RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Technological advances in elite marathon performance
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.12.26.20248861
DO 10.1101/2020.12.26.20248861
A1 Jonathon W. Senefeld
A1 Michael H. Haischer
A1 Andrew M. Jones
A1 Chad C. Wiggins
A1 Rachel Beilfuss
A1 Michael J. Joyner
A1 Sandra K. Hunter
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/02/2020.12.26.20248861.abstract
AB There is scientific and legal controversy about recent technological advances in performance running shoes that reduce the energetic cost of running and may provide a distinct competitive advantage. To better understand the potential performance-enhancing effects of Nike’s pioneering marathon racing shoes, we examined the finishing times and racing shoes of the top 50 male and 50 female runners from the World Marathon Major series in the 2010s — before and after the introduction of new Nike shoe models (4%, NEXT%, Alphafly, and other prototypes; herein referred to as neoteric Nikes). Data for racing shoes were available for 3,886 of the 3,900 performances recorded at the four annual marathons in Boston, London, Chicago, and New York. In full cohort analyses, marathon finishing times were 2.0% or 2.8 min (138.5 ± 8.1 min vs. 141.3 ± 7.4 min, P<0.001) faster for male runners wearing neoteric Nikes compared to other shoes. For females, marathon finishing times were 2.6% or 4.3 min (159.1 ± 10.0 min vs. 163.4 ± 10.7 min, P<0.001) faster for runners wearing neoteric Nikes. In a subset of within-runner changes in marathon performances (males, n = 138; females, n = 101), marathon finishing times improved by 0.8% or 1.2 min for males wearing neoteric Nikes relative to the most recent marathon in which other shoes were worn, and this performance-enhancing effect was greater among females who demonstrated 1.6% or 3.7 min improvement (P=0.002). Our results demonstrate that marathon performances for world-class athletes are substantially faster wearing neoteric Nikes than other market-leading shoes, particularly among females.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNone.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:All procedures involved accessing public information and did not require ethical review as determined by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, 45 CFR 46.102, and the Declaration of Helsinki.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll procedures involved accessing public information, as such, these data are publicly available.