Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2022; 43(13): 1113-1117
DOI: 10.1055/a-1820-7023
Training & Testing

Reliability of Running Economy Measurements: Influence of Shoe Familiarisation

Anders Nielsen
1   Sport Sciences, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg East, Denmark
,
Christian Heyde
2   Future Sport Science Team, Adidas AG, Herzogenaurach, Germany
,
Morten Bilde Simonsen
3   Health Science and Technology, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg, Denmark
,
Ryan Godsk Larsen
3   Health Science and Technology, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg, Denmark
,
Rasmus Kopp Hansen 
3   Health Science and Technology, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg, Denmark
,
Uwe Kersting
4   Institute of Biomechanics and Orthopaedics, German Sport University Cologne, Köln, Germany
,
M De Zee
3   Health Science and Technology, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg, Denmark
,
René Børge Korsgaard Brund
3   Health Science and Technology, Aalborg Universitet, Aalborg, Denmark
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was funded by Adidas AG, Herzogenaurach, Germany. Disclosure Anders Nielsen’s PhD was partly funded by Adidas, and Christian Heyde is an employee of Adidas. Data availability Data is available upon reasonable request made to the corresponding author.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The purpose was to investigate differences in reliability of running economy measurements between familiar and unfamiliar shoes. Thirty-seven runners were included who all ran in familiar and unfamiliar running shoes while running economy was measured at steady state using a treadmill. Each participant was tested on two different visits (three sessions in total), with two trials in each of the three shoe conditions completed at each visit. Coefficient of variation, standard deviation of differences, and limits of agreement of running economy were used to quantify the repeatability (within-visit variation) and reproducibility (between-visit variation). The coefficient of variation showed a marginal difference in reproducibility across shoe conditions, whereas no differences were seen in coefficient of variation, standard deviation of the differences, or limits of agreement for repeatability across shoes. All three shoe conditions showed greater repeatability than reproducibility for running economy, and enhanced repeatability at visit 3 compared to visit 2. Our results indicate that familiarisation to shoes might not be needed for reliable measurements of running economy. Based on our results, when evaluating benefits in running shoes we suggest that running economy be assessed within the same day. Further, our data suggest a beneficial effect of using multiple familiarisation sessions if small differences between shoe conditions are expected.

Key words

reliability - repeatability - reproducibility - running shoes - running economy


Publication History

Received: 22 August 2021

Accepted: 23 March 2022

Article published online:
04 August 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Bassett DR, Howley ET. Limiting factors for maximum oxygen uptake and determinants of endurance performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32: 70-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Conley DL, Krahenbuhl GS. Running economy and distance running performance of highly trained athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1980; 12: 357-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Daniels TJ. A physiologist’s view of running economy. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1985; 17: 332-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Spiering B. et al. Altered running economy directly translates to altered distance-running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2016; 48: 2175-2180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kipp S, Kram R, Hoogkamer W. Extrapolating metabolic savings in running: Implications for performance predictions. Front Physiol 2019; 10: 79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Worobets J, Wannop JW, Tomaras E. et al. Softer and more resilient running shoe cushioning properties enhance running economy. Footwear Sci 2014; 6: 147-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Roy JR, Stefanyshyn DJ. Shoe midsole longitudinal bending stiffness and running economy, joint energy, and EMG. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006; 38: 562-569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Frank J. et al. A comparison of the energetic cost of running in marathon racing shoes. Sports Med 2018; 48: 1009-1019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hunter I, McLeod A, Valentine D. et al. Running economy, mechanics, and marathon racing shoes. J Sports Sci 2019; 37: 2367-2373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Barnes KR, Kilding AE. A randomised crossover study investigating the running economy of highly-trained male and female distance runners in marathon racing shoes versus track spikes. Sports Med 2018; 49: 331-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sinclair J, Mcgrath R, Brook O. et al. Influence of footwear designed to boost energy return on running economy in comparison to a conventional running shoe. J Sports Sci 2016; 34: 1094-1098 DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1088961.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Blagrove RC, Howatson G, Hayes PR. Test–retest reliability of physiological parameters in elite junior distance runners following allometric scaling. Eur J Sport Sci 2017; 17: 1231-1240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Saunders Pu, Pyne DB, Telford RD. et al. Reliability and validity of running economy in elite distance runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004; 36: 1972-1976 10/1249/01.mss.0000145468.17329.9f
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Shaw AJ, Ingham SA, Fudge BW. et al. The reliability of running economy expressed as oxygen cost and energy cost in trained distance runners. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2013; 38: 1268-1272 DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2013-0055.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Doma K, Deakin GB, Leicht AS. et al. The reliability of running economy among trained distance runners and field-based players. JESF 2012; 10: 90-96 DOI: 10.1016/jesf.2012.10.006.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Péronnet F, Massicotte D. Table of nonprotein respiratory quotient: an update. Can J Sport Sci 1991; 16: 23-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kipp S, Byrnes WC, Kram R. Calculating metabolic energy expenditure across a wide range of exercise intensities: the equation matters. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2018; 43: 639-642
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bartlett JW, Frost C. Reliability, repeatability and reproducibility: Analysis of measurement errors in continuous variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 466-475
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: The analysis of method comparison studies. J R Stat Soc 1983; 32: 307-317
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Shechtman O. The coefficient of variation as an index of measurement reliability. In: Methods of Clinical Epidemiology. Doi SAR, Williams GM, eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2013: 39-49
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Wang L, Xian LiJ, Hong Y. et al. Changes in heel cushioning characteristics of running shoes with running mileage. Footwear Sci 2010; 2: 141-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kong PW, Candelaria NG, Smith DR. Running in new and worn shoes: a comparison of three types of cushioning footwear. Br J Sports Med 2009; 43: 745-749
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Williams TJ, Krahenbuhl GS, Morgan DW. Daily variation in running economy of moderately trained male runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1991; 23: 944-948
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Joyner MJ, Hunter SK, Lucia A. et al. Physiology and fast marathons. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2020; 128: 1065-1068
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar