One Shoe to Fit Them All? Effect of Various Carbon Plate Running Shoes on Running Economy in Male and Female Amateur Triathletes and Runners at Individual Training and Race Paces
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled "One shoe to Fit Them All? Effect of various carbon plate running shoes on Running Economy in amateur triathletes and Runners at Individual Training and race paces" has a current and relevant topic that could help athletes, scientists, and coaches to clarify the need of carbon plate running shoes. The manuscript is well-written and easy to follow. In the introduction, the authors provide the main rotation of the study. However, I have one minor suggestion to the Author: Please consider moving the first paragraph to later of the introduction and start with a general aim and problem of this topic. The methods are clear however, please add information about why these manufactural shos were used. I also suggest to the Authors to add a figure about the study process, because it's hard to follow in the text. The results are well presented, there’s nothing to add to this part of the manuscript. The limitations are well structured as well, but I suggest to the Authors to add more references in this section and put their results in context in other studies. Furthermore, I suggest adding the limitation that only 4 carbon plate running shoes were investigated and other manufacturer's shoes were not. Overall, the study is well written. I congratulate the Authors and recommend to publish.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript entitled “One shoe to fit them all? Effect of various carbon plate running 2 shoes on running economy in amateur triathletes and runners 3 at individual training and race paces.” investigates the impact of running economy (RE) when amateur runners switch from traditional training shoes to carbon-plated running shoes (CPRS) and compare the effects of four different CPRS brands. In the reviewer's opinion, the most outstanding highlights of experimental design in real-world scenarios, are multi-brand comparisons, and attention to individual differences. However, the shortcomings of the article are mainly reflected in the sample size, experimental repeatability, and the depth of analysis of footwear structural parameters. At the same time, as the author mentioned, the limitations of a single-experiment design can lead to less reliable data, especially considering the large variability in running economy across different running speeds. Specific comments are shown below:
Abstract:
1. Lines 29-31: The summary mentions that "amateur runners may benefit from CPRS", but does not highlight specific practice recommendations or key findings.
Introduction:
1. Lines 69-70: When discussing the definition of RE, more practical application context can be added, such as explaining how improving RE can enhance running performance, or why RE is an important reference indicator in the design of running shoes. Furthermore, the authors directly introduce the running economy at the outset. It is recommended that the authors introduce running before transitioning to running economy. To provide more effective evidence, the authors may consider referring to: A new method proposed for realizing human gait pattern recognition: Inspirations for the application of sports and clinical gait analysis (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2023.10.019);
Methods:
1. Lines 234-235: There were significant differences in V̇O2peak and running speed between male and female participants, but it was not stated whether gender differences were accounted for in the analysis.
2. Lines 144-145: Although the authors mention that this represents a real-world scenario, no steps were taken to quantify these variables. It is advisable to supplement the specific physical parameters of footwear and discuss their possible impacts.
Results:
3. Lines 235-237: The article mentions that two subjects were excluded because the breath-exchange ratio was greater than 1.0, but does not explain why a clear exclusion threshold was not set in advance and its reasonableness. It is suggested that the relevant elaboration be supplemented.
Discussion:
1. Lines 354-356: It was mentioned that Mizuno and Puma's shoes caused a decrease in RE in some subjects, but it was only simply attributed to the heel design and individual gait differences, and the relationship between specific footwear structural parameters (such as foam hardness, carbon plate stiffness) and RE was not further explored.
2. Lines 411-412: Whether a single trial is sufficient to capture the stability of RE mentioned in the limitations, and it is recommended that a repeat trial design be adopted in the future to improve the reliability of the data and confidence in the conclusions.
Conclusion:
3. The article concludes that runners can benefit from CPRS, but does not specify how these shoes can be adapted to runners of different levels or needs. It is recommended to supplement the specific scenarios of practical application.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll comments have been addressed.