Journal of sports sciences · 2024
The Ability of Stryd Footpod Metrics to Reflect Changes in Metabolic Power Between Running Shoe Types.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hudgins Jake H, Pastina Joseph T, Gillis Isabelle L, Abel Mark G, Bergstrom Haley C, Black W Scott, Best Stuart A
Аннотация
It is unclear if running power (RP) estimated by the Stryd footpod device maintains its linear relationship to metabolic power (WMET) when switching between training and racing shoe types. This study determined if RP estimated by the Stryd footpod and its other spatiotemporal metrics reflect the improvement (decrease) in WMET when wearing high-performance racing shoes (HPRS; Nike AlphaFly Next%) compared to control training shoes (CTS; Nike Revolution 5). Fourteen well-trained runners completed two treadmill tests: Absolute Velocity Running Test (AVRT; 11.3-14.5 km·hr-1) and Relative Velocity Running Test (RVRT; 55-75% VO2MAX). WMET was determined with indirect calorimetry. RP was not significantly different between shoe types (p > 0.432) during the AVRT, but WMET was ~5% lower in HPRS (p < 0.001). During the RVRT, participants ran ~6% faster and at ~6% higher RP (both, p < 0.001) in HPRS for the same WMET (p = 0.869). Linear mixed models confirmed WMET was ~5% lower in HPRS for a given RP (p < 0.001). Still, RP and WMET were strongly related within shoe types (p < 0.001, conditional-R2 = 0.982, SEE = 2.57%). Form power ratio and ground contact time correlated with energetic cost (p < 0.011) but did not fully reflect the influence of shoe type. Therefore, runners should account for their shoe type when using RP to indicate WMET between training and racing.