MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117300283 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0338743

How does it feel to run in minimalist and advanced footwear technology shoes: A qualitative study involving male recreational runners

2025· article· en· W7117300283 on OpenAlexaff
Kim Hébert‐Losier, Hannah Knighton, Steven J. Finlayson, Benjamin Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsRunning Injury Clinic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCushioningThematic analysisQualitative researchPerceptionRecreationAthletesUnintended consequencesBarefootQualitative property

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the perceptions and experiences of male recreational runners when using minimalist racing flats (FLAT, Saucony Endorphin Racer 2) and advanced footwear technology (AFT, Nike Vaporfly 4%) shoes, compared with their habitual shoes (OWN). Eighteen runners completed three 1.5 km outdoor trials, running in OWN first, followed by FLAT and AFT in a randomised counter-balanced order. Semi-structured interviews conducted before and after each trial provided qualitative data, analysed using a six-phase reflexive thematic approach. Five interconnected themes emerged: 'novelty and familiarity', 'feel', 'performance', 'biomechanics', and 'injury'. Runners' perceptions were shaped by iterative feedback loops combining experiential, educated, and instinctual assessments. OWN shoes were generally ranked highest for comfort and lowest for perceived injury risk due to familiarity and balanced design. Novel shoes elicited mixed reactions. FLAT shoes were valued for their lightweight and natural feel, but raised concerns about discomfort and potential injury from minimal cushioning and support. AFT shoes were appreciated for their bounciness and performance potential, but raised concerns about instability and excessive cushioning. Findings indicate that footwear comfort is multifaceted, context-dependent, and not always aligned with performance or injury reduction. Runners often prioritised performance over comfort in competitive scenarios, highlighting the inherent trade-offs in footwear selection and the importance of personalised approaches. Concerns about injury and biomechanics changes underscore the need for gradual transitions to novel footwear. By adopting a real-world approach, this study advances understanding of footwear perceptions, emphasises the dynamic and subjective nature of runners' experiences, and offers practical implications for runners, clinicians, and shoe manufacturers.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207