ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Advanced footwear technology in well-trained athletes: methodological insights from outdoor running.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why now? A physiological perspective on the first official sub-2-hour marathon.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Review
- Sex and Isolated Anthropometric Measures Do Not Explain Individual Differences in Responsiveness to Advanced Footwear Technology in Highly Trained Runners.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Advanced footwear technology (AFT) is reported to elicit an approximate 4% average improvement in running economy (RE). However, a large inter-individual variability remains unexplained, and limited research examined the impact of AFT during outdoor running. The aim was to compare the physiological, biomechanical and perceptual responses of 36 well-trained athletes to running outdoors using three different AFT and a traditional racing shoe. Methods: Thirty-six well-trained athletes (19 males and 17 females) had their maximal aerobic capacity ( Results: No differences were observed in the RE between shoe conditions, with a great inter-individual variability (range: 12% impairment to 14% improvement in RE). This variability was accompanied by a significant Conclusion: The large variability in the physiological response to AFT may be explained by methodological considerations. A minimum of two-bout RE measurements, the use of a mirrored order, a sufficient familiarisation with shoes and experimental designs, among other considerations, seem crucial to enhance the ecological validity and reduce data variability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.