Biomechanics and subjective measures of recreational male runners in three shoes running outdoors: a randomised crossover study

Abstract

We compared biomechanical and subjective data from outdoor running in: habitual (OWN), Saucony Endorphin Racer 2 minimal (FLAT) and Nike Vaporfly 4% (VP4) shoes. We also explored relationships between comfort measures and the collected data. Eighteen male recreational runners ran three 1.5-km trials outdoors, once per shoe. The first 1.1 km was run at a self-selected comfortable (slower) speed, and last 400 m at perceived 5-km race pace (faster). A GPS-enabled smartwatch, 15-m Optojump system, high-speed camera and tibial accelerometer collected biomechanical data. Subjective data on comfort, shoe properties and overall running experience were collected using visual analogue scales (VAS) and rankings. Cadence, leg stiffness and vertical stiffness were greater in FLAT than both OWN and VP4 at the slower speed (trivial to small ES). At both speeds, footstrike angles were smaller in FLAT (small to large ES), while propulsion phase was shorter in VP4 (moderate to large ES). FLAT was ranked as the least comfortable at the slower speed and most likely to cause injury, whereas OWN as the most comfortable and least likely to cause injury. Comfort was not significantly different at the faster speed between shoes. Comfort measures were more strongly correlated to subjective than biomechanical data. The two experimental shoes generally had non-significant or small effects on running biomechanics versus OWN. As VP4 are more like traditional than minimal shoes, these were perceived as more comfortable. Running speed appeared to affect subjective measures. Speed should be considered when prescribing and selecting shoes.

Keywords:

• Comfort
• minimalist shoes
• running
• super shoes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Courtney Mitchell for her assistance during data collection. The authors also thank the participants for their time. This work was internally funded by Te Huataki Waiora School of Health, University of Waikato, New Zealand, and not endorsed by any footwear company.

Disclosure statement

Blaise Dubois and Jean-François Esculier are employed by The Running Clinic, a continuing education organisation which translates scientific evidence to healthcare professionals and the public. Kim Hébert-Losier is a speaker for The Running Clinic.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in OSF at http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/A64N5 (Hébert-Losier, 2023).

Authors’ contributions

Conceptualisation: KHL. Methodology: KHL, HK, SJF, BD, JFE, CMB. Data Curation: KHL, HK, SJF. Formal Analysis: KHL, HK. Investigation: KHL, SF, CMB, CM. Project Administration: KHL. Resources: KHL. Supervision: KHL. Visualisation: KHL, HK. Writing – Original Draft: KHL, HK. Writing – Review & Editing: KHL, HK, SJF, BD, JFE, CMB.