Sex and Isolated Anthropometric Measures Do Not Explain Individual Differences in Responsiveness to Advanced Footwear Technology in Highly Trained Runners.

Females showed significantly lower absolute energy cost than males across all speeds and shoe conditions, but the change in energy cost with AFT did not differ between sexes.

• Fifteen female and fifteen male highly trained long-distance runners were tested.
• Females had significantly lower absolute EC than males across all speeds and shoe conditions (p < 0.05).
• The difference in ΔEC between sexes was not significant (p = 0.5).
• Testing was conducted at 60%, 70%, and 80% of VO2peak speed in both AFT and non-AFT shoes.

There was large inter-individual variability in responsiveness to AFT shoes, with ΔEC ranging from 1.1% to 6.4% in females and 0.2% to 8.7% in males.

• Average individual ΔEC ranged from 1.1% to 6.4% in females.
• Average individual ΔEC ranged from 0.2% to 8.7% in males.
• This variability was observed in a sample of 30 highly trained long-distance runners.
• The wide range indicates substantial differences in how individuals respond to AFT footwear.

No anthropometric variable could significantly predict ΔEC in sex-stratified analyses.

• Anthropometric measures investigated were height, body mass, foot length, femur and tibia length, and Achilles tendon length.
• Analyses were conducted separately by sex (sex-stratified).
• None of the six isolated anthropometric variables reached statistical significance as predictors of ΔEC.
• These findings suggest that isolated anthropometric traits do not explain individual responsiveness to AFT.

The study concludes that personalization of advanced footwear technology should not be based solely on sex or the anthropometric characteristics investigated.

• Both sex and six anthropometric variables failed to explain inter-individual variability in AFT responsiveness.
• The authors highlight 'the complexity of AFT individualization.'
• Findings suggest that other, unexamined factors likely contribute to individual differences in AFT responsiveness.
• The study included 30 highly trained long-distance runners tested on a treadmill.