Footwear designed to enhance energy return improves running economy compared to a minimalist footwear: does it matter for running performance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study compared the effects of a footwear designed to enhance energy return (thermoplastic polyurethane, TPU) vs minimalist shoes on running economy (RE) and endurance performance. In this counterbalanced and crossover design study, 11 recreational male runners performed two submaximal constant-speed running tests and two 3-km time-trials with the two shoe models. Oxygen uptake was measured during submaximal constant-speed running tests in order to determine the RE at 12 km/h and oxygen cost of running (CTO2) at individual average speed sustained during the 3-km running time-trials wearing either of the two shoes. Our results revealed that RE was improved (2.4%) with TPU shoes compared with minimalist shoes (P=0.01). However, there was no significant difference for CTO2 (P=0.61) and running performance (P=0.52) comparing the TPU (710±60 s) and the minimalist (718±63 s) shoe models. These novel findings demonstrate that shoes with enhanced mechanical energy return (i.e. TPU) produced a lower energy cost of running at low (i.e., 12 km/h) but not at high speeds (i.e., average speed sustained during the 3-km running time-trial, ∼15 km/h), ultimately resulting in similar running performance compared to the minimalist shoe.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".