Department of Kinesiology, Health, and Sport Sciences
Nike Air Zoom Alphafly NEXT% and Effects on Overground Running
Introduction
Purpose
● To compare the effects of the Nike Air Zoom
Alphafly NEXT% shoes on overground running
economy and biomechanics
● Previous studies were conducted on treadmills
● This study looks to extend previous findings to
overground running
Nike Air Zoom Alphafly NEXT% (Dawson, 2020)
Background
● Nike developed a line of shoes to support attempts
in breaking the 2 hour barrier in the marathon
(Hutchinson, 2017)
● The Alphafly shoes introduced ZoomX foam with a
full-length carbon fiber plate
● There are many influences in running economy that
footwear can change (Barnes & Kilding, 2015;
Moore, 2016)
● Running economy represents the relationship
between oxygen consumption and running speed at
a submaximal level (Smoliga, 2016)
● Equally trained runners may demonstrate as much
as a 30% difference in running economy (Barnes &
Kilding, 2015)
● Different styles of running have different
biomechanical features and use the body in different
ways (Gindre et al., 2016)
● Treadmill running activates muscles differently and
is a very controlled environment, so overground
running is the next step to prior research (Benson et
al., 2020; Mileti et al., 2020)
Benjamin A. Nagel, Dr. Richard Robinson, Jacob S. Woodrow
Methods
Participants
● 14 well-trained NCAA DII distance track athletes
● 8 males, 6 females
● Run > 30 weeks per year at >30 miles per week
● No major injuries over the past 6 months
● Provided informed consent and got IRB approval
Data Collection
● 2 x 10 minute submaximal, steady state trials
● Lane 6 of the UIndy ARC indoor track
● Shoe order was counterbalanced
● GPS watch collected heart rate, cadence, stride
length, vertical oscillation, ground contact time, and
pace
● RPE was collected every 2-3 minutes
● Participants were recorded at the 7- and 9-minute
marks
Data Analysis
● Videos were reviewed to determine running style
using the Volodalen method
The Volodalen method of assessing aerial versus
terrestrial patterns in runners (Gindre et al., 2016)
Statistical Analysis
● Data was analyzed using R software
● Comparisons using Welch’s t-tests for difference in
means
● Alpha was set at 0.05
Results
All participants: Alphaflys vs. Regular Training Shoes
Aerial vs. Terrestrial Runners
● 5 participants were classified as aerial runners
● 9 participants were classified as terrestrial runners
● Terrestrial runners showed no significant differences
in any variables
Comparisons based on body weight
● The 7 heaviest participants weighed 64.0 kg or more
● The 7 lightest participants weighed 62.4 kg or less
Comparisons based on speed
● The 7 fastest participants ran at 5:42 pace or faster
● The 7 slowest participants ran at 5:46 pace or slower
● No variables differed between trials 1 and 2,
regardless of footwear
Discussion
Running Economy Substitute
● Heart rate and RPE at a steady state intensity is an
appropriate alternative to running economy (de
Ruiter et al., 2019; van Oeveren et al., 2017)
● Lower heart rate and RPE values at a faster speed in
Alphaflys was consistent with previous studies
conducted on treadmills (Hoogkamer et al., 2018,
Hoogkamer et al., 2019)
● Improvements found in this and previous studies are
around 1.5-2%
Interaction between the Alphaflys and Running Style
● Aerial runners show greater flight time, vertical
oscillation and force, and leg stiffness (Gindre et al.,
2016)
● This is most advantageous with the biomechanical
changes with the Alphaflys and is shown in results
● Terrestrial runners show longer ground contact time
and greater leg compression (Gindre et al., 2016)
Interaction between the Alphaflys and Runners’
Mass
● Rigidity of Alphaflys have previously been linked
with improvements in running economy (Roy &
Stefanyshyn, 2006)
● Additional weight facilitates more favorable energy
return thanks to longitudinal stiffness (Roy &
Stefanyshyn, 2006)
Interaction between the Alphaflys and Runners’
Speed
● The average speed of this study (4.66 m/s) matches
previous studies’ findings of improved performance
in Alphaflys with speeds between 3.89 and 5.00 m/s
(Healey & Hoogkamer, 2021; McLeod, 2020; Roy
& Stefanyshyn, 2006)
● Faster runners have higher ground reaction forces,
which allows for better energy return from the
Alphaflys (Mohr, 2021)
● Slower runners benefit from more economical
muscle contractions associated with longer ground
contact times in Alphaflys (Lussiana, 2019).
Optimal shoes would be individualized but Alphaflys
seem to be best for heavier, faster, and aerial runners
Reference List
Barnes, K. R., & Kilding, A. E. (2015). Running economy: measurement, norms, and determining
factors. Sports medicine - open, 1(1), 8. 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, 8, 86. 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/
de Ruiter, C. J., van Daal, S., & van Dieën, J. H. (2020). Individual optimal step frequency during
outdoor running. European journal of sport science, 20(2), 182–190.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2019.1626911
Gindre, C., Lussiana, T., Hebert-Losier, K., & Mourot, L. (2016). Aerial and Terrestrial Patterns: A Novel
Approach to Analyzing Human Running. International journal of sports medicine, 37(1), 25–29.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1555931
Healey, L. A., & Hoogkamer, W. (2021). Longitudinal bending stiffness does not affect running economy in
Nike Vaporfly Shoes. Journal of sport and health science, S2095-2546(21)00073-9. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2021.07.002
Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S., Frank, J. H., Farina, E. M., Luo, G., & Kram, R. (2018). A Comparison of the
Energetic Cost of Running in Marathon Racing Shoes. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 48(4),
1009–1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0811-2
Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S., & Kram, R. (2019). The Biomechanics of Competitive Male Runners in
Three Marathon Racing Shoes: A Randomized Crossover Study. Sports medicine (Auckland,
N.Z.), 49(1), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-1024-z
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-claim
Lussiana, T., Patoz, A., Gindre, C., Mourot, L., & Hébert-Losier, K. (2019). The implications of time
on the ground on running economy: less is not always better. The Journal of experimental
biology, 222(Pt 6), jeb192047. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.192047
McLeod, A. R. (2020). A comparison of running shoe optimal stiffness and speed. BYU
ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations, 9049. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/9049
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, 8, 581619.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.581619
Mohr, M., von Tscharner, V., Nigg, S., & Nigg, B. M. (2021). Systematic reduction of leg muscle
activity throughout a standard assessment of running footwear. Journal of sport and health
science, S2095-2546(21)00003-X. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/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 (Auckland, N.Z.), 46(6),
793–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0474-4
Roy, J. P., & Stefanyshyn, D. J. (2006). Shoe midsole longitudinal bending stiffness and running
economy, joint energy, and EMG. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 38(3),
562–569. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000193562.22001.e8
Smoliga J. M. (2017). What is running economy? A clinician's guide to key concepts, applications
and myths. British journal of sports medicine, 51(10), 831–832.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096159
van Oeveren, B. T., de Ruiter, C. J., Beek, P. J., & van Dieën, J. H. (2017). Optimal stride
frequencies in running at different speeds. PloS one, 12(10), e0184273.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184273
Contact Information
Ben Nagel
nagelb@uindy.edu