Self-perceived middle-distance race pace is faster in advanced footwear technology spikes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantifying the potential benefits of advanced footwear technology (AFT) track shoes (i.e., "spikes") in middle-distance events is challenging, because repeated maximal effort trials (as in sprinting) or aerobic running economy trials (as in long-distance running) are not feasible. METHODS: We introduce a novel approach to assess the benefits of AFT spikes, consisting of a series of 200-m runs at self-perceived middle-distance race pace with 10 min recovery, and conduct 4 experiments to evaluate its validity, sensitivity, reproducibility, and utility. RESULTS: In Experiment 1, participants ran 1.2% slower in spikes with 200 g added mass vs. control spikes, which is exactly equal to the known effects of shoe mass on running performance. In Experiment 2, participants ran significantly faster in AFT prototype spikes vs. traditional spikes. In Experiment 3, we compared 2 other AFT prototype spikes against traditional spikes on 3 separate days. Group-level results were consistent across days, but our data indicates that at least 2 separate sessions are needed to evaluate individual responses. In Experiment 4, participants ran significantly faster in 2 AFT spike models vs. traditional spikes (2.1% and 1.6%). Speed was similar between a third AFT spike model and the traditional spikes. These speed results were mirrored by changes in step length as participants took significantly longer steps in the 2 faster AFT spike models (2.3% and 1.9%), while step length was similar between the other spikes. CONCLUSION: Our novel, interval-based approach is a valid and reliable method for quantifying differences between spikes at middle-distance running intensity.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".