Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33264686›Full record

Trial reportJournal of sport and health science2022

Metabolic and performance responses of male runners wearing 3 types of footwear: Nike Vaporfly 4%, Saucony Endorphin racing flats, and their own shoes.

Kim Hébert-Losier, Steven J Finlayson, Matthew W Driller, Blaise Dubois, Jean-François Esculier, Christopher Martyn Beaven

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of sport and health science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kim Hébert-LosierDivision of Health, Engineering, Computing and Science, Te Huataki Waiora School of Health, University of Waikato, Mount Maunganui, Tauranga 3116, New Zealand. Electronic address: kim.hebert-losier@waikato.ac.nz.
Steven J FinlaysonDivision of Health, Engineering, Computing and Science, Te Huataki Waiora School of Health, University of Waikato, Mount Maunganui, Tauranga 3116, New Zealand.
Matthew W DrillerDivision of Health, Engineering, Computing and Science, Te Huataki Waiora School of Health, University of Waikato, Mount Maunganui, Tauranga 3116, New Zealand; Sport and Exercise Science, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC 3086, Australia.
Blaise DuboisResearch & Development, the Running Clinic, Lac-Beauport, QC G3B 2J8, Canada.
Jean-François EsculierResearch & Development, the Running Clinic, Lac-Beauport, QC G3B 2J8, Canada.
Christopher Martyn BeavenDivision of Health, Engineering, Computing and Science, Te Huataki Waiora School of Health, University of Waikato, Mount Maunganui, Tauranga 3116, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe compared running economy (RE) and 3-km time-trial (TT) variables of runners wearing Nike Vaporfly 4% (VP4), Saucony Endorphin lightweight racing flats (FLAT), and their habitual running (OWN) footwear.

methodsEighteen male recreational runners (age = 33.5 ± 11.9 year (mean ± SD), peak oxygen uptake (VO

resultsOxygen consumption (mL/kg·min) was less in VP4 (from 4.3% to 4.4%, p ≤ 0.002) and FLAT (from 2.7% to 3.4%, p ≤ 0.092) vs. OWN across intensities, with a non-significant difference between VP4 and FLAT (1.0%-1.7%, p ≥ 0.292). Findings related to energy cost (W/kg) and energetics cost of transport (J/kg·m) were comparable. VP4 3-km TT performance (11:07.6 ± 0:56.6 mm:ss) was enhanced vs. OWN by 16.6 s (2.4%, p = 0.005) and vs. FLAT by 13.0 s (1.8%, p = 0.032). The 3-km times between OWN and FLAT (0.5%, p = 0.747) were similar. Most runners (n = 11, 61%) ran their fastest TT in VP4.

conclusionOverall, VP4 improved laboratory-based RE measures in male recreational runners at relative speeds compared to OWN, but the RE improvements in VP4 were not significant vs. FLAT. More runners exhibited better treadmill TT performances in VP4 (61%) vs. FLAT (22%) and OWN (17%). The variability in RE (-10.3% to 13.3%) and TT (-4.7% to 9.3%) improvements suggests that responses to different types of shoes are individualized and warrant further investigation.

Indexed as

EndorphinsRunningAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaCross-Over StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedOxygen ConsumptionShoesYoung AdultEndorphinsFootwearIndividual responsesMinimalistPhysiologyRunning

Identifiers

PMID33264686
PMCPMC9189709

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.