Literature DB >> 21472628

Oxygen cost of running barefoot vs. running shod.

N J Hanson1, K Berg, P Deka, J R Meendering, C Ryan.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the oxygen cost of running barefoot vs. running shod on the treadmill as well as overground. 10 healthy recreational runners, 5 male and 5 female, whose mean age was 23.8±3.39 volunteered to participate in the study. Subjects participated in 4 experimental conditions: 1) barefoot on treadmill, 2) shod on treadmill, 3) barefoot overground, and 4) shod overground. For each condition, subjects ran for 6 min at 70% vVO (2)max pace while VO (2), heart rate (HR), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were assessed. A 2 × 2 (shoe condition x surface) repeated measures ANOVA revealed that running with shoes showed significantly higher VO (2) values on both the treadmill and the overground track (p<0.05). HR and RPE were significantly higher in the shod condition as well (p<0.02 and p<0.01, respectively). For the overground and treadmill conditions, recorded VO (2) while running shod was 5.7% and 2.0% higher than running barefoot. It was concluded that at 70% of vVO (2)max pace, barefoot running is more economical than running shod, both overground and on a treadmill. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21472628     DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1265203

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Sports Med        ISSN: 0172-4622            Impact factor:   3.118


  12 in total

Review 1.  The effect of footwear on running performance and running economy in distance runners.

Authors:  Joel T Fuller; Clint R Bellenger; Dominic Thewlis; Margarita D Tsiros; Jonathan D Buckley
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 11.136

2.  Influence of the Shod Condition on Running Power Output: An Analysis in Recreationally Active Endurance Runners.

Authors:  Diego Jaén-Carrillo; Luis E Roche-Seruendo; Alejandro Molina-Molina; Silvia Cardiel-Sánchez; Antonio Cartón-Llorente; Felipe García-Pinillos
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-26       Impact factor: 3.847

3.  A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Crossover Studies Comparing Physiological, Perceptual and Performance Measures Between Treadmill and Overground Running.

Authors:  Jayme R Miller; Bas Van Hooren; Chris Bishop; Jonathan D Buckley; Richard W Willy; Joel T Fuller
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 4.  Is there evidence to support a forefoot strike pattern in barefoot runners? A review.

Authors:  Daniel S Lorenz; Marisa Pontillo
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 3.843

5.  Running economy: measurement, norms, and determining factors.

Authors:  Kyle R Barnes; Andrew E Kilding
Journal:  Sports Med Open       Date:  2015-03-27

6.  The risks and benefits of running barefoot or in minimalist shoes: a systematic review.

Authors:  Kyle P Perkins; William J Hanney; Carey E Rothschild
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 3.843

7.  Preferred Barefoot Step Frequency is Influenced by Factors Beyond Minimizing Metabolic Rate.

Authors:  Matthew B Yandell; Karl E Zelik
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Comparison of Varying Heel to Toe Differences and Cushion to Barefoot Running in Novice Minimalist Runners.

Authors:  Danny Moody; Iain Hunter; Sarah Ridge; J William Myrer
Journal:  Int J Exerc Sci       Date:  2018-05-01

9.  A consensus definition and rating scale for minimalist shoes.

Authors:  Jean-Francois Esculier; Blaise Dubois; Clermont E Dionne; Jean Leblond; Jean-Sébastien Roy
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 2.303

10.  Effects of Surface Inclination on the Vertical Loading Rates and Landing Pattern during the First Attempt of Barefoot Running in Habitual Shod Runners.

Authors:  W An; M J Rainbow; R T H Cheung
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.