Footwear designed to enhance energy return
improves running economy compared to a minimalist
footwear: does it matter for running performance?
R.C. Dinato1
00 , R. Cruz1,2
00 , R.A. Azevedo1,3
00 , J.S. Hasegawa1
00 , R.G. Silva1
00 , A.P. Ribeiro4
00 ,
A.E. Lima-Silva5
00 , and R. Bertuzzi1
00
1Grupo de Estudo em Desempenho Aeróbio, Escola de Educac¸ão Física e Esporte, Universidade de São Paulo,
São Paulo, SP, Brasil
2Centro de Desportos, Departamento de Educac¸ão Física, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brasil
3Human Performance Laboratory, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
4Departamento de Pós-Graduac¸ão em Ciências da Saúde, Laborátorio de Biomecânica e Reabilitac¸ão Musculoesquelética,
Universidade de Santo Amaro, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
5Grupo de Pesquisa em Performance Humana, Departamento Acadêmico de Educac¸ão Física, Universidade Tecnológica Federal
do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brasil
Abstract
The present study compared the effects of a footwear designed to enhance energy return (thermoplastic polyurethane, TPU) vs
minimalist shoes on running economy (RE) and endurance performance. In this counterbalanced and crossover design study,
11 recreational male runners performed two submaximal constant-speed running tests and two 3-km time-trials with the two
shoe models. Oxygen uptake was measured during submaximal constant-speed running tests in order to determine the RE at
12 km/h and oxygen cost of running (CTO2) at individual average speed sustained during the 3-km running time-trials wearing
either of the two shoes. Our results revealed that RE was improved (2.4%) with TPU shoes compared with minimalist shoes
(P=0.01). However, there was no signiﬁcant difference for CTO2 (P=0.61) and running performance (P=0.52) comparing the
TPU (710±60 s) and the minimalist (718±63 s) shoe models. These novel ﬁndings demonstrate that shoes with enhanced
mechanical energy return (i.e. TPU) produced a lower energy cost of running at low (i.e., 12 km/h) but not at high speeds
(i.e., average speed sustained during the 3-km running time-trial, B15 km/h), ultimately resulting in similar running performance
compared to the minimalist shoe.
Key words: Running shoes; Oxygen uptake; Oxygen cost; Running time-trial; Endurance performance
Introduction
Running endurance performance has been traditionally
associated with several physiological variables, including
running economy (RE) (1–5). Individuals with superior RE,
deﬁned as the steady-state oxygen uptake at submaximal
running speeds (4), are able to sustain higher exercise
intensities and/or maintain the same exercise intensity for a
longer period of time compared to their counterparts with
poorer RE (6). In order to acutely improve RE, previous
studies have suggested that footwear characteristics could
play a signiﬁcant role on the energy cost of running. For
example, minimalist shoes (i.e., with reduced shoe mass
and heel drop) results in signiﬁcant improvements in RE
(1–4%) compared to conventional shoes (i.e., with ethylene
vinyl acetate midsole) (7–9). This enhanced RE with
minimalist shoes has been associated with a greater
mechanical action of the longitudinal and transverse
arches of the foot, which are capable of restoring/
returning approximately 17% of the mechanical energy
temporarily stored at each step taken (10), thus acutely
improving the RE at submaximal running.
Other studies have demonstrated that midsole char-
acteristics can also enhance RE (11,12). For instance,
Wunsch et al. (13) showed that a leaf spring-structured
midsole acutely improved RE (B1%), probably by changes
in spatio-temporal variables. More recently, a new midsole
material composed by thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)
has been used to enhance energy return during running
(14). The TPU appears to reduce oxygen cost of running by
increasing the returned mechanical energy from the shoe
midsole material. In fact, Sinclair et al. (15) have shown that
Correspondence: R. Bertuzzi: <bertuzzi@usp.br>
Received September 29, 2020 | Accepted December 24, 2020
Braz J Med Biol Res | doi: 10.1590/1414-431X202010693
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research (2021) 54(5): e10693, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1414-431X202010693
ISSN 1414-431X
Research Article
1/6
running with a footwear with a midsole composed by
TPU exhibits a better RE (4.1%) compared to a con-
ventional running shoe. Given that RE contributes to the
success in endurance running events, they concluded
that footwear with a TPU midsole could lead to better
running performance, probably due to the beneﬁcial
effects on RE.
Despite the remarkable ﬁndings from previous studies
showing that both TPU and minimalist shoes can reduce
the oxygen cost of running compared with conventional
shoes (7,15), it is still unknown whether there is a superior
ability between these two models to translate the greater
RE into better running performance. This occurs mainly
because the current evidence is limited to analyzing the
changes in RE (15–17), without necessarily examining
whether improved RE translated into better running
performance. This is particularly relevant because previous
ﬁndings have indicated that improvement in RE does not
necessarily result in a better running performance (18).
From the practical perspective, this information might be
helpful to sports physiologists to better select sport shoes
for competition and training. Therefore, the present study
aimed to: i) compare the effects of TPU and minimalist
shoes on the oxygen cost of running; and ii) analyze the
effect of a possible reduced oxygen cost of running
mediated by these shoes on running performance.
Materials and Methods
Participants
The sample size required was estimated using the
G*power software (version 3.1.9.2, Germany), with data
from a previous investigation that analyzed the effect of
different midsole characteristics (TPU vs conventional) on
RE (15). A sample size of ﬁve participants was estimated
to achieve statistically signiﬁcance in RE, for an expected
effect size of 1.92 and power of 0.8 with an alpha level
of 0.05. In order to improve statistical power, eleven
recreational male runners volunteered to participate in this
study. Participants were engaged in local competitions
and their best performances in 10-km race times ranged
from 35 to 45 min. All participants performed only low-
intensity continuous aerobic training (50–70% maximal
oxygen uptake, O2max) and were instructed to maintain a
similar aerobic training during the experimental period.
The exclusion criteria were: i) exhibited a forefoot contact
running technique; ii) use of dietary supplement; iii)
neuromuscular disorders; and iv) cardiovascular dysfunc-
tions. The participants received a verbal explanation about
the possible beneﬁts, risks, and discomforts associated
with the study and signed a written informed consent
before participating in the study. The study was conducted
according to the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by
the Research Ethics Committee of the School of Physical
Education and Sport of the University of São Paulo
(protocol number 37502714.8.0000.5391).
Experimental design
Participants visited the laboratory on four separate
occasions at least 48 h apart and within a 4-week period.
On the ﬁrst visit, after the anthropometric measurements,
the participants performed an incremental test to exhaus-
tion in order to determine their O2max wearing their
own running shoes. During second and third visits, the
participants performed, in a counterbalanced design, two
3-km running time-trials (3-km TT) on an outdoor 400-m
track wearing either the TPU or minimalist shoes. On the
fourth visit, the oxygen uptake was measured, in a
counterbalanced design, during constant-speed running
tests performed at 12 km/h (i.e., RE) and at individual
average speed sustained during the 3-km TT (i.e., CTO2),
wearing either the TPU or minimalist shoes. Between
each experimental condition (speed vs shoes), the partici-
pant rested for 10 min. Prior to the experimental laboratory
and ﬁeld tests, the participants were submitted to a 3-min
familiarization run wearing either the TPU or minimalist
shoes, as previously described (8). The tests were
performed during the preparatory training period, at the
same time of the day, and at least 2 h after the last meal.
The participants were instructed to record their diet 24 h
before the ﬁrst experimental session and to repeat it prior
to the subsequent experimental sessions. They were
also asked to refrain from any exhaustive or unusual
exercise during the experimental period.
Anthropometric measurements
An experienced investigator performed the anthro-
pometric measurements according to the procedures
described by Norton and Olds (19). Participants were
weighed to the nearest 0.1 kg using an electronic scale
(Filizola, model ID 1500, Brazil). Height was measured
to the nearest 0.1 cm using a stadiometer. Skinfold
thickness was measured to the nearest 0.2 mm at six
body sites (triceps brachial, suprailiac, abdominal, chest,
subscapular, and anterior thigh) using a Harpenden caliper
(West Sussex, UK). The mean of three values was used for
further analysis. Body density and body fat were estimated
by the equations from Jackson et al. (20) and Brozek et al.
(21), respectively.
Incremental maximal test
The incremental maximal test was performed on a
motor-driven treadmill (model TK35, CEFISE, Brazil).
All participants were requested to wear their favorite
running shoes for this test. After a 3-min warm-up at 8 km/h,
the speed was increased by 1 km/h every minute until
participants were unable to maintain the required running
speed. The subjects received strong verbal encourage-
ment to continue as long as possible. Oxygen uptake
( .VO2), carbon dioxide production, and ventilation were
measured breath-by-breath using an automatic metabolic
cart (Cortex, Metalyzer 3B, Germany) and subsequently
averaged over 30-s intervals throughout the test. Before
Braz J Med Biol Res | doi: 10.1590/1414-431X202010693
Footwear, running economy, and endurance performance
2/6
each test, the metabolic cart was calibrated using a 3-L
syringe and a standard gas of known O2 (12%) and CO2
(15%) concentrations. The O2max was determined as
the average of the oxygen uptake during the last 30 s of
the test.
Constant-speed tests
The constant-speed tests were performed using the
same motor-driven treadmill and .VO2 procedures adopted
during the maximal incremental test. The subjects per-
formed a standardized warm-up, consisting of a 5-min run
at 8 km/h followed by a 5-min light stretch. The treadmill
speeds were adjusted after warm-up and the subjects ran
for 6 min wearing either the TPU or minimalist shoes.
Given that previous ﬁndings have shown that an athlete
who is energetically economical at a given speed will not
necessarily be economical at other speeds (22), the
participants performed constant-speed running tests at
two distinct speeds wearing either the TPE or minimalist
shoes. RE was determined at 12 km/h similar to a
previous study (15) and the CTO2 was determined at
individual average speed sustained during the 3-km TT
(TPU=15.6±0.8 km/h, minimalist=15.4±.6 km/h). The
oxygen uptake associated with the RE and CTO2 was
measured by averaging the last 30 s from each running
constant-speed
bout.
Recovery
time
between
these
constant-speed running tests was 10 min.
Running performance
The 3-km race is the ofﬁcial track running event that
has been used by previous studies that analyzed the
determinants of running performance (23,24). The par-
ticipants used either the TPU or minimalist shoes during
the 3-km TT, in separate sessions (i.e., second and third
visits). Running performance was measured as the total
time elapsed during the 3-km TT. The time to cover the
3-km TT was registered at each lap (i.e., 400 m) on an
outdoor 400-m track with a manual stopwatch (model HS-
1000, Casio, Japan), while the rating of perceived exertion
(RPE) was reported by participants at each lap using the
Borg 15-point scale (25). Copies of this scale were
laminated, reduced to 10 by 5 cm and ﬁxed to the
participant’s wrist on the dominant arm. Subjects were
instructed to ﬁnish the race as quickly as possible, as in a
competitive
event.
Before
the
test,
the
participants
warmed up for 10 min at 8 km/h. They were instructed
to maintain regular water consumption 24 h before the test
and water was provided ad libitum during the entire event.
Verbal encouragement was provided during the entire
event, but runners were not advised of their lap splits.
Ambient temperature and humidity were provided by the
Institute of Astronomy, Geophysics and Atmospheric
Sciences of the University of São Paulo, Brazil. The
mean±SD values for temperature and humidity were
24±2°C and 60±8%, respectively.
Experimental footwear
The experimental footwear used in the current study
consisted of minimalist (Nike Free Run 2, average shoe
mass: 275 g, heel drop: 4 mm) and TPU (Adidas Energy
BoostTM, average shoe mass: 320 g, heel drop: 10 mm)
running shoes. The minimalist model was characterized
by a ultraﬂexible sole, lightweight, and no motion control
or stability features, as previously described (26). The
midsoles of the TPU model were composed of 80 and
20% of TPU and ethylene vinyl acetate, respectively.
Shoe sizes ranged from 8–10 (UK system). Both shoes
were wrapped with black tape to blind the participants
regarding the footwear used in each experimental
session. Participants had not used either of these shoes
and, therefore, TPU and minimalist shoes were novel to
all participants.
Statistical analysis
A normal data distribution was conﬁrmed by the
Shapiro-Wilk test. Data are reported as means±SD. RE,
CTO2, and running performance were compared between
shoes using paired t-tests. Two-way ANOVA (shoes vs
distance) was used to compare running speed distribution
and RPE responses throughout the 3-km TT. Effect size
(ES) was quantiﬁed using standardized mean differences
and deﬁned as trivial (o0.20), small (0.20–0.49), moderate
(0.50–0.79), and large (X0.80). A signiﬁcance criterion of
Po0.05 was adopted for all analyses. All statistical
analyses were performed using the Statistica 8 software
package (StataSoft Inc., USA).
Results
Table 1 presents the main characteristics of the
participants. The RE and CTO2 are shown in Figure 1,
while running overall performance, running speed dis-
tribution, and RPE changes throughout the 3-km TT for
each shoe condition are shown in Figure 2. TPU footwear
( .VO2=42.5±2.6 mLkg–1min–1) resulted in better RE
(B2.4%) compared to minimalist footwear ( .VO2=43.6±
2.1 mLkg–1min–1) (P=0.01, ES=0.42) (Figure 1A). In
contrast, the CTO2 was not signiﬁcantly different (P=0.61,
ES=0.18) between TPU ( .VO2=53.1±3.7 mLkg–1min–1)
Table 1. Characteristics of the runners that participated in the
study.
Age (years)
33.1±7.2
Running experience (years)
4.1±2.5
Training volume (km/week)
44.7±14.3
Height (m)
1.74±0.05
Body mass (kg)
70.1±9.9
Maximal oxygen uptake (mLkg-1min-1)
52.1±4.9
Data are reported as means±SD.
Braz J Med Biol Res | doi: 10.1590/1414-431X202010693
Footwear, running economy, and endurance performance
3/6
and minimalist ( .VO2=52.4±3.8 mLkg–1min–1) shoes
(Figure 1B). For both experimental conditions, running
speed distribution showed a classical U-shaped pacing
proﬁle (Figure 2B) with the ﬁrst and last laps faster than
other laps, while RPE showed a linear proﬁle (Figure 2C).
However, there was a main effect only for distance
(Po0.01), without main effects for shoes (P=0.67) and
interaction (P=0.75) for running speed distribution. Also,
there was a main effect for distance (Po0.01), but not for
shoes (P=0.62) and interaction (P=0.38) for RPE. In
addition, there was no statistical difference for overall
running performance between footwear models (TPU
shoe=701±62 s, minimalist shoe=709±61 s, P=0.52,
ES=0.18) (Figure 2A).
Discussion
Based on the assumption that oxygen cost of running
is one of the best predictors of endurance performance
(27,28) and that RE is acutely improved wearing both
minimalist and TPU shoes (29,30), the present study
aimed to compare the effects of these distinct models on
RE and running performance. The main results of the
current study revealed that: i) TPU shoes resulted in better
RE (B2.4%), but similar CTO2 compared to the minimalist
shoes, and ii) there was no signiﬁcant difference for
running parameters (i.e., overall performance, running
speed distribution, and RPE responses) between the
TPU and minimalist shoes. These ﬁndings suggested that
TPU shoes reduced the oxygen cost of running at low
(i.e., 12 km/h) but not at high (i.e., individual average
speed sustained during the 3-km TT) running speeds,
resulting in a similar endurance performance compared
with minimalist shoes.
Endurance running has become a very popular phys-
ical activity with millions of recreational runners starting
the activity in the past few years (5). This increased
popularity brought attention to the development of different
training methods and technologies focused on acute
improvement of endurance performance, such as a wide
Figure 1. Oxygen uptake during constant-speed tests. A,
Running economy at 12 km/h. B, Oxygen cost of running at
individual average speed sustained during the 3-km running time-
trial. TPU: midsole material composed by thermoplastic polyure-
thane. Data are reported as means±SD. **Po0.05 (t-test).
Figure 2. A, Overall performance; B, running speed distribution;
C, rating of perceived exertion (RPE). TPU: midsole material
composed by thermoplastic polyurethane. Data are reported as
means±SD. #Po0.05 for main effects for distance (t-test and
ANOVA).
Braz J Med Biol Res | doi: 10.1590/1414-431X202010693
Footwear, running economy, and endurance performance
4/6
range of running shoe models commercially available
(16,31). Considering previous studies suggesting that the
low mass of minimalist models is the main characteristic
that affects the energetic cost of running (14,15), in the
present study the footwear mass was normalized by
adding lead tape to the minimalist shoes in order to reduce
the possible inﬂuence on RE, CTO2, and running perfor-
mance. Our results showed that the footwear with TPU
midsole material resulted in better RE (2.4%) compared to
minimalist shoes (Figure 1). In comparison with previous
ﬁndings, the changes in RE with TPU shoes was slightly
below those reported by Sinclair et al. (14) who compared
the TPU and minimalist shoes (B5%), but similar to
previous results by Worobets et al. (32) and Sinclair
et al. (15), wherein the TPU shoes were able to improve
approximately 1–4% of RE compared with conventional
shoes. These ﬁndings are in accordance with the energy
return advantage attributed to the TPU material, which
suggested that RE could be signiﬁcantly improved (15).
The mechanisms by which the TPU material could
improve RE are not fully understood, but it has been
suggested that the TPU material within the midsole
would reduce the force needed to push the ground
during the propulsion phase, resulting in lower meta-
bolic stress in active skeletal muscles of lower limbs
(33). Together, these ﬁndings expand the notion that
TPU could improve RE by enhanced mechanical energy
return (14–16,32), even when compared with minimalist
footwear.
Even though a growing amount of evidence has shown
substantial gains in RE with different footwear models
(7–10), there is a lack of information in the literature
concerning their acute effects on endurance performance.
In the present study, we analyzed the effects of TPU and
minimalist shoes on a 3-km TT performance. Our results
revealed that running parameters (i.e., overall perfor-
mance, running speed distribution, and RPE responses)
were not different between TPU and minimalist conditions
(Figure 2), despite better RE shown for TPU shoes
(Figure 1). The reasons for the similar running parameters
despite a better RE with the TPU are not clear, but it could
be related to the oxygen cost of running at the average
speed at which the 3-km TT was performed. The CTO2
was not signiﬁcantly different between the models,
indicating that the TPU was not able to maintain the
reduced oxygen cost during high running intensity
compared to the minimalist model. This ﬁnding is novel
and relevant because previous ﬁndings have demon-
strated that improvements in energetic cost of running
are more effective to endurance performance if observed
at intensities similar to the speed performed in the
actual race rather than ﬁxed submaximal constant-speed
tests (34), such as the speed chosen for the RE test
(i.e., 12 km/h). Therefore, the similar running perfor-
mance observed between running shoes could suggest
an inability of the TPU material to maintain reduced
energetic cost at running speeds similar to those
adopted by athletes during 3-km TT.
In order to address a ﬁnal conclusion, some limitations
of the present study must be highlighted. First, the running
performance was determined as the total time to cover a
3-km course, which is relatively short compared to other
running events (e.g., 5-, 10-, and 21-km). Thus, given that
longer running events are performed at lower relative
intensities (closer to 12 km/h), it would be important to
compare the effects of the footwear in longer distance
running events. Second, we tested only one model of
shoes designed to enhance energy return, which was
composed by B80% of TPU in its midsole. Perhaps
shoes with different percentages of TPU in the midsole
(50–100% of TPU) could exacerbate the responses in
oxygen cost found in the current study.
In conclusion, the ﬁndings of the current study revealed
that footwear with TPU midsole material increases RE at
low running speed (12 km/h) compared with minimalist
shoes. However, the better RE was not evident at the
average speed sustained during 3-km TT (B15 km/h),
ultimately resulting in a similar running performance
compared to minimalist shoes. Therefore, it could be
suggested that improved RE observed with the shoe
material designed to enhance energy return could be
more relevant than the minimalist nature of models for
longer distance running events (X5 km).
Acknowledgments
The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. All costs
were supported by a grant from National Council for
Scientiﬁc and Technological Development (CNPq, #446337/
2014-5).
References
1.
Rusko H, Havu M, Karvinen E. Aerobic performance capacity
in athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1978; 38: 151–
159, doi: 10.1007/BF00421531.
2.
Tanaka K, Matsuura Y, Kumagai S, Matsuzaka A, Hirakoba
K, Asano K. Relationships of anaerobic threshold and onset
of blood lactate accumulation with endurance performance.
Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1983; 52: 51–56, doi:
10.1007/BF00429025.
3.
Daniels J, Daniels N. Running economy of elite male
and
elite
female
runners.
Med
Sci
Sports
Exerc
1992; 24: 483–489, doi: 10.1249/00005768-199204000-
00015.
4.
Saunders PU, Pyne DB, Telford RD, Hawley JA. Factors
affecting running economy in trained distance runners.
Sports Med 2004; 34: 465–485, doi: 10.2165/00007256-
200434070-00005.
Braz J Med Biol Res | doi: 10.1590/1414-431X202010693
Footwear, running economy, and endurance performance
5/6
5.
Bertuzzi R, Lima-Silva AE, Pires FO, Damasceno MV,
Bueno S, Pasqua LA et al. Pacing strategy determinants
during a 10-km running time trial: contributions of perceived
effort, physiological, and muscular parameters. J Strength
Cond Res 2014; 28: 1688–1696, doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000
000000314.
6.
Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Spiering BA, Kram R, Altered
running economy directly translates to altered distance-
running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2016; 48:
2175–2180, doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001012.
7.
Squadrone R, Gallozzi C. Biomechanical and physiological
comparison of barefoot and two shod conditions in experi-
enced barefoot runners. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2009; 49:
6–13.
8.
Hanson NJ, Berg K, Deka P, Meendering J. Oxygen cost of
running barefoot vs. running shod. Int J Sports Med 2011;
32: 401–406, doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1265203.
9.
Franz JR, Wierzbinski CM, Kram R. Metabolic cost of
running barefoot versus shod: is lighter better? Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2012; 44: 1519–1525, doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b01
3e3182514a88.
10.
Perl DP, Daoud AI, Lieberman DE. Effects of footwear
and strike type on running economy. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2012; 44: 1335–1343, doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318247
989e.
11.
Bosco C, Rusko H. The effect of prolonged skeletal muscle
stretch–shortening cycle on recoil of elastic energy and on
energy expenditure. Acta Physiol Scand 1983; 119: 219–
224, doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1983.tb07331.x.
12.
Frederick EC. Physiological and ergonomics factors in
running shoe design. Appl Ergon 1984; 15: 281–287, doi:
10.1016/0003-6870(84)90199-6.
13.
Wunsch T, Kroll J, Stoggl T, Schwameder H. Effects
of a structured midsole on spatio-temporal variables
and running economy in overground running. Eur J Sport
Sci 2017; 17: 303–309, doi: 10.1080/17461391.2016.
1253776.
14.
Sinclair J, Mcgrath R, Brook O, Taylo PJ, Dillon S. Inﬂuence
of footwear designed to boost energy return on running
economy in comparison to a conventional running shoe.
J Sports Sci 2016; 34: 1094–1098, doi: 10.1080/02640414.
2015.1088961.
15.
Sinclair J, Taylo PJ, Edmunson C, Brooks D. Inﬂuence of
footwear kinetic, kinematic and electromyographical para-
meters on the energy requirements of steady state running.
Mov Sports Sci 2015; 80: 39–49.
16.
Worobets J, Wannop JW, Tomaras EK, Stefanyshyn D.
Softer and more resilient running shoe cushioning properties
enhance running economy. Footwear Sci 2014; 6: 147–153,
doi: 10.1080/19424280.2014.918184.
17.
Sinclair J, Shore H, Dillon S. The effect of minimalist,
maximalist and energy return footwear of equal mass on
running economy and substrate utilisation. Compar Exerc
Physiol 2016; 12: 49–54, doi: 10.3920/CEP150029.
18.
Silva R, Damasceno M, Cruz R, Silva-Cavalcante MD, Lima-
Silva AE, Bishop DJ, et al. Effects of a 4-week high-intensity
interval training on pacing during 5-km running trial. Braz J
Med Biol Res 2017; 50: e6335, doi: 10.1590/1414-431x
20176335.
19.
Norton K, Olds T. Anthropometrica. Sidney: Southwood
Press; 1996.
20.
Jackson ASS, Pollock ML. Practical assessment of body
composition. Phys Sportsmed 1985; 13: 76–90, doi: 10.1080/
00913847.1985.11708790.
21.
Brozek J,
Kihlberg JK, Taylor
HL,
Keys A, Skinfold
distributions in middle-aged american men: a contribution
to norms of leanness-fatness. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1963; 110,
492–502, doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1963.tb15776.x.
22.
Kyrolainen H, Kivela R, Koskinen S, McBride J, Andersen
JL, Takala T. et al. Interrelationships between muscle
structure, muscle strength, and running economy. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 45–49, doi: 10.1097/00005768-
200301000-00008.
23.
Damasceno MV, Duarte M, Pasqua LA, Lima-Silva AE,
MacIntosh BR, Bertuzzi R. Static streching alters neuro-
muscular function and pacing strategy, but not performance
during a 3-Km running time-trial. Plos One 2014; 9: e99238,
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099238.
24.
Dufﬁeld
R,
Dawson
B,
Goodman
C.
Energy
system
contribution to 1500- and 3000-metre track running. J Sports
Sci 2005; 10: 993–1002, doi: 10.1080/02640410400021963.
25.
Borg G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress.
Scand J Rehabil Med 1970; 2: 92–98.
26.
Bonacci J, Saunders PU, Hicks A, Rantalainen T, Vicenzino
BGT, Spratford W. Running in a minimalist and lightweight
shoe is not the same as running barefoot: a biomechanical
study. Br J Sports Med 2013; 47: 387–392, doi: 10.1136/
bjsports-2012-091837.
27.
Svedenhag J, Sjödin B. Physiological characteristics of elite
male runners in and off-season. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1985;
10: 127–133.
28.
Di Prampero PE, Capelli C, Pagliaro P, Antonutto G, Girardis
M, Zamparo P, et al. Energetics of best performances in
middle-distance running. J Appl Physiol 1985; 74: 2318–
2324, doi: 10.1152/jappl.1993.74.5.2318.
29.
Fuller JT, Bellenger CR, Thewlis D, Tsiros MD, Buckley JD.
The effect of footwear on running performance and running
economy in distance runners. Sports Med 2015; 45: 411–
422, doi: 10.1007/s40279-014-0283-6.
30.
Cheung RT, Ngai SP. Effects of footwear on running
economy in distance runners: a meta-analytical review.
J Sci Med Sport 2016; 19: 260–266, doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.
2015.03.002.
31.
Spurrs RW, Murphy AJ, Watsford ML. The effect of plyometric
training on distance running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol
2003; 89: 1–7, doi: 10.1007/s00421-002-0741-y.
32.
Worobets J, Tomaras EK, Wannop JW, Stefanyshyn DJ.
Running shoe properties can inﬂuence oxygen consumption.
Footwear Sci 2013; 5: 575–576, doi: 10.1080/19424280.
2013.799566.
33.
Kyröläinen H, Pullinen T, Candau R, Avela J. Effects of
marathon running on running economy and kinematics. Eur
J Appl Physiol 2000; 82: 297–304, doi: 10.1007/s00421
0000219.
34.
Conley DL, Krahenbuhl GS. Running economy and distance
running performance of highly trained athletes. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 1980; 12: 357–360, doi: 10.1249/00005768-
198025000-00010.
Braz J Med Biol Res | doi: 10.1590/1414-431X202010693
Footwear, running economy, and endurance performance
6/6

Footwear designed to enhance energy return improves running economy compared to a minimalist footwear: does it matter for running performance?
Dinato, R C,Cruz, R,Azevedo, R A,Hasegawa, J S,Silva, R G,Ribeiro, A P,Lima-Silva, A E,Bertuzzi, R