Online Appendix

The main manuscript document provides a number of points regarding clinical interpretation of

economy. This online appendix provides some specific examples to further demonstrate

the points of the main text, so that one can fully appreciate the nuances of interpreting running

economy data.

Does Running Economy Vary Across Different Running Speeds?

Daniels and Daniels 1 performed numerous analyses of running economy data in elite

runners to reach their conclusion that running economy is highly dependent upon the running

speeds used. The interested reader is referred to their original paper to gain a greater

appreciation of this topic. However, one example is seen when comparing the running economy

of elite male runners to that of other elite male long-distance runners (e.g., 5km and

10km specialists). Elite male marathoners were more economical than elite runners competing

in shorter events at 3:44/km pace (268m/min; much slower than race pace), but had equal

economy at marathon pace. If only speeds slower than race pace had been evaluated, marathon

runners would be deemed “more economical” but when race pace is considered, they have no

economical advantage.

The influence of running speed on running economy is especially relevant in studies

investigation interventions (e.g., minimalist , running, orthotics), since the effects of weight on running economy are actually reduced at faster running speeds.2 In other words, if a shoe intervention improves economy at a slow pace (e.g., 4:21/km), this does not necessarily equate to improvements at marathon pace (e.g. <3:44/km) to translate to improved racing performance. This speed-specific principle can work in either direction,

depending on the intervention. For instance, Reeves 3 reported that running economy during

barefoot running was unchanged at 67 and 75% of VO2max, but was significantly lower (less

aerobic demand) barefoot at 84% and 91% of VO2max (which would be approximately

representative of half marathon through 10K race intensity).4 This finding would have been

missed if only slower speeds were used (as they commonly are). Thus, it is possible that

conclusions from studies examining only 60 and 70% of peak sustainable velocity 5 would have

been different if faster speeds were examined. Likewise, when running economy is measured at

only one speed (e.g,. running economy at ~80% VO2max does not change over a season of

training), 6, it is impossible to know whether a negative finding is representative of running

economy across multiple other intensities.

Why Are Fixed-Speed Protocols Problematic For Comparing Heterogeneous Groups of

Runners?

Running test protocols are often chosen so that a heterogeneous group of subjects can all

achieve the given treadmill speed, but fixed-speed running economy comparisons may be of

1 limited practical value when large differences in VO2max exist. Thus, comparisons of running

economy between individuals of different fitness are ideally performed at similar relative

1 intensities (i.e., similar percentages of velocity at VO2max or a known racing pace). This may be

demonstrated by Barnes; although males were slightly less economical in terms of absolute VO2

at a fixed speed, males were more economical when VO2 was expressed as a percentage of

7 VO2max at those same speeds. Thus, if fixed-speeds comparisons between groups are necessary,

relative intensity may be more meaningful than running economy. In other cases, fixed treadmill speeds are selected without regard to the population of

interest. For example, Warne 8 measured running economy at 11.0km/h because it had

“previously been considered an appropriate steady state ‘‘endurance running’’ velocity.”

However, the study they cited 9 reported a preferred “endurance running speed” of 11.9±1.4km/h

(range 7.7-23.9km/h) in a mixed male and female sample of Kenyan runners of unreported fitness level. Although Warne concluded gait retraining did not influence running economy, the arbitrary treadmill speed used (incorrectly based on the average preferred speed from a very

different group of runners) precludes accurate analysis of the intervention.

Does Running Surface Influence Running Economy?

Decisions regarding optimizing running economy in competitive athletes should consider

competition surface and environment. For example, mechanical differences and wind resistance

cause VO2 differences between treadmill and overground running, which may influence running

economy. Although the significance of such differences are also speed-dependent, a 1%

10 treadmill grade generally produces a VO2 comparative to level ground. However, different

treadmill designs (e.g., surface11 or motor12) and ground surfaces influence energy expenditure,

thus this 1% equivalency is not necessarily universal. Numerous studies from the 1970’s

13 suggested running economy was worse (greater VO2) overground, but a recent study found

running economy was superior (lower VO2) overground compared to 1% treadmill incline,

which may be due to improved mobile measurement techniques and running surfaces.14

Does Habituation to an Intervention Influence Running Economy?

Many studies have examined whether an intervention, such as a shoe or altered footstrike

pattern, acutely influences running economy. However, the value of examining acute responses

in running economy is of questionable clinical relevance, given that the physiological response to

an unfamiliar movement may be different than the physiologic response which occurs after

habituation. This concept is demonstrated in Warne’s study,15 in which running economy did not differ between minimalist and traditional running shoes at baseline, but was significantly improved following four weeks of using the minimalist shoes, and thus concluded minimalist shoes can be valuable for enhancing running economy. If only acute effects of minimalist shoes were evaluated, one would conclude minimalist shoes did not improve running economy.

Although this study demonstrates how different conclusions may be reached, depending on whether acute or chronic effects are measured, it must be realized that there are some limitations which could influence the results. These include the lack of a control group that did not incorporate minimalist shoes into their training, the inclusion of exercises targeting the calves and foot, and the use of low relative intensities (~60-70% of VO2max, a limitation acknowledged

by the authors).

Given that acute changes to an intervention may not reflect chronic changes to an

intervention, one must carefully consider the conclusions about running economy in studies

which only measured an acute effect. For instance, Gruber 16 found that when habitual rearfoot

strikers changed to a forefoot strike, they were less economical. While the data suggest that

changing footstrike pattern does not seem to be detrimental in the short-term, lack of a

habituation period limits information that could be used to make recommendations for training

interventions. Interestingly, in that same study, when habitual forefoot strikers switched to rearfoot strike, their running economy remained unchanged. Thus, different conclusions about

the effects of altering footstrike could be reached if either group was studied in isolation. It must also be noted that, the acute effects of footstrike type were speed-dependent, which further emphasizes that single-speed protocols may provide incomplete information and result in inappropriate conclusions.

How Does Body Mass Influence Running Economy?

Because body mass normalization is commonly used for running economy, body composition influences running economy and can cause confusion in running economy interpretation. For example, if a 60kg individual has an absolute VO2 of 2.0L/min while running

at 10kph, his normalized VO2 is 33.3mL/kg/min and his running economy is 200mL/kg/km.

However, if that person then gains 5kg of body fat and all other factors stay relatively

unchanged, his normalized VO2 becomes 30.7mL/kg/min and his running economy “improves”

to 184.6mL/kg/km. While gaining fat mass seems contradictory to enhancing efficiency, this

example demonstrates the nuances of interpreting RE data. Thus, if an athlete undergoing

intense training loses body fat, actual improvements in running economy may not be fully

realized (though improvements in VO2max may arguably be exaggerated). Likewise, athletes of

different competitive levels (i.e., world class vs. collegiate runners, elite vs. sub-elite,

competitive vs. recreational, old vs. young, men vs. women) may have different body

composition, which can further add to the difficulty of comparing running economy between

groups. As such, body composition should be carefully considered when comparing running

economy between heterogeneous groups or changes within an athlete.

Are Terms Such as “Efficiency” and “Cost of Running” The Same As Running Economy?

Running economy is specifically intended to represent VO2 related to a given running speed. A number of similar and related terms are used throughout the literature, including cost, cost of running, efficiency, metabolic demand, energy cost, etc.13 These terms should not be used synonymously with “running economy” as they can all represent different concepts, and inter-changeable use can cause confusion. For instance, “energy cost” or “cost of running” can include both aerobic and anaerobic components, and may be expressed in units of energy (i.e., kilocalories).13 As such, there are various arguments that running economy is not valid when measured above certain intensities (e.g., above “lactate threshold”, which can be further confounded by confusion over that term). While it is recommended that running economy be measured at race-specific intensities, it is acknowledged that at these higher intensities “running economy” does not provide a comprehensive measurement of running bioenergetics. Nonetheless, running economy remains a valuable component of the larger picture of evaluating one’s aerobic profile and monitoring responses to interventions.

What Would Be Considered a “Real” Change in Running Economy?

It is important to realize that there is day-to-day variation in running economy, and therefore small changes in running economy should be interpreted cautiously. In trained distance runners, the daily variation ranges <~1% to ~5%, with a mean of ~2-3%.17-19

How Can Running Economy Be Improved?

Simple training modifications without running economy-specific interventions may be sufficient to improve running economy in recreational runners.20 However, there is considerable

research exploring specific interventions aimed at improving running economy, including

strength training, plyometric training, biomechanical alterations, environmental interventions,

shoe-related factors, and various other techniques. A thorough review of the many factors and

interventions associated with running economy is beyond the scope of this text, but many

thorough reviews exist elsewhere.21-25 The interested reader may use these reviews to identify

specific studies of interest, but is also encouraged to read the original research studies, so that the

results and conclusions can be interpreted within context of the study and with special attention

to the many nuances described in this article.

Online Appendix References

1. Daniels J, Daniels N. Running economy of elite male and elite female runners. Medicine and

science in sports and exercise 1992;24(4):483-9.

2. The effect of shoe weight on the aerobic demands of running. The World Congress of Sports

Medicine; 1984; Vienna. Urban and Schwartzenberg.

3. Reeves KA, Corbett J, Barwood MJ. Barefoot running improves economy at high intensities

and peak treadmill velocity. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness

2015;55(10):1107-13. 4. Billat LV. Interval training for performance: a scientific and empirical practice. Special

recommendations for middle- and long-distance running. Part I: aerobic interval training.

Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ) 2001;31(1):13-31.

5. Knoepfli-Lenzin C, Waech JC, Gulay T, et al. The influence of a new sole geometry while

running. Journal of sports sciences 2014;32(18):1671-9.

6. Galbraith A, Hopker J, Cardinale M, et al. A 1-year study of endurance runners: training,

laboratory tests, and field tests. International journal of sports physiology and

performance 2014;9(6):1019-25.

7. Barnes KR, McGuigan MR, Kilding AE. Lower-body determinants of running economy in

male and female distance runners. Journal of strength and conditioning research

2014;28(5):1289-97.

8. Warne JP, Moran KA, Warrington GD. Eight weeks gait retraining in minimalist footwear has

no effect on running economy. Human movement science 2015;42:183-92.

9. Hatala KG, Dingwall HL, Wunderlich RE, et al. Variation in foot strike patterns during

running among habitually barefoot populations. PloS one 2013;8(1):e52548.

10. Jones AM, Doust JH. A 1% treadmill grade most accurately reflects the energetic cost of

outdoor running. Journal of sports sciences 1996;14(4):321-7.

11. Tung KD, Franz JR, Kram R. A test of the metabolic cost of cushioning hypothesis during

unshod and shod running. Medicine and science in sports and exercise 2014;46(2):324-9.

12. Smoliga JM, Hegedus EJ, Ford KR. Increased physiologic intensity during walking and

running on a non-motorized, curved treadmill. Physical therapy in sport 2015;16(3):262-

7. 13. Daniels JT. A physiologist's view of running economy. Medicine and science in sports and

exercise 1985;17(3):332-8.

14. Mooses M, Tippi B, Mooses K, et al. Better economy in field running than on the treadmill:

evidence from high-level distance runners. Biology of sport 2015;32(2):155-9.

15. Warne JP, Warrington GD. Four-week habituation to simulated barefoot running improves

running economy when compared with shod running. Scandinavian journal of medicine

& science in sports 2014;24(3):563-8.

16. Gruber AH, Umberger BR, Braun B, et al. Economy and rate of carbohydrate oxidation

during running with rearfoot and forefoot strike patterns. Journal of applied physiology

2013;115(2):194-201.

17. Saunders PU, Pyne DB, Telford RD, et al. Reliability and variability of running economy in

elite distance runners. Medicine and science in sports and exercise 2004;36(11):1972-6.

18. Morgan DW, Martin PE, Krahenbuhl GS, et al. Variability in running economy and

mechanics among trained male runners. Medicine and science in sports and exercise

1991;23(3):378-83.

19. Morgan DW, Craib MW, Krahenbuhl GS, et al. Daily variability in running economy among

well-trained male and female distance runners. Research quarterly for exercise and sport

1994;65(1):72-7.

20. Ridge ST, Standifird T, Rivera J, et al. The effect of training in minimalist running shoes on

running economy. Journal of sports science & medicine 2015;14(3):643-7.

21. Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Santos-Concejero J, Grivas GV. The effects of strength training on

running economy in highly trained runners: a systematic review with meta-analysis of controlled trials. Journal of strength and conditioning research 2015 doi:

10.1519/jsc.0000000000001316 [published Online First: 2015/12/24]

22. Cheung RT, Ngai SP. Effects of footwear on running economy in distance runners: A meta-

analytical review. Journal of science and medicine in sport 2015 doi:

10.1016/j.jsams.2015.03.002 [published Online First: 2015/03/31]

23. Fuller JT, Bellenger CR, Thewlis D, et al. The effect of footwear on running performance

and running economy in distance runners. Sports medicine 2015;45(3):411-22.

24. Morgan DW, Martin PE, Krahenbuhl GS. Factors affecting running economy. Sports

medicine 1989;7(5):310-30.

25. Saunders PU, Pyne DB, Telford RD, et al. Factors affecting running economy in trained

distance runners. Sports medicine 2004;34(7):465-85.