Background Compared with traditional running shoes, Advanced Footwear Technology (AFT) improves the oxygen cost of running (O2 cost) for athletes competing at fast speeds. Less clear are the effects of these modern shoes at the slower speeds commonly adopted by recreational runners. Therefore, this study’s primary aim was to assess the effects of AFT shoes on O2 cost at slow running speeds. Methods Fourteen moderately-trained runners (6 men, 8 women, age 25.5 ± 2.8 years, body mass index 21.7 ± 2.3 kg m−2, V̇O2peak 49.8 ± 5.1 ml O2 kg−1 min−1) ran at four speeds (7.5, 9.0, 10.5 and 12.0 km h−1) with three different footwear conditions: traditional running shoes (On Cloudrunner 2, TRA); AFT shoes (On Cloudboom Echo 3, CBE); and prototype shoes combining AFT and standard features (high compliance, energy return, and mass; On Prototype, MIX). The full protocol was repeated on three different days by each participant. Results Combining all tested speeds, O2 cost was lower for CBE compared with both TRA (−5.4 ml O2 kg−1 km−1, 95% CI: −6.9 to −3.9 ml O2 kg−1 km −1, p < 0.001) and MIX (−4.1 ml O2 kg−1 km−1, 95% CI: –−5.6 to −2.6 ml O2 kg−1 km −1, p < 0.001), whereas no difference between MIX and TRA could be detected (95% CI: −3.4 to 0.8 ml O2 kg−1 km−1, p = 0.269). Differences in O2 cost between shoes were independent of speed. Perceived effort was lower for CBE compared with TRA only (−0.2 points, 95% CI −0.4 to −0.1 points), whereas no differences were detected for perceived comfort between any of the shoes (p = 0.377). No clear effect of footwear was detected for cadence, ground contact time, or leg stiffness. Comparing the most and least liked shoe models revealed preference for both lower O2 cost and higher comfort, with larger effect sizes for comfort. Conclusion AFT shoes can provide meaningful metabolic savings even at very low running speeds, with no distinguishable speed-dependence, which cannot be explained by changes in spatiotemporal variables. AFT shoes for recreational runners should be further improved to maintain metabolic efficiency while not sacrificing perceived comfort, which is a stronger determinant of shoe preference.

Impact of Advanced Footwear Technology on Running Economy at Slower Running Speeds: A Randomised, Cross-Over Investigation

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2026年2月17日

查看全文

Aline Bolliger,
Christina M. Spengler,
Fernando G. Beltrami

摘要

Background

Compared with traditional running shoes, Advanced Footwear Technology (AFT) improves the oxygen cost of running (O₂ cost) for athletes competing at fast speeds. Less clear are the effects of these modern shoes at the slower speeds commonly adopted by recreational runners. Therefore, this study’s primary aim was to assess the effects of AFT shoes on O₂ cost at slow running speeds.

Methods

Fourteen moderately-trained runners (6 men, 8 women, age 25.5 ± 2.8 years, body mass index 21.7 ± 2.3 kg m⁻², V̇O_2peak 49.8 ± 5.1 ml O₂ kg⁻¹ min⁻¹) ran at four speeds (7.5, 9.0, 10.5 and 12.0 km h⁻¹) with three different footwear conditions: traditional running shoes (On Cloudrunner 2, TRA); AFT shoes (On Cloudboom Echo 3, CBE); and prototype shoes combining AFT and standard features (high compliance, energy return, and mass; On Prototype, MIX). The full protocol was repeated on three different days by each participant.

Results

Combining all tested speeds, O₂ cost was lower for CBE compared with both TRA (−5.4 ml O₂ kg⁻¹ km⁻¹, 95% CI: −6.9 to −3.9 ml O₂ kg⁻¹ km ⁻¹, p < 0.001) and MIX (−4.1 ml O₂ kg⁻¹ km⁻¹, 95% CI: –−5.6 to −2.6 ml O₂ kg⁻¹ km ⁻¹, p < 0.001), whereas no difference between MIX and TRA could be detected (95% CI: −3.4 to 0.8 ml O₂ kg⁻¹ km⁻¹, p = 0.269). Differences in O₂ cost between shoes were independent of speed. Perceived effort was lower for CBE compared with TRA only (−0.2 points, 95% CI −0.4 to −0.1 points), whereas no differences were detected for perceived comfort between any of the shoes (p = 0.377). No clear effect of footwear was detected for cadence, ground contact time, or leg stiffness. Comparing the most and least liked shoe models revealed preference for both lower O₂ cost and higher comfort, with larger effect sizes for comfort.

Conclusion

AFT shoes can provide meaningful metabolic savings even at very low running speeds, with no distinguishable speed-dependence, which cannot be explained by changes in spatiotemporal variables. AFT shoes for recreational runners should be further improved to maintain metabolic efficiency while not sacrificing perceived comfort, which is a stronger determinant of shoe preference.