Influence of different midsole foam in advanced footwear technology use on running economy and biomechanics in trained runners

• Published in: Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports Vol. 34; no. 1; pp. e14526 - n/a
• Main Authors: Rodrigo‐Carranza, Víctor, Hoogkamer, Wouter, González‐Ravé, José María, Horta‐Muñoz, Sergio, Serna‐Moreno, María del Carmen, Romero‐Gutierrez, Ana, González‐Mohíno, Fernando
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.01.2024
• Subjects: Biomechanical Phenomena; Biomechanics; Boronic Acids; Cross-Over Studies; energetic; EVA; Humans; Male; PEBA; Running; running performance; running shoes; Shoes; Shoes & boots; energetic; EVA; PEBA; running shoes; running performance
• ISSN: 0905-7188; 1600-0838; 1600-0838
• DOI: 10.1111/sms.14526

Background Ethylene and vinyl acetate (EVA) and polyether block amide (PEBA) are recently the most widely used materials for advanced footwear technology (AFT) that has been shown to improve running economy (RE). This study investigated the effects of these midsole materials on RE and biomechanics, in both fresh and worn state (after 450 km). Methods Twenty‐two male trained runners participated in this study. Subjects ran four 4‐min trials at 13 km‧h−1 with both fresh EVA and PEBA AFT and with the same models with 450 km of wear using a randomized crossover experimental design. We measured energy cost of running (W/kg), spatiotemporal, and neuromuscular parameters. Results There were significant differences in RE between conditions (p = 0.01; n2 = 0.17). There was a significant increase in energy cost in the worn PEBA condition compared with new (15.21 ± 1.01 and 14.87 ± 0.99 W/kg; p < 0.05; ES = 0.54), without differences between worn EVA (15.13 ± 1.14 W/kg; p > 0.05), and new EVA (15.15 ± 1.13 w/kg; ES = 0.02). The increase in energy cost between new and worn was significantly higher for the PEBA shoes (0.32 ± 0.38 W/kg) but without significant increase for the EVA shoes (0.06 ± 0.58 W/kg) (p < 0.01; ES = 0.51) with changes in step frequency and step length. The new PEBA shoes had lower energy cost than the new EVA shoes (p < 0.05; ES = 0.27) with significant differences between conditions in contact time. Conclusion There is a clear RE advantage of incorporating PEBA versus EVA in an AFT when the models are new. However, after 450 km of use, the PEBA and EVA shoes had similar RE.