Influence of footwear designed to boost energy return on running economy in comparison to a conventional running shoe

Sinclair, Jonathan Kenneth; Mcgrath, R.; Brook, O.; Taylor, Paul J.; Dillon, Stephanie

doi:10.1080/02640414.2015.1088961

Cited by 25 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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

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

show abstract

“…Compared to EVA, expanded thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) (Infinergy R , BASF, Germany) achieves a rebound of 55%. When used in the midsole of a running shoe, TPU was associated with a ∼4% improvement in RE when compared to running with conventional running shoes (Sinclair et al, 2016). Even though no reporting was made on running mechanics in this study, Worobets et al (2014) mechanically tested the energy loss using actuated compression testing and found hysteresis values of 31.3-32.3 and 20.9-22.3% for EVA and TPU midsole shoes, respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

The Effect of EVA and TPU Custom Foot Orthoses on Running Economy, Running Mechanics, and Comfort

Alsenoy

Ryu

Girard

2019

Front. Sports Act. Living

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Custom made foot orthoses (CFO) with specific material properties have the potential to alter ground reaction forces but their effect on running mechanics and comfort remains to be investigated. We determined if CFO manufactured from ethyl-vinyl acetate (EVA) and expanded thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) materials, both compared to standardized footwear (CON), improve running economy (RE), running mechanics, and comfort at two running speeds. Eighteen well-trained, male athletes ran on an instrumented treadmill for 6 min at high (HS) and low (LS) speeds corresponding to and 15% lower than their first ventilatory threshold (13.8 ± 1.1 and 11.7 ± 0.9 km.h −1 , respectively) in three footwear conditions (CON, EVA, and TPU). RE, running mechanics and comfort were determined. Albeit not reaching statistical significance (P = 0.11, η 2 = 0.12), RE on average improved in EVA (+2.1 ± 4.8 and +2.9 ± 4.9%) and TPU (+0.9 ± 5.9 and +0.9 ± 5.3%) compared to CON at LS and HS, respectively. Braking force was decreased by 3.4 ± 9.1% at LS and by 2.7 ± 9.8% at HS for EVA compared to CON (P = 0.03, η 2 = 0.20). TPU increased propulsive loading rate by 20.2 ± 24 and 16.4 ± 23.1% for LS and HS, respectively compared to CON (P = 0.01, η 2 = 0.25). Both arch height (P = 0.06, η 2 = 0.19) and medio-lateral control (P = 0.06, η 2 = 0.16) showed a trend toward improved comfort for EVA and TPU vs. CON. Compared to shoes only, mainly EVA tended to improve RE and comfort at submaximal running speeds. Specific CFO-related running mechanical adjustments included a reduced braking impulse occurring in the first 25% of contact time with EVA, whereas wearing TPU increased propulsive loading rate.

show abstract

“…Energy return has become a contemporary topic in footwear biomechanics literature [17][18][19]. The first energy return footwear utilized a thermoplastic polyurethane midsole which is designed to reduce energy loss in comparison to traditional ethylene-vinyl acetate footwear midsoles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of energy boost and springblade footwear on the kinetics and kinematics of running

Sinclair¹,

Dillon²

2019

Hum Mov.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. The aim of the current study was to comparatively examine the effects of energy return, spring and conventional footwear on the kinetics and kinematics of running. Methods. Twelve male runners ran over an embedded force platform at 4.0 m · s -1 in the three footwear conditions. Lower limb kinematics were collected using an 8 camera motion capture system and tibial accelerations were obtained using an accelerometer. Differences in kinetic and kinematic parameters between footwear were examined using one-way repeated measures ANOVA. Results. The results showed that there were no significant differences in kinetic parameters between footwear. However, it was shown that that spring footwear were associated with significantly greater angles of peak eversion (-12.49°) and tibial internal rotation (13.09°) in comparison to the conventional footwear (eversion = -10.52° & tibial internal rotation = 10.84°). Conclusions. Therefore, the findings from the current investigation indicate that spring footwear may place runners at increased risk from chronic injury related to excessive ankle eversion/tibial internal rotation.

show abstract

Influence of footwear designed to boost energy return on running economy in comparison to a conventional running shoe

Cited by 25 publications

References 21 publications

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

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

The Effect of EVA and TPU Custom Foot Orthoses on Running Economy, Running Mechanics, and Comfort

The influence of energy boost and springblade footwear on the kinetics and kinematics of running

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About