Though you weigh less when naked, it doesn’t mean you are more efficient… “Running barefoot offers no metabolic advantage over running in lightweight, cushioned shoes.” This study looked at VO2 max (ie. the bodies ability to utilize oxygen, or more precisely, the maximal oxygen uptake or the maximum volume of oxygen that can be utilized in one minute during maximal or exhaustive exercise. It is measured as milliliters of oxygen used in one minute per kilogram of body weight ). The study found that VO2 increased as weight was added to the foot, whether or not ehy were wearing shoes AND there was not significant difference. “V˙O(2) increased by approximately 1% for each 100 g added per foot, whether barefoot or shod (P < 0.001). However, barefoot and shod running did not significantly differ in V˙O(2) or metabolic power. A consequence of these two findings was that for footwear conditions of equal mass, shod running had ∼3%-4% lower V˙O(2) and metabolic power demand than barefoot running (P < 0.05).” An interesting finding was that VO2 was actually 3-4% less for shod running than barefoot, indicating increased metabolic efficiency (albeit small) for shoes. Why? Our theory is increased biomechanical efficiency with shoes. Shoes, creating less pronatory force and accessory motion (due to cushioning and constraints of the shoe; ie it takes some of the complexity out of the motion) created a more rigid lever with better force transduction. The Gait Guys. Asking the hard questions and giving you the facts with each post.        Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012 Aug;44(8):1519-25. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182514a88. Metabolic cost of running barefoot versus shod: is lighter better? Franz JR, Wierzbinski CM, Kram R. Source Locomotion Lab, Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA. jason.franz@colorado.edu Abstract PURPOSE: Based on mass alone, one might intuit that running barefoot would exact a lower metabolic cost than running in shoes. Numerous studies have shown that adding mass to shoes increases submaximal oxygen uptake (V˙O(2)) by approximately 1% per 100 g per shoe. However, only two of the seven studies on the topic have found a statistically significant difference in V˙O(2) between barefoot and shod running. The lack of difference found in these studies suggests that factors other than shoe mass (e.g., barefoot running experience, foot strike pattern, shoe construction) may play important roles in determining the metabolic cost of barefoot versus shod running. Our goal was to quantify the metabolic effects of adding mass to the feet and compare oxygen uptake and metabolic power during barefoot versus shod running while controlling for barefoot running experience, foot strike pattern, and footwear. METHODS: Twelve males with substantial barefoot running experience ran at 3.35 m·s with a midfoot strike pattern on a motorized treadmill, both barefoot and in lightweight cushioned shoes (∼150 g per shoe). In additional trials, we attached small lead strips to each foot/shoe (∼150, ∼300, and ∼450 g). For each condition, we measured the subjects’ rates of oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production and calculated metabolic power. RESULTS: V˙O(2) increased by approximately 1% for each 100 g added per foot, whether barefoot or shod (P < 0.001). However, barefoot and shod running did not significantly differ in V˙O(2) or metabolic power. A consequence of these two findings was that for footwear conditions of equal mass, shod running had ∼3%-4% lower V˙O(2) and metabolic power demand than barefoot running (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Running barefoot offers no metabolic advantage over running in lightweight, cushioned shoes. PMID: 22367745 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22367745 all material copyright 2013 The Gait Guys/The Homunculus Group.

Though you weigh less when naked, it doesn’t mean you are more efficient…

“Running barefoot offers no metabolic advantage over running in lightweight, cushioned shoes.”

This study looked at VO2 max (ie. the bodies ability to utilize oxygen, or more precisely, the maximal oxygen uptake or the maximum volume of oxygen that can be utilized in one minute during maximal or exhaustive exercise. It is measured as milliliters of oxygen used in one minute per kilogram of body weight ).

The study found that VO2 increased as weight was added to the foot, whether or not ehy were wearing shoes AND there was not significant difference.

“V˙O(2) increased by approximately 1% for each 100 g added per foot, whether barefoot or shod (P < 0.001). However, barefoot and shod running did not significantly differ in V˙O(2) or metabolic power. A consequence of these two findings was that for footwear conditions of equal mass, shod running had ∼3%-4% lower V˙O(2) and metabolic power demand than barefoot running (P < 0.05).”

An interesting finding was that VO2 was actually 3-4% less for shod running than barefoot, indicating increased metabolic efficiency (albeit small) for shoes.

Why? Our theory is increased biomechanical efficiency with shoes. Shoes, creating less pronatory force and accessory motion (due to cushioning and constraints of the shoe; ie it takes some of the complexity out of the motion) created a more rigid lever with better force transduction.

The Gait Guys. Asking the hard questions and giving you the facts with each post.       


Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012 Aug;44(8):1519-25. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182514a88.

Metabolic cost of running barefoot versus shod: is lighter better?

Source

Locomotion Lab, Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA. jason.franz@colorado.edu

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Based on mass alone, one might intuit that running barefoot would exact a lower metabolic cost than running in shoes. Numerous studies have shown that adding mass to shoes increases submaximal oxygen uptake (V˙O(2)) by approximately 1% per 100 g per shoe. However, only two of the seven studies on the topic have found a statistically significant difference in V˙O(2) between barefoot and shod running. The lack of difference found in these studies suggests that factors other than shoe mass (e.g., barefoot running experience, foot strike pattern, shoe construction) may play important roles in determining the metabolic cost of barefoot versus shod running. Our goal was to quantify the metabolic effects of adding mass to the feet and compare oxygen uptake and metabolic power during barefoot versus shod running while controlling for barefoot running experience, foot strike pattern, and footwear.

METHODS:

Twelve males with substantial barefoot running experience ran at 3.35 m·s with a midfoot strike pattern on a motorized treadmill, both barefoot and in lightweight cushioned shoes (∼150 g per shoe). In additional trials, we attached small lead strips to each foot/shoe (∼150, ∼300, and ∼450 g). For each condition, we measured the subjects’ rates of oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production and calculated metabolic power.

RESULTS:

V˙O(2) increased by approximately 1% for each 100 g added per foot, whether barefoot or shod (P < 0.001). However, barefoot and shod running did not significantly differ in V˙O(2) or metabolic power. A consequence of these two findings was that for footwear conditions of equal mass, shod running had ∼3%-4% lower V˙O(2) and metabolic power demand than barefoot running (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:

Running barefoot offers no metabolic advantage over running in lightweight, cushioned shoes.

PMID: 22367745
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22367745

all material copyright 2013 The Gait Guys/The Homunculus Group.