Cited by 129Sports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiologyLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies

Extrapolating Metabolic Savings in Running: Implications for Performance Predictions

Open access
Kipp, Shalaya, Kram, Rodger, Hoogkamer, Wouter·2019·Frontiers in Physiology

Abstract

Training, footwear, nutrition, and racing strategies (i.e., drafting) have all been shown to reduce the metabolic cost of distance running (i.e., improve running economy). However, how these improvements in running economy (RE) quantitatively translate into faster running performance is less established. Here, we quantify how metabolic savings translate into faster running performance, considering both the inherent rate of oxygen uptake-velocity relation and the additional cost of overcoming air resistance when running overground. We collate and compare five existing equations for oxygen uptake-velocity relations across wide velocity ranges. Because the oxygen uptake vs. velocity relation is non-linear, for velocities slower than ∼3 m/s, the predicted percent improvement in velocity is slightly greater than the percent improvement in RE. For velocities faster than ∼3 m/s, the predicted percent improvement in velocity is less than the percent improvements in RE. At 5.5 m/s, i.e., world-class marathon pace, the predicted percent improvement in velocity is ∼2/3rds of the percent improvement in RE. For example, at 2:04 marathon pace, a 3% improvement in RE translates to a 1.97% faster velocity or 2:01:36, almost exactly equal to the recently set world record.

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 · 10.3389/fphys.2019.00079

Cites

Statistics

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 44 · Cited by 129

Authors
Kipp, S., Kram, R., & Hoogkamer, W.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Corresponding author
Kram, Rodger
Venue
Frontiers in Physiology
Published
2019-02-11
Volume
10
Pages
79-79
ISSN
1664-042X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2912896674
Cited by
129
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9
FWCI
14.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Physiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Keywords
running economy, aerodynamic drag, running performance prediction, technical drawing, nutrition, racing strategy

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