnormal
mediolateral movements in an attempt to reduce the risk of running-related injuries (RRI)
(Asplund & Brown, 2005; Hamill, 2017). Although studies have failed to show beneficial
effects on RRI from matching shoe type with foot type (Nigg et al., 2015; Napier & Willy,
2018), the running shoe effect on performance has been shown both in laboratory studies
(Hoogkamer et al, 2016), as well as during real world running events (Nike, 2017; New York
Times, 2019), and is a consequence of new cushioning materials, carbon-fiber plates, and shoe
construction (Hoogkamer et al., 2017).
These advances in materials science and running shoe design are most certainly
contributors to how mankind was able to achieve a sub 2-hour marathon in October 2019. New
technology and advances in science are welcomed; however, there may be an issue when the
new technology is not available to all; giving some an unfair advantage over others.
Unsurprisingly, World Athletics (2020) renewed their regulations regarding running shoes in
January 2020, which were in accordance with the opinion of some researchers (Burns & Tam,
2019) but not all (Edward, 2019; Hoogkamer 2020).
1.3.2 Effect on Running Economy and Mechanisms of Action
These findings on improved performance are in particular thought to be explained by
improvements in RE, where ‘better’ shoes nowadays reduce the energy cost of running to a
great extent (Hoogkamer et al., 2017). The most prominent running shoe with new energy-
return midsole material and a carbon-fiber plate, the Nike Vaporfly 4%, has been reported to
7
improve RE by an average of 4%, compared with the Nike Zoom Streak and the Adidas Adizero
Adios (Hoogkamer et al., 2018). This finding has been replicated in other studies (Barnes &
Kilding, 2018; Hunter et al., 2019). Interestingly, on the extreme side of this spectrum of
technology innovation, researchers have found that a powered ankle exoskeleton could improve
RE by 14.6% on average, and up to 23.9% (Witte et al., 2020).
This shoe-effect on RE could perhaps be explained by the combination of (1) reduced shoe-
weight, as it has consistently been found that higher weight on the shoes increase energy cost
of running (Frederick et al., 1984; Franz et al., 2012); (2) the improvements in cushioning
material, allowing for increased material resiliency (i.e. the ability to return stored mechanical
energy) as it has been shown that more this type of cushioning material improves RE (Worobets
et al., 2014; Sinclair et al., 2016); (3) increased longitudinal bending stiffness (LBS), achieved
by the insertion of a stiff plate (e.g. carbon-fiber plate) within the midsole material (Sun et al.,
2020), although the effect from the stiff plate could be dependent on running velocity (Day &
Hahn, 2020); Lastly (4), possibly influenced by a small amount, by improvements in shoe-
design to help reduce air resistance (Hoogkamer et al., 2018).
Although there is evidence for the beneficial shoe-effect on RE, not all individuals
experience the same effect. In the study on the Vaporfly 4%, compared with the Nike Zoom
Streak, one individual experienced an improvement in RE by ‘only’ 1.59%, while another
individual experienced an improvement by 6.29% (Hoogkamer et al., 2018). This inter-
individual difference has been shown in other studies as well (Barnes & Kilding, 2018; Hunter
et al., 2019). It is not fully understood why this is, and what separates ‘responders’ from ‘non-
responders’, but possible reasons could be differences in comfort or ride perception (Luo et al.,
2009; Nigg et al., 2017), differences in foot strike pattern (Hoogkamer et al., 2018; McLeod et
al., 2020), or other factors that influence which amount of LBS is ‘optimal’ for a given
individual, as too much stiffness can be detrimental (Oh & Park, 2017; McLeod et al., 2020).
1.3.3 Previous Studies
Numerous studies have been published regarding the effect of running shoes on biomechanics
and physiological parameters (Sun et al., 2020). However, many studies are performed on
custom study shoes (e.g. modified by weight or sole inserts) (Roy & Stefanyshyn, 2006;
Worobets et al., 2014; Madden et al., 2016; Hoogkamer et al., 2016; Hoogkamer et al., 2018;
8
Oh & Park, 2017; McLeod et al., 2020), confidential study shoes simply described as ‘neutral
protective running shoes’ (Squadrone & Gallozzi, 2009), or shoes with characteristics that no
longer represent the currently available selection of running shoes (Hamill et al., 1988). The
only studies that are performed on identifiable non-custom study shoes within the last five years
compare a few models only (Hollander et al., 2015; Au et al., 2018; Mercer et al., 2018; Barnes
& Kilding, 2018; Hunter et al., 2019), and all lack participant blinding. As such, it is currently
unknown what differences there are across current shoe models and categories (race shoes and
training shoes; or neutral and motion control shoes), or across price categories (cheap and
expensive), and if the previous reported results have been influenced by participant bias due to
a lack of blinding.
1.4 Aims and Research Questions
Therefore, the aim of this study is to (1) descriptively compare a set of heterogeneous running
shoes, with regards to running economy, foot strike type, vertical oscillation, ground contact
time, stride length and cadence; including (2) a “normal” and “sham” condition of the same
running shoe model; and (3) explore the participant’s perception of the study-specific blinding
protocol.
2 Method
2.1 Design
A single-subject experimental design in laboratory setting.
2.2 Population
Recruitment took place in running groups, universities, and running-shoe retail stores in
Stockholm. Inclusion criteria were: Previous finishing times on 10k, half-marathon, or
marathon of ≤ 00:45:00, 01:41:00, and 03:31:00 respectively; and having a shoe size equivalent
to US Women 9.5-10.5, and US Male 8.5-9.5. Exclusion criteria were: Age below 18 years old;
running-related injury during the last 12 weeks; any cold- or flue like symptom (e.g. cough,
sore throat); and international travel during the last 2 weeks.
9
2.3 Ethics
According to Swedish law (The Ethical Review Act, 2003:460), this project did not require
formal ethical approval due to it being carried out as a master’s project (2§). However,
according to the Swedish Higher Education Act (1992:1434) ethical consideration was required
(3a§), and the declaration of Helsinki was therefore adhered to (World Medical Association,
2013). For example, informed written consent was obtained from the participant. It was within
their right as a participant to stop the procedure whenever they wanted, and/or have their data
removed. Because the treadmill running can be exhausting, the study participant was offered
water to rehydrate during the rest pauses between each test, and if they required additional rest
that would have been given to them.
2.4 Intervention
Eight different running shoe models were tested, which were: (A) Kalenji Run 100, (B) ASICS
Gel-Foundation 13, (C) Xtep 160X, (D) Adidas Adizero Adios 5, (E) Skechers GOrun Speed
Elite, (F) Brooks Hyperion Elite, (G) Nike Vaporfly 4%, and (H) Nike Next%. Kalenji Run 100
was tested twice [(A), (I)], with one of the times (I) being presented as a ‘lightweight high-end
performance shoe prototype designed to improve RE by 5%’, as per the second research
question. Thus, nine shoe conditions were tested, in the following order: DCEBFAGIH.
2.5 Equipment and Calibration
This pilot-study took place at the Laboratory of Applied Sport Science (The Swedish School of
Sport and Health Sciences), in a climate-controlled facility with a temperature, humidity, and
barometric pressure of 19ºC, 40%, and 740 mmHg, respectively. A computerized metabolic
system (Oxycon Pro™, Erich Jaeger GmbH & Co KG, Friedberg, Germany) was used to analyze
respiratory gases, with mixing-chamber due to the excellent concurrent validity compared with
the gold-standard Douglas Bag Method, only underestimating VO2 by 0.8% (Foss & Hallén,
2005). Moreover, the mixing-chamber method has better reproducibility compared with the
popular breath-by-breath method, with a coefficient of variation of 1.2% instead of 4.4-6.5%
(Carter & Jeukendrup, 2002; Foss & Hallén, 2005).
Respiratory ventilation was measured within the metabolic system using a digital volume
sensor, and the concentration of oxygen and carbon dioxide were measured by a paramagnetic
and infra-red analyzer, respectively. A face-mask (7450 Series Silicone V2™ Oro-Nasal Mask,
10
Hans Rudolph Inc., Kansas, USA) was connected to the metabolic system through a 2.0 m long
urethane/nylon flexible ducting (U62, Senior Aerospace BWT, Macclesfield, United
Kingdom). Blood lactate was obtained by capillary blood samples (20 μl) and analyzed in a
lactate analyzer (Biosen C-line Clinic, EKF Diagnostics, Cardiff, United Kingdom), to control
the participant staying below a fixed LT of 4 mmol/L. The treadmill which was used was motor-
driven, 2 m long, 0.6 m wide (RL2500E, Rodby Innovation AB, Vänge, Sweden), and partially
covered in a cloth to prevent the participant from identifying which shoe models were worn
(see supplementary appendix 1 for pictures of the shoes and setup).
Before use, the climate-controlled facility was calibrated an hour in advance; the metabolic
system was calibrated to ambient conditions, volume flow, and to a high precision gas of
15.00% O2 and 6.00% CO2 (accuracy O2 ± 0.04% and CO2 ± 0.1%; Air Liquide AB,
Kungsängen, Sweden); and the blood lactate analyzer calibrated to a sample of known lactate
concentration. Ground contact time, vertical oscillation, cadence and stride length were
obtained through a heart rate monitor (HRM-Run™, Garmin Ltd., Kansas, USA) connected to
a sports watch (Forerunner® 735XT, Garmin Ltd., Kansas, USA). Foot strike type were
recorded in 240 fps 1080p (Galaxy S20+, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Suwon, South Korea),
and analyzed using a frame-by-frame approach (Meyer et al., 2018). Overall shoe comfort was
assessed using a 100 mm VAS scale (Mills et al., 2010); perception of ride (weight, yield and
energy return) was assessed using a 5-point likert scale (Agresta et al., 2020).
2.6 Preparation
The participant arrived at the laboratory after having abstained from intense training, alcohol
and caffeine for 48-, 72-, and 12 hours respectively. Once at the laboratory, they were
introduced to the equipment, reminded of the study protocol and potential risks of participating.
The participant gave their informed written consent, was introduced to the rating scales, shoe-
catalogue, and had their body weight, length, and recommended shoe size (Centimeter Adult
Brannock Device, The Brannock Device Co., Inc., New York, USA) measured. Once that was
complete, they were equipped with the face-mask and connected to the metabolic system and
remained seated for 10 minutes to obtain resting VO2 values.
2.7 Experimental Procedure
(1) Warm-up: The participant warmed up at a speed of 8.5 km/h for 5 minutes.
11
(2) Determination of appropriate individual running speed: The warm-up transitioned
into a discontinuous incremental treadmill test with 2 stages, and continued for 5 minutes per
stage. It started at comfortable running speed of 12.0 km/h, and the second stage was performed
at 13.5 km/h. Within 30 seconds after each stage, a capillary sample was obtained. Both the
warm-up and the incremental treadmill test were performed in the participant’s own shoes.
(3a) Shoe experiment preparation: The participant was equipped the 1st shoe condition
with the help of AW, having their feet behind a study-specific apparatus to blind the participant
to the shoes being equipped. The participant tied the shoes themselves but was not allowed to
touch the upper material. Once fitted with the shoe model, it was covered by a piece of cloth,
and the participant moved onto the treadmill where shoe-cloth was removed.
(3b) Shoe experiment test: The participant ran on the treadmill at 13.5 km/h. The treadmill
run lasted for 5 minutes to allow the participant to achieve a physiological steady-state of 2
min. After each treadmill run, the participant rated their perceived exertion (Borg RPE 6-20),
shoe comfort (100 mm VAS), ride (0-5 likert scale), and also reviewed a shoe catalogue of 100
models to select the running shoe they believe they ran in (see supplementary appendix 2 for
the instruments used). Between each shoe experiment, the participant was given a rest pause of
3 min, which consisted of standing rest and changing of shoe condition. After every third
treadmill run (3rd, 6th, 9th), the participant had their body weight re-assessed.
2.8 Statistics
Physiological and biomechanical variables are based on the last 2 minutes of running, from
each shoe condition. Physiological measures were sampled every 15th second, except HR which
was sampled every 0.5 second. Stride Length was sampled very 5th second, while Cadence, VO,
and GCT were sampled every 0.5 second. Foot strike type was manually analyzed. The
assumption of normality was assessed using a three-step process, first by visual inspection of
histograms, followed by Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov, and lastly assessment of
skewness and kurtosis by comparing them to their respective standardized error value.
Descriptive statistics are presented as mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for parameters
where most shoes are normally distributed, and median (Mdn) and interquartile range (IQR) for
parameters where most shoes are non-normally distributed. Raincloud plots (Allen et al., 2019)
are used to illustrate the data. Descriptive statistics and data visualization were performed in R
(v.4.0.2) for windows, using RStudio.
12
3 Results
Out of 47 interested applicants (35 males, 12 females), the individual included in this study was
selected by chance as he (#14) was the only one to schedule their tests before week 13.
Additional applicants were initially planned to be included during the following weeks, with
both time and day having been assigned to them for data collection. However, these plans were
revoked due to local research restrictions at the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences
due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and no further participants were included. The participant
performed the treadmill test with a pace of 04:26 min/km (13.5 km/h). See Table I for person-
related characteristics, and Table II for shoe-related characteristics.
Table I. Descriptive of person-related characteristics.
Sex Male
Age (years) 25
Weight (kg) 75.7
Length (cm) 180.5
BMI (kg/m2) 23.2
Recommended shoe size length (cm) x 27 – 28.5
Recommended shoe size width x D
Training volume per week (km) 100
Foot Strike Type FFS
Achilles Tendon Resting Angle (angle) Left 60, Right 67
Achilles Tendon Length (cm) Left 21.8, Right 22
Have you heard that certain running shoes seem to have a
significant influence on performance?
Yes
Race times 3k: 00:09:39, 10k: 00:35:59
List of current running shoe models Saucony: Kinvara 10,
Fastwitch; Adidas: Tempo
List of previous running shoe models New Balance: 1080
x Measured using a Brannock Device; FFS = Forefoot Strike. Foot Strike Type assessed from 2D-video
recording in 1080p 240fps, in the participants own shoes (‘Saucony Fastwitch’).
13
Table II. Descriptive of shoe-related characteristics.
D C E B F A G I H
Price (USD) 140 190 138 120 250 13 250 13 295
MI (%) 46% 62% 48% 22% 40% 62% 38% 62% 34%
Weight (g) 222 162 193 352 192 167 188 174 188
Stack Height Heel (mm) 27 26 33 37 33 25 38 25 38
Drop (mm) 10 4 12 8 8 10 10 10 10
Stability features (0-5) 2 1 0 4 1 1 0 1 1
Longitudinal Flex. (0-5) 4 3 3 3 0 5 0 5 0
Torsional Flex. (0-5) 3 3 3 2 2 4 1 4 1
Midsole TPU/EVA EVA ? EVA EVA EVA PEBA EVA PEBA
Plate (Yes/No) No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes
Weight measured by Mettler Toledo PB3002-S DeltaRange Balance. MI = Minimalist Index, higher
value corresponding to more ‘minimalistic’ shoe. Stability features (0-5) = higher value corresponding
to more stability features; Flex (0-5) = higher value corresponding to higher flexibility. TPU =
Thermoplastic Polyurethane; EVA = Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate; PEBA = Polyether Block Amide. D =
Adidas Adizero Adios 5, C = Skechers GOrun Speed Elite, E = Xtep 160X, B = ASICS Gel-Foundation
13, F = Brooks Hyperion Elite, A = Kalenji Run 100, G = Nike Vaporfly 4%, I = Kalenji Run 100 ‘Sham
condition’, H = Nike Next%.
3.1 Running Economy
Both measures of central tendency and dispersion were descriptively different across the shoe
conditions with regards to running economy. The mean energy cost of running for each of the
shoe models ranged from 16.02 to 17.02 W/kg, with corresponding standard deviation ranging
from 0.32 to 0.76. Ranking the shoes in order from highest to lowest energy cost revealed the
following order (% difference compared with the aforementioned model): A, I (-0.61%), H (-
0.03%), F (-1.67%), B (-0.92%), G (-0.64%), C (-0.14%), D (-0.71%), E (-1.33%). The largest
difference between the shoes were therefore between E and A, where the latter shoe cost 6.24%
W/kg more than the former shoe.
The ‘sham condition’ shoe (I; Kalenji Run 100) was descriptively similar to the normal
shoe (A; Kalenji Run 100), with an absolute and relative difference of 0.10 W/kg and 0.61%
respectively. See Figure 1 for a graphical illustration of the results. For other cardiorespiratory
variables, see Table III.
14
Figure 1. ‘Raincloud plot’ of running economy for each shoe condition. Black circle = Mean values; Point range = Standard deviation; White circles = raw data points (sampled every 15th sec during the
last two minutes of steady-state running). Light gray line = intersects mean values. Shoe order represent
the order the shoes were tested in. D = Adidas Adizero Adios 5, C = Skechers GOrun Speed Elite, E = Xtep 160X, B = ASICS Gel-Foundation 13, F = Brooks Hyperion Elite, A = Kalenji Run 100, G = Nike
Vaporfly 4%, I = Kalenji Run 100 ‘Sham condition’, H = Nike Next%.
Table III. Cardiorespiratory variables.
D C E B F A G I H
VE 82.0
(4.5)
86.6
(6.0)
83.0
(4.2)
87.4
(3.8)
89.5
(2.7)
91.9
(2.4)
86.0
(3.7)
90.8
(4.1)
91.0
(3.9)
BF 33.2
(2.6)
37.9
(3.7)
35.9
(1.7)
38.2
(1.9)
39.8
(1.5)
39.5
(1.6)
36.8
(2.1)
39.9
(1.9)
40.6
(1.4)
VO2
Abs.
3.57
(.17)
3.60
(.15)
3.53
(.13)
3.62
(.11)
3.65
(.08)
3.72
(.09)
3.59
(.10)
3.70
(.09)
3.70
(.14)
VO2
Rel.
47.4
(2.3)
47.7
(2.0)
46.9
(1.7)
48.2
(1.4)
48.7
(1.0)
49.8
(1.2)
48.1
(1.3)
49.6
(1.2)
49.7
(1.8)
RER .893
(.014)
.893
(.023)
.863
(.016)
.884
(.014)
.884
(.015)
.886
(.013)
.870
(.015)
.873
(.010)
.864
(.019)
HR 159.9
(1.5)
159.8
(1.7)
157.9
(0.8)
159.1
(1.1)
159.6
(1.3)
161.1
(1.7)
160.4
(1.3)
163.8
(1.4)
163.7
(1.9)
Values are presented as mean (standard deviation). VE = Respiratory Minute Volume, BF = Breathing
Frequency , VO2 Abs = Absolute VO2 (L/min), VO2 Rel = Relative VO2 (ml/kg/min), RER =
Respiratory Exchange Ratio, HR = Heart Rate. Shoe order represent the order the shoes were tested in.
D = Adidas Adizero Adios 5, C = Skechers GOrun Speed Elite, E = Xtep 160X, B = ASICS Gel-Foundation 13, F = Brooks Hyperion Elite, A = Kalenji Run 100, G = Nike Vaporfly 4%, I = Kalenji
Run 100 ‘Sham condition’, H = Nike Next%.
15
3.2 Spatiotemporal Variables
All parameters were overall descriptively similar. Median values for ground contact time were
within the range of 219.6 – 222.8 milliseconds for all shoes except D and C which yielded
median values of 212.5 and 216 respectively. Similarly, these two shoe models had the largest
interquartile range of 7.8 and 9.3, while the other shoes had relatively smaller interquartile
ranges of 1.7 – 4.3. For graphical illustration and descriptive pairwise comparison of the ground
contact time data, see Figure 2 and Table IV.
Cadence data varied more between the shoes compared with the other biomechanical
measures, and overlapped rarely from one test to the next. The participant ran mostly with
cadence (median) values of 86.2 – 87.5 steps per minute per leg during the tests, although with
two shoes the participant performed the tests with a slower cadence of 85 and 85.5 (C and G,
respectively). The fastest cadence of 88.5 was observed for shoe A. The interquartile range for
the cadence data varied from 0.2 to 0.6, with one of the shoes (C) having a wider interquartile
range of 1.0. For graphical illustration and descriptive pairwise comparison of the cadence data,
see Figure 3 and Table V.
The participant performed all but one test with average stride lengths of 1447 – 1478
millimeter. For the other test (shoe G), however, a higher average stride length of 1504
millimeter was observed. Similar standard deviations were noted between the tests (SD: 5.5 –
9.7), although the standard deviation for the test with shoe C were noticeably larger (SD: 14.7).
For graphical illustration and descriptive pairwise comparison of the stride length data, see
Figure 4, Table VI.
Vertical oscillation data for the shoes varied between (median) values of 112 – 117
millimeter for all shoes except A and C which yielded median values of 107 and 120
respectively. Furthermore, shoe model C had the highest interquartile range of 0.46, while data
for the other shoes varied between 0.16 and 0.37. For graphical illustration and descriptive
pairwise comparison of the vertical oscillation data, see Figure 5, Table VII.
16
Figure 2. ‘Raincloud plot’ with boxplots (median and interquartile range) of the ground contact data,
for each shoe condition. White circles = raw data points (sampled every 0.5th sec during the last two minutes of steady-state running). Light gray line = intersects median values. Shoe order represent the
order the shoes were tested in. D = Adidas Adizero Adios 5, C = Skechers GOrun Speed Elite, E = Xtep
160X, B = ASICS Gel-Foundation 13, F = Brooks Hyperion Elite, A = Kalenji Run 100, G = Nike
Vaporfly 4%, I = Kalenji Run 100 ‘Sham condition’, H = Nike Next%.
Table IV. Descriptive pairwise comparisons for Ground Contact Time
D (Mdn = 212.5)
C (Mdn = 216.0)
E (Mdn = 221.0)
B (Mdn = 221.0)
F (Mdn = 222.0)
A (Mdn = 222.3)
G (Mdn = 222.6)
I (Mdn = 222.8)
C (Mdn
= 216)
-3.5
E (Mdn = 221.0)
-8.5 -5.0
B (Mdn
= 221.0)
-8.5 -5.0 +0.0
F (Mdn = 222.0)
-9.5 -6 -1.0 -1.0
A (Mdn
= 222.3)
-9.8 -6.3 -1.3 -1.3 -0.3
G (Mdn = 222.6)
-10.1 -6.6 -1.6 -1.6 -0.6 -0.3
I (Mdn =
222.8)
-10.3 -6.8 -1.8 -1.8 -0.8 -0.5 +0.2
H (Mdn = 219.6)
-7.1 -3.6 +1.4 +1.4 +2.4 +2.7 +3.0 +3.2
The value reported is the median difference in ground contact time between the column and row shoe
model. Positive value indicates column model > row model; negative value indicates column model <
row model. Mdn = median. D = Adidas Adizero Adios 5, C = Skechers GOrun Speed Elite, E = Xtep 160X, B = ASICS Gel-Foundation 13, F = Brooks Hyperion Elite, A = Kalenji Run 100, G = Nike
Vaporfly 4%, I = Kalenji Run 100 ‘Sham condition’, H = Nike Next%.
17
Figure 3. ‘Raincloud plot’ with boxplots (median and interquartile range) of the cadence data, for each
shoe condition. White circles = raw data points (sampled every 0.5th sec during the last two minutes of steady-state running). Light gray line = intersects median values. Shoe order represent the order the
shoes were tested in. D = Adidas Adizero Adios 5, C = Skechers GOrun Speed Elite, E = Xtep 160X, B
= ASICS Gel-Foundation 13, F = Brooks Hyperion Elite, A = Kalenji Run 100, G = Nike Vaporfly 4%,
I = Kalenji Run 100 ‘Sham condition’, H = Nike Next%.
Table V. Descriptive pairwise comparisons for Cadence D (Mdn
= 86.5)
C (Mdn
= 85.0)
E (Mdn
= 87.1)
B (Mdn
= 86.2)
F (Mdn
= 87.5)
A (Mdn
= 88.5)
G (Mdn
= 85.5)
I (Mdn
= 87.0)
C (Mdn = 85.0)
+1.5
E (Mdn
= 87.1)
-0.6 -2.1
B (Mdn = 86.2)
+0.3 -1.2 +0.9
F (Mdn
= 87.5)
-1.0 -2.5 -0.4 -1.3
A (Mdn = 88.5)
-2.0 -3.5 -1.4 -2.3 -1.0
G (Mdn
= 85.5)
+1.0 -0.5 +1.6 +0.7 +2.0 +3.0
I (Mdn = 87.0)
-0.5 -2.0 +0.1 -0.8 +0.5 +1.5 -1.5
H (Mdn
= 87.0)
-0.5 -2.0 +0.1 -0.8 +0.5 +1.5 -1.5 +0.0
The value reported is the median difference in cadence between the column and row shoe model. Positive value indicates column model > row model; negative value indicates column model < row
model. Mdn = median. D = Adidas Adizero Adios 5, C = Skechers GOrun Speed Elite, E = Xtep 160X,
B = ASICS Gel-Foundation 13, F = Brooks Hyperion Elite, A = Kalenji Run 100, G = Nike Vaporfly 4%, I = Kalenji Run 100 ‘Sham condition’, H = Nike Next%.
18
Figure 4. ‘Raincloud plot’ of stride length for each shoe condition. Black circle = Mean values; Point
range = Standard deviation; White circles = raw data points (sampled every 5th sec during the last two minutes of steady-state running). Light gray line = intersects mean values. Shoe order represent the order
the shoes were tested in. D = Adidas Adizero Adios 5, C = Skechers GOrun Speed Elite, E = Xtep 160X,
B = ASICS Gel-Foundation 13, F = Brooks Hyperion Elite, A = Kalenji Run 100, G = Nike Vaporfly
4%, I = Kalenji Run 100 ‘Sham condition’, H = Nike Next%.
Table VI. Descriptive pairwise comparisons for Stride Length D (M =
1455.4)
C (M =
1470.7)
E (M =
1478.1)
B (M =
1463.7)
F (M =
1466.8)
A (M =
1504.2)
G (M =
1473.8)
I (M =
1455.2)
C (M = 1470.7)
-15.3
E (M =
1478.1)
-22.7 -7.4
B (M = 1463.7)
-8.3 +7.0 +14.4
F (M =
1466.8)
-11.4 +3.9 +11.3 -3.1
A (M = 1504.2)
-48.8 -33.5 -26.1 -40.5 -37.2
G (M =
1473.8)
-18.4 -3.1 +4.3 -10.1 -7.0 +30.4
I (M = 1455.2)
+0.2 +15.5 +22.9 +8.5 +11.6 +49.0 +18.6
H (M =
1447.2)
-8.2 +23.5 +30.9 +16.5 +19.6 +57.0 +26.6 +8.0
The value reported is the mean difference in stride length between the column and row shoe model. Positive value indicates column model > row model; negative value indicates column model < row
model. M = mean. D = Adidas Adizero Adios 5, C = Skechers GOrun Speed Elite, E = Xtep 160X, B =
ASICS Gel-Foundation 13, F = Brooks Hyperion Elite, A = Kalenji Run 100, G = Nike Vaporfly 4%, I = Kalenji Run 100 ‘Sham condition’, H = Nike Next%.
19
Figure 5. ‘Raincloud plot’ with boxplots (median and interquartile range) of the vertical oscillation data,
for each shoe condition. White circles = raw data points (sampled every 0.5th sec during the last two minutes of steady-state running). Light gray line = intersects median values. Shoe order represent the
order the shoes were tested in. D = Adidas Adizero Adios 5, C = Skechers GOrun Speed Elite, E = Xtep
160X, B = ASICS Gel-Foundation 13, F = Brooks Hyperion Elite, A = Kalenji Run 100, G = Nike
Vaporfly 4%, I = Kalenji Run 100 ‘Sham condition’, H = Nike Next%.
Table VII. Pairwise comparisons for Vertical Oscillation D (Mdn
= 114.4)
C (Mdn
= 121.0)
E (Mdn
= 113.2)
B (Mdn
= 114.6)
F (Mdn
= 112.2)
A (Mdn
= 107.2)
G (Mdn
= 116.6)
I (Mdn
= 113.2)
C (Mdn = 121.0)
-5.6
E (Mdn
= 113.2)
+1.2 +6.8
B (Mdn = 114.6)
-0.2 +5.4 -1.4
F (Mdn
= 112.2)
+2.2 +7.8 +1.0 +2.4
A (Mdn = 107.2)
+7.2 +12.8 +6.0 +7.4 +5.0
G (Mdn
= 116.6)
-2.2 +3.4 -3.4 -2.0 -4.4 -9.4
I (Mdn = 113.2)
+1.2 +6.8 +0.0 +1.4 -1.0 -6.0 +3.4
H (Mdn
= 113.2)
+1.2 +6.8 +0.0 +1.4 -1.0 -6.0 +3.4 +0.0
The value reported is the median difference in vertical oscillation between the column and row shoe model. Positive value indicates column model > row model; negative value indicates column model <
row model. Mdn = median. D = Adidas Adizero Adios 5, C = Skechers GOrun Speed Elite, E = Xtep
160X, B = ASICS Gel-Foundation 13, F = Brooks Hyperion Elite, A = Kalenji Run 100, G = Nike Vaporfly 4%, I = Kalenji Run 100 ‘Sham condition’, H = Nike Next%.
20
3.3 Foot Strike Type
The participant was classified with a forefoot strike (FFS) in their own shoes (Saucony
Fastwitch), and FST varied between the study shoes from rearfoot strike (RFS) to FFS. While
six shoes (DCEAGI) were classified as either RFS (I), midfoot strike (MFS) (DE), or FFS
(CAG), two shoes were classified as both MFS and FFS (BF). Due to high camera battery
consumption during this slow-motion video recording, the last shoe model (H) was not included
as the camera ran out of battery. See figure 2 for a graphical illustration of initial-contacts for
each shoe, and supplementary appendix 3 for a more detailed frame-by-frame analysis.
Figure 6. Graphical illustration of foot strike classification. Each picture represents a unique initial-
contact. RFS = Rearfoot Strike, MFS = Midfoot Strike, FFS = Forefoot Strike. Top row from left to right: MFS (Adidas Adizero Adios 5), FFS (Skechers GOrun Speed Elite), MFS (Xtep 160X), FFS
(ASICS Gel-Foundation 13), MFS (ASICS Gel-Foundation 13). Bottom row from left to right: FFS
(Brooks Hyperion Elite), MFS (Brooks Hyperion Elite), FFS (Kalenji Run 100 ‘normal condition’), FFS (Nike Vaporfly 4%), RFS (Kalenji Run 100 ‘sham condition’).
3.4 Self-rated Outcomes
Across all shoes, the average self-rated value for yield, energy return, weight, RPE, and comfort
were 2.22, 2.67, 2.56, 11.44, 52.89 respectively. Greatest variance was observed for comfort
(1623.86) with its lowest value of 3 and highest value of 99. Contrastingly, the lowest variance
was observed for RPE (1.78) with most shoes being rated 11/20 (DEFGH), followed by 13/20
(BAI) and 9/20 (C). See Figure 6 for a graphical illustration of the results.
21
Figure 7. Self-rated A: Comfort (VAS, 100 mm), 0 = uncomfortable, 100 = most comfortable; B: Perceived Exertion (Likert, 6-20), 6 = No exertion, 20 = Maximal exertion. C: Perception of Ride
(Likert, 1-5), Yield (1 = Rigid, 5 = Flexible), Energy Return (1 = Responsive, 5 = Unresponsive), Weight
(1 = light, 5 = heavy). D = Adidas Adizero Adios 5, C = Skechers GOrun Speed Elite, F = Xtep 160X,
B = ASICS Gel-Foundation 13, F = Brooks Hyperion Elite, A = Kalenji Run 100, G = Nike Vaporfly 4%, H = Nike Next%, I = Kalenji Run 100 ‘Sham condition’.
3.5 Qualitative Assessment
After each shoe condition, the participant was given a shoe catalogue with pictures and names
of running shoe models, and asked to select the model which the participant believed they were
running in. This was as an attempt to see if the participant blinding could work. Out of 9 trials,
the participant identified the correct shoe model during 2 trials in total, however it was also
noted that the Kalenji Run 100 ‘sham condition’ (I) felt similar to Kalenji Run 100 ‘normal
condition’ (A). The shoes correctly identified were the Nike Vaporfly 4% (F) and the Nike
Next% (H). Trying to explore how the participant was able to correctly identify these shoes,
without revealing to him that his guess was indeed correct, the participant was asked why he
believed these were the models. Without much hesitation, the participant replied:
The Vaporfly 4%, the first of the two shoes to be tested.
(Paraphrased)“The upper material, with its compression-like garment, gave it
away. Also, the midsole material felt special as it was very bouncy, and the
22
back part of the midsole had a flare extending further back which was
noticeable when running. Therefore, I believe this to be the Vaporfly 4%.”
The Nike Next%, the second and last of the two shoes to be tested.
(Paraphrased)“The midsole material felt identical to the other shoe [referring
to the Vaporfly 4%]” I previously tested. The upper material was different
however, more like regular shoes compared with the compression-like garment
of the other shoe I previously tested. Therefore, I believe this to be the Next%.”
Further, after all tests were completed, a qualitative interview with the participant showed
that he believed the blinding protocol was good, but that reflections in the glass walls in the
room could potentially reveal the shoes the participant was being equipped with. Additionally,
the participant suggested using a blindfold as an alternative strategy for blinding the participant
while equipping the shoes and moving onto the treadmill.
4 Discussion
This is the first study to use a shoe-blinding protocol, descriptively examine a sham condition
applied to a running shoe, compare several non-customized carbon-plated running shoes, assess
perceptions of comfort and ride for a large heterogeneous set of shoe models, and compare
carbon-fiber plated running shoes against a heavy motion-control-, and an extremely cheap
shoe model. The descriptive data suggest that physiological and biomechanical measures could
vary substantially between running shoe models, although statistical- and particularly causal
inference was not possible for this pilot-study.
4.1 Blinding Protocol
The novel shoe-blinding protocol developed for this study may work well, with little risk of the
participant visually detecting which models were being tested. This is a positive finding as
previous studies on RE (Squadrone & , 2009; Mercer et al., 2018; Hoogkamer et al., 2018;
Barnes & Kilding, 2018; Hunter et al., 2019) or biomechanical parameters (Squadrone & ,
2009; Squadrone et al., 2015; Hollander et al, 2015; Au et al., 2018; Hunter et al, 2019; Day &
Hahn, 2020) have not implemented strategies to achieve participant blinding, but future studies
may now confidently do so. However, certain improvements can be made to the blinding
protocol used in this study.
23
Firstly, the study-specific apparatus which was constructed in order to blind the participant
while equipping the shoes, while working well, was at times awkward because the participant
had to sit with an uncomfortable posture. Moreover, it was at times difficult for the participant
to grab onto the laces of the shoes, possibly as a result of the unusual sitting posture. Overall,
these minor flaws increased the time between trials and prolonged the total session duration.
The alternative solution to use a blindfold instead, as suggested by the participant, would at first
glance not guarantee proper blinding due to the risk of unintentionally missing a spot in the
corner of their eyes; however, after further consideration, modifying a pair of ski-goggles could
potentially reduce this risk.
Interestingly, the participant’s ability to correctly identify the Nike Vaporfly 4%, simply
due to tactile sensation on top of the foot was not expected. In fact, in a yet unpublished study
(preprint: Hébert-Losier et al., 2020) on running economy and performance, the researchers
included the Nike Vaporfly 4%, spray-painted it black, and almost all participants (94%) were
unable to identify the model despite its unusual upper-material construction being similar to a
compression garment. Their sample of participants were novice runners, and this could suggest
that to completely perfect participant-blinding when including shoes with unusual material
constructions like the Nike Vaporfly 4%, one would have to exclude participants with
knowledge of these models. If this is not practical, future studies comparing several running
shoes of similar material design (e.g. Nike Vaporfly 4%, and Nike Next% which use the same
cushioning material) should arguably separate their tests by a couple of days in order to have
the participant be subject of recall-bias. Indeed, as was shown in this study, if the participant
can correctly identify a model, and then equips another very similar model, then it is not
surprising that the second model will be correctly identified as well. Further evidence that
similar shoes will be recognized due to tactile sensation, despite visually blinding the
participant to the models, was shown when the participant stated that the Kalenji Run 100
‘sham’ and ‘normal’ condition felt similar.
4.2 Physiological and Biomechanical Parameters
Several unexpected findings were observed for RE. Firstly, the Next%, the newer version of
the Vaporfly 4% did not return descriptively favorable data and was ranked 6th on RE, across
all shoes. The Vaporfly 4% was ranked 4th on RE and was beaten by shoes with TPU/EVA-
24
midsoles, both with and without carbon-fiber plates. Based on material characteristics, it was
expected to see the Vaporfly 4% and Next% ranked first. Indeed, if all things are equal, higher
midsole energy return and increased LBS through the use of a carbon-fiber plate, should result
in better performance. The descriptive difference in most parameters, between the ‘sham’ and
‘normal condition’ were negligible. For example, running economy were 0.61% lower in the
‘sham’, which falls within the range of measurement error (Foss & Hallén, 2005).
It was not unexpected to identify descriptive differences in the spatiotemporal parameters,
as this has been found in previous studies (Squadrone & Gallozi, 2009; Squadrone et al., 2015;
Hollander et al, 2015; Hunter et al, 2019; Day & Hahn, 2020). However, it was unexpected to
see the shoe with highest cadence (Kalenji Run 100 ‘normal condition’) also had the highest
stride length. This cannot be the case considering that the runner ran with the same velocity
during all tries. Consequently, if all things are equal, an increase in cadence should result in a
reduction in stride length (Schubert et al., 2014). A likely reason for this anomaly may be
technical errors in the apparatus used, or limitations in its ability to obtain valid measurements,
and thus interpreting these findings are difficult. Foot Strike Type findings were overall
expected, as differences in ankle joint angles have been observed in previous research
(Squadrone et al., 2015). However, it was surprising to see the habitual FFS participant use a
RFS in the relatively minimalistic shoe (I), and use a FFS/MFS in the heaviest, thickest, motion
control shoe (B). Normally, a more anterior FST (FFS/MFS) is expected the more minimalistic
the shoe (Squadrone & Gallozi, 2009; Hollander et al, 2015), although at times individuals
remain in their FST and only slightly change their ankle joint angle (Squadrone et al., 2015).
Although most of the descriptive differences were relatively small (e.g. a few millimeter
or milliseconds in spatiotemporal variables) and the participant mostly remaining in his habitual
FST, it can be speculated that these small changes could be of importance regarding RRI. For
example, gait-retraining focusing on increasing cadence by 10% has shown to be associated
with reductions in patellofemoral pain risk factors and self-rated pain scores, among runners
with patellofemoral pain (Bramah et al., 2019). The most recent frameworks on RRI-etiology
propose that tissue-load exceeding tissue-capacity is the causal mechanism behind RRI
(Bertelsen et al., 2017; Edwards, 2018). It could therefore be speculated that slight changes in
biomechanics (e.g. spatiotemporal variables and FST) may distribute load in different ways,
enabling a runner to keep local tissue-load below its local tissue-capacity reducing the risk of
RRI. While it is difficult to predict RRI based on crude biomechanics, running shoes or foot
25
type (Nigg et al., 2015; Napier & Willy, 2018), it was shown in a prospective cohort study that
runners who alternated between a few shoes were associated with reduced risk of RRI,
compared with runners who only used one model (Malisoux et al., 2015).
4.3 External Validity and Inter-Individual Variation
This study merely presents findings on the descriptive differences and similarities regarding
physiological and biomechanical parameters across several shoe conditions for one individual.
Furthermore, analytical and causal inference was not conducted, and it is not possible to
extrapolate these findings onto other individuals. As previously mentioned, large inter-
individual differences regarding one’s response to Nike Vaporfly 4% exist, ranging from 1.56
to 6.26% (Hoogkamer et al., 2018), 0.0 to 6.4% Hunter et al., 2019), and 1.72 to 7.15% (Barnes
& Kilding, 2018). This variance may be explained by extrinsic and intrinsic factors, and likely
exist for other modern performance shoes as well. Consequently, this limits our ability to
generalize findings from one individual to another.
Foot Strike Type
For example, the only previous study on the Vaporfly 4% including a mix of FST found greater
improvements in RE among RFS (4.63-4.78%) compared with MFS (3.50-3.67%), although
this was not statistically significant (p = 0.0502) (Hoogkamer et al., 2018). It can be speculated
that this is due to the new midsole material being mostly placed at the heel of the shoe, with
improvements in its compliance (softness) and resilience being able to return to ~85% of the
energy stored, as compared with TPU (~75%), and EVA (~65%) materials (Hoogkamer et al,
2018). Indeed, this would be especially plausible if the midsole material was solely responsible
for the improvement in RE, however that is likely not the case.
Running Velocity, BMI, and other potential confounders
Aside from the cushioning material, another important component of the modern running shoes
to improve RE is the carbon-fiber plate and its ability to increase the LBS of the shoe. Carbon-
fiber plates are constructed in different shapes and thicknesses (Oh K & Park S, 2017), with
varying effect on LBS. An individual’s optimal LBS may vary based on extrinsic or intrinsic
variables such as running velocity (Day & Hahn, 2020, McLeod et al., 2020) or BMI (Roy &
Stefanyshyn 2006), and it can therefore be speculated that the gain in RE from the modern
performance shoes (e.g. Vaporfly 4%) will be different between runners with low and high
26
BMI, as well as those running in low and fast pace. Consequently, this may be a potential
explanation to why the Vaporfly 4% and Next% were descriptively worse than the cheaper
models with older material and lower LBS. It can be speculated that perhaps these cheaper
shoes provided a lower but more favorable LBS for the participant. Since as previously stated,
too high LBS can be detrimental (McLeod et al., 2020).
4.4 Novelty and Strengths
This is the first study to compare several purchasable shoe models using carbon-fiber plates
without modifying them in any way, which increases the ecological validity of this study.
Previous studies comparing several carbon-plated running shoes have used custom made
models unavailable for purchase which limits the ecological validity of those studies.
Furthermore, no previous published study has tested a sham-, and blinding procedure, which
may be further improved and potentially used in future research.
4.5 Limitations
It must be recognized that there are several limitations in this study. Firstly, gas analyzer drift
was not controlled for by re-calibrating the machine between the shoe tests, and it has been
observed that gas analyzer drift could influence the obtained results, and thus negatively affect
the internal validity of the study (Garcia-Tabar et al., 2015). Secondly, and similarly, the
concurrent validity between the Garmin HRM-Run™ and more sophisticated motion capture
systems (8-12 camera setups; e.g. Vicon, Qualisys) has been reported to be 0.931, 0.749, and
0.963 ICC for Cadence, GCT and VO respectively, with no reports regarding SL (Adams et al.,
2016).
Thirdly, prolonged periods of exercise due to testing nine shoe conditions in one session
could impose a cardiovascular drift (Coyle & González-Alonso, 2001) which has been found
to influence VO2 in hot environments (Wingo et al, 2005), and could potentially have
influenced the results although significant changes in VO2 have not been observed in temperate
environments (Lafrenz et al, 2008; Wingo et al, 2012). Fourthly, and lastly, it cannot be
disregarded that carry-over effects from the shoes may be present. Consequently, it cannot be
concluded that these observed results would remain if it was tested on the same participant once
more using a different sequence order. To control for this, while trying to assess the effects of
the shoes, one must include a decent sample size and arrange the crossover trial’s experimental
27
sequences so that every shoe-condition precedes every other shoe-condition the same number
of times (Williams, 1949).
In the example of a crossover trial with 4 shoe-conditions, the sequence order in which the
participants should be randomized to should be ABDC, BCAD, CDBA, or DACB. The reason
why the participant’s shoe-condition sequence order was DCEBFAGIH was because this
project was initially planned to be a large-scale crossover study with participants randomized
to one of many sequences (see Table VIII). Consequently, the participant in this study was
randomized to one of these sequences and performed their tests before it was concluded that
the project would be put on hold, and future bookings by other participants had to be cancelled
due to Covid-19.
Table VIII. Shoe-condition sequences based on a Williams design.
Shoe condition sequence (1) A B I C H D G E F
Shoe condition sequence (2) B C A D I E H F G
Shoe condition sequence (3) C D B E A F I G H
Shoe condition sequence (4) D E C F B G A H I
Shoe condition sequence (5) E F D G C H B I A
Shoe condition sequence (6) F G E H D I C A B
Shoe condition sequence (7) G H F I E A D B C
Shoe condition sequence (8) H I G A F B E C D
Shoe condition sequence (9) I A H B G C F D E
Shoe condition sequence (10) F E G D H C I B A
Shoe condition sequence (11) G F H E I D A C B
Shoe condition sequence (12) H G E F A E B D C
Shoe condition sequence (13) I H A G B F C E D
Shoe condition sequence (14) A I B H C G D F E
Shoe condition sequence (15) B A C I D H E G F
Shoe condition sequence (16) C B D A E I F H G
Shoe condition sequence (17) D C E B F A G I H
Shoe condition sequence (18) E D F C G B H A I
4.6 Future Directions
Overall, the study-specific blinding procedure may work, but may also be improved in some
regards. The field of footwear science is rapidly expanding with the new features in running
shoes, which are not fully understood. Moreover, there are several research hypotheses which
have not been adequately tested. This warrants further research in the field of footwear science,
28
focusing on these modern performance shoes. With the addition of some features from this
protocol, one can enhance both the internal- and ecological validity of future studies.
Comparisons of RE and biomechanics (experimental, crossover, acute)
Studies assessing RE and biomechanics among a heterogeneous set of non-modified carbon-
fiber plated shoes, including participant-blinding, are warranted. To date, more than 22 carbon
plated running shoes have been released, however a few studies have only tested one of them
regarding RE (Hoogkamer et al., 2018; Barnes & Kilding, 2018; Hunter et al., 2019), with no
studies examining the potential differences in biomechanics.
In the case of RE, it may be detrimental to test many shoes during one session, due to
possible interactions with cardiovascular drift as described above. Consequently, it could be
wise to limit the number of tests to a few shoes per session. If one wishes to examine many
shoes, one should consider splitting it up in several sessions, for example: Session 1 (ABCD);
Session 2 (AEFG); Session 3: (AHIJ); Session 4 (AKLM). The downside with separate sessions
is that intra-individual variation in performance and condition may influence the results. In an
attempt to control for this, one could make sure to test one of the shoes during all sessions. A
study with this design, a large number of shoes and participants, using multivariate statistical
models, could examine independent effects of shoe-characteristics (e.g. stack height, drop, …)
on RE or biomechanical parameters. Additionally, it could be possible to identify if individual
characteristics (e.g. FST, BMI, …) can be used to predict which shoe models will lead to the
greatest improvements in RE on an individual level.
Placebo study (experimental crossover, acute)
Moreover, there is merit in further investigating the potential role of placebo on RE. Granted,
placebo effects are unlikely to directly influence RE, however, it can’t be disregarded that it
may indirectly influence this through changes in kinematics, kinetics, and spatiotemporal
variables which may be of importance (Moore, 2016; Folland et al., 2017). This could be tested
by evaluating three identical shoes, labeled “reference shoe”, “low weight/high performance”,
and “high weight/low performance”.
Learning/adaptation effects (experimental, RCT, 3-months longitudinal)
To date, no study has assessed if there are any learning effect from shoes and RE. This could
be investigated using a randomized control design, with two groups of intervention and control.
29
While the previous suggested ideas were based on acute measurements, this would have to be
a longitudinal design where participants are tested several times across a period of e.g. three
months. The control group would be recommended to continue running in their shoes as they
normally would, while the intervention group would receive one pair of running shoes to use
during the study period.
Indeed, there is much we don’t know about running shoes and especially the modern
performance shoes equipped with either PEBA-material, carbon-fiber plates, or both. To
reiterate, previous studies on footwear have examined custom made or modified shoes (Roy &
Stefanyshyn, 2006; Worobets et al., 2014; Madden et al., 2016; Hoogkamer et al., 2016; Oh &
Park, 2017; McLeod et al., 2020), and/or without participant blinding (Squadrone & Gallozzi,
2009; Squadrone et al., 2015; Hollander et al, 2015; Au et al., 2018; Mercer et al., 2018;
Hoogkamer et al., 2018; Barnes & Kilding, 2018; Hunter et al, 2019; Day & Hahn, 2020),
imposing limitations on these studies. Based on the findings of this study, these methodological
limitations are potentially amendable.
5 Conclusion
Physiological and biomechanical running-related measures may vary substantially between
running shoe models, providing some runners with an edge against others if equipped with the
‘better’ shoes. Descriptively, negligible differences were observed between the sham and
normal shoe condition, however moderate differences were seen with regards to foot strike
pattern and self-rated comfort. The study-specific blinding procedure may be feasible for use
but could possibly benefit from certain modifications. Consequently, future experimental
studies on footwear may potentially adopt blinding procedures to strengthen their internal
validity.
30
6 References
Adams, D., Pozzi, F., Carroll, A., Rombach, A., & Zeni, J., Jr (2016). Validity and Reliability
of a Commercial Fitness Watch for Measuring Running Dynamics. The Journal of
orthopaedic and sports physical therapy, 46(6), 471–476.
https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2016.6391
Allen, M., Poggiali, D., Whitaker, K., Marshall, T. R., & Kievit, R. A. (2019). Raincloud plots:
a multi-platform tool for robust data visualization. Wellcome open research, 4, 63.
https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15191.1
Andersen L. B. (1995). A maximal cycle exercise protocol to predict maximal oxygen uptake.
Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 5(3), 143–146.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.1995.tb00027.x
Anderson, L. M., Bonanno, D. R., Hart, H. F., & Barton, C. J. (2020). What are the Benefits
and Risks Associated with Changing Foot Strike Pattern During Running? A Systematic
Review and Meta-analysis of Injury, Running Economy, and Biomechanics. Sports
medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 50(5), 885–917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01238-y
Agresta, C., Peacock, J., Carmichael, A., Nielsen, K. E., Zendler, J., & Gonzalez, R. (2020)
The perception of ride is multidimensional for running footwear. Footwear Science, 12:1,
15-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2019.1706645
Asplund, C. A., & Brown, D. L. (2005). The running shoe prescription: fit for performance.
The Physician and sportsmedicine, 33(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.3810/psm.2005.01.33
Au, I., Lau, F., An, W. W., Zhang, J. H., Chen, T. L., & Cheung, R. (2018). Immediate and
short-term biomechanical adaptation of habitual barefoot runners who start shod running.
Journal of sports sciences, 36(4), 451–455.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1313997
Barnes, K. R., & Kilding, A. E. (2015). Running economy: measurement, norms, and
determining factors. Sports medicine - open, 1(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-015-
0007-y
Barnes, K. R., & Kilding, A. E. (2019). A Randomized Crossover Study Investigating the
Running Economy of Highly-Trained Male and Female Distance Runners in Marathon
Racing Shoes versus Track Spikes. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 49(2), 331–342.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-1012-3
Bassett, D. R., Jr, & Howley, E. T. (1997). Maximal oxygen uptake: "classical" versus
"contemporary" viewpoints. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 29(5), 591–603.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199705000-00002
Bassett, D. R., Jr, & Howley, E. T. (2000). Limiting factors for maximum oxygen uptake and
determinants of endurance performance. Medicine and science in sports and exercise,
32(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200001000-00012
31
Batliner, M. E., Kipp, S., Grabowski, A. M., Kram, R., & Byrnes, W. C. (2017). Does Metabolic
Rate Increase Linearly with Running Speed in all Distance Runners?. Sports medicine
international open, 2(1), E1–E8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-122068
Beck, O. N., Kipp, S., Byrnes, W. C., & Kram, R. (2018). Use aerobic energy expenditure
instead of oxygen uptake to quantify exercise intensity and predict endurance performance.
Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 125(2), 672–674.
https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00940.2017
Beltz, N. M., Gibson, A. L., Janot, J. M., Kravitz, L., Mermier, C. M., & Dalleck, L. C. (2016).
Graded Exercise Testing Protocols for the Determination of VO2max: Historical
Perspectives, Progress, and Future Considerations. Journal of sports medicine (Hindawi
Publishing Corporation), 2016, 3968393. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3968393
Bergh, U., Ekblom, B., & Astrand, P. O. (2000). Maximal oxygen uptake "classical" versus
"contemporary" viewpoints. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 32(1), 85–88.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200001000-00013
Bertelsen, M. L., Hulme, A., Petersen, J., Brund, R. K., Sørensen, H., Finch, C. F., Parner, E.
T., & Nielsen, R. O. (2017). A framework for the etiology of running-related injuries.
Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 27(11), 1170–1180.
Björkman, F., Ekblom-Bak, E., Ekblom, Ö., & Ekblom, B. (2016). Validity of the revised
Ekblom Bak cycle ergometer test in adults. European journal of applied physiology,
116(9), 1627–1638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-016-3412-0
Bramah, C., Preece, S. J., Gill, N., & Herrington, L. (2019). A 10% Increase in Step Rate
Improves Running Kinematics and Clinical Outcomes in Runners With Patellofemoral
Pain at 4 Weeks and 3 Months. The American journal of sports medicine, 47(14), 3406–
3413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546519879693
Brooks G. A. (2007). Lactate: link between glycolytic and oxidative metabolism. Sports
medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 37(4-5), 341–343. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-
200737040-00017
Brooks G. A. (2018). The Science and Translation of Lactate Shuttle Theory. Cell metabolism,
27(4), 757–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2018.03.008
Burke, L. M., Jeukendrup, A. E., Jones, A. M., & Mooses, M. (2019). Contemporary Nutrition
Strategies to Optimize Performance in Distance Runners and Race Walkers. International
journal of sport nutrition and exercise metabolism, 29(2), 117–129.
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsnem.2019-0004
Burns, G. T., & Tam, N. Is it the shoes? (2019). A simple proposal for regulating footwear in
road running. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 54, 439-440.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100480
Cardinale, D. A., Larsen, F. J., Jensen-Urstad, M., Rullman, E., Søndergaard, H., Morales-
Alamo, D., Ekblom, B., Calbet, J., & Boushel, R. (2019). Muscle mass and inspired oxygen
32
influence oxygen extraction at maximal exercise: Role of mitochondrial oxygen affinity.
Acta physiologica (Oxford, England), 225(1), e13110. https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.13110
Carter, J., & Jeukendrup, A. E. (2002). Validity and reliability of three commercially available
breath-by-breath respiratory systems. European journal of applied physiology, 86(5), 435–
441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-001-0572-2
Conley, D. L., & Krahenbuhl, G. S. (1980). Running economy and distance running
performance of highly trained athletes. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 12(5),
357–360.
Costill DL, Thomason H, Roberts E. Fractional utilization of the aerobic capacity during
distance running. Med Sci Sports. 1973;5(4):248‐252.
Coyle, E. F., & González-Alonso, J. (2001). Cardiovascular drift during prolonged exercise:
new perspectives. Exercise and sport sciences reviews, 29(2), 88–92.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00003677-200104000-00009
Coyle E. F. (2007). Physiological regulation of marathon performance. Sports medicine
(Auckland, N.Z.), 37(4-5), 306–311. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200737040-00009
Daussin, F. N., Ponsot, E., Dufour, S. P., Lonsdorfer-Wolf, E., Doutreleau, S., Geny, B.,
Piquard, F., & Richard, R. (2007). Improvement of VO2max by cardiac output and oxygen
extraction adaptation during intermittent versus continuous endurance training. European
journal of applied physiology, 101(3), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-007-0499-
3://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17661072/
Day E, & Hahn M. (2020). Optimal footwear longitudinal bending stiffness to improve running
economy is speed dependent. Footwear Science, 12:1, 3-13,
https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2019.1696897
De Feo, P., Di Loreto, C., Lucidi, P., Murdolo, G., Parlanti, N., De Cicco, A., Piccioni, F., &
Santeusanio, F. (2003). Metabolic response to exercise. Journal of endocrinological
investigation, 26(9), 851–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03345235
di Prampero P. E. (2003). Factors limiting maximal performance in humans. European journal
of applied physiology, 90(3-4), 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-003-0926-z
Edwards W. B. (2018). Modeling Overuse Injuries in Sport as a Mechanical Fatigue
Phenomenon. Exercise and sport sciences reviews, 46(4), 224–231.
https://doi.org/10.1249/JES.0000000000000163
Edward, F. C. (2019). No evidence of a performance advantage attributable to midsole
thickness. Footwear Science, 12(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2019.1690327
Farrell, P. A., Wilmore, J. H., Coyle, E. F., Billing, J. E., & Costill, D. L. (1979). Plasma lactate
accumulation and distance running performance. Medicine and science in sports, 11(4),
338–344.
33
Faude, O., Kindermann, W., & Meyer, T. (2009). Lactate threshold concepts: how valid are
they?. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 39(6), 469–490.
https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200939060-00003
Ferguson, B. S., Rogatzki, M. J., Goodwin, M. L., Kane, D. A., Rightmire, Z., & Gladden, L.
B. (2018). Lactate metabolism: historical context, prior misinterpretations, and current
understanding. European journal of applied physiology, 118(4), 691–728.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-017-3795-6
Fletcher, J. R., & MacIntosh, B. R. (2017). Running Economy from a Muscle Energetics
Perspective. Frontiers in physiology, 8, 433. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00433
Flockhart, M., & Larsen, F. J. (2019). Physiological adaptation of aerobic efficiency: when less
is more. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 127(6), 1821.
https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00649.2019
Folland, J. P., Allen, S. J., Black, M. I., Handsaker, J. C., & Forrester, S. E. (2017). Running
Technique is an Important Component of Running Economy and Performance. Medicine
and science in sports and exercise, 49(7), 1412–1423.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001245
Foss, Ø., & Hallén, J. (2005). Validity and stability of a computerized metabolic system with
mixing chamber. International journal of sports medicine, 26(7), 569–575.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-821317
Franz, J. R., Wierzbinski, C. M., & Kram, R. (2012). Metabolic cost of running barefoot versus
shod: is lighter better?. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 44(8), 1519–1525.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182514a88
Frederick, E.C., J.T. Daniels, & J.W Hayes. (1982). The effect of shoe weight on the aerobic
demands of running. Int. J. Sports Medicine, 2(2), 28
Garcia-Tabar, I., Eclache, J. P., Aramendi, J. F., & Gorostiaga, E. M. (2015). Gas analyzer's
drift leads to systematic error in maximal oxygen uptake and maximal respiratory exchange
ratio determination. Frontiers in physiology, 6, 308.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2015.00308
Ghosh A. K. (2004). Anaerobic threshold: its concept and role in endurance sport. The
Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS, 11(1), 24–36.
Gibala M. (2009). Molecular responses to high-intensity interval exercise. Applied physiology,
nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme, 34(3), 428–
432. https://doi.org/10.1139/H09-046
Hamill, J., Freedson, P. S., Boda, W., & Reichsman, F. (1988). Effects of shoe type on
cardiorespiratory responses and rearfoot motion during treadmill running. Medicine and
science in sports and exercise, 20(5), 515–521. https://doi.org/10.1249/00005768-
198810000-00014
Hamill, J. (2017). Evaluating running footwear. Footwear Science, 9(Issue sup 1), 33-34
https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2017.1313906
34
Hashimoto, T., & Brooks, G. A. (2008). Mitochondrial lactate oxidation complex and an
adaptive role for lactate production. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 40(3),
486–494. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31815fcb04
Hébert-Losier K, Finlayson SJ, Driller MW, Dubois B, Esculier JF, Beaven CM. (2020).
Evidence of variable performance responses to the Nike 4% shoe: Definitely not a game-
changer for all recreational runners. SportRxiv. https://doi.org/10.31236/osf.io/ctavy
Hill, A. V. & H. Lupton. (1923). Muscular exercise, lactic acid, and the supply and utilization
of oxygen. Q. J. Med. 16, 135-171.
Hill, A. V., C. N. H. Long, & H. Lupton. (1924). Muscular exercise, lactic acid and the supply
and utilisation of oxygen-parts VII-VIII. Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 97, 84-138.
Hollander, K., Argubi-Wollesen, A., Reer, R., & Zech, A. (2015). Comparison of minimalist
footwear strategies for simulating barefoot running: a randomized crossover study. PloS
one, 10(5), e0125880. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125880
Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S., Spiering, B. A., & Kram, R. (2016). Altered Running Economy
Directly Translates to Altered Distance-Running Performance. Medicine and science in
sports and exercise, 48(11), 2175–2180. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001012
Hoogkamer, W., Kram, R., & Arellano, C. J. (2017). How Biomechanical Improvements in
Running Economy Could Break the 2-hour Marathon Barrier. Sports medicine (Auckland,
N.Z.), 47(9), 1739–1750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0708-0
Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S., Frank, J. H., Farina, E. M., Luo, G., & Kram, R. (2018). A
Comparison of the Energetic Cost of Running in Marathon Racing Shoes. Sports medicine
(Auckland, N.Z.), 48(4), 1009–1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0811-2
Hoogkamer. (2020). More isn’t always better. Footwear Science,
https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2019.1710579
Hopker, J. G., Jobson, S. A., & Pandit, J. J. (2011). Controversies in the physiological basis of
the 'anaerobic threshold' and their implications for clinical cardiopulmonary exercise
testing. Anaesthesia, 66(2), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06604.x
Hunter, I., McLeod, A., Valentine, D., Low, T., Ward, J., & Hager, R. (2019). Running
economy, mechanics, and marathon racing shoes. Journal of sports sciences, 37(20), 2367–
2373. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1633837
Ivy, J. L., Withers, R. T., Van Handel, P. J., Elger, D. H., & Costill, D. L. (1980). Muscle
respiratory capacity and fiber type as determinants of the lactate threshold. Journal of
applied physiology: respiratory, environmental and exercise physiology, 48(3), 523–527.
https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1980.48.3.523
Jones, A. M., Thompson, C., Wylie, L. J., & Vanhatalo, A. (2018). Dietary Nitrate and Physical
Performance. Annual review of nutrition, 38, 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
nutr-082117-051622
35
Joyner M. J. (1991). Modeling: optimal marathon performance on the basis of physiological
factors. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 70(2), 683–687.
https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1991.70.2.683
Joyner, M. J., & Coyle, E. F. (2008). Endurance exercise performance: the physiology of
champions. The Journal of physiology, 586(1), 35–44.
https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2007.143834
Kipp, S., Kram, R., & Hoogkamer, W. (2019). Extrapolating Metabolic Savings in Running:
Implications for Performance Predictions. Frontiers in physiology, 10, 79.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00079
Knechtle, B., Nikolaidis, P. T., Zingg, M. A., Rosemann, T., & Rüst, C. A. (2016). Half-
marathoners are younger and slower than marathoners. SpringerPlus, 5, 76.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1704-9
Lafrenz, A. J., Wingo, J. E., Ganio, M. S., & Cureton, K. J. (2008). Effect of ambient
temperature on cardiovascular drift and maximal oxygen uptake. Medicine and science in
sports and exercise, 40(6), 1065–1071. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181666ed7
Larsen, F. J., Weitzberg, E., Lundberg, J. O., & Ekblom, B. (2007). Effects of dietary nitrate
on oxygen cost during exercise. Acta physiologica (Oxford, England), 191(1), 59–66.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1716.2007.01713.x
Larsen, F. J., Weitzberg, E., Lundberg, J. O., & Ekblom, B. (2010). Dietary nitrate reduces
maximal oxygen consumption while maintaining work performance in maximal exercise.
Free radical biology & medicine, 48(2), 342–347.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2009.11.006
Larsen, F. J., Schiffer, T. A., Borniquel, S., Sahlin, K., Ekblom, B., Lundberg, J. O., &
Weitzberg, E. (2011). Dietary inorganic nitrate improves mitochondrial efficiency in
humans. Cell metabolism, 13(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2011.01.004
Larsen, F. J., Schiffer, T. A., Sahlin, K., Ekblom, B., Weitzberg, E., & Lundberg, J. O. (2011).
Mitochondrial oxygen affinity predicts basal metabolic rate in humans. FASEB journal :
official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
25(8), 2843–2852. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.11-182139
Larsen, F. J., Schiffer, T. A., Weitzberg, E., & Lundberg, J. O. (2012). Regulation of
mitochondrial function and energetics by reactive nitrogen oxides. Free radical biology &
medicine, 53(10), 1919–1928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2012.08.580
Larsen, F. J., Schiffer, T. A., Zinner, C., Willis, S. J., Morales-Alamo, D., Calbet, J., Boushel,
R., & Holmberg, H. C. (2020). Mitochondrial oxygen affinity increases after sprint interval
training and is related to the improvement in peak oxygen uptake. Acta physiologica
(Oxford, England), e13463. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.13463
Levine B. D. (2008). .VO2max: what do we know, and what do we still need to know?. The
Journal of physiology, 586(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2007.147629
36
Londeree B. R. (1997). Effect of training on lactate/ventilatory thresholds: a meta-analysis.
Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 29(6), 837–843.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199706000-00016
Luo, G., Stergiou, P., Worobets. J., Nigg, B., & Stefanyshyn, D. (2009) Improved footwear
comfort reduces oxygen consumption during running, Footwear Science,1:1, 25-29,
https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280902993001
MacInnis, M. J., & Gibala, M. J. (2017). Physiological adaptations to interval training and the
role of exercise intensity. The Journal of physiology, 595(9), 2915–2930.
https://doi.org/10.1113/JP273196
Macpherson, R. E., Hazell, T. J., Olver, T. D., Paterson, D. H., & Lemon, P. W. (2011). Run
sprint interval training improves aerobic performance but not maximal cardiac output.
Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 43(1), 115–122.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181e5eacd
Madden, R., Sakaguchi, M., Tomaras, E. K., Wannop, J. W., & Stefanyshyn, D. (2016).
Forefoot bending stiffness, running economy and kinematics during overground running,
Footwear Science, 8:2, 91-98, https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2015.1130754
Malisoux, L., Ramesh, J., Mann, R., Seil, R., Urhausen, A., & Theisen, D. (2015). Can parallel
use of different running shoes decrease running-related injury risk?. Scandinavian journal
of medicine & science in sports, 25(1), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12154
McLaughlin, J. E., Howley, E. T., Bassett, D. R., Jr, Thompson, D. L., & Fitzhugh, E. C. (2010).
Test of the classic model for predicting endurance running performance. Medicine and
science in sports and exercise, 42(5), 991–997.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181c0669d
McLeod, A. R., Bruening, D., Johnson, A. W., Ward, J., & Hunter, I. (2020). Improving running
economy through altered shoe bending stiffness across speeds. Footwear Science,
https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2020.1734870
Mercer, M. A., Stone, T. M., Young, J. C., & Mercer, J. A. (2018). Running Economy While
Running in Shoes Categorized as Maximal Cushioning. International journal of exercise
science, 11(2), 1031–1040.
Meyer, F., Falbriard, M., Aminian, K., & Millet, G. P. (2018). How accurate is visual
determination of foot strike pattern and pronation assessment. Gait & posture, 60, 200–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.12.012
Milanović, Z., Sporiš, G., & Weston, M. (2015). Effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval
Training (HIT) and Continuous Endurance Training for VO2max Improvements: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials. Sports medicine (Auckland,
N.Z.), 45(10), 1469–1481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0365-0
Mills, K., Blanch, P., & Vicenzino, B. (2010). Identifying clinically meaningful tools for
measuring comfort perception of footwear. Medicine and science in sports and exercise,
42(10), 1966–1971. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181dbacc8
37
Moore I. S. (2016). Is There an Economical Running Technique? A Review of Modifiable
Biomechanical Factors Affecting Running Economy. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.),
46(6), 793–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0474-4
Napier, C., & Willy, R. W. (2018). Logical fallacies in the running shoe debate: let the evidence
guide prescription. British journal of sports medicine, 52(24), 1552–1553.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100117
New York Times. (2019). Those Superfast Nike Shoes Are Creating a Problem. Retrieved
2020-01-25 from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/sports/marathon-running-nike-
vaporfly-shoes.html
Nigg, B. M., Baltich, J., Hoerzer, S., & Enders, H. (2015). Running shoes and running injuries:
mythbusting and a proposal for two new paradigms: 'preferred movement path' and
'comfort filter'. British journal of sports medicine, 49(20), 1290–1294.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095054
Nigg, B. M., Vienneau, J., Smith, A. C., Trudeau, M. B., Mohr, M., & Nigg, S. R. (2017). The
Preferred Movement Path Paradigm: Influence of Running Shoes on Joint Movement.
Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 49(8), 1641–1648.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001260
Nike. (2017). By the Numbers: The Nike Zoom Vaporfly 4% Dominates Marathons. Retrieved
2020-01-25 from: https://news.nike.com/news/nike-zoom-fly-4-percent
Nikolaidis, P. T., Rosemann, T., & Knechtle, B. (2018). Sex Differences in the Age of Peak
Marathon Race Time. The Chinese journal of physiology, 61(2), 85–91.
https://doi.org/10.4077/CJP.2018.BAG535
Nilsson, A., Björnson, E., Flockhart, M., Larsen, F. J., & Nielsen, J. (2019). Complex I is
bypassed during high intensity exercise. Nature communications, 10(1), 5072.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12934-8
Noakes, T. D., Myburgh, K. H., & Schall, R. (1990). Peak treadmill running velocity during
the VO2 max test predicts running performance. Journal of sports sciences, 8(1), 35–45.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640419008732129
Noakes T. D. (2018). Response to: Lessons from Popper for science, paradigm shifts, scientific
revolutions and exercise physiology. BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 4(1), e000277.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2017-000277
Norrbom, J., Sundberg, C. J., Ameln, H., Kraus, W. E., Jansson, E., & Gustafsson, T. (2004).
PGC-1alpha mRNA expression is influenced by metabolic perturbation in exercising
human skeletal muscle. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 96(1), 189–
194. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00765.2003
Oh, K. & Park, S. (2017) An optimal bending stiffness of running shoes to improve running
efficiency. Footwear Science, 9:sup1, 139-S141
https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2017.1314383
38
Péronnet, F., & Massicotte, D. (1991). Table of nonprotein respiratory quotient: an update.
Canadian journal of sport sciences = Journal canadien des sciences du sport, 16(1), 23–29.
Popov D. V. (2018). Adaptation of Skeletal Muscles to Contractile Activity of Varying
Duration and Intensity: The Role of PGC-1α. Biochemistry. Biokhimiia, 83(6), 613–628.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S0006297918060019
Robergs R. A. (2017). Lessons from Popper for science, paradigm shifts, scientific revolutions
and exercise physiology. BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 3(1), e000226.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2017-000226
Roy, J. P., & Stefanyshyn, D. J. (2006). Shoe midsole longitudinal bending stiffness and
running economy, joint energy, and EMG. Medicine and science in sports and exercise,
38(3), 562–569. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000193562.22001.e8
Saltin, B., & Astrand, P. O. (1967). Maximal oxygen uptake in athletes. Journal of applied
physiology, 23(3), 353–358. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1967.23.3.353
Saunders, P. U., Pyne, D. B., Telford, R. D., & Hawley, J. A. (2004). Factors affecting running
economy in trained distance runners. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 34(7), 465–485.
https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200434070-00005
Sawka, M. N., Convertino, V. A., Eichner, E. R., Schnieder, S. M., & Young, A. J. (2000).
Blood volume: importance and adaptations to exercise training, environmental stresses,
and trauma/sickness. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 32(2), 332–348.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200002000-00012
Shaw, A. J., Ingham, S. A., & Folland, J. P. (2014). The valid measurement of running economy
in runners. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 46(10), 1968–1973.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000311
Sinclair, J., Mcgrath, R., Brook, O., Taylor, P. J., & Dillon, S. (2016). Influence of footwear
designed to boost energy return on running economy in comparison to a conventional
running shoe. Journal of sports sciences, 34(11), 1094–1098.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1088961
Schubert, A. G., Kempf, J., & Heiderscheit, B. C. (2014). Influence of stride frequency and
length on running mechanics: a systematic review. Sports health, 6(3), 210–217.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738113508544
Scribbans, T. D., Vecsey, S., Hankinson, P. B., Foster, W. S., & Gurd, B. J. (2016). The Effect
of Training Intensity on VO2max in Young Healthy Adults: A Meta-Regression and Meta-
Analysis. International journal of exercise science, 9(2), 230–247.
Spriet L. L. (2007). Regulation of substrate use during the marathon. Sports medicine
(Auckland, N.Z.), 37(4-5), 332–336. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200737040-00015
39
Squadrone, R., & Gallozzi, C. (2009). Biomechanical and physiological comparison of barefoot
and two shod conditions in experienced barefoot runners. The Journal of sports medicine
and physical fitness, 49(1), 6–13.
Squadrone, R., Rodano, R., Hamill, J., & Preatoni, E. (2015). Acute effect of different
minimalist shoes on foot strike pattern and kinematics in rearfoot strikers during running.
Journal of sports sciences, 33(11), 1196–1204.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.989534
Sun, X., Lam, W. K., Zhang, X., Wang, J., & Fu, W. (2020). Systematic Review of the Role of
Footwear Constructions in Running Biomechanics: Implications for Running-Related
Injury and Performance. Journal of sports science & medicine, 19(1), 20–37.
Svedahl, K., & MacIntosh, B. R. (2003). Anaerobic threshold: the concept and methods of
measurement. Canadian journal of applied physiology = Revue canadienne de physiologie
appliquee, 28(2), 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1139/h03-023
Tesch, P. A., & Wright, J. E. (1983). Recovery from short term intense exercise: its relation to
capillary supply and blood lactate concentration. European journal of applied physiology
and occupational physiology, 52(1), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00429033
University of Exeter. (2019). Marathon star tells graduates: ‘No human is limited’. Retrieved
2020-01-25 from: http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_770754_en.html
Walsh, M. L., & Banister, E. W. (1988). Possible mechanisms of the anaerobic threshold. A
review. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 5(5), 269–302.
https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-198805050-00001
Weissman, M. L., Jones, P. W., Oren, A., Lamarra, N., Whipp, B. J., & Wasserman, K. (1982).
Cardiac output increase and gas exchange at start of exercise. Journal of applied
physiology: respiratory, environmental and exercise physiology, 52(1), 236–244.
https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1982.52.1.236
Westerblad H. (2016). Acidosis Is Not a Significant Cause of Skeletal Muscle Fatigue.
Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 48(11), 2339–2342.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001044
Whipp, B. J., & Ward, S. A. (1990). Physiological determinants of pulmonary gas exchange
kinetics during exercise. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 22(1), 62–71.
Whipp, B. J., & Ward, S. A. (2011). The physiological basis of the 'anaerobic threshold' and
implications for clinical cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Anaesthesia, 66(11), 1048–
1050. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06909_1.x
Williams, E. J. (1949): Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of
treatments. Australian Journal of Scientific Research, Ser. A 2, 149-168.
Wingo, J. E., Lafrenz, A. J., Ganio, M. S., Edwards, G. L., & Cureton, K. J. (2005).
Cardiovascular drift is related to reduced maximal oxygen uptake during heat stress.
40
Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 37(2), 248–255.
https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000152731.33450.95
Wingo, J. E., Salaga, L. J., Newlin, M. K., & Cureton, K. J. (2012). Cardiovascular drift and
Vo2max during cycling and walking in a temperate environment. Aviation, space, and
environmental medicine, 83(7), 660–666. https://doi.org/10.3357/asem.3246.2012
Witte, K. A., Fiers, P., Sheets-Singer, A. L., & Collins, S. H. (2020). Improving the energy
economy of human running with powered and unpowered ankle exoskeleton assistance.
Science Robotics 5(40).
World Athletic. (2020). World Athletics modifies rules governing competition shoes for elite
athletes. Retrieved 2020-02-12 from: https://www.worldathletics.org/news/press-
releases/modified-rules-shoes
Worobets, J., Wannop, J. W., Tomaras, E., & Stefanyshyn, D. (2014). Softer and more resilient
running shoe cushioning properties enhance running economy. Footwear Sci.6, 147–53,
https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2014.918184
Xu, F., & Rhodes, E. C. (1999). Oxygen uptake kinetics during exercise. Sports medicine
(Auckland, N.Z.), 27(5), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199927050-00003
ASTRAND, P. O., & RYHMING, I. (1954). A nomogram for calculation of aerobic capacity
(physical fitness) from pulse rate during sub-maximal work. Journal of applied physiology,
7(2), 218–221. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1954.7.2.218
41
Supplementary Appendix 1. Shoes and Setup
Picture 1. The intervention shoes and their respective study-specific shoe box. The black box to the left
contained the (I) Kalenji Run 100 ‘Sham’ condition. (A) Kalenji Run 100; (B) ASICS Gel-Foundation;
(C) Xtep 160X; (D) Adidas Adizero Adios 5; (E) Skechers GOrun Speed Elite; (F) Brooks Hyperion
Elite; (G) Nike Vaporfly 4%; (H) Nike Next%
42
Picture 2. The modified treadmill to prevent the participant from identifying their running shoes while
running. The cloth is from a bedsheet from IKEA “DVALA”, with stretch allowing the runner to move
further up the treadmill if needed.
Picture 3 & 4. The study-specific apparatus created to enable participant blinding while equipping the
running shoes.
43
Supplementary Appendix 2. Rating Scales, Questionnaire, and
Shoe Catalogue.
Borgs RPE-skala®
6 Ingen ansträngning alls
Extremt lätt 7
8
Mycket lätt 9
10
Lätt 11
12
Något ansträngande 13
14
Ansträngande 15
16
17 Mycket ansträngande
18
Extremt ansträngande 19
Maximal ansträngning 20
44
Komfort (VAS 0-100 mm)
Obekväm Bekväm
45
46
47
48
49
Supplementary Appendix 3. Frame-by-frame analysis of FST
Example analyses of foot strike type, using a frame-by-frame analysis. First column is the frame
before initial-contact, middle column is the frame of initial-contact, and last column is the frame
after initial contact. Rows from top to bottom: FFS (Saucony Fastwitch), MFS (Adidas Adizero
Adios 5), FFS (Skechers GOrun Speed Elite), MFS (Xtep 160X)
Supplementary Appendix 4
Litteratursökning
Syfte och frågeställningar:
- Är det några kvalitetsskillnader mellan breath-by-breath och blandningskammare?
- Vilken effekt har löpskor på löpekonomi?
- Vilken effekt har löpskor på kinematik och spatiotemporala parametrar?
Vilka sökord har du använt? Ämnesord och synonymer svenska Ämnesord och synonymer engelska
Indirect Calorimetry, Breath by breath,
Mixing Chamber, Validity, Footwear,
Running shoes, Running Economy, Energy
Expenditure, Kinematics, Joint Angle, Foot
Strike Type
Var och hur har du sökt? Databaser och andra källor Sökkombination
PubMed (((Indirect Calorimetry) OR (Breath by
Breath)) OR (Mixing Chamber)) AND
(Validity)
((((Running shoes) OR (Footwear)) AND
(Energy cost of running)) OR (Running
Economy)) OR (Energy Expenditure)
(((((Running shoes) OR (Footwear)) AND
(Foot Strike Type)) OR (Joint Angle)) OR
(Kinematics)) OR (Spatiotemporal)
Kommentarer Twitter har varit till hjälp, bland annat för att hitta pre-prints. Ytterligare så har jag granskat
referenslistorna av studier jag tidigare läst och refererat till i tidigare arbeten.