Energy Return And Midsole Displacement In Advanced Running Shoes Using Male And Female Loading Profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced running shoes (ARS) constructed with highly cushioned yet resilient midsole foam embedded with a carbon plate produce higher energy return and midsole displacement than traditional running shoes (TRS). Most research has studied these phenomena using the force profile of elite male runners. However, there is a need to examine the interplay between the plate and midsole technologies and how they influence energy return and midsole displacement in female runners. PURPOSE: To determine whether energy return and midsole displacement differ between male and female loading profiles. METHODS: We tested ten left male and ten right female shoes (2 ARS and 8 TRS). Each shoe was subjected to a series of five forefoot compression tests to measure the midsole displacement and energy return. The female protocol consisted of an input pulse of 1.4kN peak force over a duration of 170 ms, while the male protocol used a 2kN input pulse over 185 ms. We used an independent t-test to compare differences between loading profiles. RESULTS: There was no difference in energy return between male and female loading profiles in ARS but there was a significant difference in midsole displacement (11 ± 1.05 in male vs 8.5 ± 1.58 mm in female, p < 0.001). Male and female loading profiles had a similar pattern in TRS with no statistical difference in energy return but a significant difference in midsole displacement (7.88 ± 1.47 in male vs 6.75 ± 1.2 mm in female, p < 0.001). The midsole displacement was greater in ARS compared to TRS with both the male and female protocols, while energy return was also greater in ARS compared to TRS with both the male (80.6 ± 0.7 vs 69.7 ± 5.81 mm, p < 0.001) and female (81 ± 1.05 vs 69.38 ± 5.48 mm p < 0.001) protocols. CONCLUSION: Our results support previous findings of greater midsole displacement and energy return in ARS compared to TRS. The greater midsole displacement in ARS with a male loading profile vs a female profile while yielding similar energy return values suggests that gains might be made in ARS materials and construction to optimize female running performance. Further research is necessary to explore optimal midsole displacement values in female-specific ARS.
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) | 0.002 | 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".