King Grub
2012-03-06, 21:53
PURPOSE:
Based on mass alone, one might intuit that running barefoot would exact a lower metabolic cost than running in shoes. Numerous studies have shown that adding mass to shoes increases submaximal oxygen uptake (V˙2) by about 1% per 100 grams per shoe. However, only two of the seven studies on the topic have found a statistically significant difference in (V˙2) between barefoot and shod running. The lack of difference found in these studies suggests that factors other than shoe mass (e.g. barefoot running experience, foot-strike pattern, shoe construction) may play important roles in determining the metabolic cost of barefoot vs. shod running. Our goal was to quantify the metabolic effects of adding mass to the feet and compare oxygen uptake and metabolic power during barefoot vs. shod running while controlling for barefoot running experience, foot-strike pattern and footwear.
METHODS:
12 males with substantial barefoot running experience ran at 3.35 m/s with a mid-foot strike pattern on a motorized treadmill, both barefoot and in lightweight cushioned shoes (∼150 g/shoe). In additional trials, we attached small lead strips to each foot/shoe (∼150, ∼300, ∼450 g). For each condition, we measured subjects' rates of oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production and calculated metabolic power.
RESULTS:
V˙2 increased by approximately 1% for each 100 g added per foot, whether barefoot or shod (p>0.001). However, barefoot and shod running did not significantly differ in V˙2 or metabolic power. A consequence of these two findings was that for footwear conditions of equal mass, shod running had ∼3-4% lower V˙2 and metabolic power demand than barefoot running (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:
Running barefoot offers no metabolic advantage over running in lightweight, cushioned shoes.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012 Feb 23. Metabolic Cost of Running Barefoot versus Shod: Is Lighter Better?
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/publishahead/Metabolic_Cost_of_Running_Barefoot_versus_Shod__.9 8716.aspx
Based on mass alone, one might intuit that running barefoot would exact a lower metabolic cost than running in shoes. Numerous studies have shown that adding mass to shoes increases submaximal oxygen uptake (V˙2) by about 1% per 100 grams per shoe. However, only two of the seven studies on the topic have found a statistically significant difference in (V˙2) between barefoot and shod running. The lack of difference found in these studies suggests that factors other than shoe mass (e.g. barefoot running experience, foot-strike pattern, shoe construction) may play important roles in determining the metabolic cost of barefoot vs. shod running. Our goal was to quantify the metabolic effects of adding mass to the feet and compare oxygen uptake and metabolic power during barefoot vs. shod running while controlling for barefoot running experience, foot-strike pattern and footwear.
METHODS:
12 males with substantial barefoot running experience ran at 3.35 m/s with a mid-foot strike pattern on a motorized treadmill, both barefoot and in lightweight cushioned shoes (∼150 g/shoe). In additional trials, we attached small lead strips to each foot/shoe (∼150, ∼300, ∼450 g). For each condition, we measured subjects' rates of oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production and calculated metabolic power.
RESULTS:
V˙2 increased by approximately 1% for each 100 g added per foot, whether barefoot or shod (p>0.001). However, barefoot and shod running did not significantly differ in V˙2 or metabolic power. A consequence of these two findings was that for footwear conditions of equal mass, shod running had ∼3-4% lower V˙2 and metabolic power demand than barefoot running (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:
Running barefoot offers no metabolic advantage over running in lightweight, cushioned shoes.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012 Feb 23. Metabolic Cost of Running Barefoot versus Shod: Is Lighter Better?
http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/publishahead/Metabolic_Cost_of_Running_Barefoot_versus_Shod__.9 8716.aspx