Durability of running shoes with ethylene vinyl acetate or polyurethane midsoles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethylene vinyl acetate and polyurethane are widely used materials for shoe midsoles. The present study investigated the durability of running shoes made from ethylene vinyl acetate and one type of polyurethane (polyurethane-1), which have similar hardness and density, and another type of polyurethane (polyurethane-2), which has high hardness/density. All shoes differed from one another only in terms of the midsole material used. Eight male runners participated in the present study and used the shoes to run 500 km (10 × 50 km). The cushioning and energy return characteristics of each shoe were measured using an impact tester before and after each 50-km run. The results showed that as the running distance increased, the peak force of midsole materials changed with different patterns. Ethylene vinyl acetate and polyurethane-1 showed greater cushioning than polyurethane-2 over 500 km (ethylene vinyl acetate, 918.2-968.0 N; polyurethane-1, 909.6-972.9 N; polyurethane-2, 983.0-1105.6 N). Polyurethane-1 showed greater cushioning from 200 km to 300 km compared with 0 km (0 km, 972.9 ± 66.3 N; 200 km, 909.6 ± 61.2 N; 250 km, 921.9 ± 51.2 N; 300 km, 924.6 ± 51.9 N). The cushioning of ethylene vinyl acetate shoes was diminished after 500 km compared with that at 0 km (968.0 ± 25.9 N vs. 921.1 ± 20.1 N). Ethylene vinyl acetate resulted in greater energy returns than polyurethane. Both foam category and hardness/density affected the critical biomechanical properties of running shoes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".