Metabolic Cost of Running Barefoot versus Shod: Is Lighter Better?

Locomotion Lab, Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
Medicine and science in sports and exercise (Impact Factor: 3.98). 02/2012; 44(8):1519-25. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182514a88
Source: PubMed


Based on mass alone, one might intuit that running barefoot would exact a lower metabolic cost than running in shoes. Numerous studies have shown that adding mass to shoes increases submaximal oxygen uptake (V˙O(2)) by approximately 1% per 100 g per shoe. However, only two of the seven studies on the topic have found a statistically significant difference in V˙O(2) between barefoot and shod running. The lack of difference found in these studies suggests that factors other than shoe mass (e.g., barefoot running experience, foot strike pattern, shoe construction) may play important roles in determining the metabolic cost of barefoot versus shod running. Our goal was to quantify the metabolic effects of adding mass to the feet and compare oxygen uptake and metabolic power during barefoot versus shod running while controlling for barefoot running experience, foot strike pattern, and footwear.
Twelve males with substantial barefoot running experience ran at 3.35 m·s with a midfoot strike pattern on a motorized treadmill, both barefoot and in lightweight cushioned shoes (∼150 g per shoe). In additional trials, we attached small lead strips to each foot/shoe (∼150, ∼300, and ∼450 g). For each condition, we measured the subjects' rates of oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production and calculated metabolic power.
V˙O(2) increased by approximately 1% for each 100 g added per foot, whether barefoot or shod (P < 0.001). However, barefoot and shod running did not significantly differ in V˙O(2) or metabolic power. A consequence of these two findings was that for footwear conditions of equal mass, shod running had ∼3%-4% lower V˙O(2) and metabolic power demand than barefoot running (P < 0.05).
Running barefoot offers no metabolic advantage over running in lightweight, cushioned shoes.

Download full-text


Available from: Jason R Franz,
    • "But our results suggest that there may be cases where external energy dissipation could actually help to reduce active energy absorption (and therefore positive work) by the human, and thus save metabolic energy or yield more subjective benefits. Indeed, some findings suggest that a cushioned surface can actually reduce the metabolic cost of running (Franz et al., 2012; Frederick et al., 1983; Tung et al., 2014). Cushioning also allows subjects to run with less knee flexion (Ferris et al., 1998; Ferris and Farley, 1997), which might reduce the mechanical work performed. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Humans can perform motor tasks in a variety of ways, yet often favor a particular strategy. Some factors governing the preferred strategy may be objective and quantifiable, (e.g. metabolic energy or mechanical work) while others may be more subjective and less measurable, (e.g. discomfort, pain, or mental effort). Subjectivity can make it challenging to explain or predict preferred movement strategies. We propose that subjective factors might nevertheless be characterized indirectly by their trade-offs against more objective measures such as work. Here we investigated whether subjective costs that influence human movement during drop landings could be indirectly assessed by quantifying mechanical work performed. When landing on rigid ground, humans typically absorb much of the collision actively by bending their knees, perhaps to avoid the discomfort of stiff-legged landings. We measured how work performed by healthy adults (N=8) changed as a function of surface cushioning for drop landings (fixed at about 0.4m) onto varying amounts of foam. Landing on more foam dissipated more energy passively in the surface, thus reducing the net dissipation required of subjects, due to relatively fixed landing energy. However, subjects actually performed even less work in the dissipative collision, as well as in the subsequent active, positive work to return to upright stance (approximately linear decrease of about 1.52J per 1cm of foam thickness). As foam thickness increased, there was also a corresponding reduction in center-of-mass vertical displacement after initial impact by up to 43%. Humans appear to subjectively value cushioning, revealed by the extra work they perform landing without it. Cushioning is thus worth more than the energy it dissipates, in an amount that indicates the subjective discomfort of stiff landings. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Biomechanics 04/2015; 48(10). DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.04.029 · 2.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Di Prampero et al. (1993) reported that a 5% improvement in RE elicited a 3.7% improvement in endurance running performance. This improvement in RE may be the result of specific training (Franch et al. 1998; Barnes et al. 2013) or ergogenic factors, such as a reduction in shoe mass (Frederick 1984; Divert et al. 2008; Franz et al. 2012), as Frederick (1984) found that an increase in shoe mass of 100g per foot can reduce RE by 1%. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In recent years there has been an increase in participation in timed running events. With this increase, the motivation for individuals to run their best has motivated the running shoe industry to make design changes to traditional running foot wear in an effort to improve running economy (RE) and decrease running times. One such design change has been to incorporate mechanical springs (MS) into the midsole of the running shoe. Evaluation of this technology has yet to be performed. This study recruited 17 runners (12 male) and had them run at a submaximal steady state speed for 2 bouts of five minutes at a speed of 3.13 m∙sec-1. The order of shoe condition was randomly assigned and the subjects ran one interval in their own running shoe (OS) and one interval in MS shoes. Metabolic data and heart rate data were averaged over the last three of the five minute efforts. No significant difference was found between MS and OS with regards to shoe weight. Running in MS resulted in lower, non-significant values for steady state ventilation and steady state heart rate. Oxygen consumption was significantly lower in MS compared to OS in both absolute (MS: 2.35 ± 0.47 L∙min-1 vs. OS: 2.40 ± 0.473 L∙min-1, P=0.022) and relative (MS: 34.67 ± 4.35 ml∙kg-1∙min-1 vs. OS: 35.34 ± 4.58 ml∙kg-1∙min-1, P=0.033) terms. Running in shoes fitted with MS technology improves running economy over OS and this technology may assist athletes achieve their best running times
    Journal of Human Sport and Exercise 01/2014; 9(4):782-789. DOI:10.14198/jhse.2014.94.05#sthash.r0jpLunI.dpuf
    • "Even though the day-to-day variability in measured oxygen consumption for all subjects ranged between 0.3À3.7%, the use of two measured trials on different days per subject (following the recommendation of Morgan et al. (1989) and Williams et al. (1991)) as well as a repeated measures design allowed for sufficient resolution to identify differences between the shoe conditions . This is not surprising, as others such as Frederick et al. (1986), Divert et al. (2008), and Franz et al. (2012) have also identified statistically significant differences in oxygen consumption during running in the order of 1.0% due to footwear interventions. The Control and Soft shoes tested in this study differed in more than one cushioning variable: the shoes had different midsole stiffness and hysteresis. "

    Footwear Science 07/2013; 5. DOI:10.1080/19424280.2013.799566
Show more