ArticleJournal of human kinetics2019
Differences in Mechanical Midsole Characteristics of Running Shoes do not Influence Physiological Variables in Aerobic and Anaerobic Running.
Article in Journal of human kinetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Running Velocity as a Methodological Factor in Footwear Testing: Fixed Versus Self-Selected Conditions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Can the Entire Function of the Foot Be Concentrated in the Forefoot Area during the Running Stance Phase? A Finite Element Study of Different Shoe Soles.Journal of human kinetics · 2024Article
- Influence of Shoe Mass on Performance and Running Economy in Trained Runners.Frontiers in physiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of footwear stiffness and energy loss on oxygen uptake and heart rate in athletes running under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Four footwear conditions with identical outsoles, insoles, upper materials, but different mechanical properties regarding polyurethane midsole materials were investigated. Respective midsole material characteristics were selected to represent a wide range of running shoes. The test procedure for eighteen well-trained male runners was divided into three treadmill testing sessions: an incremental ramp protocol to estimate the individual ventilatory threshold (day 1), a test with 6-minute stages in each shoe at 70% (aerobic, day 2) and 102% (anaerobic, day 3) of the participant's ventilatory threshold. For oxygen uptake and the heart rate, no significant differences between footwear conditions were found for either running condition. Furthermore, no significant relationships between physiological variables and mechanical midsole characteristics were found. The wide range of significant stiffness differences in the rearfoot (52.7 N/mm) and forefoot areas (50.7 N/mm), as well as significant differences of the shoe midsole material energy loss in the rearfoot (18.8%) and forefoot areas (10.7%) were too low to influence physiological variables significantly when running below and slightly above the ventilatory threshold. It seems that shoe mass and shoe comfort can influence physiological variables more than the mechanical midsole characteristics of stiffness and energy loss. These results may have practical implications for shoe manufacturers, coaches, and athletes, alike.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.