Perception Of Footwear Comfort And Oxygen Consumption Of Female Runners In Marathon Racing Shoes

Comfort filter paradigm emphasizes: 1) runners prefer different shoes for comfort, and 2) more comfortable running shoes correlate with reduced oxygen consumption (VO2). Super shoes, designed for racing with unique features, have emerged as an advantage, improved energetic cost and comfort. However, no study has examined the perception of comfort in marathon racing shoes among female runners. PURPOSE: To examine the correlation between VO2 and perception of footwear comfort among four marathon racing shoes. METHODS: Elite female runners who ran a sub-40:00-minute 10 km race in the previous 12 months were recruited. Participants ran on a treadmill at 14 km/h with four marathon racing shoes in a randomized and mirrored order. The Running Footwear Comfort Assessment Tool (RUN-CAT) was conducted prior to the running trials for initial comfort during walking as well as following trials. Pearson correlation coefficients was used to identify relationships between VO2 and comfort scores in each RUN-CAT item for all shoes. RESULTS: 22 female runners (Age: 29.69 ± 7.09 years) participated in this study. Shoe B exhibited a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.455; p < 0.05) between VO2 and the heel cushioning score, indicating improved running economy in shoes perceived to have less cushioning, in the initial comfort test. Shoe C showed a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.523; p < 0.05) between VO2 and the overall footwear comfort score following running. CONCLUSION: While our findings suggest that relying solely on the comfort filter paradigm may not be sufficient for female runners to predict running economy, footwear designers should consider the effect on shoe comfort when designing marathon shoes to improve performance. Table 1. - Running Footwear Comfort Assessment Tool (RUN-CAT) scores (0 to 100) before and after running trials and the average energetic cost of each marathon racing shoe. Shoe A Shoe B Shoe C Shoe D Run-CATbefore running trials (1) Heel cushioning 45.91 ± 20.23 66.09 ± 13.35* 60.27 ± 17.53 64.14 ± 11.87 (2) Forefoot cushioning 64.77 ± 13.13 59.45 ± 15.82 65.95 ± 12.12 45.77 ± 18.22 (3) Shoe stability 45.27 ± 14.76 58.59 ± 13.57 56.91 ± 13.95 52.32 ± 17.61 (4) Forefoot flexibility 47.50 ± 13.63 50.77 ± 15.57 44.86 ± 14.57 45.09 ± 19.64 (5) Shoe comfort 70.45 ± 15.70 60.05 ± 18.81 70.68 ± 15.93 49.27 ± 21.81 Run-CATafterrunning trials (1) Heel cushioning 63.27 ± 14.52 54.09 ± 15.41 62.23 ± 16.40 33.27 ± 17.53 (2) Forefoot cushioning 63.32 ± 12.56 58.91 ± 18.76 65.32 ± 17.55 34.05 ± 18.64 (3) Shoe stability 50.91 ± 14.41 55.86 ± 12.87 57.64 ± 14.63 56.00 ± 18.67 (4) Forefoot flexibility 50.09 ± 15.27 53.55 ± 12.22 52.41 ± 12.67 43.91 ± 20.96 (5) Shoe comfort 76.73 ± 12.17 60.64 ± 18.56 67.32 ± 21.09* 35.50 ± 23.28 Energetic Cost (mL*min-1 *kg-1) 45.70 ± 2.72 45.57 ± 2.68 45.89 ± 2.43 46.73 ± 2.71 Mitacs Accelerate IT24201