Running Style and Stability During Uphill Running Are Largely Preserved with Increasing Shoe Sole Thickness

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0

Abstract

Advanced footwear technology (AFT) shoes incorporate increased sole thickness and compliant midsole materials that may alter running biomechanics. While these effects have been widely studied during level running, little is known about how sole thickness influences running style and stability during uphill running. This study examined the effects of two AFT shoes differing in sole thickness (35 mm-AFT35; 50 mm-AFT50) and a traditional control shoe (27 mm-CON27) on running style and stability during uphill running. Seventeen experienced male runners performed treadmill running at a 10% incline at 6.5 and 10 km/h in three shoe conditions. Running style was assessed using duty factor, normalized step frequency, center-of-mass oscillation, vertical and leg stiffness, and lower-limb joint kinematics. Running stability was evaluated using local dynamic stability via the maximum Lyapunov exponent and detrended fluctuation analysis of stride time. Duty factor and normalized step frequency did not differ between shoes. However, AFT shoes showed greater center-of-mass oscillation (p = 0.004), lower vertical stiffness (p = 0.022) compared to CON27. Joint kinematics revealed significant shoe effects at the ankle (p = 0.001), particularly increased dorsiflexion and eversion in AFT conditions. Running stability showed only minor changes. Local dynamic stability differed at the trunk (p = 0.027), with reduced stability in AFT50 compared with CON27 (p = 0.006), while global stability remained unchanged. No shoe × speed interactions were observed for any variable. Overall, uphill running style and stability remained largely preserved across shoe conditions, suggesting that sole thickness alone had limited influence.
Full text 1,815 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Advanced footwear technology (AFT) shoes incorporate increased sole thickness and compliant midsole materials that may alter running biomechanics. While these effects have been widely studied during level running, little is known about how sole thickness influences running style and stability during uphill running. This study examined the effects of two AFT shoes differing in sole thickness (35 mm-AFT35; 50 mm-AFT50) and a traditional control shoe (27 mm-CON27) on running style and stability during uphill running. Seventeen experienced male runners performed treadmill running at a 10% incline at 6.5 and 10 km/h in three shoe conditions. Running style was assessed using duty factor, normalized step frequency, center-of-mass oscillation, vertical and leg stiffness, and lower-limb joint kinematics. Running stability was evaluated using local dynamic stability via the maximum Lyapunov exponent and detrended fluctuation analysis of stride time. Duty factor and normalized step frequency did not differ between shoes. However, AFT shoes showed greater center-of-mass oscillation (p = 0.004), lower vertical stiffness (p = 0.022) compared to CON27. Joint kinematics revealed significant shoe effects at the ankle (p = 0.001), particularly increased dorsiflexion and eversion in AFT conditions. Running stability showed only minor changes. Local dynamic stability differed at the trunk (p = 0.027), with reduced stability in AFT50 compared with CON27 (p = 0.006), while global stability remained unchanged. No shoe × speed interactions were observed for any variable. Overall, uphill running style and stability remained largely preserved across shoe conditions, suggesting that sole thickness alone had limited influence. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-24T02:00:01.246996+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0