ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A New Method and Set of Parameters for Evaluating the Cushioning Effect of Shoe Heels, Revealing the Inadvertent Design of Running Shoes.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
According to standards, the heel soles of running shoes are currently tested with an energy absorption of 5 J. This study offers an alternative method to improve the measurement of cushioning properties. The new method uses the ratio of absorbed energy to applied force and determines the maximum of this ratio (optimum or shoulder point) and the associated optimal force, energy, and displacement. This method was applied to 112 shoe models using compression testing. The method was found to be insensitive to strain rates and identified shoes that were over-, well-, or under-designed (running before, at, or after the shoulder point, respectively) relative to the range of the first ground reaction force peak (0.700-2 kN). The optimum ratio was between 0.6 J/kN (barefoot shoes) and 11.2 J/kN (Puma RuleBreaker), the optimal energy was between 0.5 and 40.6 J, the optimal force was between 0.1 and 4.6 kN, and the optimal displacement was between 3 and 23 mm. Participants ran at or near the shoulder point (within the design forgiveness range) unless they were too heavy and ran at their preferred running speed. This study proposes replacing current standards with the new method, allowing consumers to make informed decisions regarding injury prevention while running.
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.