Comparison of Oxygen and Energy Consumption between Running with Researcher-Made Beach Simulator Shoes and Sports Shoes with PU Soles.

Document Type : Original research papers


1 Department of Sports Biomechanics, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Science, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran.

2 Department of Sports Biomechanics, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Science, University of Shahid Bahonar of Kerman, Kerman, Iran.


Obese and overweight individuals strive to burn more calories per unit of time through walking, which is one of their main goals.  The necessity of walking with shoes with the capability of burning more calories per unit of time compared to common shoes was very noticeable. This research aimed to compare oxygen and energy consumption between running with biomechanical beach simulator shoes and sports shoes with polyurethane soles in overweight women. In this semi-experimental and applied research, 16 overweight women were selected. A researcher-developed beach simulator shoe enhances muscle activation in the lower limbs and abdomen through two main mechanisms and by using the specialized knowledge of sports biomechanics. Consequently, this enhancement leads to increased oxygen and energy consumption compared to common walking shoes. The test protocol consisted of three stages with speeds of 3, 5, and 7 km/h on the treadmill, each stage lasting 3 minutes. The statistics related to oxygen and energy consumption were collected by Metamax gas analyzer and through calculations. The statistical method of Two-way analysis of variance test with repeated measures was used to test the hypotheses and analyze the data at a significance level of 0.05. The findings showed that the beach simulator shoes can significantly increase oxygen and energy consumption in overweight women (significant levels of 0.05 and 0.03 respectively). According to the findings of the present research, the beach simulator shoe was able to increase the oxygen and energy consumption of a person by using two layers of balls and hydrodynamics, compared to sports shoes with PU soles. Beach simulator shoes were able to burn more calories per unit of time than PU sports shoes.


Main Subjects

  1. Bancroft RJ, McDonough T, Shakespeare J, Lynas K Orthotics. European Geriatric Medicine. 2011; 2(2): 122-125.
  2. Nigg BM, Segesser B. Biomechanical and orthopedic concepts in sports shoe construction. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1992;24(5):595-602.
  3. Knowles EA, Boulton AJ. Do people with diabetes wear their prescribed footwear? Diabetic medicine. 1996;13(12):1064-8. 
  4. Paton JS, Roberts A, Bruce GK, Marsden J. Patients. Experience with therapeutic footwear whilst living at risk of neuropathic diabetic foot interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Journal of foot and ankle research. 2014;7(1):16-27.
  5. Waaijman R, Keukenkamp R, de Haart M, Polomski WP, Nollet F, Bus SA.Adherence to wearing prescription custom-made footwear in patients with diabetes at high risk for plantar foot ulceration Diabetes care. 2013;1(2):13-30.
  6. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Kimbriel HR, Nixon BP, Boulton AJ. Activity patterns of patients with diabetic foot ulceration: patients with active ulceration may not adhere to a standard pressure off-loading regimen. Diabetes care. 2003;26(9):2595-7.
  7. Nigg BM.Biomechanics of Sports Shoes. University of Calgary.2010.
  8. Coza A,von Tscharner v, Nigg BM.Activity mapping of Lower leg muscles using a circumferential electrode array. Footwear Science. 2009; 1(3):135-143.
  9. Nigg BM.Der MBT Schuh und seine biomechanics/therapeutische Wirkungsweise( the MBT shoe and its biomechanical and its therapeutical effects). Medizinisch-Orthopadische Technik. 2005;1(3):77-78.
  10. Nigg BM, Anton MG. Energy aspects for elastic and viscous shoe soles and playing surfaces. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1995;27(1):92-97.
  11. Islami M, Hosseinnejad I, Gundomkar A, Jihadi V. The effect of unstable shoes on the components of the ground reaction force during the support phase of running. Journal of Research in Sports Medicine and Technology. 2013;6(22):91-105.
  12. Vasileff K. Journal health. IOP Publishing seemorgh Web. 2018. .
  13. Foster C, Lucia A. Running economy. The forgotten factor in elite performance. Sports Medicine. 2007;37(4-5):316-9. 
  14. Bassett DR, Howley ET. Limiting factors for maximum oxygen uptake and determinants of endurance performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2000;32(1):70-84.
  15. Conley DL, Krahenbuhl GS.Running economy and distance running performance of highly trained athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1979;12(5):357-60.
  16. Frederick EC.Physiological and ergonomics factors in running shoe design.Applied Ergonomics. 1984;15(4): 281-7.
  17. Russell HD, Belding HS.Metabolic cost of wearing various types of footwear. National Academy of Sciences Committee on Quartermaster Problems Report. Harvard Fatigue Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1946.
  18. Shorten MR. Running shoe design. Protection and performance. Marathon Medicine, Royal Society of Medicine, London.2000; 159-69.
  19. Jones BH, Knapik JJ, Daniels WL, Toner MM. The energy cost of women walking and running in shoes and boots. Ergonomics. 1986;29(3):439-43.
  20. Williams&Wilkins.ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription: American College of Sports Medicine Lippincott, 2005.
  21. Pedersen AV, Stokke R, Mamen A. Effects of extra load position on energy expenditure in treadmill running. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2007;102(1):27–31.
  22. FarjadPezeshk A, Shariatzadeh M, Yousefi M, Samvati S, Nouri M. Comparison of plantar pressure distribution and ground reaction force between Researcher-made hydrodynamic shoes and EVA sports shoes. Journal Rahab. 2018;8(1):140-147.
  23. Dumke CL, Pfaffenroth CM, McBride JM, McCauley GO. Relationship between muscle strength, power, stiffness and running economy in trained male runners. International Journal of Sports Physiology & Performance. 2010;5(2):249-61.
  24. Saunders PU, Pyne DB, Telford RD, Hawley JA. Factors affecting running economy in trained distance runners. Sports Medicine. 2004;34(7):465-85.
  25. Morgan DW, Martin PE, Krahenbuhl GS. Factors affecting running economy. Sports Medicine. 1989;7(5):310-30.
  26. Williams KR, Cavanagh PR. Relationship between distance running mechanics, running economy, and performance. Journal of Applied Physiology.1987;63(3):1236-45.
  27. Nigg BM. Biomechanics of sports shoes. First edition. Topline Printing Inc. Calgary, Alberta. 2010;263-274.
  28. Logan S, Hunter I, Hopkins JT, Feland JB, Parcell AC. Ground reaction force differences between running shoes, racing flats, and distance spikes in runners. Journal of sports science & medicine. 2010;9(1):147-156.
  29. Shultz R, Birmingham TB, Jenkyn TR. Differences in neutral foot positions when measured barefoot compared to in shoes with varying stiffnesses. Medical engineering &physics. 2011;33(10):1309-13.
  30. Bischof JE, Abbey AN, Chuckpaiwong B, Nunley JA, Queen RM. Three-dimensional ankle kinematicsand kinetics during running in women. Gait & posture. 2010;31(4):502-5.
  31. Lohman EB, Sackiriyas KS, Swen RW. A comparison of the spatiotemporal parameters,kinematics, and biomechanics between shod, unshod, and minimally supported running as compared to walking.Physical Therapy in Sport. 2011;12(4):151-63.
  32. Kutzner I, Heinlein B, Graichen F, Bender A, Rohlmann A, Halder A, Beier A, Bergmann G. Loading of the knee joint during activities of daily living measured in vivo in five subjects. Journal of Biomechanics. 2010;43(11):2164-73.
  33. L R Keytel, J H Goedecke, T D Noakes, H Hiiloskorpi, R Laukkanen, L van der Merwe, E V Lambert“Prediction of energy expenditure from heart rate monitoring during submaximal exercise“. Journal of sport sciences. 2005.