Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29143929›Full record

ArticleSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2018

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

Wouter Hoogkamer, Shalaya Kipp, Jesse H Frank, Emily M Farina, Geng Luo, Rodger Kram

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 140 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
140citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

140 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

80 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Wouter HoogkamerLocomotion Lab, Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, 354 UCB, Boulder, CO, 80309-0354, USA. wouter.hoogkamer@colorado.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0524-0196
Shalaya KippLocomotion Lab, Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, 354 UCB, Boulder, CO, 80309-0354, USA.
Jesse H FrankLocomotion Lab, Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, 354 UCB, Boulder, CO, 80309-0354, USA.
Emily M FarinaNike Sport Research Lab, One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR, 97005, USA.
Geng LuoNike Sport Research Lab, One Bowerman Drive, Beaverton, OR, 97005, USA.
Rodger KramLocomotion Lab, Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, 354 UCB, Boulder, CO, 80309-0354, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReducing 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.

objectiveThe 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.

methods18 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.

resultsCompared 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).

conclusionThe 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.

Indexed as

AthletesEnergy MetabolismRunningShoesAdultAltitudeBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29143929
PMCPMC5856879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.