Linking running energetics and performance with a focus on the 2-hour marathon barrier

Step 1: Linking changes in running economy to changes in running performance:

Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Spiering BA, Kram R. Altered running economy directly translates to altered distance-running performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 48: 2175-2180, 2016. [full paper]

Step 2: Review the literature and quantify how biomechanical improvements in running economy affect elite marathon running performance:

Hoogkamer W, Kram R, Arellano C. How biomechanical improvements in running economy can break the 2-hour marathon barrier. Sports Med, 47: 1739-1750, 2017. [read only]

Hoogkamer W, Kram R, Arellano C. Author’s reply to Candau et al.: Comment on: “How biomechanical improvements in running economy could break the 2-hour marathon barrier”. Sports Med, 47: 2405-2407, 2017. [read only]

Step 3: Test how much new prototype marathon shoes (Vaporfly series) affect running economy:

Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Frank JH, Farina EM, Luo G, Kram R. A comparison of the energetic cost of running in marathon racing shoes. Sports Med, 48: 1009-1019, 2018. [full paper]

Step 4: Further optimize drafting strategies:

Hoogkamer W, Snyder KL, Arellano C. Modeling the benefits of cooperative drafting: Is there an optimal strategy to facilitate a sub-2-hour marathon performance? Sports Med, 48: 2859-2867, 2018. [read only]

Hoogkamer W, Snyder KL, Arellano C. Reflecting on Eliud Kipchoge’s marathon world record: An update to our model of cooperative drafting and its potential for a sub-2-hour performance. Sports Med, 49: 167-170, 2019. [read only]

Step 5: Revisit the link between changes in running economy and changes in running performance:

Kipp S, Kram R, Hoogkamer W. Extrapolating metabolic savings in running: implications for performance predictions. Front Physiol, 10: 79, 2019. [full paper]

Step 6: Discuss the physiology of elite marathon runners:

Layec G, Hoogkamer W. Commentaries on Viewpoint: Physiology and fast marathons – Running economy under the microscope. J Appl Physiol, 128, 1084, 2020. [full paper]

Step 7: Evaluate the effects of course design on marathon running performance:

Snyder KL, Hoogkamer W, Triska C, Taboga P, Arellano CJ, Kram R. Effects of course design (curves and elevation undulations) on marathon running performance: a comparison of Breaking 2 in Monza and the INEOS 1:59 Challenge in Vienna. J Sports Sci, 39, 754-759, 2020. [full paper]

Step 8: Revisit the effects of air resistance on running economy:

da Silva ES, Kram R, Hoogkamer W. The metabolic cost of overcoming air resistive forces in distance running. Under review. [preprint]



Linking running biomechanics and energetics

Hoogkamer W, Taboga P, Kram R. Applying the cost of generating force hypothesis to uphill running. PeerJ 2: e482, 2014. [full paper]

Maas E, de Bie J, Vanfleteren E, Hoogkamer W, Vanwanseele B. Novice runners show greater changes in kinematics with fatigue compared with competitive runners. Sports Biomech, 17: 350-360, 2018. [pubmed]

Swinnen W, Hoogkamer W, Delabastita T, Aeles J, De Groote F, Vanwanseele B. The effect of habitual foot strike pattern on the Gastrocnemius medialis muscle-tendon interaction and muscle force production during running. J Appl Physiol, [full paper]

Swinnen W, Hoogkamer W, De Groote F, Vanwanseele B. Habitual foot strike pattern does not affect simulated Triceps Surae muscle metabolic energy consumption during running. J Exp Biol, 222: jeb212449, 2019. [full paper]


Swinnen W, Mylle I, Hoogkamer W, De Groote F, Vanwanseele B. Changing stride frequency alters average joint power and power distributions during ground contact and leg swing in running. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 53, 2111-2118, 2021. [pubmed]