Longitudinal bending stiffness does not affect running economy in Nike Vaporfly Shoes

Healey, Laura; Hoogkamer, Wouter

doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2021.07.002

Cited by 43 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, 3 km TT was signifi cantly better wearing VP4 compared to SE and traditional RS. In this line, Nielsen et al [ 40 ] also showed greater metabolic power and better 3.5 km TT performance in VP4 vs. Adidas Adizero Adios, while Healey and Hoogkamer [ 41 ] demonstrated that cutting the VP4's carbon-fi ber plate for reducing the longitudinal bending stiff ness do not aff ect RE, thus energy cost optimization seems to be a combination and interaction of the foam, geometry, and plate [ 41 ] . On the other hand, previous studies have suggested that RS with increased thickness and cushioning on the posterior part of the sole could lead to a limited proprioception and predispose runners to comfortably strike on their heels [ 3 , 17 ] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Well-trained Endurance Runners’ Foot Contact Patterns: Barefoot vs. Shod Condition

Mosqueira-Ouréns,

Muñoz-Pérez,

Luis Tuimil

et al. 2023

Int J Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to investigate the initial foot contact and contact time in experienced endurance runners at individualized speeds, in running shoes and barefoot. Forty-eight participants (33.71±7.49 y, 70.94±8.65 kg, 175.07±7.03 cm, maximum aerobic speed 18.41±1.54 km.h-1) were distributed into three groups according to athletic performance: highly-trained runners, middle-trained runners, and control group. An incremental running test until exhaustion was performed for assessing maximum aerobic speed. After≥24 h of recovery participants randomly walked and ran, barefoot and in running shoes, over a pressure plate at ~4.7 km.h-1 and 85% of the maximum aerobic speed, respectively. They wore the same model of running shoes with homogeneous lacing pattern. A rearfoot strike was performed by 68.8% and 77.1% of participants when running barefoot and in running shoes, respectively. Considering the tendency to develop a rearfoot strike was lower in the barefoot condition, runners with higher performance may benefit from training in minimalist running shoes because their foot contact pattern could tend towards a non-rearfoot strike. Our results suggest that initial foot contact and contact time are related to running performance and may also be influenced by running shoes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Well-trained Endurance Runners’ Foot Contact Patterns: Barefoot vs. Shod Condition

Mosqueira-Ouréns,

Muñoz-Pérez,

Luis Tuimil

et al. 2023

Int J Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As it is, the lack of average effect of the shoe LBS on the metabolic demand was in line with almost all the previous studies using shorter running duration. 13–17…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As it is, the lack of average effect of the shoe LBS on the metabolic demand was in line with almost all the previous studies using shorter running duration. [13][14][15][16][17] All the variables were analysed from a baseline set to 9 min of running (about 1.7 km based on the imposed speed of 3.11 m/s on average). This baseline was set to only measure an eventual effect of the LBS in the duration of prolonged running, while avoiding measuring the adaptation effects due to reaching a steady-state _ VO 2 , 37 stable biomechanical pattern, 38,39 stable neuromuscular system, 40 or stable mechanical shoe properties.…”

Section: Classical Group-based Investigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 Since then, no systematic group differences were found in subsequent studies. Five studies did not show any significant effect on running economy of an increased shoe LBS compared to more flexible shoes 13–15 or over a range of different LBS, 16,17 and one study showed a significant poorer running economy with an increased LBS compared to more flexible shoes 18 (see Ortega et al 19 for an exhaustive review on this topic). These recent results suggest that there is no unique shoe LBS that induces running economy benefits systematically to all runners, and the effects may even be detrimental.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Increasing the longitudinal bending stiffness of runners’ habitual shoes: An appropriate choice for improving running performance?

Flores

Rao

Berton

et al. 2021

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analysed the effects of increasing the longitudinal bending stiffness (LBS) of runners’ habitual shoes on the metabolic energetic demand, lower limb muscle activation and stride spatiotemporal parameters during a prolonged running session through classical group investigation, as well as a more individualised approach. Eleven recreational male participants ran overground for 40 min at 95% of their ventilatory anaerobic threshold with their own shoes or their shoes with higher LBS (stiff carbon plate inserted under insole). The net energetic cost of running, lower leg muscle activation and spatiotemporal parameters were measured during the prolonged running. The variables of interest were analysed for 1 min in seven time intervals. There were no main effects of LBS or interaction effects with running duration on the group averaged variables. Overall, the participant-specific metabolic effects induced by an increased shoe LBS were not beneficial. Beneficial metabolic effects were more likely to occur when the increased LBS induced a decrease or no change in the ground contact time relative to their habitual shoes, as well as for taller runners. Increasing the LBS in runners’ habitual shoes did not induce systematic metabolic effects for all the runners and may not be beneficial for performance purposes if the runners’ shoe habits were too disrupted.

show abstract

“…Running velocity, in contrast, had no impact on the asymmetry of the kinematic characteristics of the joints in the lower limbs, according to Jiang et al [ 11 ]. The negative work performed by the metatarsophalangeal joint (MTP) decreased with the increase in LBS and significantly changed the mechanical properties of the ankle and knee [ 22 ]. The MTP dorsiflexion angle and dorsiflexion angle velocity reduced with an increase in LBS to lessen the chance of forefoot injury [ 1 , 23 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Running Velocity and Longitudinal Bending Stiffness Influence the Asymmetry of Kinematic Variables of the Lower Limb Joints

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Running-related limb asymmetries suggest specific sports injuries and recovery circumstances. It is debatable if running speed affected asymmetry, and more research is required to determine how longitudinal bending stiffness (LBS) affected asymmetry. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of running velocity and LBS on kinematic characteristics of the hip, knee, ankle, metatarsophalangeal joint (MTP) and the corresponding asymmetry. Kinematic (200 Hz) running stance phase data were collected bilaterally for 16 healthy male recreational runners (age: 23.13 ± 1.17, height: 175.2 ± 1.6 cm, body mass: 75.7 ± 3.6 kg, BMI: 24.7 ± 1.3 kg/m2) running on a force plate at three different velocities (10, 12 and 14 km/h) and three increasing-LBS shoes in a randomized order. The symmetry angle (SA) was calculated to quantify gait asymmetry magnitude at each running velocity and LBS. Changes in running velocity and LBS led to differences in kinematic variables between the hip, knee, ankle and MTP (p < 0.05). Significant changes in SA caused by running velocity were found in the knee flexion angle (p = 0.001) and flexion angle peak velocity (p < 0.001), ankle plantarflexion angle (p = 0.001) and plantarflexion angle peak velocity (p = 0.043) and MTP dorsiflexion angle (p = 0.001) and dorsiflexion angle peak velocity (p = 0.019). A significant change in the SA caused by LBS was found in the MTP dorsiflexion peak angle velocity (p = 0.014). There were interaction effects between running velocity and LBS on the MTP plantarflexion angle (p = 0.033) and plantarflexion angle peak velocity (p = 0.038). These findings indicate the existence of bilateral lower limb asymmetry. Meanwhile, it was proved that running velocity and LBS can influence the asymmetry of lower limb joints. Additionally, there was an interaction between running velocity and LBS on the asymmetry of the lower limb. These findings can provide some information for sports injuries, such as metatarsal stress fractures and anterior cruciate ligament injuries. They can also provide some useful information for running velocities and running shoes.

show abstract

Longitudinal bending stiffness does not affect running economy in Nike Vaporfly Shoes

Cited by 43 publications

References 39 publications

Well-trained Endurance Runners’ Foot Contact Patterns: Barefoot vs. Shod Condition

Well-trained Endurance Runners’ Foot Contact Patterns: Barefoot vs. Shod Condition

Increasing the longitudinal bending stiffness of runners’ habitual shoes: An appropriate choice for improving running performance?

Running Velocity and Longitudinal Bending Stiffness Influence the Asymmetry of Kinematic Variables of the Lower Limb Joints

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About