NIKE AIR ZOOM ALPHAFLY NEXT% AND EFFECTS ON

OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY

By

Benjamin A. Nagel

Proposal for an Honors Project

In the Ron and Laura Strain Honors College of
THE UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS
August 2021

Faculty Advisor: Richard Robinson, Ph.D.

Executive Director of Honors: James B. Williams, Ph.D.

Citation Style: American Psychological Association (APA)

NIKE ALPHAFLYS AND OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY 2

Abstract

Running shoe construction affects endurance running performance, and with Nike leading

the way in recent advances in shoe technology, competitive runners want to know what effect

these models of shoes have on their performance. Recent research investigating these effects

from the Nike Air Zoom Alphafly Next% shoes has used treadmill running. Given that

competitive running occurs on overground surfaces, there is a need to examine the effects of

Alphafly shoes on running economy and biomechanics during overground running. With a $275

price tag, it is important for runners to know if the price is worth it in comparison to other

models of shoes. The target of this study will be to investigate the extent of performance

enhancement, if present at all, that the Alphaflys give by testing highly trained runners in

sub-maximal trials on a track. A portable metabolic device, GPS watch, chest heart rate monitor,

and biomechanical apps will be used to measure and compare the physiological and

biomechanical effects of the Alphaflys with more commonly constructed running shoes during

overground running.
NIKE ALPHAFLYS AND OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY 3

Introduction

Overview

The purpose of this project is to compare the effects of the Nike Air Zoom Alphafly

Next% shoes on the running economy and biomechanics of highly trained, competitive runners

in comparison to other typically constructed racing flats. The focus will be on whether the

technology in these shoes, including the ZoomX foam and full-length carbon fiber plate,

enhances the runner’s biomechanical and physiological function. Unlike previous studies

conducted on treadmills, the proposed project will require participants to run on the outside lane

of an indoor track to assess the effects of the Nike Air Zoom Alphafly Next% in an environment

more specific to competitive running. Since the Alphaflys are expensive and scarce, three to six

pairs of the shoes will be purchased in varying sizes to allow runners of assorted foot sizes to

participate in the study without the burden of purchasing their own shoes or limiting participation

to runners who already own a pair, Participants will be well-trained distance runners, as this is

the group of people for whom the shoes were designed and for whom the results of the study will

be most relevant. Participants will run submaximal trials in their own racing flats and the

Alphaflys in order to compare the effects on physiological and biomechanical function.

Repeated-measures ANOVAs will be conducted to determine if the effects of the Alphaflys on

physiological and biomechanical measures is significantly different from those of typically

constructed racing flats.

NIKE ALPHAFLYS AND OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY 4

Problem Statement

Will the Alphafly running shoes significantly improve running economy and running

biomechanics compared to typically-constructed racing flats? Given the relationship between

running economy and endurance running performance, any improvement would translate into

faster race times.

Background

Nike developed the Vaporfly 4% shoes to support the attempt in 2016 by elite

marathoners to complete a marathon in less than two hours with “4%” referring to the expected

improvement in running economy from running in the Vaporfly shoes (Hutchinson, 2017).

Subsequent fast race times by runners wearing Nike Alphafly shoes has led to the perception that

the shoes enhance, perhaps unfairly, competitive performance. Alphaflys significantly affect

physiological and biomechanical measures (Hoogkamer et al., 2019; Kilding & Barnes, 2019),

however, previous studies involved treadmill running, consequently, there is a need to assess the

effects of Alphaflys during overground running in a more competition-specific environment.

Literature Review

Description of Running Economy

Running economy represents the “aerobic demands of running, or the relationship

between oxygen consumption and running speed” at a submaximal level (Smoliga, 2016, p. 831).

Runners of the same body mass who have a higher running economy require less energy and

oxygen to run at the same speed as runners with a low running economy.
NIKE ALPHAFLYS AND OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY 5

Importance of Running Economy to Endurance Running Performance

VO2 max is the maximum oxygen that can be consumed during endurance exercise and

demonstrates a strong relationship with endurance performance (Joyner, 1991). However,

equally trained runners may demonstrate as much as 30% difference in running economy (Barnes

& Kilding, 2015). As a result, the running speed (velocity) associated with VO 2 max is a better

indicator of running performance than VO2 max because it incorporates both VO2 max and

running economy (Saunders et al., 2004). The reduced energy expenditure associated with

higher levels of running economy also provides a performance advantage in events greater than

90 minutes in duration by conserving muscle glycogen and allowing faster, sustained running

speeds over the entire race distance (Hearris et al., 2018). A 1% improvement in running

economy can decrease marathon time by 1.17% for recreational runners and 0.65% for elite

runners (Kipp et al., 2019).

Factors Affecting Running Economy

Barnes and Kilding (2015) identified four categories of factors that affect running

economy: (a) metabolic; (b) cardiorespiratory; (c) biomechanical; and (d) neuromuscular.

Moore (2016) presented evidence that the following modifiable biomechanical and

neuromuscular factors demonstrate the greatest influence on running economy: (a) self-selected

stride lengths; (b) lower vertical oscillation; (c) greater leg stiffness; (d) alignment of ground

reaction forces during propulsion; (e) lower limb moment of inertia; (f) less leg extension at

take-off; (g) larger stride angles; (h) lower muscle activation during propulsion; and (i) lower

agonist-antagonist co-activation.
NIKE ALPHAFLYS AND OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY 6

Effects of Running Shoes on Running Economy

Running shoes influence running economy by modifying biomechanical and

neuromuscular factors (Moore, 2016). Shoe weight modifies running economy by affecting

lower limb moment of inertia and muscle activation (Hoogkamer et al., 2016; Moore, 2016).

Stack height is the amount of cushioning or other materials that is between the bottom of a

runner’s foot and the running surface. Heel to toe drop is the thickness difference in the stack

height (cushioning) from the back of the shoe to the front. The elastic properties of stack height

material may contribute to propulsive force and improve running economy (Peri et al., 2012).

Minimalist shoes with stack heights of less than 10 millimeters and lower heel-to-toe drop

dimensions improve running economy even when weight is added (Vercruyssen et al., 2016) and

regardless of the type of foot strike (Peri et al., 2012) by increasing the elastic contribution of the

Achilles tendon and intrinsic foot musculature.

Nike Alphaflys have several features that contribute to improved running economy

(Hoogkamer et al., 2019). The elastic characteristics of the midsole foam provide an additional

source of propulsive force each step that reduces ground contact time. The stiff carbon fiber

plate in the midsole allows the foot to function as a single lever by decreasing energy losses

associated with movement at the metatarsophalangeal and phalangeal joints during take-off. All

shoe materials, including air pods, were selected to decrease weight and, as discussed above,

improve running economy by reducing lower limb moment of inertia and muscle activation.

Treadmill versus Overground Running: Biomechanical and Neuromuscular Demands

Since previous research on the Alphaflys has involved treadmill running there is a need to

assess the effects of Alphaflys during overground running in a more competition-specific

NIKE ALPHAFLYS AND OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY 7

environment. In addition, the biomechanical and neuromuscular demands of treadmill running

may differ in ways that influence running economy. For example, step and stride regularity was

greater during treadmill running (Benson et al., 2020) and muscle activation occurred earlier in

the step cycle (Mileti et al., 2020). whereas overground running demonstrated greater variability

in vertical accelerations (Benson et al., 2020).

Nike Air Zoom Alphafly Next% (Dawson, 2020)

NIKE ALPHAFLYS AND OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY 8

Method

Participants

Participants will be 10 to 25 collegiate and post-collegiate runners from the Indianapolis

area who have trained greater than 30 weeks a year and averaged greater than 30 miles per week.

Athletes who have had a major injury over the past six months will be excluded from the study.

Materials

Three to six pairs of Nike Air Zoom Alphafly NEXT% running shoes of varying sizes

will be purchased using funding from the Ron and Laura Strain Honors College (pending

proposal approval) to accommodate as many athletes as possible. The athletes must be able to fit

into one of the shoe sizes that will be purchased; the research team will keep this in mind as

interest questionnaires are collected and final participants are chosen. The shoes will stay with

the study conductors and athletes will rotate through the shoes of their given size when tested.

Because of the low-mileage that is required to be run for the tests, there will not be enough wear

on the marathon-specific shoes to affect the participants running towards the end of the study.

The University of Indianapolis’s portable metabolic device (Cosmed K5, Rome, IT), Garmin

Forerunner 620 (Olathe, KS), chest heart rate monitor, and iPad will be borrowed for this study,

with the possible use of researcher Ben Nagel’s GPS watch as well. Advisor Dr. Richard

Robinson is familiar with this equipment and will aid and train Ben Nagel how to use the

equipment, since he has no previous experience in using the Cosmed K5 or chest heart rate

monitor. Dr. Robinson has given permission to assist in this project. His main field of research

is motor control and biomechanics; his qualifications include previous research on running

biomechanics and economy.

NIKE ALPHAFLYS AND OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY 9

Data Collection

A survey will be completed by runners to share their recent training, regular shoe of

choice, and other relevant information. Runners’ heights and weights will be measured to

accurately determine VO2 and biomechanical data. After performing their habitual warm up

routines, runners will then perform two 10-minute submaximal, steady state trials on the

University of Indianapolis Athletics & Recreation Center indoor track (≈233.3 meters per lap).

The proposed trial duration and submaximal intensity ensures that runners will achieve the

physiological steady state necessary to accurately measure running economy (Barnes & Kilding,

2015), reach running stride stability (Mohr et al., 2021), and provide multiple data collection

opportunities, thus increasing reliability. The order of trials for participants will be

counterbalanced to prevent order effects – that is, participant #1 will first run in Alphaflys then in

their regular shoes, participant #2 will first run in their regular shoes followed by the Alphaflys,

and so on. Athletes will run in lane six to decrease the effect of turning on running speed. The

speed of trials will be determined collaboratively by the athlete and researchers as an effort that

could be maintained for one hour based on recent training and race performances. Lap split

times will be recorded and fed back to participants to assist in maintaining proper speed and

confirm speed data collected by GPS devices (Cosmed K5 and Garmin Forerunner 620).

Athletes will be wearing a portable metabolic device (Cosmed K5, Rome, IT) and Garmin

Forerunner 620 or 645 (Olathe, KS) watch with a chest heart rate monitor and accelerometer

synced via Bluetooth. The Cosmed K5 will be collecting VO 2 and speed via GPS continuously.

The Garmin watch will be collecting heart rate, biomechanics including cadence, stride length,

vertical oscillation, and ground contact time, and speed via GPS. Every two laps, runners will be

asked to hold up fingers signifying their Rating of Perceived Exertion (CR-10 RPE) on a scale of
NIKE ALPHAFLYS AND OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY 10

1 to 10, where 10 is an all-out effort and the target for these efforts is 2 to 5. Runners will be

video recorded with the iPad on the 30-meter straightaway of the track at the 7 and 9 minute

marks of the trial. Runners will wear black spandex shorts/pants and joint markers to facilitate

biomechanical analyses.

Data Analysis

The mean and standard deviations of for VO2 and RPE will be calculated over the final

three minutes of both trials. Cadence, stride length, vertical oscillation, and ground contact time,

and speed data collected with Garmin 620 Forerunner will also be averaged over the last 3

minutes of both trials. The video recordings will be analyzed with the Runmatic iOS apps and

the Volodalen method (Gindre, et al., 2016) to measure, respectively, running biomechanics and

running style (“aerial” versus “terrestrial”). The Runmatic app involves placing virtual markers

at the head, hip (closest to the camera), knees, and ankles during the take-off, maximum vertical

projection, strike, touchdown, and full support phases of the stride. Trunk, hip flexion, swing

knee, hip extension, and support knee angles are derived from this analysis. Data collected at the

7 and 9 minute marks will be averaged. The Volodalen method involves video observation and

the subjective rating (1-5 scale) of vertical oscillation (high vs. low), arm movement (low vs.

high), pelvis position at ground contact (low vs. high), foot position at ground contact relative to

center of gravity (in front of or underneath), foot strike pattern (rear or forefoot) to determine if a

runner is classified as “terrestrial” (less than or equal to a total score of 15) or “aerial” (greater

than a total score of 15).

Statistical Analysis

Repeated-measures ANOVAs (analysis of variance) will be calculated using SPSS (27.0

Chicago, IL) to determine if the effects of the Alphaflys on dependent variables differs
NIKE ALPHAFLYS AND OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY 11

significantly from conventionally constructed racing flats. A number of trials will be randomly

selected and the Runmatic and Volodalen analyses will be repeated to determine reliability (SPSS

27.0, Chicago, IL).

Timeline

Expected Results

From the results of this project, it is expected to either be able to uphold previous studies’

results about advantages of Alphaflys in running economy that were conducted on treadmills or

explain how these advantages are either more or less for overground running. In using analysis

of variation (ANOVA), the means for different physiological and biomechanical measures can be

compared and the differences between them will be deemed as statistically significant or not. If
NIKE ALPHAFLYS AND OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY 12

there is no clear, statistically significant difference between the two measures of the Alphaflys

and regular training shoes, then there would be no advantage in wearing the Alphaflys.

However, expectations are that the difference of means will favor the Alphaflys to a significant

and practical level.

Possible Contribution

If results show that Alphaflys positively contribute to running economy on overground

running, this will allow extension of previous studies that have proved the advantage in treadmill

running only. However, if this study does not find evidence to support advantages given from

wearing Alphafly shoes, it could question the overall effects for overground running. In broader

terms, when people are looking to spend nearly $300 on a pair of running shoes, they would

want to know how the shoes can improve their performance, if at all. Competitive runners will

be very interested in the answer to the question on how advantageous the shoes are. This will be

the first study with Alphaflys in overground running, so results will be unique and relevant to the

field.

Conclusion

This project will be the first to investigate the effects of Alphaflys on running economy

and biomechanics during overground running and provide answers about potential performance

enhancement under more competition-specific conditions.

NIKE ALPHAFLYS AND OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY 13

References

Barnes, K. R., & Kilding, A. E. (2015). Running economy: measurement, norms, and
determining factors. Sports Medicine - Open. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-015-0007-y

Benson, L. C., Clermont, C. A., & Ferber, R. (2020). New considerations for collecting
biomechanical data using wearable sensors: the effect of different running environments.
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00086

Dawson, Andrew (2020). The nike air zoom alphafly next% has been announced. Runner’s
World. https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a30783617/nike-alphafly-next-percent/

Dumke, C. L., Pfaffenroth, C. M., McBride, J. M., & McCauley, G. O. (2010). Relationship
between muscle strength, power and stiffness and running economy in trained male
runners. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 249-261.
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.5.2.249

Dyer, B. (2020). A pragmatic approach to resolving technological unfairness: the case of nike’s
vaporfly and alphafly running footwear. Sports Medicine - Open.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00250-1

Folland, J. P., Allen, S. J., Black, M. I., Handsaker, J. C., & Forrester, S. E. (2017). Running
technique is an important component of running economy and performance. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, 1412-1423.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001245

Gindre, C., Lussiana, T., Herbert-Losier, K., & Mourot, L. (2016). Aerial and terrestrial patterns:
a novel approach to analyzing human running. International Journal of Sports Medicine,
25-29. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1555931

Hearris, M., Hammond, K., Fell, J., Morton, J. (2018). Regulation of muscle glycogen
metabolism during exercise: Implications for endurance performance and training
adaptations. Nutrients, 10(3), 298. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10030298

Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S., & Kram, R. (2019). The biomechanics of competitive male runners in
three marathon racing shoes: a randomized crossover study. Sports Medicine, 133-143.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-1024-z

Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S., Spiering, B. A., & Kram, R. (2016). Altered running economy directly
translates to altered distance-running performance. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 2175-2180. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.000000000001012
NIKE ALPHAFLYS AND OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY 14

Hutchinson, A. (2017, November 16). Researchers Confirm Nike’s “4%” Marathon Shoe Claim.
Retrieved from Outside:
https://www.outsideonline.com/2262486/researchers-confirm-nikes-4-marathon-shoe-clai
m

Joyner, M.J. (1991). Modeling: Optimal marathon performance on the basis of physiological
factors. Journal of Applied Physiology, 70, 683-687.

Kilding, A. E., & Barnes, K. R. (2019). A randomized crossover study investigating the running
economy of highly-trained male and female distance runners in marathon racing shoes
versus track spikes. Sports Medicine, 331-342.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-1012-3

Kipp, S., Kram, R., & Hoogkamer, W. (2019). Extrapolating metabolic savings in running:
implications for performance predictions. Frontiers in Physiology.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00079

Lussiana, T., Patoz, A., Gindre, C., Mourot, L., & Hebert-Losier, K. (2019). The implications of
time on the ground on running economy: less is not always better. Journal of
Experimental Biology. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.192047

Mileti, I., Serra, A., Wolf, N., Munoz-Martel, V., Ekizos, A., Palermo, E., Arampatzis, A.,
Santuz, A. (2020). Muscle activation patterns are more constrained and regular in
treadmill than in overground human locomotion. Frontiers in Bioengineering and
Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.07.191080

Mohr, M., von Tscharner, V., Nigg, S. & Nigg, B.N. (2021). Systematic reduction of leg muscle
activity throughout a standard assessment of running footwear. Journal of Sport and
Health Science, https://doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2021.01.003

Moore, I. S. (2016). Is there an economical running technique? a review of modifiable

biomechanical factors affecting running economy. Sports Medicine, 793-807.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0474-4

Moore, I. S., Ashford, K. J., Cross, C., Hope, J., Jones, H. S., & McCarthy-Ryan, M. (2019).
Humans optimize ground contact time and leg stiffness to minimize the metabolic cost of
running. Frontiers in Sports and Active Learning.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2019.00053

Nike Air. (2021). Nike. February, 2021 from https://www.nike.com/air

NIKE ALPHAFLYS AND OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY 15

Peri, D. P., Daoud, A. I., & Lieberman, D. E. (2012). Effects of footwear and strike type on
running economy. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1335-1343.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318247989e

Preece, S. J., Bramah, C., & Mason, D. (2019). The biomechanical characteristics of
high-performance endurance running. European Journal of Sport Science, 784-792.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1554707

Saunders, P., Pyne, D., Telford, R., Hawley, J. (2004). Factors affecting running economy in
trained distance runners. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 34(7), 465-485.
https://doi.org/10.2165/000007256-200434070-00005

Segler, Christopher (2015). Minimalist vs maximalist running shoes. Doc on the Run.
https://www.docontherun.com/minimalist-vs-maximalist-running-shoes

Shaw, A. J., Ingham, S. A., Atkinson, G., & Folland, J. P. (2015). The correlation between
running economy and maximal oxygen uptake: cross-sectional and longitudinal
relationships in highly trained distance runners. PLoS ONE.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123101

Smoliga, J. M. (2016). What is running economy? A clinician's guide to key concepts,

applications and myths. British Journal of Sports Medicine.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096159

Tam, N., Tucker, R., Santos-Concerjero, J., Prins, D., & Lamberts, R. P. (2019). Running
economy: neuromuscular and joint-stiffness contributions in trained runners.
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 16-22.
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0151

Vercruyssen, F., Tartaruga, M., Horvais, N., & Brisswalter, J. (2016). Effects of footwear and
fatigue on running economy and biomechanics in trail runners. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 1976-1984. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.000000000000981

ZoomX. (2021). Nike. February, 2021 from https://www.nike.com/zoomx

NIKE ALPHAFLYS AND OVERGROUND RUNNING ECONOMY 16

Appendices

I. CITI Training