Carbon Plate Shoes Improve Metabolic Power and Performance in Recreational Runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared metabolic power (MP) and time trial (TT) running performance between Adidas Adizero Adios (AAA) and Nike VaporFly 4% (NVP). Thirty-seven runners completed three laboratory sessions and two field sessions (n=30). After familiarization (visit 1), participants completed eight 6-min treadmill running bouts (four with each shoe, counterbalanced) at their preferred pace, and MP was assessed using indirect calorimetry (visits 2 and 3). During visits 4 and 5, participants completed two outdoor TTs (~3.5 km) in NVP and AAA (counterbalanced). Compared with AAA, NVP exhibited superior MP (NVP: median=13.88 (Q1-Q3=12.90-15.08 W/kg; AAA: median=14.08 (Q1-Q3=13.12-15.44 W/kg; z=-4.81, p<.001, effect size=.56) and TT (NVP=793±98 s; AAA=802±100 s, p=.001; effect size=.09). However, there was no relationship between changes in MP and changes in TT between shoes (r=.151 p=.425, 95% confidence interval=[-.22; .48]). Our results demonstrate that NVP, compared with AAA, improves MP and TT in recreational runners. The lack of correlation between changes in MP and TT indicates that factors other than improved MP contribute to faster short-distance TT with NVP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".