>General Running>Running in shoes more efficient than running barefoot
The Logic of Long Distance
HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer
Yeah, but on which animal?
It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.
Also, 100g per foot costs 1% increased oxygen use. That's what (this article suggests) it is costing me not to go to racers. Hm.
Fat butt on couch
Very interesting, thanks for posting. A few observations:
1) It appears the separation is only significant at one data point...two if the asterisks denote significance. But it's still pretty small separation in the error bars. However, this does not reduce the significance of the conclusion...even if the difference is not significant, it still shoes that light shoes do not HURT your efficiency.
2) They commit a cardinal data presentation sin by massively truncating the Y axis, which over-emphasizes the separation visually. Again, the most meaningful takeaway I see is not that shoes help you....they may, a little....but that barefoot certainly is not of help. They say a numerical difference of around 3%....increased sample size would tell us how real that is...certainly if it is repeatable with a larger sample size, 3% efficiency difference at a high performance level could make a difference in race results, I would think.
It would be interesting to see the weight added by actually trying different shoes. I know why they did what they did to keep the data "clean", but the way they added weight is not real-world and some real-world examples would have been very insightful....even if not as scientifically desirable.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
Interesting, but with only 12 subjects and a lot of unknowns, I'd say, inconclusive.
I don't know about my efficiency when I'm running BF, but I am indeed slower, mostly due to more cautious foot placement. It's probably good for my form, though.
Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.