ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Effects of varying longitudinal bending stiffness in running shoes on lower limb biomechanics of elite marathon runners.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2025. 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.
- Longitudinal bending stiffness of marathon shoes alters ground reaction force frequency dynamics in elite runners.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Carbon plates in running shoes biomechanics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Review
- Toward a record-eligible sub-2-hour marathon: an updated integrative framework of Physiological, technological, and cognitive determinants.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study examined the effect of three levels of longitudinal bending stiffness (LBS) in carbon-plated shoes on lower limb biomechanics. Methods: Fifteen elite male marathon runners, each with a personal best under 3 h, participated in the study. They were tested wearing shoes with three LBS levels: low (LLBS, 0.31 Nm/deg), medium (MLBS, 0.40 Nm/deg), and high (HLBS, 0.48 Nm/deg). All participants ran at a constant speed of 4.76 m/s. Kinematic and kinetic data were synchronously collected using the VICON motion capture system and three AMTI force plates. Angular parameters of the ankle, knee, hip, and metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joints were calculated using the sagittal plane coordinate system. Joint moments and joint work (positive and negative) at each lower limb joint were analyzed using the built-in inverse dynamics module in Visual3D. Results: In terms of kinematics, the maximum dorsiflexion angle of the MTP joint during the late stance phase and the range of motion during the stance phase was significantly lower in the MLBS to HLBS shoes than in the LLBS shoes. Negative work at the MTP joints was significantly higher in the LLBS shoes than in the HLBS shoes (LLBS: 0.21 ± 0.05 J/kg, MLBS: 0.16 ± 0.03 J/kg, HLBS: 0.13 ± 0.05 J/kg, Conclusions: This study demonstrates that increasing the LBS shoes alters the lower limb biomechanical performance of elite marathon runners. Both MLBS and HLBS conditions reduced MTP joint dorsiflexion, but MLBS shoes significantly increased positive work at the ankle joint and improved joint function while maintaining lower hip joint moments. Among the three conditions, MLBS better balanced mechanical efficiency and natural joint function, suggesting it may be a more biomechanically suitable option for elite marathon runners. These findings provide valuable insights for optimizing LBS in performance shoe design, with MLBS offering a potential advantage in both biomechanical performance and injury prevention.
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.