CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 434Lower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesSports Performance and TrainingSports Dynamics and Biomechanics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of the Energetic Cost of Running in Marathon Racing Shoes

Open access
Hoogkamer, Wouter, Kipp, Shalaya, Frank, Jesse H., Farina, Emily M., Luo, Geng, Kram, Rodger·2018·Sports Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0811-2PMC PMC5856879
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reducing the energetic cost of running seems the most feasible path to a sub-2-hour marathon. Footwear mass, cushioning, and bending stiffness each affect the energetic cost of running. Recently, prototype running shoes were developed that combine a new highly compliant and resilient midsole material with a stiff embedded plate. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if, and to what extent, these newly developed running shoes reduce the energetic cost of running compared with established marathon racing shoes. METHODS: 18 high-caliber athletes ran six 5-min trials (three shoes × two replicates) in prototype shoes (NP), and two established marathon shoes (NS and AB) during three separate sessions: 14, 16, and 18 km/h. We measured submaximal oxygen uptake and carbon dioxide production during minutes 3-5 and averaged energetic cost (W/kg) for the two trials in each shoe model. RESULTS: Compared with the established racing shoes, the new shoes reduced the energetic cost of running in all 18 subjects tested. Averaged across all three velocities, the energetic cost for running in the NP shoes (16.45 ± 0.89 W/kg; mean ± SD) was 4.16 and 4.01% lower than in the NS and AB shoes, when shoe mass was matched (17.16 ± 0.92 and 17.14 ± 0.97 W/kg, respectively, both p < 0.001). The observed percent changes were independent of running velocity (14-18 km/h). CONCLUSION: The prototype shoes lowered the energetic cost of running by 4% on average. We predict that with these shoes, top athletes could run substantially faster and achieve the first sub-2-hour marathon.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40279-017-0811-2

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Exploded view of the Nike prototype shoe that incorporates a newly developed midsole material and a full-length carbon-fiber plate with forefoot curvature, embedded in the midsole
Fig. 1 Exploded view of the Nike prototype shoe that incorporates a newly developed midsole material and a full-length carbon-fiber plate with forefoot curvature, embedded in the midsoleCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 A rigid foot-form (shoe last) was mounted to the material testing machine actuator and snugly fit into a fully-constructed shoe. The actuated foot-form compressed the midsole in the vertical direction to match the displayed general time history of the vertical ground reaction force, producing insole pressure patterns similar to those recorded during running at 18 km/h
Fig. 2 A rigid foot-form (shoe last) was mounted to the material testing machine actuator and snugly fit into a fully-constructed shoe. The actuated foot-form compressed the midsole in the vertical direction to match the displayed general time history of the vertical ground reaction force, producing insole pressure patterns similar to those recorded during running at 18 km/hCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 We performed mechanical testing on three marathon racing shoe models. (Top left) The Nike Zoom Streak 6 (NS) midsole comprises lightweight EVA (ethylene-vinyl acetate) foam, a rearfoot Zoom air bag, 23 mm heel height, and 15 mm forefoot height. (Top middle) The adidas adizero Adios BOOST 2 (AB) midsole comprises BOOST foam made with TPU (thermoplastic polyurethane), 23 mm heel height, and 13 mm forefoot height. (Top right) The Nike prototype (NP) midsole comprises a new ZoomX foam made with PEBA (polyether block amide), an embedded carbon fiber plate, 31 mm heel height, and 21 mm forefoot height. (Bottom) Force-deformation curves, peak deformation, and energy return metrics for each shoe during vertical midsole loading with a peak force of ~ 2000 N and contact time of ~ 185 ms (Table 2). As vertical force is applied, the shoe midsole deforms (upper trace in each graph). Then, as the shoe is unloaded, the force returns to zero as the midsole recoils (lower trace in each graph). The area between loading and unloading curves indicates the mechanical energy (J) lost as heat. The area below the lower traces represents the amount of elastic energy (J) that is returned
Fig. 3 We performed mechanical testing on three marathon racing shoe models. (Top left) The Nike Zoom Streak 6 (NS) midsole comprises lightweight EVA (ethylene-vinyl acetate) foam, a rearfoot Zoom air bag, 23 mm heel height, and 15 mm forefoot height. (Top middle) The adidas adizero Adios BOOST 2 (AB) midsole comprises BOOST foam made with TPU (thermoplastic polyurethane), 23 mm heel height, and 13 mm forefoot height. (Top right) The Nike prototype (NP) midsole comprises a new ZoomX foam made with PEBA (polyether block amide), an embedded carbon fiber plate, 31 mm heel height, and 21 mm forefoot height. (Bottom) Force-deformation curves, peak deformation, and energy return metrics for each shoe during vertical midsole loading with a peak force of ~ 2000 N and contact time of ~ 185 ms (Table 2). As vertical force is applied, the shoe midsole deforms (upper trace in each graph). Then, as the shoe is unloaded, the force returns to zero as the midsole recoils (lower trace in each graph). The area between loading and unloading curves indicates the mechanical energy (J) lost as heat. The area below the lower traces represents the amount of elastic energy (J) that is returnedCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Over the three velocities tested, runners in the NP shoes used an average of 4.16% less metabolic energy than the NS shoes and 4.01% less than in the AB shoes (both p < 0.001). The AB and NS shoes were similar (p = 0.34). Values are the gross energetic cost of running. NS Nike Zoom Streak 6, AB adidas adizero Adios BOOST 2, NP Nike prototype
Fig. 4 Over the three velocities tested, runners in the NP shoes used an average of 4.16% less metabolic energy than the NS shoes and 4.01% less than in the AB shoes (both p < 0.001). The AB and NS shoes were similar (p = 0.34). Values are the gross energetic cost of running. NS Nike Zoom Streak 6, AB adidas adizero Adios BOOST 2, NP Nike prototypeCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Average vertical (F z; top) and anterior–posterior ground reaction force traces (F y; bottom) in the three different shoe models for runners with rearfoot strike pattern (n = 8) (left) and midfoot or forefoot strike pattern (n = 10) (right) during the 16-km/h trials. Force traces are normalized to body weight (BW). Initial impact and active F z peaks were greater for the rearfoot strikers in the NP shoes. F z recordings for mid/forefoot strikers were similar in the three shoes. NS Nike Zoom Streak 6, AB adidas adizero Adios BOOST 2, NP Nike prototype
Fig. 5 Average vertical (F z; top) and anterior–posterior ground reaction force traces (F y; bottom) in the three different shoe models for runners with rearfoot strike pattern (n = 8) (left) and midfoot or forefoot strike pattern (n = 10) (right) during the 16-km/h trials. Force traces are normalized to body weight (BW). Initial impact and active F z peaks were greater for the rearfoot strikers in the NP shoes. F z recordings for mid/forefoot strikers were similar in the three shoes. NS Nike Zoom Streak 6, AB adidas adizero Adios BOOST 2, NP Nike prototypeCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Frederick EC, Howley ET, Powers SK. Lower O2 cost while running in air-cushion type shoes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1980;12:81–2.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S., Frank, J. H., Farina, E. M., Luo, G., & Kram, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Nike (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Hoogkamer, Wouter
ORCID
Venue
Sports Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-11-16
Volume
48
Issue
4
Pages
1009-1019
ISSN
  • 0112-1642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-2035
DOI
10.1007/s40279-017-0811-2
PMC
PMC5856879
OpenAlex
W2770125989
Cited by
434
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 12
FWCI
10.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2017-12-16)
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sports Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
NIKE
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Sports Dynamics and Biomechanics
Keywords
running shoes, submaximal oxygen uptake, CO2 emissions, running speed
MeSH terms
Adult, Altitude, Biomechanical Phenomena, Energy Metabolism, Humans, Male, Running, Shoes, Young Adult, Athletes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review