Applied Ergonomics 1984, 15.

4, 281-287
Ergonomics in sport

Physiological and ergonomics

factors in running shoe design
E.C. Frederick

Director, Nike Sport ResearchLaboratory, Exeter, New Hampshire, USA

Various features of the design of running shoes have been known to affect the
performance and safety of athletes. The performance related effects of shoe design on
traction and on the economy of locomotion are reviewed in this paper. Traction
measurements in various types of running shoes and on various surfaces appear adequate
for all but running on wet asphalt roads. Future designs should improve traction for
those conditions. Effects on the economy of locomotion as small as 1% can be
determined using conventional oxygen uptake measurements. The effect of carrying
extra weight on the foot during running has been measured at 1% per 100 g per foot.
The cost of carrying similar weights is much lower for walking or for running when the
weight is carried nearer the body's centre of mass. Cushioning and other features of
shoe design besides weight have been shown to have significant effects on the economy
of locomotion. Optimum designs for maximising running performance should provide
sufficient traction, minimal weight and maximum cushioning.

Keywords: Physiology, footwear, biomechanics

Introduction
Ergonomics considerations play an important role in the
design of sports equipment. Such considerations are generally
aimed at enhancing one of two factors - performance or
safety. The design of shoes for the running sports is no
exception to this generalisation.
Running or 'jogging' shoes consist mainly of: an upper,
usually made of nylon and leather; a cushioning system
consisting of a full-length midsole and heel wedge made of
polymeric foam; and an outsole generally made of hard
rubber. There are hundreds of specific materials that can be
used for those three components, and a consideration of all
possible variations in component architecture makes it
apparent that there are literally thousands of ways to design
running shoes. What is interesting here is that the design that
is chosen, i e, the combination of particular materials and
shoe architecture, can have profound ergonomics
consequences.
Running shoe design can affect performance enabling
athletes to run faster and more economically, or it can
protect them from or predispose them to a plethora of
chronic and acute injuries ranging from simple blisters to
stress fractures. Many speculations have been made about
the factors in shoe design that cause injury, but there is
almost no experimental evidence proving such associations.
Strong statistical relationships are about as close as we come
to establishing footwear's effects on the aetiology of sports
injuries. These proposed relationships are thoroughly covered
in several excellent reviews (Hlavac, 1977; James et al, 1978;
Brody, 1980; Cavanagh, 1981 ; Clement et al, 1981 ; Nigg,
1984; and Nigg et al, 1984) and so those aspects of the
ergonomics of shoe design need not be reiterated here.
Instead, this review will focus on the performance parameters
in the ergonomic design equation.
Shoe design can affect running speed in two important
ways. It can influence traction which is important during
accelerating, stopping and turning, and it can modify the
energetic cost of running, which in turn may allow athletes
to run faster. Consider first the question of traction.
Traction
Running straight ahead at constant speed on a dry smooth
surface requires little traction. However, when running on
slippery surfaces, or when accelerating, stopping or turning,
the shear forces in the horizontal plane become great enough
to raise the issue of traction to a higher level of regard. In
such situations both the characteristics of the shoe and the
surface must be considered. For example, traction may be
good with a particular shoe on a given surface, but poor on
another surface. Cleated shoes on grass, compared with their
use on asphalt, serve as a specific example of this point.
Traction, as the term is being used in this review, relates
to the frictional coefficient between different shoes and
surfaces. In addition there are two kinds of frictional

0003-6870/84/04 0281-07 $03.00 Q 1984 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd AppliedErgonomics December 1984 281
Ergonomics in sport
coefficients translational or rotational. Translational refers
to a repositioning of the whole foot relative to the surface.
e g, sliding. Rotational refers to a rotation of the foot
around a point of contact between the shoe and surface.
Frictional coefficients between different shoes and
surfaces for translatory movements have been reported in
the literature (Haberl and Prokop, 1973; Morehouse and
Morrison, 1975; Nigg, 1980; Cavanagh and Williams, 1981 :
and Kolitzus, 1984). Values for the static coefficient of
translational friction ranging from 0.30 to 2-5 have been
reported by these authors. The major variable causing this
broad range o f values is the type of surface encountered.
Considering these data alone, cinder tracks appear to give
the lowest values, and smoother artificial surfaces generally
give higher values indicating greater traction.
Cavanagh and Williams (1981) have looked at the effects
of outsole design on traction. They reported static
coefficients ranging from 0.3 to 0-84 for a wide selection of
road running shoes on a wetted smooth tile surface. These
data show a tendency for outsole material to influence
traction more than the pattern. For example, the lowest
traction scores were found on shoes using an expanded
rubber type outsole and highest scores on solid rubber soles
regardless of sole pattern. However, given the specificity of
shoe and surface interactions and the effect of this
interaction on the friction measurement, one wonders about
the relevance of these measurements for conditions other
than running on a tile surface.
Another weakness of the approach of Cavanagh and
Williams, as well as the other authors cited, is that their data
were collected on a mechanical apparatus. What values might
have been found using human subjects? Stuke, Baudzus and
Baumann (1984) recently advanced understanding of this
question by reporting the results of studies using humans to
perform starting, stopping and turning movements on a
natural cinder and two artificial surfaces. Their results
showed higher coefficients than previously reported for the
cinder surface and lower values than expected for the two
synthetic surfaces.
These findings call into question some of the
generalisations which have been made about synthetic versus
natural surfaces. The authors also reported profound changes
in the kinematics of movement as a compemation to the
surface characteristics. These compensations affect the forces
generated during stopping, starting and turning. This
observation makes it difficult to justify the use of a simple
mechanical test, by itself, for the measurement of frictional
coefficients between sport shoes and playing surfaces.
With such a limited base of useful research data and so
many questions unanswered, one can make no hard and fast
s t a t e m e n t s about traction and running shoe design.
Fortunately, however, there seems to be little cause for
practical concern. Current shoe designs - which use spikes
on track and cross-country shoes, and hard rubber outsoles
on road running shoes - produce adequate traction for most
conditions, with the possible exception of wet asphalt.
Cavanagh and Williams' (1981)data suggest further that
there may be a better solution for those conditions.
However, it remains to be seen whether or not the trends in
their data can be repeated with human subjects on wet
asphalt.
282 AppliedErgonomics December 1984
Energetic economy of locomotion
A knowledge of energy expenditure is a critical element
in our understanding of the effects that sports shoes have on
the biomechanics of locomotion. O f particular importance
is the assessment of the effects of shoe design on the
energetic economy of locomotion.
The economy of locomotion is a measure of the "apparent
efficiency' (Pugh, 1971) of walking or running under
specified conditions. For example, if two persons of equal
weight run at the same speed while energy expenditure is
measured, and one subject requires less energy to perform
that task, it is said that that person is a more economical
runner. This is an inaccurate and crude way of estimating
efficiency because the amount of work done is not controlled
or measured, and this can mislead about the actual efficiency
of the two subjects. The subject who used less energy may
have been doing significantly less work as well. This would
negate any suspected efficiency gains and, in fact, the less
economical subject might be more efficient.
By using terms like 'apparent efficiency' and "economy'
some of the rigours of true efficiency measurements are
avoided. This may be viewed as a tbrm of intellectual
escapism, but there is some sense to this approach. In
athletic performance, for example, greater economy of
locomotion contributes to excellence (Conley and
Krahenbuhl. 1980). tf an athlete requires less energy than
others to perform a given task he or she is more likely to be
successful. It matters not whether a particular athlete's
enhanced economy of locomotion is due to a truly improved
efficiency or to a reduction in the work done a feat which
can be accomplished by moving more 'economically'.
In fact. the relationship being studied is:
Work done
Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
Energy required
Within the confines of this equation, differences in energy
requirements which might be the result of either a change in
work or efficiency can be observed. Measuring or controlling
the amount of work done is a different proposition, however.
and it is unnecessary when the objective is an assessment of
the economy rather than the efficiency of locomotion. If
the task performed is def'med, e g, running at a given
speed under eontroUed conditions, it should be permissible
to ascribe any observed differences in energy cost to
variations in the economy of locomotion.
The concept of economy of locomotion can be described
by the following equation. For a given task:
1
Economy o: ~.. (2)
Energy required
Although this relationship is useful tbr the purposes of
comparing the effects of various shoes and surfaces, it is best
to keep in mind that a difference in the energetic e c o n o m y
of locomotion does not equate to a difference in efficiency.
In fact, many economy differences can probably be explained
by changes in the work done.
This paper briefly reviews the methodology employed in
making such measurements, and then summarises published
research on the effects of shoe characteristics on the economy
of locomotion.
Ergonomics in sport
Measuring the economy of locomotion
Open circuit oxygen uptake measurement is the preferred
method for evaluating the energy requirements of locomotion
at sub-maximal steady state work loads. Even though this is
currently the best method for measuring energy expenditure,
it is still rather limited in its ability to resolve very small
treatment effects such as those that might be produced by
slight differences in the biomechanical properties of various
shoes.
The resolving power of the measurement, as it is used
here, refers to the ability to find statistically significant
differences between treatment groups. Resolution is
expressed as a percentage difference between means. Lower
percentages of resolution are better because they reflect an
ability to detect smaller differences between means.
Depending on the number of subjects used, the number of
replicate measurements made, and the variability resulting
from biological and technical sources, the resolving power of
oxygen uptake measurements ranges from less than 1% to
more than 10%. Many physiologists regard a 1% resolving
power for the measurement of oxygen uptake as impossible.
They mistakenly assume that the maximal resolving power
cannot exceed the reproducibility of the measurement,
which is generally regarded as being in the range of from
3 to 5%.
Day-to-day variability in oxygen uptake has been shown
to produce a coefficient of variation of from 3 to 5% (Katch
et al, 1982; Armstrong and Costill, 1983). Within-day
variability in our experience is less and usually falls within a
range of from 1 to 3% depending on the state of fitness of
the experimental subjects and to a lesser extent on their
familiarity with treadmill walking or running.
These wide values for the reproducibility of the measure-
ment add to the difficulty of finding statistically significant
differences between various treatment effects because they
increase the variability term of whatever statistic is used.
They do not, however, represent a built-in limit on our
ability to find significant differences.
To illustrate the lack of a direct influence of
reproducibility on resolving power, consider the example of
a hypothetical paired comparison experiment where a mean
difference (D) of 2-5% is found between the two treatments,
and that mean difference is found to have a coefficient of
variation (CV) of 2"4%. The sample size is 10. The formula
for calculating a paired difference t is:
t -
SD
When the appropriate values are inserted, t is found to be
3.29, a value that is significant at the 0.005 level of
probability.
Several observations need to be made here. The CV of the
measurement of ~'O 2 is almost always higher than the CV
of the difference measured here at 2.4%. A CV of the
measurement above 5% is typical. The main point here is that
the two are unrelated. Further, the mean difference, as a
percentage, and the CV of the mean difference can be quite
close to one another. It is even possible for the CV of the
mean difference to be larger than the mean difference,
provided a large enough sample size is used. Carrying this
argument further, Frederick (1983) was able to show that
it is practical to use oxygen uptake measurements to find
significant differences between treatments as small as 1%
to 2% when certain precautions are taken with the design of
the experiment and with the collection of data.
Even though Frederick et al (1983) have shown that the
CV of VO 2 measurements does not represent a built in limit
on the resolving power of the method, others may question
the physiological significance of differences, as small as 1%,
that fall within the range of day-to-day variability of the
measurement. If we carefully interpret the meaning of a
statistical difference between means, however, it is clear
that significant differences are outside the variability we are
measuring. Were they included in the day-to-day variations
they would not show up as significantly different. If a
difference between means is physiologically trivial it is
because it is interpreted as being small in magnitude and
not because it is small in relation to the CV of the
measurement.
Given the 1% resolving power of comparative oxygen
uptake experiments it is possible to find out a great deal
about the effects that various shoe characteristics have on
the economy of locomotion. The following sections review
the literature on this subject.
Weight effects
The earliest studies of the effects of shoe type on the
economy of locomotion were done during the later stages
of World War II. The work of Russell and Belding (1946)
was commissioned by the US Army Quartermaster Corps to
ascertain the effects of shoe weight on the energy cost of
walking. Because of the large changes in the potential
energy and in the rotational and translational kinetic
energies of the foot within each step, it is expected that the
relative cost of carrying weight on the feet should be much
greater than carrying the same weight on the torso. Results
were presented for barefoot walking and for walking in a
range of shoe types which were selected presumably because
of the wide differences in weight they represented (1-4 to
3"4 kg per pair).
Russell and Belding found a great deal of variation
between shoes in the economy of locomotion. As expected,
the heavier models required signficantly more expenditure
of energy although the authors speculated that only a
portion of those differences was due to the weight effects.
They were also able to show that at faster walking speeds
and on gradients the relative cost of carrying weight on the
feet went up. This increase in relative cost was also evident
when the costs of wearing heavier and heavier shoes were
compared. The authors speculated that part of this variation
in relative cost with speed, grade and weight might be
explained by variations in step frequency and in the vertical
excursion of the body's centre of mass which the authors
observed.
In another experiment, Russell and Belding compared
the effect of adding weights to a pair of standard issue
combat boots to carrying the same weight in a pouch at
the waist. Their results showed that carrying the weight
on the feet was about four times more costly than carrying
Applied Ergonomics December 1984 283
Ergonomicsin sport
it at the waist, nearer the centre of mass of the body. They
further discovered that carrying added weight on the feet
was less costly than wearing boots of similar additional
weight, supporting the observation that only part of the
variation in the cost of wearing different boots could be
explained by weight alone.
Table 1 displays some of the results of Russell and
Belding's experiments as well as other studies on the effects
of wearing shoes of differing weights on the economy of
locomotion. The results of all studies have been recalculated
to a value for the oxygen cost of load carriage in litres of
O 2 per kilogram of weight added to both feet per kilo-
metre walked or run. This normalised all results in a way
which eliminates the effect of differences in speed and
absolute weight carried.
Soule and Goldman (1969) and Ralston (1981)
performed their experiments by adding weights to the
foot rather than comparing the cost of walking in shoes of
different weight. Considering the increase in relative cost
of carrying progressively heavier weights observed by
Russell and Belding 0 9 4 6 ) , it is not surprising that both
Soule and Goldman and Ralston found greater costs of
load carriage than were reported in the earlier study.
Ralston added 4 kg to the feet and Soule and Goldman
12 kg - an amount of weight that would be expected to
produce gross and energetically costly adjustments m
kinematics.
The two running studies shown in Table 1 differ in
that the results reported by Catlin and Dressendorfer (1979)
were for two different models which differed in weight,
whereas the study of Frederick et al (1984) employed
identical shoes to which weights were added. The
discrepancy in the oxygen cost of load carriage between
the two studies is probably due to the fact that the two
shoes used by Catlin and Dressendorfer were different
enough in design features such as the amount of
cushioning they provided to cause effects on the economy
of locomotion beyond weight effects alone (Frederick,
1984', Frederick et al, 1983). These non.weight effects
are discussed in the following section.
Table 1: The oxygen cost of load carriage ~ 02/kg combined weight added to both feet/kitometre travelled for carrying
extra weight on the feet during level walking and running. Data represent means for a 68 kg man.
Condition
Walking @ 5.6 (km/h) in 2.1 kg/pr boots
Walking @ 5.6 (km/h) (0.91 kg weight added to both feet)
Walking @ 4.3 (km/h) (4kg weight added to both feet)
Walking @ 4.0 (km/h) (12 kg weight added to both feet)
Walking @ 5.6 (km/h) ( 12 kg weight added to both feet)
Running @ 15 (km/h)* (0.350 kg weight added to both feet)
Running @ 16.1 (km/h) (0.450 kg weight added to both feet)
*Average speed estimated from the range of speeds mentioned for all subjects
**Value forxeO2 calculated from kilocalorie data by dividing by 4.9
284 Applied Ergonomics December 1984
Non-weight effects
A number of studies have shown that various non-weight
related aspects of shoe design can have significant effects
on the kinetics and kinematics of locomotion (Nifl$ et al,
1983; Nigg and Luethi, 1980; Clarke etal, 1983a and b).
With such biomechanical effects in evidence it is not
surprising that differences in the economy of locomotion
have been reported.
Mathews and Wooten (1963) compared the economy
of locomotion of 10 female subjects walking barefoot and
in three different shoe styles - high heels, saddle style and
loafers. Saddle shoes are leather oxfords with a band o f
leather across the instep and loafers are of a moccasin-
like construction. There was no difference between the
mean oxygen uptakes reported for the barefoot, loafer
and saddle style shoes. However, walking either on the
level or on a 6% gradient in high heels was significantly
more costly than all of the other conditions. The difference
between walking on the level in the high-heels and in the
saddle shoes and loafers was 11% and 10% respectively.
High-heel walking on the level was 15% greater than bare-
foot walking.
Although Mathews and Wooten did not make any
kinematic measurements, it seems likely that the greater
cost of walking in the 3 in (7.62 cm) high heels may be
due to greater instability and to the added muscle tension
required for walking on the balls of the feet. Such extreme
instability may be energetically costly but the results in
studies of the effect of orthotics - supports designed to
control rearfoot movement on the economy of locomotion
are mixed.
Hennacy (1973) measured "~O2 on subjects walking
with and without orthotics. He used subjects that had
been diagnosed as having what the author referred to as
'foot problems' and a normal control group. The subjects
with foot problems showed twice as much variation in
VO:. and three of these subjects showed a lower VO 2
when walking with orthotics. Although Hennacy stated
that these three subjects showed a "definite improvement"
Oxygen cost
(~ 02/kg wt added
to both feet/km) Source
0.421 ** Russell & Betding (1946)
0-241** Russell & Belding (1946)
0.785"* Ralston (t981)
0.634 Soute & Goldman (1969)
1-004 Soule & Goldman (1969)
1.185"* Catlin & Dressendorfer (1979)
0.616 Frederick, Daniels & Hayes (1984)

Table 2: The oxygen cost of transport (ml 02/kg body wt/km)
while running without orthotics and with either
flexible or semi-rigid orthotics (data from Hayes,
Smith and Santopietro, 1983)
Treadmill speeds (m/s)
Condition 3"83* 4.47*
None 201-1 -+ 10-4 208"8-+ 10-3
Flexible 204-5 -+ 8-6 211"1 -+ 11.0
Semi-rigid 2 0 5 . 2 -+ 9.6 211"2-+ 10.9
*All data are shown as mean -+ SD
with the orthotics, he did not test for statistical
significance and judging from the large variation in his
results, it is unlikely that he would have found significance
had he tested for it. Given this lack of statistical treatment
of the data it is fair to conclude that no change in "~O2
occurred as a result of wearing orthotics.
Tests of runners wearing orthotics have shown either
no difference or an increase in VO 2 while wearing the
devices. Clement et al (1982) found no effect of wearing
orthotics on VO 2 in a group of ten subjects running at
three speeds on the treadmill. Hayes et al (1983), however,
showed that wearing either semi-rigid (RO) or flexible
orthotics (FO) caused a significant increase in ~'O2 while
running on the treadmill at two common speeds (3.83 and
4"47 m/s). Their results are shown in Table 2.
Hayes et al (1983) found X/O: values significantly
greater than no orthotics for both the RO and FO
conditions while running at the slower speed. At 4.47 m/s
only the RO condition was significantly different. No
significant differences were found between the two
orthotic conditions. Almost half of the increase in ~'O2
found with orthotics can be explained by the difference in
weight of the devices.
Little information is presented in the abstract of
Clement et al (1982) so it is difficult to speculate on why
they did not also find a significant increase in VO 2 with
orthotics. The fact they did not use common speeds but
relative speeds based on each subject's performance
capacity, however, would increase the variability of their
results and might have made it more difficult for them to
find statistical significance.
These results do not support the notion often heard in
sports medicine circles that orthotics improve 'biomechanical
efficiency'; in fact, wearing them appears to bring with it
a reduction in the economy of locomotion. This should not
be construed, however, as a recommendation for not wearing
the devices. They may perform important clinical
biomechanical functions which override any negative
energetic effects.
Improving the control of rearfoot movement in shoes
does not appear to have any positive effects on the economy
of locomotion; however, other features of shoe design
appear to have an effect. The results of Russell and
Belding (1946) and Catlin and Dressendorfer (1979)
suggest that non-weight effects may be influencing the
Ergonomics in sport
differences in economy of locomotion they observed when
their subjects walked or ran in different shoes. These
suggestions have been borne out by the results of several
studies of the effect of shoe cushioning on the oxygen
demands of running. In this context 'cushioning' refers to
the softness of the sole of the shoe and does not imply
any protective functions.
Frederick et al (1980a) found a significant difference in
VO 2 for a group of 11 subjects running in non-air-soled
and air-soled type shoes. Air-soled shoes have an inflated air
bladder imbedded in the shoe's midsole. The air-soled shoes
required 2"8% less ~'O 2 to run in even though they weighed
slightly more (mean difference 33 g/pair) than the
comparison shoes, which were made with a conventional
EVA (ethylene vinyl acetate) foam midsole in place of the
air-sole. The shoes were similar in all other aspects of their
design.
The subjects showed an average cost of transport of
200-0 ml O2/kg/km in air shoes and 205-7 ml 02/kg/km in
the lighter EVA shoes. The authors had no explanation for
these results but did offer the speculation that it might be
related to the increased cushioning of the air-soled shoes.
Subsequent studies have shown similar significant
improvements in the economy of running in air shoes.
Frederick et ql (1980b) were able to demonstrate significant
decreases in VO~ in elite distance runners running on the
treadmill at 5.37 m/s. These subjects used an average of
194.1 ml O:/kg/km running in lightweight racing shoes
(320 g/pair), and 191 "6 ml O2/kg/km running in a
significantly heavier (455 g/pair) air-soled prototype. This
small 1-3% difference was significant (p < 0.05) largely due
to the remarkable repeatability of measurements made on
these exceptionally fit subjects. One of the subjects showed
a coefficient of variation (CV) of 0"3% between days and
most were near 1%. These small CVs approach the
theoretical minimum biological variation.
A further factor in this experiment was the great
difference in weight between the shoes. An average weight
difference of 135 g per pair should account for an additional
0.7% difference in VO 2 (Frederick et al, 1984). This means
that if the non-air shoes were not so much lighter than the
air shoes the authors might have found a near 2% rather than
1"3% difference between shoes. Additional studies have
compensated for this weight difference. Daniels et al (1981)
have shown a statistically significant difference of 1.6%
between a production air-soled racing shoe and a specially
constructed control shoe that was identical to the air-soled
shoe except for the substitution of a standard EVA foam
midsole for the air shoe. Both shoe types were identical in
weight.
This study answered a criticism of the design of the
earlier experiments, namely that other variables in the design
of the shoe besides the midsole composition were not being
controlled. The results of these experiments have laid to
rest those criticisms and have raised an interesting question
about the relationship between speed and the ergogenic
effect of air-soled shoes.
In this experiment Daniels and co-workers took their
measurements at four different speeds: two speeds that
were used by all subjects - 3.83 m/s (7:00 min/mile pace)
Applied Ergonomics December 1984 285
Ergonomics in sport
and 4-47 m/s (6:00/mile pace) - and two speeds that were
near each subject's average training pace and 10 km race
pace. The data revealed a significant difference (p < 0.01)
between shoes only at speeds near 4-47 m/s. At the faster
or slower speeds significance was no longer found (see
Table 3).
This is a somewhat contradictory finding because
significant differences were found at 5-37 m/s and at an
average speed for all subjects of 4.08 m/s in previous
comparisons with other air-soled shoes (Frederick et al.
1980a and b). One explanation is that the air-soled shoes
used in these three studies each differed in weight, design of
the air-sole and the pressure to which the air-sole was inflated.
This explanation implies that there may have been some
coincidental 'tuning' of the shoes for particular speeds.
Another possible explanation is that in each case the speed
at which significance was found was near the subjects'
marathon race pace, a speed at which they can most easily
take advantage of whatever mechanical aid the shoe is
providing. This speed-related discrepancy in our results has
not been satisfactorily explained as yet, but new evidence
has provided strong support for the notion that the
ergogenic effects of air shoes may be related to their
enhanced cushioning properties. Frederick et al (1983)
have shown that systematically altering the softness of
shoes causes adjustments in VO 2 which can be explained,
in part by demonstrable kinematic adjustments in running
style (Clarke et al, 1983b). Frederick et al (1983) used
five different models of running shoes and a barefoot
condition in their study. The five shoes varied only in their
relative hardness. Relative hardness is computed by impact
testing the various shoes (Cavanagh, 1981) and normalising
the scores to the impact score for the EVA 35 shoe, the
de facto standard for sole hardness. The results of standard
treadmill VO 2 tests while wearing the different shoes or
running barefoot revealed significant main effects (repeated
measures ANOVA) due to shoe hardness. There was also
a tendency,for the softer shoes to have lower O 2 costs of
transport. The barefoot results were much higher than
expected. Further analysis revealed a significant
correlation (r -- 0-802, p < 0.05) between O 2 cost and the
maximum knee flexion velocity (MKFV) immediately
following foot contact in the various shoes. These data
indicate a biomechanical adaptation to shoe hardness
which appears to explain, at least in part, the frequently
observed reductions in VO 2 while running in soft versus
hard shoes. There was a lower MKFV in the softer shoes
indicating the body was doing less work to cushion itself
than in the harder shoes where MKFV was higher.
Table 3: Oxygen demands of treadmill running at two
speeds wearing air racing shoe or control shoe.
(Data from Daniels et al (1981))
Mean 0 2 cost (ml 0 2/kglkm + SD)
Shoe 3.83 m/s 4.47 m/s
Air shoe 198-7 -+ 19.4 202.2 +- 19.5"
Control 200-9 -+ 20.9 205"6 -+ 19.2"
*S ignifieantly different (p < 0.01)
286 Applied Ergonomics December 1984
These data indicate that shoes designed to allow athletes
to run most swiftly should be well cushioned as well as
light in weight. In addition, the potential effects of traction
should also be taken into account. The general findings of
this review are outlined in the following list of conclusions.
Conclusions
1. Various features of the design of running shoes affect
the performance and safety of athletes.
2. Traction in various types of running shoes appears to be
adequate for all but running on wet asphalt roads.
3. Conventional oxygen uptake measurement techniques
can resolve differences as small as 1% in the economy
of locomotion.
4. Significant differences as small as 1.3% have been found
in VO 2 when two shoe models are compared.
5. Carrying weight on the feet is relatively more costly
than carrying the same weight nearer to the body's
centre of mass.
6. The relative cost of carrying weight on the feet increases
with speed, gradient and the magnitude of the weight
carried.
7. Cushioning and other features of shoe design unrelated
to shoe weight can significantly affect the economy of
locomotion.
References
Armstrong, L.E., and Costill, D.L.
1983 Med S¢i Sports and Exercise, 15, 14 t - 142. Day-to-day
variations in respiratory exchange data during cycling
and running.
Brody, D.M.
1980 Running injuries. CIBA Clinical Symposia, Vo132, No 4.
Catlin, M.E., and Dressendorfer, R.H.
1979 Med Sci Sports, 11, 80. Effect of shoe weight on the
energy cost of running.
Cavanagh, P.R.
1981 The Running Shoe Book. Anderson World, Mountain
View, CA.
Cavanagh, P.R., and Williams, K.
1981 Runners [CorM, 16, (October), 26-39. Testing
procedures for the 1982 Runners Worm shoe survey.
Clarke, T.E., Frederick, E.C., and Cooper, L.B.
1983a Int J SportsMed, 4, 247 251. Effects of shoe
cushioning upon ground reaction forces in running.
Clarke, T.E., Frederick, E.C., and Cooper, L.B.
1983b Biomechanical measurement of running shoe
cushioning properties. In: Nigg, B.M., and Kerr, B.A.
(eds) Biomechanical aspects of sport shoes and playing
surfaces. University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Clement, D,B., Taunton, J.E., Smart, G.W., and
MeNicol, K.L
1981 Phys SportsMed, 9, 47-58. A survey of overuse
running injuries.

Clement, D.B., Taunton, J.E., Wiley, J.P., Smart, G.W.,
and McNieol, K.L.
1982 Int J Sports Med, 2, 14-15. Investigation of metabolic
efficiency in runners with and without corrective
orthotic devices.
Conley, D.H., and Krahenbuhl, G.S.
1980 Med Sci Sports & Exercise, 12, 357-360. Running
economy and distance running performance of highly
trained athletes.
Daniels, J.T., Larsen, J.L., Frederick, E.C., and Scardina, N.
1981 Aerobic demands of running: modified Magnum vs
Mariah (Research Report No 3) Nike Sports Research
Laboratory, Exeter, NH, USA.
Frederick, E.C.
1983 Extrinsic biomechanical aids. In: Williams, M.E. (ed).
Ergogenic Aids in Sport. Human Kinetics, Champaign-
Urbana, pp 323-339.
Frederick, E.C.
1984 The energy cost of load carriage on the feet during
running. In: Biomechanics IX. Human Kinetics
Publishers, Champaign-Urbana (in press).
Frederick, E.C., Howley, E.T., and Powers, S.K.
1980aMed Sci Sports, 12, 81-82. Lower 02 cost while
running on air cushion type shoe.
Frederick, E.C., Sharkey, B.J., and Larsen, J.L.
1980b Running economy of elite runners wearing air-soled
and non-air-soled racing flats. Unpublished report,
University of Montana.
Frederick, E.C., Clarke, T.E., Larsen, J.L., and Cooper, L.B.
1983 The effects of shoe cushioning on the oxygen demands
of running. In: Nigg, B.M., and Kerr, B.A. (eds)
Biomechanical aspects of sport shoes and playing
surfaces. University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Frederick, E.C., Daniels, J.T., and Hayes, J.W.
1984 The effect of shoe weight on the aerobic demands of
running. In: L. Prokop (ed) Proceedings of the XXII
World Congress on Sports Medicine, Vienna, 1982.
Habed, R., and Prokop, C.
1973 Oster Jffir Sportmedizin, 3, 3 - 17. Der Eingluss
Physikalischer Materalgrossen auf die Stutzphase beim
Lauf.
Hayes, J., Smith, L., and Santopietro, F.
1983 Med Sci Sports and Exercise, 15, 169. The effects of
orthotics on the aerobic demands of running.
Hennacy, R.H.
1973 JAmerPodiatric Assoc, 63,481-490. Metabolic
efficiency of orthotic appliances measured by oxygen
consumption.
Hlavac, H.
1977 The Foot Book. World Publications, Mountain View,
CA.
James, S.L., Bates, B.T., and Osternig, L.R.
1978 Amer J Sports Med, 6, 40-50. Injuries to runners.
Ergonomics in sport
Katch, V.L., Sady, S.S., and Freedson, P.
1982 Med Sci Sports and Exercise, 14, 21-25. Biological
variability in maximum aerobic power.
Kolitzus, H.J.
1984 Functional standards for playing surfaces. In:
Frederick, E.C. (ed) Sport shoes and playing
surfaces, Human Kinetics, Champaign-Urbana.
Mathews, D.K., and Wooten, E.P.
1963 Arch Phys Med Rehab, 44, 569-571. Analysis of
oxygen consumption of women while walking in
different styles of shoes.
Morehouse, C.A., and Morrison, W.E.
1975 The artificial turf story, Penn State HPER Series,
No 9, 1-62.
Nigg, B.M.
1980 Sportsplatzbelage. Juris Verlag, Zurich.
Nigg, B.M., and Luethi, S.
1980 Sportwissenschaft, 3,309-320. Bewegungsanalysen
bein Laufschuh.
Nigg, B.M., Denoth, J., Luethi, S., and Stacoff, A.
1983 Methodological aspects of sport shoe and sport floor
analysis. In: Matsui, H., and Kobayashi, K. (eds).
Biomechanics VIII. Human Kinetics. Champaign-
Urbana (in press).
Nigg, B.M.
1984 The load on the lower extremity in selected sports
activities. In: Wood, G.A. (ed) Collected papers on
sports biomechanics. Univ of West Australia,
Nedlands, W Australia.
Nigg, B.M., Denoth, J., Kerr, B., Luethi, S., Smith, D.,
and Stacoff, A.
1984 Load, sport shoes and playing surfaces. In:
Frederick, E.C. (ed) Sport Shoes and Playing Surfaces,
Human Kinetics, Champaign-Urbana.
Pugh, L.G.C.E.
1971 JPhysiol, 213,255-276. The influence of wind
resistance in running and walking, and the mechanical
efficiency of work against gravity.
Ralston, H.J.
1981 Energy expenditure. In: Inman, V.T., Ralston, H.J.,
and Todd, F. Human walking, Williams and Wilkins,
Baltimore, pp 62-77.
Russell, H.D., and Belding, H.S.
1946 Metabolic cost of wearing various types of footwear.
National Academy of Sciences Committee on
Quartermaster Problems Report, Harvard Fatigue
Laboratory, Cambridge, MA.
Soule, R.G., and Goldman, R.F.
1969 JApplPhysiol, 27, 687-690. Energy cost of loads
carried on the head, hands or feet.
Stuke, H., Baudzus, W., and Baumann, W.
1984 On friction characteristics of playing surfaces. In:
Frederick, E.C. (ed) Sport Shoes and Playing Surfaces,
Human Kinetics, Champaign-Urbana.
Applied Ergonomics December 1984 287