Altered Running Economy Directly Translates to Altered Distance-Running Performance

Hoogkamer, Wouter; Kipp, Shalaya; Spiering, Barry A.; Kram, Rodger

doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000001012

Cited by 164 publications

(171 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

163

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This 1% increase in E run is fairly consistent across a range of running speeds (Franz et al, 2012) and also degrades running performance (e.g., 3,000 m time-trial time) to a similar extent (Hoogkamer et al, 2016). It has been suggested that a potential mechanism by which footwear might reduce E run is because footwear serves to reduce some of the impact shock.…”

Section: Factors Not Affected By Trainingmentioning

confidence: 58%

Running Economy from a Muscle Energetics Perspective

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The economy of running has traditionally been quantified from the mass-specific oxygen uptake; however, because fuel substrate usage varies with exercise intensity, it is more accurate to express running economy in units of metabolic energy. Fundamentally, the understanding of the major factors that influence the energy cost of running (Erun) can be obtained with this approach. Erun is determined by the energy needed for skeletal muscle contraction. Here, we approach the study of Erun from that perspective. The amount of energy needed for skeletal muscle contraction is dependent on the force, duration, shortening, shortening velocity, and length of the muscle. These factors therefore dictate the energy cost of running. It is understood that some determinants of the energy cost of running are not trainable: environmental factors, surface characteristics, and certain anthropometric features. Other factors affecting Erun are altered by training: other anthropometric features, muscle and tendon properties, and running mechanics. Here, the key features that dictate the energy cost during distance running are reviewed in the context of skeletal muscle energetics.

show abstract

Section: Factors Not Affected By Trainingmentioning

confidence: 58%

Running Economy from a Muscle Energetics Perspective

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using footwear that reduces athlete aerobic energy expenditure at a given running speed (improves their running economy) can augment distance-running performance by decreasing their relative aerobic intensity. 1–3 An established method of improving footwear to augment athlete distance-running performance is to reduce its mass. 1, 2, 4, 5 Based on literature values, if an aforementioned Olympic marathoner re-raced in shoes that were 100 g less than their original footwear, they would have expended aerobic energy at an ∼0.8% slower rate, 5 run the marathon ∼0.56% faster, 6 and taken the gold medal back to their home country.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adding carbon fiber to shoe soles does not improve running economy: a muscle-level explanation

Beck

Golyski

Sawicki

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an attempt to improve their distance-running performance, many athletes race with carbon fiber plates embedded in their 20 shoe soles. Accordingly, we sought to establish whether, and if so how, adding carbon fiber plates to shoes soles reduces athlete 21 aerobic energy expenditure during running (improves running economy). We tested 15 athletes during running at 3.5 m/s in four 22 footwear conditions that varied in shoe sole carbon fiber plate bending stiffness. For each condition, we quantified athlete aerobic 23 energy expenditure and performed biomechanics analyses, which included the use of ultrasound imaging to examine soleus muscle 24 dynamics in vivo. Overall, increased footwear bending stiffness lengthened ground contact time (p=0.048), but did not affect ankle 25 (p≥0.060), knee (p≥0.128), or hip (p≥0.076) joint angles or moments. Additionally, increased footwear bending stiffness did not affect 26 muscle activity (all seven measured leg muscles (p≥0.146)), stride averaged active soleus volume, (p=0.068) or aerobic power 27 (p=0.458) during running. Hence, footwear bending stiffness does not appear to alter the volume of aerobic energy consuming muscle 28 in the soleus, or any other leg muscle, during running. Therefore, adding carbon fiber plates to shoe soles slightly alters whole-body 29 and calf muscle biomechanics but does not improve running economy. 30 31 In competitive athletics, marginal differences distinguish champions from their competitors. For instance, if any of the top-five 2016 33Olympic women's marathon finishers ran 0.51% faster, they would have been crowned Olympic champion. Such miniscule 34 differences highlight the importance for athletes to optimize all factors that influence race performance. One way to further optimize 35 athletic performance is to don the best footwear. Using footwear that reduces athlete aerobic energy expenditure at a given running 36 speed (improves their running economy) can augment distance-running performance by decreasing their relative aerobic intensity. 1-3 37An established method of improving footwear to augment athlete distance-running performance is to reduce its mass. 1,2,4,5 Based on 38 literature values, if an aforementioned Olympic marathoner re-raced in shoes that were 100 g less than their original footwear, they 39 would have expended aerobic energy at an ~0.8% slower rate, 5 run the marathon ~0.56% faster, 6 and taken the gold medal back to 40 their home country. 42A longstanding footwear technology that has recently polarized the running community is the use of carbon fiber plates in shoe soles. 7 43Despite the rampant use of carbon fiber plates in athletics, 8-10 many seek to regulate the use of these plates in distance-running 44 footwear based on the notion that they provide wearers an 'unfair advantage' over competitors without such technology. 11 These 45 views persist even though it is inconclusive whether adding carbon fiber to shoe soles improves running economy. [12][13][14][15][16] To date, two 46 studies have reported that...

show abstract

“…The decrease of shoe weight (Franz et al 2012;Fuller et al 2015;Hoogkamer et al 2016), the increase of midsole material energy return (Frederick et al 1986;Worobets et al 2014;Sinclair et al 2016), and the increase of shoe 1 3 longitudinal bending stiffness (Roy and Stefanyshyn 2006) have been shown to improve the RE. These previous studies in the field of footwear have led Hoogkamer et al (2017b) to propose that the combination of weight saving, high midsole material energy return, and high longitudinal bending stiffness in a same pair of shoes was potentially beneficial to improve the RE.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does an increase in energy return and/or longitudinal bending stiffness shoe features reduce the energetic cost of running?

Flores

Delattre²,

Berton

et al. 2018

Eur J Appl Physiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does an increase in energy return and/or longitudinal bending stiffness shoe features reduce the energetic cost of running?. European AbstractPurpose This study focused on the effects of shoe energy return and shoe longitudinal bending stiffness on the energetic cost and biomechanics of running. Methods The energetic cost of running and biomechanical variables altering running economy (ground contact times, stride frequency, vertical and leg stiffness, ground reaction force impulses, alignment between the resultant ground reaction force and the leg) were measured for nineteen male recreational runners. Participants ran overground under their ventilatory anaerobic threshold (10.8 ± 1.1 km h −1 on average) using four shoe prototypes with features combining low or high magnitudes of energy return and longitudinal bending stiffness. Results Neither the energy return, nor the longitudinal bending stiffness, or the interaction of these shoe features altered the energetic cost of running. High energy return shoes induced significant increased ground contact time from 274.5 ± 18.3 to 277.1 ± 18.7 ms, and significant decreased stride frequency from 1.34 ± 0.05 to 1.33 ± 0.05 Hz. High bending stiffness shoes induced significant increased ground contact time from 273.8 ± 18.2 to 277.9 ± 18.7 ms, significant increased vertical stiffness from 23.2 ± 3.4 to 23.8 ± 3.0 kN m −1 , and significant decreased net vertical impulse from 245.4 ± 17.2 to 241.7 ± 17.5 BW ms. Conclusions Increased energy return and longitudinal bending stiffness induced subtle changes in the running biomechanics, but did not induce any decrease in the energetic cost of running.

show abstract

Altered Running Economy Directly Translates to Altered Distance-Running Performance

Abstract: Adding shoe mass predictably degrades running economy and slows 3000-m time-trial performance proportionally. Our data demonstrate that laboratory-based running economy measurements can accurately predict changes in distance-running race performance due to shoe modifications.

Cited by 164 publications

References 17 publications

Running Economy from a Muscle Energetics Perspective

Running Economy from a Muscle Energetics Perspective

Adding carbon fiber to shoe soles does not improve running economy: a muscle-level explanation

Does an increase in energy return and/or longitudinal bending stiffness shoe features reduce the energetic cost of running?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About