ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Comparative analysis of foam-only versus carbon-plated advanced footwear technology spikes in distance runners.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Advanced footwear technology (AFT) spikes are commonly offered in two configurations: foam only and foam combined with a carbon fiber plate. Whether the plate provides additional metabolic or performance benefits over foam-only designs remains uncertain. Therefore, this study compared physiological, biomechanical, and perceptual responses to two commercially available AFT spikes (Nike ZoomX Dragonfly, foam only; Nike Air Zoom Victory, foam plus carbon plate) in trained and national-level distance runners. Methods: Thirteen male middle- and long-distance runners (trained, n = 6; national-level, n = 7) completed three randomized 1600-m submaximal trials on an outdoor track at 16 km·h Results: In the national-level group, both foam-only spikes (Dragonfly1, Dragonfly2) produced better RE than the carbon-plated model (Victory1), with no difference between the two foam-only versions. In the trained group, RE did not differ across spikes. Energetic cost paralleled the VO Conclusion: At long-distance race paces, foam-only AFT spikes improved RE and were perceived as more comfortable than a plate-integrated spike in national-level athletes. Adding a carbon plate did not guarantee a metabolic benefit and may increase energetic cost when shoe stiffness exceeds an athlete-specific optimum. Spike selection, particularly for track events, should demystify carbon plates and prioritize the individualized selection of shoe stiffness and geometry matched to event distance, running speed, and athlete-specific biomechanics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.