Effects of Footware on Running Economy and Preferred Foot Strike Pattern in Collegiate Distance Runners

Abstract

The influence of foot strike pattern on running performance has produced inconsistent results (Kasmer et al., Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 29:286-292, 2013. Larson et al., J Sports Sci 29:1665-73, 2011) as has the effect of footwear and foot strike pattern on running economy (Perl et al., Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 44:1335-1343, 2012). PURPOSE: To examine the effects of varying footwear on running economy and preferred foot strike pattern in collegiate distance runners. METHODS: Ten (5 female, 5 male) healthy, trained National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II distance runners were randomly assigned to 3 footwear conditions: 1) barefoot (BF), 2) minimally shod (MS) and 3) traditionally shod (TS). For each condition, running economy (VO2), heart rate (HR), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and preferred foot strike (PFS) pattern (forefoot, mid-foot, rear foot) were measured between the 5th and 6th min of treadmill running at 0% grade, 3.35 m/s. RESULTS: Repeated measures ANOVA analysis revealed no significant difference (p>0.05) across BF, MS and TS footwear conditions for VO2, (41.2 + 2.5, 40.7 + 1.9, 41.6 + 2.2 ml/kg/min), HR (168.6 + 17.5, 166.7 + 15.8, 168.6 + 16.1 bpm) and RPE (9.6 + 1.8, 9.3 + 2.1, 9.5 + 1.8). The PFS data were analyzed using a Friedman’s test followed by a Wilcoxon signed rank test. The Friedman’s test showed a significant difference (p<0.05) in PFS patterns across footwear treatments. Subsequently, the Wilcoxon test indicated the PFS pattern for BF was forefoot and, in contrast, for both MS and TS conditions the PFS was rearfoot. CONCLUSION: There is no metabolic advantage to BF, MS, and TS footwear in collegiate male and female distance runners and, although PFS varies with footwear, it has no effect on running economy. This suggests collegiate distance runners can select footwear of their choice without sacrificing running performance.