Biomechanical Factors Associated with Intraindividual Differences in Running Economy Across Advanced Footwear Technology Models in Long-Distance Runners

TL;DR

This study found that shorter ground contact time while running in advanced shoes is linked to better energy efficiency, but no single shoe model was best for everyone.

Contribution

The study identifies ground contact time as a key biomechanical factor influencing running economy in advanced footwear models.

Findings

Shorter ground contact time was significantly associated with lower energetic cost of transport (~1% improvement per 4 ms decrease).

No significant group-level differences in running economy were found between the tested advanced footwear models.

Abstract

Advanced footwear technology (AFT) can enhance long-distance running performance by improving running economy (RE). However, the range of the individual improvements is large. Different intra-individual responses in running biomechanics may account for some of the variation. Thus, this randomized within-subject crossover study aimed to identify biomechanical factors associated with changes in RE when running with different AFT models.

Twenty-two trained long-distance runners (50% female) ran multiple 5-minute running bouts at their season’s best marathon pace (15.0 ± 2.3 km⸱h− 1) while wearing three standardized AFT models (Nike Air Zoom Alphafly Next% 2, Puma Fast-R Nitro Elite v1, Asics Metaspeed Sky+). During each condition, gas exchange data and three-dimensional kinematics and spatiotemporal variables were acquired. RE was determined as the energetic cost of transport. We used two complementary model selection strategies (Akaike Information Criterion model averaging and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) to identify biomechanical parameters associated with intra-individual differences in RE, and a repeated measures ANOVA to compare RE between shoes at the group level.

Across shoe conditions, shorter ground contact time was significantly associated with lower energetic cost of transport (β = 0.025, 95% CI [0.010, 0.040], t(42) = 3.33, p = 0.002), reflecting a ~ 1% improvement in RE per 4 ms decrease. We did not find group-level differences in RE between shoe conditions (p = 0.246).

AFT models that reduced runners’ individual ground contact time were associated with improved RE. This effect appears to depend on the individual athlete-shoe interaction since no single AFT model stood out as an overall optimum. These findings can help determine optimal footwear for athletes. Future studies should investigate the interaction of AFT properties and individual biomechanics to identify further RE improvements through footwear individualization.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-026-01005-0.

This study revealed that shorter ground contact time was a robust predictor of lower energetic cost of transport (≈ 1% per 4 ms decrease) in experienced long-distance runners across three standardized AFT models.No significant differences in running economy were detected among AFT shoe conditions at the group level.Our findings may aid individualized footwear selection.

This study revealed that shorter ground contact time was a robust predictor of lower energetic cost of transport (≈ 1% per 4 ms decrease) in experienced long-distance runners across three standardized AFT models.

No significant differences in running economy were detected among AFT shoe conditions at the group level.

Our findings may aid individualized footwear selection.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-026-01005-0.

Figures