Kinematics of recreational male runners in “super”, minimalist and habitual shoes

ABSTRACT

We conducted an exploratory analysis to compare running kinematics of 16 male recreational runners wearing Nike Vaporfly 4% (VP4), Saucony Endorphin racing flat (FLAT), and their habitual (OWN) footwear. We also explored potential relationships between kinematic and physiological changes. Runners (age: 33 ± 12 y, $\dot{\mathrm{V}}$ O_2peak: 55.2 ± 4.3 ml · kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) attended 3 sessions after completing an $\dot{\mathrm{V}}$ O_2peak test in which sagittal plane 3D kinematics at submaximal running speeds (60%, 70% and 80% ʋ $\dot{\mathrm{V}}$ O_2peak) were collected alongside economy measures. Kinematics were compared using notched boxplots, and between-shoe kinematic differences were plotted against between-shoe economy differences. Across intensities, VP4 involved longer flight times (6.7 to 10.0 ms) and lower stance hip range of motion (~3°), and greater vertical pelvis displacement than FLAT (~0.4 cm). Peak dorsiflexion angles (~2°), ankle range of motion (1.0° to 3.9°), and plantarflexion velocities (11.3 to 89.0 deg · sec⁻¹) were greatest in FLAT and lowest in VP4. Foot-ground angles were smaller in FLAT (2.5° to 3.6°). Select kinematic variables were moderately related to economy, with higher step frequencies and shorter step lengths in VP4 and FLAT associated with improved economy versus OWN. Footwear changes from OWN altered running kinematics. The most pronounced differences were observed in ankle, spatiotemporal, and foot-ground angle variables.

KEYWORDS:

• Biomechanics
• gait
• footwear
• minimalist

Acknowledgments

This work was internally funded by Te Huataki Waiora School of Health, University of Waikato, and The Running Clinic, Canada, and not endorsed by any footwear company.

Authors’ contribution

KHL contributed to acquiring internal funding for this project, pilot testing, data extraction, statistical analysis with support from PFL, first draft of the manuscript, and supervising the project; SJF and IH contributed to the pilot testing, data extraction, and first draft of the manuscript; CMB contributed to the pilot testing. All authors were involved in the study design and ethical approval process, contributed to data interpretation and final draft of the manuscript, have read and approved the final version of the manuscript, and agree with the order of presentation of the authors.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2022.2081767

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported that there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.