Literature DB >> 25404508

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

Joel T Fuller1, Clint R Bellenger, Dominic Thewlis, Margarita D Tsiros, Jonathan D Buckley.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The effect of footwear on running economy has been investigated in numerous studies. However, no systematic review and meta-analysis has synthesised the available literature and the effect of footwear on running performance is not known.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of footwear on running performance and running economy in distance runners, by reviewing controlled trials that compare different footwear conditions or compare footwear with barefoot.
METHODS: The Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), EMBASE, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine), CINAHL and SPORTDiscus databases were searched from inception up until April 2014. Included articles reported on controlled trials that examined the effects of footwear or footwear characteristics (including shoe mass, cushioning, motion control, longitudinal bending stiffness, midsole viscoelasticity, drop height and comfort) on running performance or running economy and were published in a peer-reviewed journal.
RESULTS: Of the 1,044 records retrieved, 19 studies were included in the systematic review and 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. No studies were identified that reported effects on running performance. Individual studies reported significant, but trivial, beneficial effects on running economy for comfortable and stiff-soled shoes [standardised mean difference (SMD) <0.12; P < 0.05), a significant small beneficial effect on running economy for cushioned shoes (SMD = 0.37; P < 0.05) and a significant moderate beneficial effect on running economy for training in minimalist shoes (SMD = 0.79; P < 0.05). Meta-analysis found significant small beneficial effects on running economy for light shoes and barefoot compared with heavy shoes (SMD < 0.34; P < 0.01) and for minimalist shoes compared with conventional shoes (SMD = 0.29; P < 0.01). A significant positive association between shoe mass and metabolic cost of running was identified (P < 0.01). Footwear with a combined shoe mass less than 440 g per pair had no detrimental effect on running economy.
CONCLUSIONS: Certain models of footwear and footwear characteristics can improve running economy. Future research in footwear performance should include measures of running performance.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25404508     DOI: 10.1007/s40279-014-0283-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sports Med        ISSN: 0112-1642            Impact factor:   11.136


  42 in total

1.  Is barefoot running more economical?

Authors:  R Kram; J R Franz
Journal:  Int J Sports Med       Date:  2012-02-29       Impact factor: 3.118

2.  Barefoot-shod running differences: shoe or mass effect?

Authors:  C Divert; G Mornieux; P Freychat; L Baly; F Mayer; A Belli
Journal:  Int J Sports Med       Date:  2007-11-16       Impact factor: 3.118

3.  Shoe midsole longitudinal bending stiffness and running economy, joint energy, and EMG.

Authors:  Jean-Pierre R Roy; Darren J Stefanyshyn
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 5.411

4.  Influence of initial foot dorsal flexion on vertical jump and running performance.

Authors:  Raphaël Faiss; Philippe Terrier; Manu Praz; Jörg Fuchslocher; Charles Gobelet; Olivier Deriaz
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.775

5.  Foot bone marrow edema after a 10-wk transition to minimalist running shoes.

Authors:  Sarah T Ridge; A Wayne Johnson; Ulrike H Mitchell; Iain Hunter; Eric Robinson; Brent S E Rich; Stephen Douglas Brown
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 5.411

6.  A test of the metabolic cost of cushioning hypothesis during unshod and shod running.

Authors:  Kryztopher David Tung; Jason R Franz; Rodger Kram
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 5.411

7.  Effects of shoe type on cardiorespiratory responses and rearfoot motion during treadmill running.

Authors:  J Hamill; P S Freedson; W Boda; F Reichsman
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 5.411

8.  The energy cost and heart-rate response of trained and untrained subjects walking and running in shoes and boots.

Authors:  B H Jones; M M Toner; W L Daniels; J J Knapik
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  1984-08       Impact factor: 2.778

9.  Running economy and distance running performance of highly trained athletes.

Authors:  D L Conley; G S Krahenbuhl
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 5.411

10.  The effect of material characteristics of shoe soles on muscle activation and energy aspects during running.

Authors:  B M Nigg; D Stefanyshyn; G Cole; P Stergiou; J Miller
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.712

View more
  33 in total

Review 1.  Energetics and Biomechanics of Running Footwear with Increased Longitudinal Bending Stiffness: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Justin A Ortega; Laura A Healey; Wannes Swinnen; Wouter Hoogkamer
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2021-04-08       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 2.  How Biomechanical Improvements in Running Economy Could Break the 2-hour Marathon Barrier.

Authors:  Wouter Hoogkamer; Rodger Kram; Christopher J Arellano
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 11.136

3.  Does an increase in energy return and/or longitudinal bending stiffness shoe features reduce the energetic cost of running?

Authors:  Nicolas Flores; Nicolas Delattre; Eric Berton; Guillaume Rao
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2018-11-23       Impact factor: 3.078

4.  Biomechanical Analysis of Running Foot Strike in Shoes of Different Mass.

Authors:  I-Lin Wang; Ryan B Graham; Eric J P Bourdon; Yi-Ming Chen; Chin-Yi Gu; Li-I Wang
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 2.988

5.  Added lower limb mass does not affect biomechanical asymmetry but increases metabolic power in runners with a unilateral transtibial amputation.

Authors:  Ryan S Alcantara; Owen N Beck; Alena M Grabowski
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 3.078

Review 6.  Systematic Review of the Role of Footwear Constructions in Running Biomechanics: Implications for Running-Related Injury and Performance.

Authors:  Xiaole Sun; Wing-Kai Lam; Xini Zhang; Junqing Wang; Weijie Fu
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 2.988

7.  Redistribution of Mechanical Work at the Knee and Ankle Joints During Fast Running in Minimalist Shoes.

Authors:  Joel T Fuller; Jonathan D Buckley; Margarita D Tsiros; Nicholas A T Brown; Dominic Thewlis
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 2.860

8.  Somatosensory Perception of Running Shoe Mass may be influenced by Extended Wearing Time or Inclusion of a Personal Reference Shoe, Depending on Testing Method.

Authors:  James G Saxton; Benjamin R Mardis; Christopher L Kliethermes; David S Senchina
Journal:  Int J Exerc Sci       Date:  2020-02-01

9.  A Randomized Crossover Study Investigating the Running Economy of Highly-Trained Male and Female Distance Runners in Marathon Racing Shoes versus Track Spikes.

Authors:  Kyle R Barnes; Andrew E Kilding
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 11.136

10.  What are the Benefits and Risks Associated with Changing Foot Strike Pattern During Running? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Injury, Running Economy, and Biomechanics.

Authors:  Laura M Anderson; Daniel R Bonanno; Harvi F Hart; Christian J Barton
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 11.136

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.