Thread by @KimHebertLosier, Excited to share our Pre-PrintEvidence of variable performance responses to the Nike [...]

Kim Hébert-Losier

KimHebertLosier

Excited to share our Pre-Print

https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🏃‍♀️" title="Woman running" aria-label="Emoji: Woman running">

https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🏃‍♂️" title="Man running" aria-label="Emoji: Man running">Evidence of variable performance responses to the Nike 4% shoe: Definitely not a game-changer for all recreational runners https://osf.io/preprints/sportrxiv/ctavy/">https://osf.io/preprints... via @OSFrameworkThe. Great team @ClinicRunning @cmbeaven @mattdriller @JFEsculier @blaisedubois

Evidence of variable performance responses to the Nike 4% shoe: Definitely not a game-changer for...

Purpose: We compared running economy (RE) and 3-km time-trial (TT) performances of male recreational runners wearing the Nike Vaporfly 4% (NIKE), lightweight racing flats (FLAT), and their habitual...

https://osf.io/preprints/sportrxiv/ctavy/

Given the controversy @VaporFlyWW and report of @WorldAthletics, our team decided to venture the Pre-Print route. Yes, average of 4.2% RE in recreational male runners in Nike...but average 3.4% in lightweight racing flats, too!

Look at that individualised shoe response to 3-km TT performance

Something to talk about when I visit over the summer in Boston @IreneSDavis

...and of course, big shout out to our hard working Master Student and Lab Technician at the UoW Adams Centre - Steve Finlayson. Get on Twitter!

You can follow @KimHebertLosier.

Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: