Article

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: 4.48). 02/2012; 44(8):1519-25. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182514a88
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

3 Bookmarks
 · 
642 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Running shoes are often marketed based on mass. A total of 50 young adult males participated across two separate experiments to determine how well they could perceive the relative masses of five different running shoes using hands versus feet. For the foot portion, subjects were blindly fitted with the shoes and asked to rank their masses individually using visual analogue scales (VAS) and verbal rankings. For the hand portion, two different methods were used, one presenting all shoes simultaneously and the other presenting the shoes individually. Verbal accuracy and VAS scores correlated across subjects for the hand and foot, but accuracy in mass perception by the feet was 30% compared to 92% or 63% by the hand (depending on the method). These results indicate the foot perceives mass poorly compared to the hand, and that consumers' perception of shoe mass may come more from handling shoes versus wearing them.
    Ergonomics 06/2014; 57(6):912-920. · 1.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives Minimalist running shoes have been proposed as an alternative to barefoot running. However, several studies have reported cases of forefoot stress fractures after switching from standard to minimalist shoes. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to investigate the differences in plantar pressure in the forefoot region between running with a minimalist shoe and running with a standard shoe in healthy female runners during overground running. Design Randomized crossover design Methods In-shoe plantar pressure measurements were recorded from eighteen healthy female runners. Peak pressure, maximum mean pressure, pressure time integral and instant of peak pressure were assessed for seven foot areas. Force time integral, stride time, stance time, swing time, shoe comfort and landing type were assessed for both shoe types. A linear mixed model was used to analyze the data. Results Peak pressure and maximum mean pressure were higher in the medial forefoot (respectively 13.5% and 7.46%), central forefoot (respectively 37.5% and 29.2%) and lateral forefoot (respectively 37.9% and 20.4%) for the minimalist shoe condition. Stance time was reduced with 3.81%. No relevant differences in shoe comfort or landing strategy were found. Conclusion Running with a minimalist shoe increased plantar pressure without a change in landing pattern. This increased pressure in the forefoot region might play a role in the occurrence of metatarsal stress fractures in runners who switched to minimalist shoes and warrants a cautious approach to transitioning to minimalist shoe use.
    Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 01/2014; · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    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 run-ning performance and running economy in distance run-ners, 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 Tri-als), 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 bend-ing 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-ana-lysis 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. Key Points Running shoes with greater shoe cushioning, greater longitudinal shoe stiffness and greater shoe comfort were associated with improved running economy. Running in light shoes or running barefoot reduced metabolic cost compared with running in heavy shoes but there was no difference in metabolic cost between running in light shoes and running barefoot. No studies have investigated the effect of footwear on running performance measured using a time-trial or time-to-exhaustion test.
    Sports Medicine 11/2014; · 5.32 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
1,507 Downloads
Available from
Jun 2, 2014