Advertisement

The Biomechanics of Competitive Male Runners in Three Marathon Racing Shoes: A Randomized Crossover Study

  • Wouter HoogkamerEmail author
  • Shalaya Kipp
  • Rodger Kram
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

We have shown that a prototype marathon racing shoe reduced the metabolic cost of running for all 18 participants in our sample by an average of 4%, compared to two well-established racing shoes. Gross measures of biomechanics showed minor differences and could not explain the metabolic savings.

Objective

To explain the metabolic savings by comparing the mechanics of the shoes, leg, and foot joints during the stance phase of running.

Methods

Ten male competitive runners, who habitually rearfoot strike ran three 5-min trials in prototype shoes (NP) and two established marathon shoes, the Nike Zoom Streak 6 (NS) and the adidas adizero Adios BOOST 2 (AB), at 16 km/h. We measured ground reaction forces and 3D kinematics of the lower limbs.

Results

Hip and knee joint mechanics were similar between the shoes, but peak ankle extensor moment was smaller in NP versus AB shoes. Negative and positive work rates at the ankle were lower in NP shoes versus the other shoes. Dorsiflexion and negative work at the metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint were reduced in the NP shoes versus the other shoes. Substantial mechanical energy was stored/returned in compressing the NP midsole foam, but not in bending the carbon-fiber plate.

Conclusion

The metabolic savings of the NP shoes appear to be due to: (1) superior energy storage in the midsole foam, (2) the clever lever effects of the carbon-fiber plate on the ankle joint mechanics, and (3) the stiffening effects of the plate on the MTP joint.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Jesse H. Frank and Claire Denny for help with data collection, Owen N. Beck and Stephen Allen for help with data analysis, Geng Luo and Emily M. Farina for fruitful discussions and providing the mechanical testing data, and the runners for their participation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Colorado Institutional Review Board (Protocol# 15-0114).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Funding

The running shoes used for this study were provided by Nike, Inc.

Conflict of Interest

Wouter Hoogkamer and Shalaya Kipp have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this article. Rodger Kram is a paid consultant to Nike, Inc.

References

  1. 1.
    Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Frank JH, et al. A comparison of the energetic cost of running in marathon racing shoes. Sports Med. 2018;48:1009–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hunter I, McLeod A, Low T, Valentine D, Ward J, Hager R. Running economy and marathon racing shoes. Rochester: American Society of Biomechanics; 2018.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnes KR, Kilding AE. A randomized crossover study investigating the running economy of highly-trained male and female distance runners in marathon racing shoes versus track spikes. Sports Med. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-1012-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Longman J. Do Nike’s new shoes give runners an unfair advantage? New York Times. 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/sports/nikes-vivid-shoes-and-the-gray-area-of-performance-enhancement.html. Accessed July 27, 2018.
  5. 5.
    Quealy K, Katz J. Nike says its $250 running shoes will make you run much faster. What if that’s actually true? New York Times. 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/18/upshot/nike-vaporfly-shoe-strava.html. Accessed July 27, 2018.
  6. 6.
    Ingle S. Nike’s lightning shoes hint at power of technology to skew elite competition. The Guardian. 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/22/nike-shoes-vaporfly-sport. Accessed July 27, 2018.
  7. 7.
    Frederick EC, Howley ET, Powers SK. Lower O2 cost while running on air cushion type shoe. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1980;12:81–2.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Worobets JT, Wannop JW, Tomaras E, et al. Softer and more resilient running shoe cushioning properties enhance running economy. Footwear Sci. 2014;6:147–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roy JP, Stefanyshyn DJ. Shoe midsole longitudinal bending stiffness and running economy, joint energy, and EMG. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38:562–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oh K, Park S. The bending stiffness of shoes is beneficial to running energetics if it does not disturb the natural MTP joint flexion. J Biomech. 2017;53:127–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kerdok AE, Biewener AA, McMahon TA, et al. Energetics and mechanics of human running on surfaces of different stiffnesses. J Appl Physiol. 2002;92:469–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stefanyshyn DJ, Wannop JW. The influence of forefoot bending stiffness of footwear on athletic injury and performance. Footwear Sci. 2016;8:51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frederick EC, Clarke TE, Larsen JL, et al. The effects of shoe cushioning on the oxygen demands of running. In: Nigg BM, Kerr BA, editors. Biomechanical aspects of sports shoes and playing surfaces. Calgary: The University of Calgary; 1983. p. 107–14.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frederick EC, Howley ET, Powers SK. Lower oxygen demands of running in soft-soled shoes. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1986;57:174–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Biewener AA. Scaling body support in mammals: limb posture and muscle mechanics. Science. 1989;245:45–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kipp S, Grabowski AM, Kram R. What determines the metabolic cost of human running across a wide range of velocities? J Exp Biol. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.184218 (In press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tung KD, Franz JR, Kram R. A test of the metabolic cost of cushioning hypothesis during unshod and shod running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46:324–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Willwacher S, König M, Potthast W, et al. Does specific footwear facilitate energy storage and return at the metatarsophalangeal joint in running? J Appl Biomech. 2013;29:583–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Willwacher S, König M, Braunstein B, et al. The gearing function of running shoe longitudinal bending stiffness. Gait Posture. 2014;40:386–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carrier DR, Heglund NC, Earls KD. Variable gearing during locomotion in the human musculoskeletal system. Science. 1994;265:651–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scholz MN, Bobbert MF, van Soest AJ, et al. Running biomechanics: shorter heels, better economy. J Exp Biol. 2008;211:3266–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Takahashi KZ, Gross MT, van Werkhoven H, et al. Adding stiffness to the foot modulates soleus force-velocity behaviour during human walking. Sci Rep. 2016;6:29870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Werkhoven H, Piazza SJ. Does foot anthropometry predict metabolic cost during running? J Appl Biomech. 2017;33:317–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frederick EC, Daniels JT, Hayes JW. The effect of shoe weight on the aerobic demands of running. In: Bachl N, Prokop L, Suckert R, editors. Curr Top Sports Med Proc World Congr Sports Med. Vienna: Urban and Schwarzenberg; 1984. p. 616–25.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Franz JR, Wierzbinski CM, Kram R. Metabolic cost of running barefoot versus shod: is lighter better. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:1519–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Spiering BA, et al. Altered running economy directly translates to altered distance-running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48:2175–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bisseling RW, Hof AL. Handling of impact forces in inverse dynamics. J Biomech. 2006;39:2438–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stefanyshyn DJ, Nigg BM. Mechanical energy contribution of the metatarsophalangeal joint to running and sprinting. J Biomech. 1997;30:1081–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bobbert MF, Schamhardt HC. Accuracy of determining the point of force application with piezoelectric force plates. J Biomech. 1990;23:705–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stearne SM, McDonald KA, Alderson JA, et al. The foot’s arch and the energetics of human locomotion. Sci Rep. 2016;6:19403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kelly LA, Lichtwark G, Cresswell AG. Active regulation of longitudinal arch compression and recoil during walking and running. J R Soc Interface. 2015;12:20141076.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kram R, Taylor CR. Energetics of running: a new perspective. Nature. 1990;346:265–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hsu CC, Tsai WC, Shau YW, et al. Altered energy dissipation ratio of the plantar soft tissues under the metatarsal heads in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pilot study. Clin Biomech. 2007;22:67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Riddick RC, Kuo AD. Soft tissues store and return mechanical energy in human running. J Biomech. 2016;49:436–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lai A, Lichtwark GA, Schache AG, et al. In vivo behavior of the human soleus muscle with increasing walking and running speeds. J Appl Physiol. 2015;118:1266–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schache AG, Brown NA, Pandy MG. Modulation of work and power by the human lower-limb joints with increasing steady-state locomotion speed. J Exp Biol. 2015;218:2472–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stearne SM, Alderson JA, Green BA, et al. Joint kinetics in rearfoot versus forefoot running: implications of switching technique. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46:1578–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kristianslund E, Krosshaug T, van den Bogert AJ. Effect of low pass filtering on joint moments from inverse dynamics: implications for injury prevention. J Biomech. 2012;45:666–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schache AG, Blanch PD, Dorn TW, et al. Effect of running speed on lower limb joint kinetics. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:1260–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Locomotion Lab, Department of Integrative PhysiologyUniversity of Colorado, BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations