University of Northern Colorado

Scholarship & Creative Works @ Digital UNC

Master's Theses Student Research

12-7-2022

Loading Rate of Two Maximalist Shoes Compared to a Traditional

Running Shoe
Elizabeth Ray
ray6708@bears.unco.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://digscholarship.unco.edu/theses

Recommended Citation
Ray, Elizabeth, "Loading Rate of Two Maximalist Shoes Compared to a Traditional Running Shoe" (2022).
Master's Theses. 261.
https://digscholarship.unco.edu/theses/261

This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at Scholarship &
Creative Works @ Digital UNC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator
of Scholarship & Creative Works @ Digital UNC. For more information, please contact Jane.Monson@unco.edu.
 UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO

Greeley, Colorado

The Graduate School

LOADING RATE OF TWO MAXIMALIST SHOES

COMPARED TO A TRADITIONAL
RUNNING SHOE

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science

Elizabeth K. Ray

College of Natural & Health Sciences

School of Sport & Exercise Science
Sport and Exercise Science
Biomechanics

December 2022
This Thesis by: Elizabeth K. Ray

Entitled: Loading Rate of Two Maximalist Shoes Compared to a Traditional Running Shoe

has been approved as meeting the requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in College of
Natural and Health Sciences in School of Sport and Exercise Science, Program of Sport and
Exercise Science – Biomechanics

Accepted by

______________________________________________________
Gary D. Heise, Ph.D.

_______________________________________________________
Abbie E. Ferris, Ph.D.

Accepted by the Graduate School

_________________________________________________________
Jeri-Anne Lyons, Ph.D.
Dean of the Graduate School
Associate Vice President for Research
 ABSTRACT

Ray, Elizabeth K.. Loading Rate of Two Maximalist Shoes Compared to a Traditional Running
Shoe. Unpublished Master of Science Thesis, University of Northern Colorado, 2022.

The transition of running footwear to maximalist constructions has been largely

spearheaded by runners’ desires for reduced risk of injury. Loading rates have been used as a

measure of a shoe’s ability to attenuate vertical ground reaction forces. The purpose of this study

was to determine the effect of maximalist running shoes of two differing constructions upon

loading rate compared to a traditional shoe condition. A secondary purpose of this study was to

investigate any interaction between footwear condition and speed on loading rate. Eight runners

(4 women, 4 men; mean age = 29 yr ± 6.5 ; mean body mass 63.6 kg ± 14.3; mean height 166.8

cm ± 9.1) ran at a fast (3.7 m/s) and slow (2.85 m/s) speed in two maximalist shoe conditions

(Saucony Shift 2 and Saucony Speed 2) and one traditional shoe (Brooks Launch 5). All runners

ran with a rearfoot strike pattern. Three trials were collected for right and left sides at each of the

conditions for a total of 36 trials per participant.

The Saucony Shift 2 resulted in a higher loading rate (right average = 68.71 BW/s; left

average = 74.50 BW/s) compared to the Brooks Launch 5 and the Saucony Speed 2. The faster

speed resulted in a higher loading rate compared to the slower speed in all footwear conditions.

There was no interaction between footwear condition and running speed. This study

demonstrates that maximalist running shoes may result in comparable or significantly higher

loading rates than popular traditional running shoes but do not result in lower loading rates. As

iii
the maximalist shoe category is often framed as maximally cushioned, an increase in loading rate

is inconsistent with this categorization.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I give thanks to God for giving me strength and the ability to tackle a project like this

thesis. I want to thank my loving husband, Daniel, for always reassuring and inspiring me daily.

To my friends and family who have been as supportive as anyone can be, thank you. I am so

thankful for the wisdom and guidance of Dr. Heise who has been an excellent mentor and

advisor throughout this whole process. I am so very grateful to Dr. Smith for suggesting that I do

a thesis on running shoes; this thesis would not exist without his advice. I must thank Dr. Ferris

who worked with my very short timeline and was so helpful and insightful. To all my professors,

thank you all for giving me so many opportunities to learn and grow. This has been a wonderful

experience for me because of every one of you. To my student colleagues, particularly Austin

Kropushek and Bailey Ingalla, you have been so helpful. Thank you to everyone who has

encouraged me in my interest in running and running footwear, there are too many of you to

name, but know you have been on my mind as I have completed this work.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………. 1

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………………………………….... 4

Super Shoe Controversy…………………………………………………………….... 5

Super Shoe Research: Effects on Performance…………………………………….... 8
Maximalist Footwear: Maximizing Stack Heights and Comfort……………………... 10
Vertical Ground Reaction Force and Running Injuries………………………………. 15
Barefoot and Minimalist Shoe Running……………………………………… 16
Vertical Ground Reaction Force Variables and Injury……………………….. 17
Maximal Shoes vs. Traditional and Minimal Shoes………………………….. 19
Midsole Resilience………………………………………………………….… 19

Traditional vs. Maximalist Shoe Conditions: Loading Rates.………………………... 22

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………. 24

III. METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………………… 26

Purpose………………………………………………………………………………... 26
Participants………………………………………………………………………….… 26
Shoe Conditions…………………………………………………………………….… 27
Data Collection……………………………………………………………………….. 27
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………….…… 29
Statistical Analysis……………………………………………………………….…… 30

IV. RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………….. 31

V. DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………… 35

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………. 41

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………... 43

vi
APPENDIX
A. INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL…………………………...….. 51

B. MATLAB CODE: FILTERING ROUTINE………..……………………………….. 54

C. MATLAB CODE: LOADING RATE IDENTIFICATION AND CALCULATION.. 58

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table

1 RIGHT LIMB LOADING RATES….…………………………………………. 32

2 LEFT LIMB LOADING RATES…..…………………………………………... 32

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1 VERTICAL GROUND REACTION FORCE……………………………………. 2

2 TRADITIONAL AND MAXIMALIST SHOES……..…………………………. 12

3 VERTICAL GROUND REACTION FORCE……………………………………. 15

4 RIGHT LOADING RATES……………………………………………………… 33

5 LEFT LOADING RATES………………………………………………………... 34

ix
 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Since the running boom of the 1970s, running shoes have evolved from dense foams and

bulky leather uppers to comparatively lighter foams accompanied by engineered mesh or knit

uppers. Much of this innovation has been driven by the desire for lighter and more resilient

running shoes with the former taking precedence as research has established that mass added to

footwear leads to an increase in oxygen cost (Divert et al., 2008; Frederick, 1984). Recent years

have seen a rapid departure from this minimalist silhouette to maximalist footwear, known for

their large, chunky midsoles. This change has been spurred by two of the greatest desires of

runners: improved performance and injury prevention.

The potential for maximalist footwear to improve performance arises from a reduction in

fatigue by the cushioning provided for the foot and a decrease in energy expenditure from the

body not having to cushion itself upon impact (Clarke et al., 2008). Secondly, the foams used to

create the thick midsoles have become more resilient, returning more energy in each step, and

overcoming the detriment of any added mass. This has led to maximalist shoe constructions

utilizing both traditional ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) and the more resilient foams like

polyether block amide (PEBA), in addition to many other variations. Maximalist footwear

appeals to runners for use in competitive running events, as well as in daily training, for its

performance enhancements and potential energy return.

Maximalist footwear has been touted for is ability to reduce injury. This purported benefit

involves the ground reaction forces experienced by runners during the stance phase of running
 2

(when the foot is in contact with the ground). Runners experience vertical ground reaction forces

(vGRF) multiple times their bodyweight during every step of running. The association between

these forces and injury among runners is well established (Cavanagh & Lafortune, 1980; Davis

et al., 2016; van der Worp et al., 2016). As yearly rates of injury among runners may be well

over 50% (van Gent et al., 2007), using better equipment to reduce the amount of time spent

away from their preferred pastime is very attractive for runners of all abilities.

Most runners are rearfoot strikers (their heel contacts the ground first during stance

phase) as reported by Hanley et al. (2019) and Hasegawa et al. (2007) from samples of

competitive long-distance runners. This majority subset of runners can be identified from vGRF

data by the appearance of an initial peak, known as the heel strike transient (or vGRF impact

peak). This takes place in the first 25ms of stance (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Vertical Ground Reaction Force.

Note. Vertical ground reaction force curve standardized to bodyweights per second.
 3

The loading rate of this peak, identified from the middle 60% between the initial onset of

force to the peak and expressed in bodyweights per second, is associated with injury (van der

Worp et al., 2016). A reduction of this loading rate could indicate a footwear intervention’s

ability to reduce the risk of injury.

Unfortunately, biomechanics research on maximalist running shoes has not yielded

consistent results on the effects of these shoes on loading rates. Some studies have reported

comparable loading rates in maximalist running shoes compared to traditional running shoes

(Hannigan & Pollard, 2020; Tavares et al., 2020). Others have indicated that loading rates

increase in maximalist running shoes compared to traditional running shoes (Chan et al., 2018;

Kulmala et al., 2018). The present study hopes to provide more clarity to these conflicting

findings.

Maximalist footwear is a broad category of shoes encompassing springy “super shoes”

meant for racing and soft, plush shoes meant for training runs. In using two maximalist shoe

conditions of different constructions, the present study compares two subcategories of

maximalist footwear to a traditional running footwear condition. World Athletics has placed

stipulations on footwear used in sanctioned long distance racing events. These requirements

constrain the construction of the shoes as well as their accessibility to athletes. The shoes used in

this study are compliant with the guidelines set by World Athletics in their constructions and are

available for purchase (as opposed to being prototypes or custom made) (World Athletics, 2021).

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of maximalist running shoes of two

differing constructions upon loading rate compared to a traditional shoe condition. A secondary

purpose of this study was to investigate any interaction between footwear condition and speed on

loading rate.
 4

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Since the running boom of the 1970s, running shoes have evolved from dense foams and

bulky leather uppers to comparatively lighter foams accompanied by engineered mesh or knit

uppers. Much of this innovation has been driven by the desire for lighter and more resilient

running shoes with the former taking precedence as research has established that mass added to

footwear leads to an increase in oxygen uptake (Divert et al., 2008; Frederick, 1984). Thus,

racing shoes have ranged from the minimal spiked shoes common in track events to light weight

racing shoes—each of which have had little to no midsole. Barefoot running expends energy to

cushion the body upon impact above what is required by runners using traditional running shoes

(Clarke et al., 2008). This increased energetic cost in barefoot or minimalist running is offset by

the reduction of mass. For the sake of this literature review, traditional shoes are defined as shoes

with midsole cushioning up to 30 millimeters and with at least 20 millimeters of cushioning at

their apex. Until around 2016, track spikes or racing flats were advantageous in trading

cushioning properties for reduced mass.

The focus of this literature review is the drastic evolution of footwear common in long

distance running (racing and training) away from minimalist designs to maximalist footwear.

This literature review aims to better understand the impact and potential advantage novel

footwear interventions, especially maximally cushioned running shoes, are providing athletes

and recreational runners alike. Specifically, injury risk or attenuation of that risk, with respect to

the vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) experienced by runners, is central to this review.
 5

Super Shoe Controversy

In 2016, Nike introduced the Nike Vaporfly 4%, a racing shoe unlike any of its

predecessors. Within the name itself, Nike made the claim that the shoe would improve athletic

performance by an average of 4%, a claim which has since been validated (Hoogkamer et al.,

2017). The shoe’s novel construction intrigued skeptics and running shoe fanatics alike. As

records fell, it seemed the sport of running was coming to a crucial intersection, where other

brands would need to rush to keep up or regulations were necessitated to prevent these so-called

“super shoes” (Douglas, 2021; Joubert & Jones, 2022) from taking over the competition.

There are three main characteristics that categorize a shoe as a super shoe: their stiffness,

their increased stack height and their midsole resilience (Joubert & Jones, 2022). Resilience

“represents the energy restored by the cushioning material after an applied force ceases”

(Onodera et al., 2017). Since Nike’s introduction of the Nike Vaporfly 4% and its successors,

other brands have released their own models with varied takes on these three characteristics. The

goal of these three characteristics is to improve athletic performance.

Shoe stiffness refers to the shoe’s longitudinal bending stiffness and can be defined as an

increase in the force required to bend the midsole of a shoe along an axis (Ortega et al., 2021;

Rodrigo-Carranza et al., 2022; Roy & Stefanyshyn, 2006). Shoe stiffness can also refer to

rotational stiffness instead of longitudinal bending stiffness. To change shoe stiffness, many

brands have inserted rigid plates into the midsoles of these shoes to reduce metatarsal

dorsiflexion. Carbon fiber appears to be the most common choice, but stiff, Nylon-based plastics

have also been used, perhaps to cut costs for both the manufacturer and consumer.

The average price of running shoes has hovered around $130 to $140 for popular training

shoe models like the Brooks Ghost and the Asics Gel Cumulus (Asics Gel Cumulus
 6

24. 2022; Ghost 14. 2022), but these super shoes may be over $200 (Nike Alphafly

NEXT%. 2022). A second characteristic, the midsole, is also a source of this added cost.

Disregarding the added weight of more foam, these shoes generally have stack heights (the

thickness of the midsole at the intended center of the forefoot and heel of the athletic shoe

(World Athletics, 2021)) upwards of 30mm. While traditional EVA foam is still used in some

models, more resilient foams like PEBAX (“a polyamide block elastomer (PEBA)” (Burns &

Tam, 2020)) and Super Critical foam are used in the midsole of many of these shoes (Dong et al.,

2019). These materials are treated as premium midsole foams, often coming with a higher price

tag.

Critics have latched onto the inclusion of a rigid plate and increased stack height as a

means for limiting the impact of super shoes upon the sport of running. In their editorial, Burns

and Tam (2020) proposed the limitation of racing shoe stack heights to 31mm. At the time, this

would keep the current World Records from being affected, but the introduction of shoes with

higher stack heights has since complicated this proposed modification of IAAF regulations.

Similarly, Muniz-Pardos et al. (2021) attributed the cascade of world records falling since the

super shoe’s introduction to be of a technological nature rather than of a physiological nature.

This would attribute the more recent running world records to advancements in running shoe

technology rather than athletic feats.

Super shoes present a myriad of fairness issues to the world of running competition. As

one of the few sports in which unsponsored and amateur athletes can compete against the

professionals and earn entry into elite races such as the Boston Marathon or achieve

sponsorships, these issues are important for many within the community. These issues concern

the integrity of the sport, accessibility to equipment, and sponsorship opportunities. The integrity
 7

of the sport issue is posed by the technological advantage (Burns & Tam, 2020; Hoogkamer et

al., 2017; Muniz-Pardos et al., 2021). Critics of the super shoes prioritize athletic achievement

over technological innovation as the catalyst for record setting and success in competition. The

fairness of accessibility is presented by the financial investment required to purchase super shoes

as well as the use of prototype shoes in competition. The cost of super shoes reduces the

accessibility of equipment that is very well supported to sway the outcome of competition. The

second accessibility issue is entangled with the issue of sponsorship opportunities. Many shoes,

including super shoes, have made their debut in competition as prototypes before their release to

the public. Additionally, a key part of the sport’s sponsorship deal has been for competitors to

use their sponsoring brand’s equipment during competitions. Before other brands released their

own competitors to the Nike Vaporfly 4%, athletes not sponsored by Nike were at a distinct

disadvantage to Nike athletes because of their continued use of more traditional racing flats. For

athletes and brands, the super shoe presented a difficult choice: allow athletes to wear a brand

other than that of their sponsor, part ways to wear the same shoes as the competition or compete

at a technological disadvantage.

The controversy came to a head during the 2020 US Olympic marathon trials. As a result,

Nike offered shoes to all competing athletes, though there was no requirement to wear them for

competition. A solution has since been codified (World Athletics, 2021), requiring athletes to

participate in shoes that have been made available for one month before their use in competition.

While sponsored athletes would still have to decide between the effectiveness of their sponsor’s

shoe offerings and wearing a different brand’s shoes, non-sponsored athletes are no longer at a

disadvantage for lack of access to unreleased shoes.

 8

Super Shoe Research: Effects on Performance

Though the evidence presented through race results was very compelling, much footwear

biomechanics research has been focused on comparing these new shoes to their traditional

counterparts in the years following the Nike Vaporfly’s release. Barnes and Kilding (2019)

compared three popular racing shoes the Nike Vaporfly 4%, the Nike Zoom Matumbo 3 spike,

and the Adidas Adizero Adios 3—another popular marathon racing shoe. Two conditions of

Nike Vaporfly 4% shoes were included. In one condition, lead weights were added to the Nike

shoes to equal the weight of the Adidas Adizero Adios 3, which is heavier than the Nike

Vaporfly 4% shoes, while the other condition was unweighted and not altered in any other way.

Thus, if the unweighted Vaporfly performed better than the Adidas, then reduction in mass could

not be the only feature responsible for the shoes’ economical superiority to the traditional racing

flat. As the Nike Vaporfly 4% is heavier than the Nike Zoom spike, any improvement in running

economy while in the Nike Vaporfly 4% condition when compared to the Zoom spike could not

be attributed to a decreased mass. After four 5-minute treadmill running trials in each shoe

condition, Barnes and Kilding were able to report the Nike Vaporfly 4% as superior to the

Adidas Adizero Adios 3 and the Nike Zoom spike by an average of at least 2% improvement in

running economy. Notably, the twenty-four participants of this study were evenly split between

male and female runners.

What is not clear in research on this new category of shoes is whether all runners are

favored equally by these novel interventions. Muniz-Pardos et al. (2021) mention a potential for

discrepancy in the advantage provided by super shoes due to foot strike. Though Barnes and

Kilding (2019) were unable to differentiate performance by foot strike, Hoogkamer et al. (2017)

was able to classify runners by their foot strike pattern (rearfoot or midfoot/forefoot). As a result,
 9

they reported a significant effect in relation to foot strike. Their unnamed carbon fiber-plated

Nike (Nike prototype) shoes favored a rearfoot strike. Thus, it appears that super shoes favor

rearfoot strike runners over midfoot or forefoot strike runners but not to the extent of excluding

them from the phenomenon. Rearfoot runners seem to take full mechanical advantage of full-

length carbon fiber plates and increased cushioning as they contact the ground with a longer

segment of the shoe from posterior to anterior.

Similar to Barnes and Kilding (2019), Hoogkamer et al. (2017) compared what may be

considered a Nike super shoe to two more traditional long distance racing options. Running

economy was overall found to improve in the carbon fiber plated, resilient shoe condition (Nike

prototype) in comparison to the Adidas Adizero Adios Boost 2 and the Nike Zoom Streak 6,

which are two marathon racing flats. By measuring oxygen consumption, this improvement was

found to be a greater than 4% average improvement in running economy across all three tested

running velocities. For those that do benefit, improvements are seen in performance and in

running economy; however, consistent amongst Barnes and Kilding (2019) and Hoogkamer et al.

(2017) is a wide variation in improvement in both performance and running economy.

With any running shoe, two main concerns emerge for athletes: improving performance

and reducing rates of injury. In addition to their findings of improved energetic cost, Hoogkamer

et al. (2017) also reported an increased peak vGRF in the Nike prototype shoe compared to the

other shoe conditions. This result, along with an increased step length and ground contact time,

raises concerns for injury risk, as lower vGRFs and increased cadence are typically

recommended methods of reducing injury risk in runners (Willy et al., 2016). Interestingly,

Hoogkamer et al. (2017) speculated the increased peak vGRF, step length, and ground contact

time partially explained the advantages in running economy given by the Nike prototype. The
 10

reduced mileage lifespan of super shoes—most brands recommend between 150 to 250 miles as

opposed to the traditional running shoe mileage of 300 to 500 miles—likely reduces the amount

of time runners spend in these shoes by reserving them for races. If the shoe does pose an injury

risk by the increased vGRFs and reduced cadence, it may be that this conservation of the shoes is

beneficial to the runner’s health as well as extending the life of the shoes.

While super shoes promise performance improvements, if they were found to increase

injury risk, athletes might lose valuable training time. This could nullify any technological

advantage granted by the super shoes. Research such as that conducted by Barnes and Kilding

(2019) and Hoogkamer et al. (2017) support the marketing of super shoes as performance

enhancing footwear, but at what cost? This finding prompts a deeper dive into the research

pertaining to one of the key characteristics of the super shoe—its increased stack height. This

component of the super shoes’ construction is a feature that has been adopted in daily training

footwear (running shoes used in regular training rather than reserved for racing), a subcategory

of running footwear that has typically not been solely performance focused.

Maximalist Footwear: Maximizing

Stack Heights and Comfort

Coinciding with the introduction of the super shoe, the Hoka brand has spearheaded a

maximalist revolution in the running shoe industry. Hoka is one of the fastest growing running

shoe companies (Baron, 2020). Known for its chunky midsoles and rocker geometry, Hoka first

targeted the ultra-marathon running community but found as much success with runners of all

abilities as well as non-runners. The appeal to Hoka has, anecdotally, not been one of aesthetic

appeal but one of comfort. The increased midsole stack height of popular models such as the

Hoka Clifton and Bondi claim to offer superior cushioning in its “plush” category for “a

forgiving impact” and to prevent or recover from injury (Hoka, 2022).

 11

Regarding biomechanical research, ground reaction forces have been studied as a way to

interpret the effect of ground impact upon the body; however, the literature on maximalist shoes

has not been as conclusive with some reporting increased vGRFs while others support Hoka’s

claims of reduced impact. Other key features of this added cushioning include a longer

functional leg length, which by increased stride length could lend itself to faster running.

In light of Hoka’s success, many other popular shoe brands have followed suit, not just

introducing high stack height super shoes but also maximally cushioned daily trainers (shoes

meant for the bulk of training and not necessarily racing) to their lineups (see Figure 2). The

current footwear trend seems to be a complete reversal of the barefoot running trend of the early

2010s, instigated in part by the book Born to Run by Chris McDougal and the “glove-like”

minimal running shoes, Vibram FiveFingers (Vibram Corporation, North Brookfield, MA,

USA). As runners and non-runners in this market pursue more than improvements in

performance, it is important to biomechanical researchers to find conclusive evidence to support

or rebuke the purported advantages of maximalist footwear. Running injuries have been reported

to afflict anywhere from 20% to 79% of runners, a range that has not fallen with the

improvement in running shoes (van Gent et al., 2007). One explanation for this high rate of

injury could be the inclusion of more novice runners in the running community. This group is

less likely to buy designated running shoes or to replace them with the recommended frequency,

as well as other oversights in preparing for the sport that more committed runners might not

make. Regardless, the present research is focused on adding to the body of research investigating

the influence of maximalist footwear on vGRFs in comparison to traditional footwear options for

the sake of runners of all abilities.

 12

Figure 2

Traditional and Maximalist Shoes.

Note: From left to right: Brooks Launch 5, Saucony Shift 2, and Saucony Speed 2. The Brooks
Launch represents a traditional running shoe construction while both Saucony shoes are
maximalist running shoes. All shoes pictured are women’s size 8.5B.

Coincidentally, many of the key traits of super shoes and maximalist shoes promise

reductions in injury as well as improvements to performance. One such characteristic is the

geometry of these shoes. Modern running shoes had evolved a feature known as a toe spring to

improve toe-off feel and prevent the flat slap of the shoe contacting the ground. This toe spring is

an upward curvature of the front of the shoe beginning near where the metatarsophalangeal joints

would be expected to sit in the shoe. In addition to a toe spring, the heel of the shoe may also be

curved upwards, reducing the lift in the heel. This results in a reduction in the heel to toe drop,

which is the difference between the shoe’s stack height at the toe and the heel. These two
 13

features combine to create a rocker-soled shoe. Rocker-soled shoes influence foot mechanics.

First, rocker-soled shoes introduce a rocking motion to the foot that is not seen in barefoot

running or with traditional running footwear. Secondly, the toes are kept in dorsiflexion,

impacting the windlass mechanism of the plantar aponeurosis. Fong et al. (2012) found that

rocker shoes decrease plantar pressure in the heel and forefoot but increase plantar pressure

across the midfoot, establishing the ability of shoes with this geometry to affect the interface

between the foot and the ground.

Maximalist shoes are not the first category of shoes promising improvements in

performance and health. Barefoot and minimalist running came first and has been more

thoroughly researched. The resulting accumulation of research comparing shod versus unshod

running tends to pair shod running with a rearfoot strike and unshod running or minimalist

running with a midfoot or forefoot strike to highlight the advantages of each running condition;

however, not all aspects of maximalist footwear make them a natural fit for rearfoot striking

runners. Maximalist footwear is coupled with a rocker-shaped sole to compensate for their lack

of flexibility and immobilization of the metatarsophalangeal joint through either an inserted rigid

plate or simply the maximized midsole foam. This rocker shape anteriorly translates the apex of

the shoe and lowers heel to toe drop. A high heel to toe drop has been standard in the running

shoe industry to complement rearfoot runners for a long time. This added heel cushioning

attempts to reduce the initial impact peak and loading rates. Given the entirety of the midsole in

maximalist cushion shoes often rises to a stack height comparable of the heel stack height of

traditional shoes, if not more so, it is not so much a sacrifice of cushioning as it is a novel feature

that many runners may have to adjust to wearing. Unlike midfoot and forefoot running in which

the heel may not contact the ground, rearfoot strike running unloads the Achilles tendon at
 14

ground contact. A reduced heel to toe drop could lengthen this tendon beyond a runner’s typical

range of motion compared to their traditional running shoes. This a concern for runners

transitioning from traditional shoes that come with higher heel to toe drops (raised heels) as it

could lead to injury. Malisoux et al. (2016), in a study of 553 runners, concluded that regular

runners without previous experience running in low heel to toe drop shoes had an increased

injury risk. Additionally, the anteriorly translated apex of the shoe could result in a modification

of the vGRF as the foot rocks forward.

The forces experienced by the body during rearfoot running are not isolated to the foot.

Upon contact with the ground (heel strike), a shock wave travels up the axial skeleton (Dickinson

et al., 1985; Whittle, 1999). This shock wave can be attenuated by footwear, mainly the

viscoelastic materials that are present in the midsole of the shoe (Whittle, 1999). In the case of

maximalist footwear, it is inferred that more material would result in better shock wave

attenuation, and thus, a better outcome regarding injuries that may result from exposure to this

shock wave, such as knee injuries. Hoka (2022) describes its midsole technology as shock

absorbing, likely a draw for runners (and others) seeking footwear to meet their injury prevention

goals. This shock wave arises from the onset of the vertical ground reaction force.
 15

Vertical Ground Reaction Force and Running Injuries

Figure 3

Vertical Ground Reaction Force.

Note. Vertical ground reaction force curve standardized to bodyweights per second.

There are two distinct peaks within vGRF data often seen in runners (Cavanagh &

Lafortune, 1980). The first peak is known as the heel transient, named so because of its

appearance most often in rearfoot strikers. In unshod running, this heel strike transient typically

disappears, but only when running unshod is enough to prompt runners to alter their foot strike to

mid-foot or forefoot running pattern. Other components of the vGRF are of interest to

researchers are vertical loading rate, impact peak, and the maximum vGRF. The variables can be

influenced by changes to foot strike pattern or foot angle upon ground contact, as well as their

association with running injuries (Altman & Davis, 2016; Dickinson et al., 1985; Johnston et al.,

2020; Paquette et al., 2013; Willy & Davis, 2014).

 16

Barefoot and Minimalist Shoe

Running

Because a reduction in this first impact peak is associated with decreased risk of injury

(Baltich et al., 2013; Chan et al., 2018; Malisoux et al., 2021; Thompson et al., 2015; Willy &

Davis, 2014; Willy et al., 2016), it has long been theorized that barefoot running would reduce

associated injuries. Altman and Davis (2016) investigated the prevalence of injury between

barefoot runners and shod runners, finding that barefoot running appeared to reduce rates of

injury. The researchers did acknowledge that the barefoot group ran less mileage than the shod

group, which could be another source of the discrepancy in injury rates. Additionally, injury

rates for both groups remained above 50%, a figure that may not be very promising for those

turning to barefoot running for the sake of reducing injury. Barefoot running may not elicit the

changes the researchers had hoped for.

When comparing unshod to shod running in terms of vertical load, Paquette et al. (2013)

reported a higher loading rate in both barefoot and minimal shoes compared to traditional. This

finding agrees with the findings of Willy and Davis (2014) who reported both a higher impact

peak and loading rate for runners in a minimal shoe condition compared to a traditional shoe

condition. One explanation proposed by these researchers has been the lack of alteration to

running gait to accommodate barefoot running, especially changes to foot strike pattern or foot

angle upon ground contact. If runners in a barefoot or minimalist shoe adopt a forefoot or

midfoot strike pattern, the impact peak in the vGRF may be attenuated or disappear entirely.

Upon investigation, not all runners are found to transition to a midfoot or forefoot strike

intuitively when running barefoot. Willy and Davis (2014) found that running in minimal shoes

were not sufficient for changing foot strike pattern and additional instruction might be required

to elicit this transition from rearfoot striking to forefoot or midfoot. Despite this finding,
 17

Thompson et al. (2015) found that rearfoot runners do alter their foot angle at foot strike in an

unshod condition, namely by increasing ankle plantarflexion to land with a flatter foot. It is

likely runners make this change as running unshod with a heel strike can be painful. This finding

supports the connection between shod running and a rearfoot strike pattern as well as a

connection between unshod or barefoot running with a forefoot/midfoot strike pattern, as

rearfoot strike runners are unable to maintain their normal gait under unshod conditions.

Further emphasizing the association between footwear cushioning and foot strike pattern,

Paquette et al. (2013) found that rearfoot strikers had higher loading rates in barefoot and

traditional shoe conditions. A cohort of fourteen male runners (n=14) ran five overground

running trials in each of the footwear conditions. Rearfoot strike runners had an increased

loading rate in barefoot and minimal shoe conditions. The impact peak vGRF were not

significantly different. Due to the absence of an impact peak in forefoot runners, Paquette et al.

(2013) could not make a comparison between the two groups regarding the associated variables

(loading rate and impact peak vGRF). These findings indicate the additional cushioning provided

by traditional shoes may be better for runners who are rearfoot strikers and do not plan to change

their foot strike.

Vertical Ground Reaction Force

Variables and Injury

While ground reaction forces remain of interest to footwear researchers, there is not a

concrete link between all running injuries and an increase in vGRF variables (loading rate,

impact peak, peak vGRF). Davis et al. (2016) collected baseline data on 249 female runners

without current injury. Over a two-year follow-up period, the runners reported their mileage and

injury status. An analysis of the entire group did not result in a significant relationship between

increased impact variables and subsequent injury; however, when only the never injured group
 18

and injured group which sought medical attention were compared, there was a significant

difference between the groups on all impact variables, except the peak vGRF. The reported

injuries were diverse—bony and soft tissue—with all types being associated with increased

vertical average loading rate (VALR) and instantaneous loading rate (VILR). Reviewing Figure

(3), the VALR describes the average loading slope between the onset of the force and the first

peak as opposed to the VILR which is the maximum slope within this same region. (Chan et al.,

2018).

A broader view of the existing literature does not perfectly agree with these findings. Van

der Worp et al. (2016) included 18 studies in a meta-analysis of studies reporting injury

occurrence in runners and their vGRFs. While the analysis concluded that stress fractures were

linked to increased vGRF, non-bony injuries were not similarly linked. In fact, the most common

reported injury was at the knee, which was not linked to the loading rate, impact peak, or active

peak. Despite this finding, van der Worp et al. (2016) presented a couple of explanations for this

lack of relationship. First, etiological differences may be to blame, such that increased vGRFs

and loading rates may play a bigger part in bony injury as opposed to soft tissue injury.

Secondly, participants who are currently experiencing injury symptoms or pain may attenuate

these variables by modifying their gait to avoid discomfort, resulting in a decrease in these

variables that might not have existed before the onset of injury pain and symptoms. Regardless,

the link between vGRF and stress fracture remains a compelling enough reason to further

investigate methods of attenuating these forces for runners, especially female runners who are at

an increased risk of this injury (Johnston et al., 2020).

 19

Maximal Shoes vs. Traditional

and Minimal Shoes

As previously mentioned, Hoka shoes introduced a novel approach to attenuating injury

risk with their maximal cushioning. In investigating these claims, Tavares et al. (2020) compared

a maximal cushion shoe from Hoka to three Nike models: the Pegasus, Free, and Structure,

which respectively represented the neutral, flexible, and stability shoe categories. Predating this

maximalist shoe category, stability or motion control shoes were instead used to reduce injuries

in runners, which made it of special interest to Tavares et al. (2020) in comparing to a maximal

shoe condition in terms of VALR. Contrary to expectation, the Hoka shoe had a higher VALR

than the stability shoe (Nike Structure). Though the Hoka had a lower VALR than the neutral

shoe condition (Nike Pegasus); however, it was not statistically significant. There were no

significant differences between any of the shoe conditions regarding vertical instantaneous

loading rate.

Midsole Resilience

Performance is a crucial motivator for many runners, not just the elites, evidenced by the

availability of super shoes to runners of all abilities. The technological advantage provided by

these shoes, in part due to their foam’s energy returning properties. Onodera et al. (2017) used

four shoe models. Two had midsoles with high resilience and two with low resilience. The shoes

of the same midsole resilience differed by their upper construction, having either a structured or

minimalist upper (top part of the shoe, typically made of a mesh or a knit material). Using the

kinematic and kinetic data from twenty-seven runners, machine learning was used to

discriminate between the two resiliencies and the two upper conditions. Forty-two variables were

identified for this process. The study concluded that shoe uppers were more accurately identified

and seemed less subject-dependent; however, to discriminate between the two types of EVA
 20

foam midsoles, ground reaction forces emerged as a top variable of interest. The interaction

between kinetic data and midsole resilience appears, in part, to be subject-dependent. Shoe

midsole resilience may not uniformly affect the vGRFs of runners but may be dependent upon

other characteristics specific to the individual. The relationship between shoe resilience and these

forces warrants further investigation.

One of the most resilient midsole foams on the market is PEBAX. The benefits of

PEBAX (Dong et al., 2019) paired with a stiff plate over traditional shoes, even more traditional

racing flats, has been supported by improvements in running economy (Hébert-Losier et al.,

2020). Increased resiliency from midsole foam properties and a stiff plate leads to an

improvement in running economy not explained by differences in mass, which supports the

findings of Hoogkamer et al. (2017). Differing from Hoogkamer et al. (2017), Hébert-Losier et

al. (2020) included participants’ own shoes as one of the conditions. Nigg et al. (2015) supports

the comfort filter as a method for runners to choose shoes that best meet their bodies’ individual

needs. While this could potentially hold true for preventing injuries related to footwear choice,

the participants of Hébert-Losier et al. (2020) rated their own shoes as the most comfortable

though eleven of the eighteen participants performed better in the Nike Vaporfly 4%. Coinciding

with the shoe’s name, improvements in oxygen consumption and energetic cost hovered around

4% though varied between participants. To rule out the placebo effect—as the Nike Vaporfly 4%

and other such shoes have gained notoriety—it was reported only one of the participants

accurately identified the Nike Vaporfly 4%. A potential benefit to these super shoes over

traditional racing flats proposed by Hébert-Losier et al. (2020) is the reduced cost of cushioning.

The Nike Vaporfly 4% and similar shoes fall into the maximalist cushion category for their

unusually large stack heights, especially in comparison to traditional racing flats and spikes. The
 21

absence of this midsole cushioning is replaced by gait changes adopted by the runner to cushion

their own body, which results in an energetic cost (Frederick, 1984).

Malisoux et al. (2021) investigated the relationship between shoe cushioning, injury,

ground reaction forces, and spatiotemporal variables. Collecting data on over 800 runners,

Malisoux et al. (2021) recorded 2 minutes of running on a treadmill with force plates in one of

two shoe conditions categorized as either soft or hard and differing in no other regard. As the

stack heights of these shoe conditions were the same, it is important to note that cushioning was

delineated by global stiffness rather than amount of a specific material. By this definition of

cushioning, Malisoux et al. (2021) found the softer shoe—or more cushioned shoe—resulted in a

greater vertical impact peak force with no difference in loading rate. Time to vertical impact

peak force increased in the soft shoe condition compared to the hard shoe condition, which was

proposed to be a better variable assessing cushioning properties than peak force.

The footwear industry has long used a variety of material types and durometers within a

single shoe to improve runner comfort and stability. Stability shoes aimed at reducing ankle

eversion had historically contained a dual density post on the medial side of the shoe’s midsole.

The placement and variations between midsole materials within the same shoe highlights the

strengths of these foams in stabilizing, dampening forces, and improving propulsion. Sterzing et

al. (2013) used runner feedback and kinetic data to evaluate shoes with soft or hard cushioning in

either the forefoot or midfoot, resulting in four shoe conditions. Runners reported favoring the

soft feel conditions over the hard heel conditions which aligned with a decrease in loading rate in

soft heel conditions. Sterzing et al. (2013) also reported a greater peak force in the soft heel and

hard forefoot condition in comparison to the hard heel and hard forefoot condition. The findings
 22

of Baltich et al. (2013) support this conclusion as joint stiffness and vertical impact forces

increase with softer midsoles.

Traditional vs. Maximalist Shoe Conditions:

Loading Rates

In a study of twelve experienced male runners, Kulmala et al. (2018) reported an increase

in impact peak and loading rate in a maximal cushion shoe condition (Hoka Conquest) when

compared to a traditional shoe condition (Brooks Ghost 6). At the slower speed (10 km/h), the

maximalist shoe condition resulted in a 6.4% greater impact peak, but not in a significantly

different loading rate. This difference widened at a faster speed (14.5 km/h) from the slow speed

with the impact peak raising by 10.7% in the maximalist shoe condition as well as a 12.3%

greater value in loading rate compared to the traditional shoe condition. Five good trials on each

participant’s right leg were recorded using force plate and kinematic data for analysis. Photocells

were used to assure trials were completed across a 30-meter track at the right speed with a +/-

10% allowance. Kulmala et al. (2018) reported these findings were out of alignment with the

claims of impact attenuation which underlines the purported benefit of maximal cushioned shoes.

As leg stiffness was also evaluated and found to be higher in the maximalist condition,

researchers concluded a stiffer leg diminished the impact attenuation effect of the maximalist

shoes. Researchers also noted that the mechanical cushioning properties of the shoes were not

tested as part of this study, underscoring a reliance upon cushioning properties as reported by the

brands themselves in which overall higher stack heights and increased volume of material has

become synonymous with higher cushion to the consumer. Thus, more research is needed to

investigate the mechanical cushioning properties of running footwear as well as the existing

classification of maximalist footwear.

 23

Using the stack height differentiation between minimalist, traditional, and maximalist

shoes, Hannigan and Pollard (2020) compared one shoe from each condition, which varied only

in stack height. Twenty runners were recruited for the study (6 male, 14 female) all running at

least 10 miles per week. By standardizing the make (New Balance), heel to toe drop and midsole

material, Hannigan and Pollard (2020) differentiated their study from others that have not

controlled these variables. Though not explicitly stated by the researchers, it can be inferred that

these shoes did not differ in weight. In respect to the kinetic variables analyzed (vertical impact

peak, vertical active peak, and average vertical loading rate), only average vertical loading rate

was found to have a significant main effect as none of the others were significantly different

between shoe conditions. The average vertical loading rate was found to be higher in the

minimalist shoe condition. As all runners recruited for this study were rearfoot strikers and only

three of them adopted a midfoot/forefoot strike pattern for the minimalist shoe condition, this

supports other research which has designated minimalist or barefoot running as an ill match for

rearfoot strike runners. The three participants who changed their foot strike were reported by

Hannigan and Pollard (2020) to have a lower average vertical loading rate. Due to the strict

controlling of other shoe variables, researchers considered that previous inconclusive research on

maximalist shoes versus other footwear conditions may be due to the variance of these variables

more so than in differences in stack height. The shoes used for this study were custom made for

the research to best control their similarity.

With the present body of research on maximalist shoes—much less extensive than that on

minimalist shoes—the role and benefit of maximal shoes remains unclear. Chan et al. (2018)

found that the Hoka Clifton 3, a maximalist shoe had an increased loading rate in downhill

running compared to the Adidas Adizero Boost, the traditional shoe condition. As downhill
 24

running is asserted to increase vertical loading rates, interventions that alleviate this detriment

could be helpful. Counter to mechanical testing performed on the maximal shoes, the study

found that the instantaneous loading rate was increased in the maximal shoe condition. As a

result, researchers opposed the notion that mechanical testing of the materials is correlated with

the biomechanical outcomes experienced by runners. These results and conclusions are

concerning runners who are trying to reap these supposed benefits which appear contrary to

much of the research that has been done on this running footwear subcategory. Thus, research

may be more helpful when studying the interface between runners and footwear rather than

looking at footwear alone.

As the choice of running shoes remains in the hands of the runner or running shoe

consumer, the disparity between cushioning as defined by researchers and these consumers

creates confusion over the role of various maximalist shoes. As the maximalist trend sweeps the

footwear industry with consumers searching for performance-enhancing and cushion-enhancing

footwear, it may be unfair to categorize these shoes by their silhouette, specifically their stack

height. Much research has focused on broadly categorizing shoes by their stack heights while

standardizing the midsole material. As shoes available to the consumer vary greatly even in

durometer between shoes using the same type of foam, these studies may be reduced in their

applicability.

Conclusion

In most, if not all, research a tradeoff between controlling the variables and real-world

applicability presents itself. In much of the existing research on footwear, shoe conditions have

been used that are not available to the public. Instead, custom shoes are used that differ only

across a single variable if possible—often, stack height. This rarely replicated in the lineups
 25

offered by shoe companies in which most shoes vary across a multitude of variables including

stack height, sole materials, upper materials, weights, heel to toe drops, and more. In using

publicly accessible footwear interventions, there is a compromise on controlling any number of

these variables depending on the specific shoes being used. Yet, in recognizing a potential for

interaction between features such as stack height, cushioning, and heel to toe drop, this is the

reality faced by runners who seek to benefit from this body of research.

Added mass has a well-supported impact upon runner oxygen consumption (Frederick,

1984), and thus, it has often been controlled in footwear research. Unfortunately, the reality of

wearing shoes of different constructions such as changes to the midsole—durometer, stack

height, or material—are naturally accompanied by changes in mass. Arguably, mass is

inextricable from these midsole changes as weight cannot be controlled when changing them

without adding something such as lead pellets. As there are not currently weight restrictions

placed on running footwear in racing as there are on bikes in cycling competitions (Union

Cycliste Internationale, 2021), this added weight is not applicable to settings outside of the lab.

The present body of research is in its infancy on the matter of maximalist running shoes

in comparison to that on minimalist footwear and unshod conditions. More research is necessary

to investigate the benefits of maximalist footwear. For the sake of runners seeking better

performance and injury reduction, further research must investigate the impact upon vGRFs by

maximally cushioned shoes. Such research would better characterize the utility of this footwear

category or promote further differentiation within the category itself such as further

differentiation between performance focused or injury prevention footwear.

 26

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of maximalist running shoes of two

differing constructions upon loading rate compared to a traditional shoe condition. A secondary

purpose of this study was to investigate any interaction between footwear condition and speed on

loading rate.

Participants

Eight healthy runners (4 women, 4 men; 29 ± 6.5 years; 63.6 ± 14.3 kg; 1.67 ± .09m; 5k

time: 25:50 ± 8:00; 23.13 ± 13.08 miles of running per week) volunteered to participate in this

study. Participants were recruited through flyers distributed throughout University of Northern

Colorado campus, as well as at running trails and running stores in the nearby area. Additionally,

some participants were recruited via word of mouth. Only runners between the ages of 18 and 40

years were considered for this study, as this age range encompasses the open division for most

major long-distance races as opposed to the youth and master’s divisions. For inclusion, all

participants ran 10 miles or more per week on average and ran with a self-reported rearfoot strike

pattern. All participants were required to be injury free for the last 6 months. “Injury free” was

defined as not missing three or more consecutive days of planned running due to injury (Yamato

et al., 2015). Before participation, each participant was asked to read and sign an informed

consent document approved by the University of Northern Colorado’s Institutional Review

 27

Board (IRB). A researcher also provided a verbal description of the study and allowed time for

the participants to ask questions before the document was signed.

Shoe Conditions

Three shoe conditions were selected for this study: two maximalist running shoes and a

traditional running shoe. All shoes were considered compliant with World Athletics regulations

from competition. Both maximalist shoes were selected from Saucony but differed in

theirconstruction. The Saucony Endorphin Shift 2 (Shift) (Wolverine Worldwide, Rockford, MI)

is a daily training shoe with an EVA midsole and a maximalist construction (maximum stack

height: 38mm; women’s size 8: 262g, men’s size 10: 296g). As its speedier counterpart, the

Saucony Endorphin Speed 2 (Speed) (Wolverine Worldwide, Rockford, MI) is a shoe designed

for racing as well as training. It has a PEBA-based midsole with a nylon plate to comprise its

maximalist, super shoe construction (maximum stack height: 35.5mm; women’s size 8: 196g,

men’s size 10: 229g).These two shoes are part of the same lineup, which also includes the

Saucony Endorphin Pro, a super shoe designed specifically for racing As many of these shoes are

intended for race settings, these purported benefits would be desired at both slow (recovery or

training runs) and fast speeds (time trials or racing). The Brooks Launch 5 (Launch) served as

the traditional running shoe made with EVA foam and a maximum midsole stack height of

28mm (women’s size 8: 227g, men’s size 10: 276g) (Brooks Sports Inc., Seattle, WA).

Data Collection

Preliminary questions confirmed that all participants met the inclusion criteria. Each

participant was asked about their running regimen: shoes used most often while running, the

mileage ran per week, and best or most recent 5k time. Height and mass measurements were

collected with the participant’s shoes off but their socks on. Participants were then fitted for each
 28

of the three shoe conditions with the same researcher approving the fit in each of the shoes every

time to standardize the fit (amount of space between toes and the end of the shoe).

A 5–10-minute self-selected warm-up was completed in the participants’ own shoes This

warm-up included jogging, stretching, or dynamic drills, depending on the participant’s usual

routine preferences.

The experimental protocol was completed in each of the three shoes in a randomized

order for each participant. Two sets of photocell timers (TCi system, Brower Timing Systems,

Draper, UT) were set up on either side of an in-ground force plate (model OR6-6-2000, AMTI,

Waltham, MA), positioned 6 m from each other and 3 m from the center of the force plate. The

force plate was flush with the surrounding surface and used to collect ground reaction force data

at 2000 Hz for each trial. The participant was asked to look ahead, run naturally, and not chop or

lengthen their step to target the force plate. Participants practiced running down the

(approximately) 15m runway until they were comfortable and when necessary, the participant’s

starting point was repositioned to ensure the force plate was hit without targeting. Participants

were asked to run at 2.85 m/s and 3.7 m/s. These speeds were selected based off of the

anticipated abilities of participants and their comparability to previous studies (Hannigan &

Pollard, 2020; Kulmala et al., 2018). All trials in which the participant did not run the set speed

within a ±10% allowance or did not make good contact with the force plate without targeting

were discarded. The first three good trials were kept for each leg. Following completion of a total

of six good trials, the participant changed into the next shoe. When all eighteen trials were

collected at the slower speed, the participant repeated the protocol at the faster speed. The order

of the shoes was kept the same as it had been for the slower speed. When six good trials (three

on each side) were collected for each of the shoe conditions at the faster speed, the session was
 29

concluded. At least thirty-six good trials were recorded for each participant. Participants were

allowed to rest or drink water as needed.

At the conclusion of the experimental protocol, participants were asked which shoe they

preferred and which shoe they liked the least (or found least comfortable). Participants were

given six pairs of socks as a thanks for their involvement in the study.

Data Analysis

Ground reaction forces for three trials for each condition and limb were filtered using a

fourth order low-pass Butterworth filter with a 50 Hz cutoff frequency. Custom MATLAB code

used to identify the heel strike transient peak. The function “findpeaks” was used to identify the

heel transient peak as the first of two or more peaks. If the function was unable to identify the

heel strike transient peak, the peak was manually selected. If no heel strike transient peak was

identified, the trial was discarded and substituted for another good trial when available. Seven

trials were deleted in total, but no fewer than two trials from each participant were used for each

footwear and speed condition. The onset of the ground reaction force was identified at a

threshold of 30 N. The average vertical loading rate (AVLR) was analyzed from the middle 60%

of the heel strike transient portion of the vertical ground reaction force curve to the heel strike

transient peak. Loading rate was calculated using linear regression during this 60% portion of the

curve. Trials from each condition (shoe-speed) were averaged for each participant. Loading rates

were normalized to bodyweight and expressed in bodyweights per second (BW/s).

 30

Statistical Analysis

SPSS Statistics software (IBM, Armonk, NY) was used for two separate two-way

repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVA). The main effects of shoe (3 levels) and speed

(2 levels) were tested, along with a test for an interaction (shoe x speed). Statistical significance

was defined with an alpha-value of 0.05.

 31

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of maximalist running shoes of two

differing constructions upon loading rate compared to a traditional shoe condition. A secondary

purpose of this study was to investigate any interaction between footwear condition and speed on

loading rate.

Results from right foot impacts and left foot impacts were similar across all shoe and

speed conditions (Tables 1, 2), although this similarity was not tested statistically. The analysis

of the right and left foot results were always intended to be treated separately because the focus

of the present study was footwear and not leg symmetry or dominance. For each side of the

body, there were two significant main effects: speed and shoe). The faster running speed resulted

in significantly higher loading rates compared to the slower speed (right: F = 30.683, p < .001;

left: F = 30.854, p < .001). The second main effect was due to shoe condition (right: F = 8.658, p

= .004; left: F = 11.828, p < .001). Follow-up tests of within subjects contrasts showed that the

Shift (maximal) shoes resulted in higher loading rates compared to both the Launch (traditional)

and the Speed (maximal). For each side of the body, there was no significant difference in

loading rates between the Speed and the Launch (see Figures 4 and 5). Finally, there was no

interaction between footwear condition and speed.

 32

Table 1

Right Limb Loading Rates

Right
Slow Fast†
AVLR SD AVLR SD
Launch 51.03 18.38 66.78 17.67
Shift* 57.48 16.71 79.94 22.46
Speed 56.28 12.97 70.92 16.18
Note: The mean and standard deviation (SD) for average vertical loading rate (AVLR) is
expressed in bodyweights per second for all shoes and speeds on the right side. *Indicates a
statistically significant difference from Launch and Speed. †Indicates a statistically significant
difference from slow speed of running.

Table 2

Left Limb Loading Rates

Left
Slow Fast†
AVLR SD AVLR SD
Launch 53.16 12.17 69.83 20.89
Shift* 66.17 16.88 82.83 15.83
Speed 55.74 11.01 78.84 16.51
Note: The mean and standard deviation (SD) for average vertical loading rate (AVLR) is
expressed in bodyweights per second for all shoes and speeds on the right side.
*Indicates a statistically significant difference from Launch and Speed. †Indicates a statistically
significant difference from slow speed of running.
 33

Figure 4

Right Loading Rates.

Right
110
slow fast
100
90
Loading Rates (BW/s)

80
70 * †

60
50
40
30
Launch Shift Speed

Note: Mean and SD of average vertical loading rate for fast (3.7 m/s) and slow (2.85 m/s)
running speeds for three footwear conditions: Maximal (Shift and Speed) and traditional
(Launch). *Indicates a statistically significant difference from Launch and Speed. †Indicates a
statistically significant difference from slow speed of running.
 34

Figure 5

Left Loading Rates.

Left
110
slow fast
100

90
Loading Rate (BW/s)

80 †
*
70

60

50

40

30
Launch Shift Speed

Note: Mean and SD of average vertical loading rate for fast (3.7 m/s) and slow (2.85 m/s)
running speeds. *Indicates a statistically significant difference from Launch and Speed.
†Indicates a statistically significant difference from slow speed of running.
 35

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of maximalist running shoes of two

differing constructions upon loading rate compared to a traditional shoe condition. A secondary

purpose of this study was to investigate any interaction between footwear condition and speed on

loading rate. As these two maximalist shoes differed in construction, this study was motivated to

shed light on the discrepancies that exist in the current research on loading rates in maximalist

footwear. Some have reported loading rates similar between maximalist shoes and traditionalist

shoes (Hannigan & Pollard, 2020; Tavares et al., 2020) while others report higher loading rates

in maximalist shoes (Chan et al., 2018; Kulmala et al., 2018). For the secondary purpose of this

study, running speeds were standardized to be 2.85 m/s and 3.7 m/s ±10%, which correspond to

9:24 min/mile and 7:15 min/mile paces, respectively.

A statistically significant higher loading rate was found in the Shift in comparison to both

the Launch and the Speed. The loading rates of the Launch and Speed were not significantly

different. The Shift is a maximalist running shoe with an EVA-based midsole. The Speed is a

maximalist shoe that may also be categorized as a super shoe due to its PEBA-based midsole and

inclusion of a rigid nylon plate. While the Shift and Speed are both maximalist constructions,

their differences influence their loading rates in comparison to traditional running shoes. Thus,

the variations within this category of shoes make it impossible to label the entire category as

better or worse than traditional running shoes. This study demonstrates that maximalist running
 36

shoes may result in comparable or significantly higher loading rates than popular traditional

running shoes but do not result in lower loading rates.

Though the manufacturer recommended applications of the Shift and Speed align

respectively to slower and faster running, there was no interaction between the footwear

condition and speed. There may be more measures, such as energetic cost, oxygen cost, or blood

lactate concentrations, that affirm the suitability of the Shift and Speed to specific speeds of

training. The findings of this study found that loading rates increase with increased speed,

regardless of the running footwear used by the runner.

Super shoes are a relatively new entry into the running footwear market and have only

recently become so widespread and accessible to runners of all abilities. Most participants,

except one participant who had experience with the Hoka Bondi (Hoka, Goleta, CA, USA), used

traditional or minimalist shoes as their primary footwear for training. This inexperience with

super shoes and the broader maximalist footwear category could be a factor in the results of this

study. It is beyond the scope of this study to report whether runners with a prolonged

accommodation period or more experience with maximalist shoes would see better outcomes.

Participation for this study did not control previous experience with maximalist footwear.

Barefoot and minimalist running research has found that a longer acclimation period or coaching

to retrain gait was necessary to see the benefits of the minimalist style of running (Paquette et al.,

2013; Willy & Davis, 2014). It is not known whether maximalist shoes would require similar

experience or gait retraining to see their purported benefits.

An increase in loading rate in maximalist running footwear suggests using a maximalist

shoe is insufficient for adequate vGRF attenuation in runners using a rearfoot strike pattern. Heel

to toe drop varied between all three shoe conditions and did not appear to influence loading rate.
 37

For example, the shoe with the highest heel to toe drop (Launch) and the lowest heel to toe drop

(Speed) were not significantly different. The present study did not include forefoot/midfoot

strike runners, a limitation of this study. The lack of reduction in loading rate in the rearfoot

runners in the present study suggests traditional footwear may be sufficient for avoiding the

injuries associated with increased loading rate (Davis et al., 2016; Johnston et al., 2020; van der

Worp et al., 2016).

Injury prevention is an unquestionable concern for the running community with the high

prevalence of running injuries reported by van Gent et al. (2007). The link between this high

occurrence of injury and loading rate remains less clear. Results like those of Davis et al. (2016)

demonstrates a relationship between higher average loading rates and those who have been

previously injured, but Schmida et al. (2022) found no link between loading rate and subsequent

injury upon analysis of Division I cross country athletes through four seasons of competition.

Thus, the results of this study do not suggest maximalist footwear should not be used, but that

care and consideration should be taken in using them. If the aim of a runner is to reduce loading

rate, the reported loading rates of maximalist shoes in this study and in other studies show no

advantage over traditional shoes. As seen in the present study with the Speed, maximalist

running shoes may increase loading rates compared to traditional running shoes and other

maximalist shoes (Chan et al., 2018; Hannigan & Pollard, 2020; Kulmala et al., 2018; Tavares et

al., 2020).

Kulmala et al. (2018) compared the Hoka Conquest (a maximalist running shoe with an

EVA-based midsole (Hoka, Goleta, CA, USA)) with a traditional shoe, the Brooks Ghost 6.

Kulmala et al. (2018) reported higher loading rates in the maximalist shoe, which became more

pronounced at a faster speed of 4.03 m/s than the slower speed (2.78). This was contrary to the
 38

present study which did not report a speed interaction. The Shift, the EVA-based maximalist

shoe used in the present study, did result in a high loading rate compared to the traditional shoe.

These results suggest maximalist shoes using EVA midsole foams increase loading rates

compared to traditional running shoes. Kulmala et al. (2018) used the Brooks Ghost 6 (Brooks

Sports Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), a comparable shoe to the Launch (Brooks Sports Inc., Seattle,

WA, USA), the traditional shoe used in the present study. The maximalist running shoe of

Kulmala et al. (2018) yielded a loading rate of 44.9 BW/s and 67.3 BW/s compared to the

traditional shoe conditions’ loading rates of 42.0 BW/s and 59 BW/s in the slower and faster

speeds respectively. In addition to loading rate, Kulmala et al. (2018) investigated the leg spring

mechanics of running in these two footwear conditions and found that runners exhibited a stiffer

leg during stance phase in the maximal shoe condition. Though the present study did not analyze

leg spring mechanics, this could be one explanation for the significant increase in loading rate

seen in the Shift over the other two shoe conditions.

Hannigan and Pollard (2020) reported no difference between the loading rate of an EVA

midsole maximalist running shoe and a traditional stack height running shoe. These shoes

differed in no other way, which led the researchers to conclude that some other variable was

responsible for the difference loading rates seen in research such as Kulmala et al. (2018). The

results of the present study support this assertion as the Speed did not result in a significantly

higher loading rate compared to the traditional running shoe while the Shift did. The average

speed of the runners in Hannigan and Pollard (2020) was 2.85 m/s, the same speed used in the

present study. Hannigan and Pollard (2020), however, reported higher loading rates in all

conditions. The maximalist shoe condition resulted in 88.4 BW/s while the traditional shoe
 39

resulted in an average loading rate of 89.4 BW/s. Additionally, a minimalist running shoe value

of 108.0 BW/s was reported.

The present study adds to the body of research that supports the idea that not all

maximalist running shoe constructions can reduce or maintain loading rates compared to

traditional shoes, but also that research on one maximalist construction cannot be generalized to

all running shoes within the maximalist category. The findings of Chambon et al. (2014)

underscore this conclusion. Though these researchers only studied shoes up to a 16 mm stack

height, no significant difference was seen in loading rate between any of the 6 shod stack height

conditions (0 mm, 2 mm, 4 mm, 6 mm, 8 mm, 16 mm). A 16 mm stack height at the heel would

be considered by many to be a minimal shoe as even the traditional shoe used in the present

study had a heel stack height of 28 mm, leaving room for the possibility that the relationship

between stack height and loading rate could change once a certain threshold is reached.

Chan et al. (2018) used a maximalist running shoe and a traditional shoe available to the

public that differed in midsole foam, heel to toe drop, and weight. This study also reported no

difference in average or instantaneous loading rate during level ground running. The only

reported difference between the two running shoe conditions was found in downhill running, in

which the instantaneous loading rate of the maximalist running shoe 12% higher compared to the

traditional running shoe. While this supports the position of Hannigan and Pollard (2020) that it

is the variation of other factors besides stack height that contribute to increased loading rates, it

also affirms the position that maximalist shoes do not reduce loading rates as a category. As one

of the key selling points of this footwear category (besides the performance enhancement of

super shoes) is increased shock absorption or decreased in the shock wave arising from the

vGRF, future research should be concentrated on measuring the ability of this category of shoes
 40

to attenuate this shock wave. Xiang et al. (2022) compared a minimalist, traditional (also called

conventional), and maximalist footwear conditions’ ability to attenuate tibial shock. They found

that maximalist running shoes were able to attenuate shock better than both the minimalist and

traditional footwear conditions.

One of the biggest limitations of this study was the focus on loading rate. While the

purpose of this was to narrow the focus of the study and further interpret the results of the

previous conflicting results of other studies, the benefits or drawbacks of maximalist running

shoes may be uncovered in the vGRF variables not analyzed in the present study. Additional

information on these shoe conditions such as their effect upon spatial and temporal variables, leg

spring mechanics, mechanical energy recovery, and even variables associated with performance

like oxygen consumption and running economy could be beneficial for the comparison of the

maximalist running shoe category to its traditional and minimalist counterparts. Nevertheless, the

findings of this study further the available literature on this novel shoe category and would help

consumers of this product make better choices.

Nigg et al. (2015) put forth the “comfort filter” as a suitable method for the selection of

running shoes. This paradigm supposes that runners should select the best running shoes for the

specific running mechanics and physiology based on how comfortable they perceive the shoe to

be in comparison to the others available. Though not a focus of this study, a majority of

participants within the study described the Shift as their least favorite running shoe. That this

shoe resulted in a statistically significant higher loading rate is an interesting coincidence, which

leads to the speculation that perceived comfort may have some relationship with kinetic

measures like vGRF and specifically loading rate, though it is impossible to speculate whether an

increased loading rate is a cause or effect of this perceived discomfort.

 41

The results of the present study support the claim put forth by Kulmala et al. (2018) that

increased loading rates or unchanged loading rates in maximalist shoes compared to traditional

running shoes appears to detract from the logical jump that more cushioning material leads to an

attenuation of loading rate. Chan et al. (2018) expressed concern over runners’ perceptions of

maximalist footwear as protective, stating that even the appearance of the shoes could

“conceivably reduce user caution” (p. 1087). Cushioning is a term that has been used to describe

characteristics of the midsole foam in a running shoe, though it may be simplified for the average

runner or consumer to refer to the stack height or volume of the midsole. Accompanying this

definition is the hope that more cushioning will lead to not only a more comfortable run but a

reduction in injury. As the maximalist shoe category is often framed as maximally cushioned, an

increase in loading rate would seem contrary to this categorization. Runners should use caution

when selecting their footwear as the running footwear market trends towards maximalist running

shoes given the existing research on the footwear category.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of maximalist running shoes of two

differing constructions upon loading rate compared to a traditional shoe condition. A secondary

purpose of this study was to investigate any interaction between footwear condition and speed on

loading rate. The Shift, a maximalist running shoe, exhibited a higher loading rate in comparison

to both the other maximalist shoe condition (Speed) and the traditional shoe condition (Launch).

The Speed loading rates were similar to that of the Launch. As the Speed is also a super shoe in

addition to being a maximalist running shoe, this type of construction may be preferable to that

of the Shift. Across all shoe conditions, loading rate was higher in the faster speed (3.7 m/s)

compared to the slower speed (2.85 m/s). Future research should be aimed at understanding the
 42

effects of maximalist footwear on gait and shock absorption. More clarity is needed on what

components of a maximalist shoe’s construction influence loading rate.

 43

REFERENCES

Altman, A. R., & Davis, I. S. (2016). Prospective comparison of running injuries between shod

and barefoot runners. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(8), 476 -480.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-094482

Asics Gel Cumulus 24. (2022). Asics. https://www.asics.com/us/en-us/gel-cumulus-

24/p/ANA_1012B206-300.html

Baltich, J., Maurer, C., & Nigg, B. (2013). Increased dynamic joint stiffness and peak vertical

impact forces with softer shoe midsoles. Footwear Science, 5, S12-

S13. https://10.1080/19424280.2013.799526

Barnes, K. R., & Kilding, A. E. (2019). A Randomized Crossover Study Investigating the

Running Economy of Highly-Trained Male and Female Distance Runners in Marathon

Racing Shoes versus Track Spikes. Sports Medicine, 49(2), 331-342.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-1012-3

Baron, K. (2020). Hoka One One: The Anatomy of Sports Fastest Growing (Crisis-Proof)

Sneaker Star. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiebaron/2020/06/26/hoka-one-one-

the-anatomy-of-sports-fastest-growing-crisis-proof-sneaker-star/?sh=40de72b3287a

Burns, G. T., & Tam, N. (2020). Is it the shoes? A simple proposal for regulating footwear in

road running. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 54(8), 439-440.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100480
 44

Cavanagh, P. R., & Lafortune, M. A. (1980). Ground reaction forces in distance running. Journal

of Biomechanics, 13(5), 397-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(80)90033-0

Chambon, N., Delattre, N., Guéguen, N., Berton, E., & Rao, G. (2014). Is midsole thickness a

key parameter for the running pattern? Gait & Posture, 40(1), 58-

63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.02.005

Chan, Z. Y. S., Au, I. P. H., Lau, F. O. Y., Ching, E. C. K., Zhang, J. H., & Cheung, R. T. H.

(2018). Does maximalist footwear lower impact loading during level ground and downhill

running? European Journal of Sport Science, 18(8), 1083-1089.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1472298

Clarke, T., Frederick, E., & Cooper, L. (1983). Effects of Shoe Cushioning Upon Ground

Reaction Forces in Running. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 04(04), 247-251.

https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1026043

Davis, I. S., Bowser, B. J., & Mullineaux, D. R. (2016). Greater vertical impact loading in female

runners with medically diagnosed injuries: a prospective investigation. British Journal of

Sports Medicine, 50(14), 887-892. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094579

Dickinson, J. A., Cook, S. D., & Leinhardt, T. M. (1985). The measurement of shock waves

following heel strike while running. Journal of Biomechanics, 18(6), 415-

422. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(85)90276-3

Divert, C., Mornieux, G., Freychat, P., Baly, L., Mayer, F., & Belli, A. (2008). Barefoot-Shod

Running Differences: Shoe or Mass Effect? International Journal of Sports Medicine, 29(6),

512-518. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-989233
 45

Dong, D., Ma, J., Ma, Z., Chen, Y., Zhang, H., Shao, L., Gao, J., Wei, L., Wei, A., & Kang, S.

(2019). Flexible and lightweight microcellular RGO@Pebax composites with synergistic 3D

conductive channels and microcracks for piezoresistive sensors. Composites Part A: Applied

Science and Manufacturing, 123, 222-231.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.05.019

Douglas, S. (2021). Should You Wear ‘Super Shoes’ Every Day? Runner's

World. https://www.runnersworld.com/gear/a36488970/should-you-wear-super-shoes-

every-day/

Fong, D. T., Pang, K., Chung, M. M., Hung, A. S., & Chan, K. (2012). Evaluation of combined

prescription of rocker sole shoes and custom-made foot orthoses for the treatment of plantar

fasciitis. Clinical Biomechanics, 27(10), 1072-1077.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2012.08.003

Frederick, E. C. (1984). Physiological and ergonomics factors in running shoe design. Applied

Ergonomics, 15(4), 281-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(84)90199-6

Ghost 14. (2022). Brooks Running. https://www.brooksrunning.com/en_us/ghost-14-womens-

cushioned-road-running-shoe/120356.html

Hanley, B., Bissas, A., Merlino, S., & Gruber, A. H. (2019). Most marathon runners at the 2017

IAAF World Championships were rearfoot strikers, and most did not change footstrike

pattern. Journal of Biomechanics, 92, 54-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.05.024

Hannigan, J. J., & Pollard, C. D. (2020). Differences in running biomechanics between a

maximal, traditional, and minimal running shoe. Journal of Science and Medicine in

Sport, 23(1), 15-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2019.08.008

 46

Hasegawa, H., Yamauchi, T., & Kraemer, W. J. (2007). Foot strike patterns of runners at the 15-

km point during an elite-level half marathon. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning

Research, 21(3), 888. https://doi.org/10.1519/r-22096.1

Hébert-Losier, K., Finlayson, S. J., Driller, M. W., Dubois, B., Esculier, J., & Beaven, C. M.

(2020). Metabolic and performance responses of male runners wearing 3 types of footwear:

Nike Vaporfly 4%, Saucony Endorphin racing flats, and their own shoes. Journal of Sport

and Health Science, 11(3), 275-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2020.11.012

Hoka. (2022). Explore Cushion. Hoka. https://www.hoka.com/en/us/hoka-technology.html

Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S., Frank, J. H., Farina, E. M., Luo, G., & Kram, R. (2018). A

Comparison of the Energetic Cost of Running in Marathon Racing Shoes. Sports Medicine,

48(4), 1009-1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0811-2

Johnston, T. E., Close, J., Jamora, P., & Wainwright, S. F. (2020). Perceptions of risk for stress

fractures: A qualitative study of female runners with and without stress fracture

histories. Physical Therapy in Sport, 43, 143-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2020.02.018

Joubert, D. P., & Jones, G. P. (2022). A comparison of running economy across seven highly

cushioned racing shoes with carbon-fibre plates. Footwear Science, 14(2), 71-83.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2022.2038691

Kulmala, J., Kosonen, J., Nurminen, J., & Avela, J. (2018). Running in highly cushioned shoes

increases leg stiffness and amplifies impact loading. Scientific Reports, 8(1).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-35980-6
 47

Malisoux, L., Chambon, N., Urhausen, A., & Theisen, D. (2016). Influence of the Heel-to-Toe

Drop of Standard Cushioned Running Shoes on Injury Risk in Leisure-Time Runners: A

Randomized Controlled Trial With 6-Month Follow-up. The American Journal of Sports

Medicine, 44(11), 2933-2940. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516654690

Malisoux, L., Delattre, N., Meyer, C., Gette, P., Urhausen, A., & Theisen, D. (2021). Effect of

shoe cushioning on landing impact forces and spatiotemporal parameters during running:

results from a randomized trial including 800+ recreational runners. European journal of

sport science, 21(7), 985-993. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2020.1809713

Muniz-Pardos, B., Sutehall, S., Angeloudis, K., Guppy, F. M., Bosch, A., & Pitsiladis, Y. (2021).

Recent Improvements in Marathon Run Times Are Likely Technological, Not

Physiological. Sports Medicine, 51(3), 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01420-

Nigg, B., Baltich, J., Hoerzer, S., & Enders, H. (2015). Running shoes and running injuries:

mythbusting and a proposal for two new paradigms: 'preferred movement path' and 'comfort

filter'. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(20), 1290 -1294.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095054

Nike Alphafly NEXT%. (2022). Nike. https://www.nike.com/t/air-zoom-alphafly-next-2-mens-

road-racing-shoes-GPFbwZ/DV9422-300

Onodera, A. N., Gavião Neto, W. P., Roveri, M. I., Oliveira, W. R., & Sacco, I. C.

(2017). Immediate effects of EVA midsole resilience and upper shoe structure on running

biomechanics: a machine learning approach. PeerJ, 5, e3026.

https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3026
 48

Ortega, J. A., Healey, L. A., Swinnen, W., & Hoogkamer, W. (2021). Energetics and

Biomechanics of Running Footwear with Increased Longitudinal Bending Stiffness: A

Narrative Review. Sports Medicine, 51(5), 873-894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-

01406-5

Paquette, M. R., Zhang, S., & Baumgartner, L. D. (2013). Acute effects of barefoot, minimal

shoes and running shoes on lower limb mechanics in rear and forefoot strike runners

Footwear Science, 5(1), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2012.692724

Rodrigo-Carranza, V., González-Mohíno, F., Santos-Concejero, J., & González-Ravé, J. M.

(2022). The effects of footwear midsole longitudinal bending stiffness on running economy

and ground contact biomechanics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European

Journal of Sport Science, 22(10), 1508-1521.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2021.1955014

Roy, J. R., & Stefanyshyn, D. J. (2006). Shoe Midsole Longitudinal Bending Stiffness and

Running Economy, Joint Energy, and EMG. Medicine & Science in Sports &

Exercise, 38(3), 562-569 https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000193562.22001.e8

Schmida, E. A., Wille, C. M., Stiffler-Joachim, M. R., Kliethermes, S. A., & Heiderscheit, B. C.

(2022). Vertical Loading Rate Is not Associated with Running Injury, Regardless of

Calculation Method. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 54(8), 1382-1388.

https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000002917

Sterzing, T., Schweiger, V., Ding, R., Cheung, J. T., & Brauner, T. (2013). Influence of rearfoot

and forefoot midsole hardness on biomechanical and perception variables during heel-toe

running. Footwear Science, 5(2), 71-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2012.757810

 49

Tavares, J., Jost, T., Drewelow, G., & Rylander, J. (2020). Do maximalist shoes mitigate risk

factors for tibial stress fractures better than stability or flexible (marketed as minimalist)

shoes? Footwear Science, 12(1), 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2019.1708977

Thompson, M. A., Lee, S. S., Seegmiller, J., & McGowan, C. P. (2015). Kinematic and kinetic

comparison of barefoot and shod running in mid/forefoot and rearfoot strike runners. Gait &

Posture, 41(4), 957-959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.03.002

Union Cycliste Internationale. (2021). Clarification Guide of the UCI Technical Regulation.

https://archive.uci.org/docs/default-source/equipment/clarificationguideoftheucitechnicalreg

ulation-2018-05-02-eng_english.pdf?sfvrsn=fd56e265_28

van der Worp, H., Vrielink, J. W., & Bredeweg, S. W. (2016). Do runners who suffer injuries

have higher vertical ground reaction forces than those who remain injury-free? A systematic

review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(8), 450-457.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094924

van Gent, R. N., Siem, D., van Middelkoop, M., van Os, A. G., Bierma-Zeinstra, S. M., & Koes,

B. W. (2007). Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long

distance runners: a systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 41(8), 469 -480.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2006.033548

Whittle, M. W. (1999). Generation and attenuation of transient impulsive forces beneath the foot:

a review. Gait & Posture, 10(3), 264-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0966-6362(99)00041-7

Willy, R. W., & Davis, I. S. (2014). Kinematic and kinetic comparison of running in standard

and minimalist shoes. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 46(2), 318-323.

https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b013e3182a595d2
 50

Willy, R. W., Buchenic, L., Rogacki, K., Ackerman, J., Schmidt, A., & Willson, J. D. (2016). In-

field gait retraining and mobile monitoring to address running biomechanics associated with

tibial stress fracture. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 26(2), 197-205.

https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12413

World Athletics. (2021). Athletic Shoe Regulations. https://worldathletics.org/news/press-

releases/new-athletic-shoe-regulations-approved-2022

Xiang, L., Gu, Y., Rong, M., Gao, Z., Yang, T., Wang, A., Shim, V., & Fernandez, J.

(2022). Shock Acceleration and Attenuation during Running with Minimalist and

Maximalist Shoes: A Time- and Frequency-Domain Analysis of Tibial

Acceleration. Bioengineering, 9(7), 322. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering9070322

Yamato, T. P., Saragiotto, B. T., & Lopes, A. D. (2015). A Consensus Definition of Running-

Related Injury in Recreational Runners: A Modified Delphi Approach. Journal of

Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 45(5), 375-380.

https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2015.5741
 51

APPENDIX A

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

 52

Date: 04/06/2022

Principal Investigator: Gary Heise

Committee Action: APPROVED – Amendment

Action Date: 04/06/2022

Protocol Number: 2201034259A001

Protocol Title: Biomechanical Comparison Between Running Shoes of Different Construction

Expiration Date:

The University of Northern Colorado Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the protection of human subjects
has reviewed and approved the following amendments to your protocol:

Due to equipment problems, we wish to have the capability to collect data in a slightly different format and
in a different location.

• General Info
• Add/Modify Attachments
• Protocol Permissions
• Questionnaire

As a reminder, all research must be conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in your
approved protocol.

If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Morse, Research Compliance Manager, at
970-351-1910 or nicole.morse@unco.edu.

Sincerely,

Michael Aldridge
IRB Co-Chair, University of Northern Colorado: FWA00000784

Carter Hall 2008 | Campus Box 143 | Greeley, CO 80639 | Office 970-351-1910
 53

Silvia Correa-Torres
IRB Co-Chair, University of Northern Colorado: FWA00000784

Carter Hall 2008 | Campus Box 143 | Greeley, CO 80639 | Office 970-351-1910
 54

APPENDIX B

MATLAB CODE: FILTERING ROUTINE

 55

%Thesis Filtering Routine

clc
clear
close all

%Load the trial data

%Load file string

addpath 'E:\Footwear_Study'
addpath 'E:\Footwear_Study\MATLAB'
addpath 'C:\Users\Kaleigh\Desktop\UNCO\Biomechanics\Matlab'
addpath 'E:\Footwear_Study\Participant 1'
addpath 'E:\Footwear_Study\Participant 2'
addpath 'E:\Footwear_Study\Participant 3'
addpath 'E:\Footwear_Study\Participant 4'
addpath 'E:\Footwear_Study\Participant 5'
addpath 'E:\Footwear_Study\Participant 6'
addpath 'E:\Footwear_Study\Participant 7\Session 1'
addpath 'E:\Footwear_Study\Participant 8\Session 1'
addpath 'E:\Footwear_Study\Participant 9\Session 1'

%Create File Name with Prompts

sub_num = input('Participant ID (ex. 01): ','s');
ConditionList = {'01', '02','03'};
%Speed=01, Shift=02, Launch=03
[ConditionName, OK] = listdlg('PromptString','Select Condition','SelectionMode',...
'single','ListString',ConditionList);
cond = ConditionList{ConditionName};
direction_01 = input ('Which direction are you analyzing? (E or W)','s');
if direction_01 == 'w'
direction_01 = 'W';
elseif direction_01 == 'e'
direction_01 = 'E';
end
 56

direction_02 = input ('Which direction are you analyzing? (E or W)','s');

if direction_02 == 'w'
direction_02 = 'W';
elseif direction_02 == 'e'
direction_02 = 'E';
end
direction_03 = input ('Which direction are you analyzing? (E or W)','s');
if direction_03 == 'w'
direction_03 = 'W';
elseif direction_03 == 'e'
direction_03 = 'E';
end
limb = input('Which limb are you analyzing? (L or R) *not caps sensitive: ','s');
if limb == 'l'
limb = 'L';
elseif limb == 'r'
limb = 'R';
end
clc % clears command window
tn1 = input('What trial number is this? (#)','s');
tn2 = input('What trial number is this? (#)','s');
tn3 = input('What trial number is this? (#)','s');
% tn1 = input('What trial number is this? (#)','s');
% tn1 = input('What trial number is this? (#)','s');
% tn1 = input('What trial number is this? (#)','s');

%read csv file and convert to .dat file (unfiltered data)

csv_str0_01 = [sub_num,cond,direction_01,limb,tn1,'.csv'];
csv_str0_02 = [sub_num,cond,direction_02,limb,tn2,'.csv'];
csv_str0_03 = [sub_num,cond,direction_03,limb,tn3,'.csv'];
%%
Fz_csv_01 = csvread(csv_str0_01,6,0);
Fz_csv_02 = csvread(csv_str0_02,6,0);
Fz_csv_03 = csvread(csv_str0_03,6,0);
Fz_csv_01 = Fz_csv_01(:,5);
Fz_csv_02 = Fz_csv_02(:,5);
Fz_csv_03 = Fz_csv_03(:,5);
writematrix(Fz_csv_01,[sub_num,cond,direction_01,limb,tn1,'.dat']);
writematrix(Fz_csv_02,[sub_num,cond,direction_02,limb,tn2,'.dat']);
writematrix(Fz_csv_03,[sub_num,cond,direction_03,limb,tn3,'.dat']);

str0_01 = [sub_num,cond,direction_01,limb,tn1,'.dat'];% Creates file name for study

str0_02 = [sub_num,cond,direction_02,limb,tn2,'.dat'];% Creates file name for study
str0_03 = [sub_num,cond,direction_03,limb,tn3,'.dat'];% Creates file name for study

%%%filtering%%%
 57

s1 = load(str0_01);
s2 = load(str0_02);
s3 = load(str0_03);
% str0_load=load(str0);
s1_z = s1(:,1);
s2_z = s2(:,1);
s3_z = s3(:,1);
%%
af_s1 = abs(s1_z);
af_s2 = abs(s2_z);
af_s3 = abs(s3_z);
%%

b1 = af_s1>30;
b2 = af_s2>30;
b3 = af_s3>30;

afb1 = af_s1(b1);
afb2 = af_s2(b2);
afb3 = af_s3(b3);

%%
fil_s1 = bw_filter(afb1,2000,50,'low',4);
fil_s2 = bw_filter(afb2,2000,50,'low',4);
fil_s3 = bw_filter(afb3,2000,50,'low',4);

%%

writematrix(fil_s1,['fil_',sub_num,cond,direction_01,limb,tn1,'.dat']);
writematrix(fil_s2,['fil_',sub_num,cond,direction_02,limb,tn2,'.dat']);
writematrix(fil_s3,['fil_',sub_num,cond,direction_03,limb,tn3,'.dat']);
%%

fil_1 = load(['fil_',sub_num,cond,direction_01,limb,tn1,'.dat']);
fil_2 = load(['fil_',sub_num,cond,direction_02,limb,tn2,'.dat']);
fil_3 = load(['fil_',sub_num,cond,direction_03,limb,tn3,'.dat']);

plot(fil_1)
hold on
plot(fil_2)
plot(fil_3)
hold off
 58

APPENDIX C

MATLAB CODE: LOADING RATE

IDENTIFICATION AND CALCULATION
 59

%Kaleigh's Master's Thesis Project

clc
clear
close all

%Add paths to find data

addpath 'E:\Footwear_Study'
addpath 'C:\Users\Kaleigh\Desktop\UNCO\Biomechanics\Matlab'
addpath E:\Footwear_Study\MATLAB
addpath 'E:\Footwear_Study\Processed_SvSvL'

%% Create File Name with Prompts

sub_num = input('Participant ID (ex. 01): ','s');
clc
ConditionList = {'01', '02','03'};
%Speed=01, Shift=02, Launch=03
[ConditionName, OK] = listdlg('PromptString','Select Condition','SelectionMode',...
'single','ListString',ConditionList);
cond = ConditionList{ConditionName};
clc
direction_01 = input ('Which direction are you analyzing? (E or W) *not case sensitive: ','s');
if direction_01 == 'w' %make not case sensitive
direction_01 = 'W';
elseif direction_01 == 'e'
direction_01 = 'E';
end
clc
limb = input('Which limb are you analyzing? (L or R) *not case sensitive: ','s');
if limb == 'l' %make not case sensitive
limb = 'L';
elseif limb == 'r'
limb = 'R';
end
clc
tn1 = input('What trial number is this? (#)','s');
clc
%% Create file string
str0_01 = ['fil_',sub_num,cond,direction_01,limb,tn1,'.dat'];% Creates file name for study

s1 = load(str0_01);
%% plotting figure(1)
figure(1)
plot(s1)
findpeaks(s1); %find peaks
 60

[PKS,LOCS] = findpeaks(s1);
%% Accept or reject peaks
accept_HTpeak = input('Does the researcher accept the marker for peak 1?(y/n)','s');
if accept_HTpeak == 'Y'
accept_HTpeak = 'y';
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'N'
accept_HTpeak = 'n';
end
clc
% if rejected, get points
if accept_HTpeak == 'n'
[a_res_sel_get,a_res_sel_y] = getpts(figure(1));
a_res_sel = (a_res_sel_get); %removed round %input('Select a value on the graph and input x-
value for the chosen point for the heel-strike transient peak','s');
end
%% LOAD IN DATA FILE

%str1 = ['S','_',sub_num,'_',cond,'_',limb,'Fzn','.dat'];% Creates file name for study

mass = csvread('Mass.csv');
r_mass = mass(:,1);

%% Assign sampling frequency

Fs = 2000; %sampling frequency

dt = 1/Fs; %time interval between samples
[m,n] = size(s1);
gait_time = (0:dt:(length(s1(:,1:n))-1)*dt);
t1 = gait_time;
time = t1';
clear m n
%% Change the force data to body weights (BWs)

str3 = str2num(sub_num);
sub_mass = r_mass(str3,1);

BW = sub_mass.*9.8;

BWz = s1./BW;

%% Calculating Slope
%(rise/run)

if accept_HTpeak == 'y'
LR_Slope = (PKS(1,1)-s1(1,1))/(LOCS(1,1));
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'n'
 61

LR_Slope = (a_res_sel_y)-s1(1,1)/(a_res_sel_get);
end

%% Identifying Middle 60% of First Peak%%

if accept_HTpeak == 'y'
tpk = LOCS(1,1);
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'n'
tpk = a_res_sel_get;
end

if accept_HTpeak == 'y'
to_peak = s1(1:tpk);
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'n'
to_peak = s1(1:a_res_sel(1,:));
end

c = round(20 / 100 * length(to_peak));

c_tpk = to_peak((c+1):((length(to_peak))-(c+1)));

%% Linear Regression% without BW

Fs = 2000; %sampling frequency

dt = 1/Fs; %time interval between samples
[m,n] = size(c_tpk);
gait_time = (0:dt:(length(c_tpk(:,1:n))-1)*dt);
t2 = gait_time;
time2 = t2';
clear m n
LRLR = polyfit(time2,c_tpk,1);

figure(2)
plot(time2,c_tpk);

LRint = LRLR(1,1);

%% with BWz

%calculating slope (rise/run)

%%%%CHECK****
if accept_HTpeak == 'y'
LR_Slopez = (PKS(1,1)-BWz(1,1))/(LOCS(1,1));
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'n'
LR_Slopez = (a_res_sel_y)-BWz(1,1)/(a_res_sel_get);
end
%% Middle 60% of First Peak
 62

% with BW

if accept_HTpeak == 'y'
tpkz = LOCS(1,1);
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'n'
tpkz = a_res_sel_get;
end

to_peakz = BWz(1:tpkz);
cz = round(20 / 100 * length(to_peakz));
c_tpkz = to_peakz((cz+1):((length(to_peakz))-(cz+1)));

%% Linear Regression
%with BW

Fs = 2000; %sampling frequency

dt = 1/Fs; %time interval between samples
[m,n] = size(c_tpkz);
gait_timez = (0:dt:(length(c_tpkz(:,1:n))-1)*dt);
t2z = gait_timez;
time2z = t2z';
clear m n
LRLRz = polyfit(time2z,c_tpkz,1);

figure(3)
plot(time2z,c_tpkz);

LRintz = LRLRz(1,1);

%% Write to cell
cell_letnum = input('Cell ID (ex. A1): ','s');
xlswrite('E:\Footwear_Study\Loading_Rates.xls',LRintz,'Sheet1',cell_letnum)

%% ROUND TWO
direction_01 = input ('Which direction are you analyzing? (E or W)','s');
if direction_01 == 'w'
direction_01 = 'W';
elseif direction_01 == 'e'
direction_01 = 'E';
end
clc
tn1 = input('What trial number is this? (#)','s');

%% Create file string

str0_01 = ['fil_',sub_num,cond,direction_01,limb,tn1,'.dat'];% Creates file name for study
 63

s1 = load(str0_01);

%% Plotting figure (4)

figure(4)
plot(s1)
findpeaks(s1); %find peaks

[PKS,LOCS] = findpeaks(s1);

%% Accept or reject peaks

accept_HTpeak = input('Does the researcher accept the marker for peak 1?(y/n)','s');
if accept_HTpeak == 'Y'
accept_HTpeak = 'y';
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'N'
accept_HTpeak = 'n';
end

%if rejected, get points

if accept_HTpeak == 'n'
[b_res_sel_get,b_res_sel_y] = getpts(figure(4));
b_res_sel = b_res_sel_get; %input('Select a value on the graph and input x-value for the
chosen point for the heel-strike transient peak','s');
end

%% LOAD IN DATA FILE

%str1 = ['S','_',sub_num,'_',cond,'_',limb,'Fzn','.dat'];% Creates file name for study

mass = csvread('Mass.csv');
r_mass = mass(:,1);

%% Assign sampling frequency

Fs = 2000; %sampling frequency

dt = 1/Fs; %time interval between samples
[m,n] = size(s1);
gait_time = (0:dt:(length(s1(:,1:n))-1)*dt);
t1 = gait_time;
time = t1';
clear m n

%% Change the force data to body weights (BWs)

str3 = str2num(sub_num);
sub_mass = r_mass(str3,1);

BW = sub_mass.*9.8;
 64

BWz = s1./BW;

%% Calculating slope
%(rise/run)

if accept_HTpeak == 'y'
LR_Slope = (PKS(1,1)-s1(1,1))/(LOCS(1,1));
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'n'
LR_Slope = (b_res_sel_y)-s1(1,1)/(b_res_sel_get);
end

%% Identifying Middle 60% of First Peak%%

if accept_HTpeak == 'y'
tpk = LOCS(1,1);
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'n'
tpk = b_res_sel_get;
end

if accept_HTpeak == 'y'
to_peak = s1(1:tpk);
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'n'
to_peak = s1(1:b_res_sel);
end

c = round(20 / 100 * length(to_peak));

c_tpk = to_peak((c+1):((length(to_peak))-(c+1)));

%% Linear Regression% without BW

Fs = 2000; %sampling frequency

dt = 1/Fs; %time interval between samples
[m,n] = size(c_tpk);
gait_time = (0:dt:(length(c_tpk(:,1:n))-1)*dt);
t2 = gait_time;
time2 = t2';
clear m n
LRLR = polyfit(time2,c_tpk,1);

figure(5)
plot(time2,c_tpk);

LRint = LRLR(1,1);
 65

%% Calculating slope (rise/run)

if accept_HTpeak == 'y'
LR_Slopez = (PKS(1,1)-BWz(1,1))/(LOCS(1,1));
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'n'
LR_Slopez = (b_res_sel_y)-BWz(1,1)/(b_res_sel_get);
end

%%

if accept_HTpeak == 'y'
tpkz = LOCS(1,1);
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'n'
tpkz = b_res_sel_get;
end

to_peakz = BWz(1:tpkz);
cz = round(20 / 100 * length(to_peakz));
c_tpkz = to_peakz((cz+1):((length(to_peakz))-(cz+1)));
%% Linear Regression%

Fs = 2000; %sampling frequency

dt = 1/Fs; %time interval between samples
[m,n] = size(c_tpkz);
gait_timez = (0:dt:(length(c_tpkz(:,1:n))-1)*dt);
t2z = gait_timez;
time2z = t2z';
clear m n
LRLRz = polyfit(time2z,c_tpkz,1);

figure(6)
plot(time2z,c_tpkz);

LRintz = LRLRz(1,1);

%% Write to cell
cell_letnum = input('Cell ID (ex. A1): ','s');
xlswrite('E:\Footwear_Study\Loading_Rates.xls',LRintz,'Sheet1',cell_letnum)

%% ROUND THREE
direction_01 = input ('Which direction are you analyzing? (E or W)','s');
if direction_01 == 'w'
direction_01 = 'W';
elseif direction_01 == 'e'
direction_01 = 'E';
end
 66

clc % clears command window

tn1 = input('What trial number is this? (#)','s');
clc
%% Create file string

str0_01 = ['fil_',sub_num,cond,direction_01,limb,tn1,'.dat'];% Creates file name for study

s1 = load(str0_01);

%plotting figure(7)
figure(7)
plot(s1)
findpeaks(s1);

[PKS,LOCS] = findpeaks(s1);

%% Accept or reject peaks

accept_HTpeak = input('Does the researcher accept the marker for peak 1?(y/n)','s');
if accept_HTpeak == 'Y'
accept_HTpeak = 'y';
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'N'
accept_HTpeak = 'n';
end

%if rejected, get points

if accept_HTpeak == 'n'
[c_res_sel_get,c_res_sel_y] = getpts(figure(7));
c_res_sel = c_res_sel_get; %input('Select a value on the graph and input x-value for the
chosen point for the heel-strike transient peak','s');
end

%% LOAD IN DATA FILE

mass = csvread('Mass.csv');
r_mass = mass(:,1);

%% Assign sampling frequency

Fs = 2000; %sampling frequency

dt = 1/Fs; %time interval between samples
[m,n] = size(s1);
gait_time = (0:dt:(length(s1(:,1:n))-1)*dt);
t1 = gait_time;
time = t1';
clear m n
%% Change the force data to body weights (BWs)
 67

str3 = str2num(sub_num);
sub_mass = r_mass(str3,1);

BW = sub_mass.*9.8;

BWz = s1./BW;

%% Calculating slope (rise/run)

if accept_HTpeak == 'y'
LR_Slope = (PKS(1,1)-s1(1,1))/(LOCS(1,1));
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'n'
LR_Slope = (c_res_sel_y)-s1(1,1)/(c_res_sel_get);
end

%% Identifying Middle 60% of First Peak%%

if accept_HTpeak == 'y'
tpk = LOCS(1,1);
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'n'
tpk = c_res_sel_get;
end
if accept_HTpeak == 'y'
to_peak = s1(1:tpk);
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'n'
to_peak = s1(1:c_res_sel);
end

c = round(20 / 100 * length(to_peak));

c_tpk = to_peak((c+1):((length(to_peak))-(c+1)));

%% Linear Regression%

Fs = 2000; %sampling frequency

dt = 1/Fs; %time interval between samples
[m,n] = size(c_tpk);
gait_time = (0:dt:(length(c_tpk(:,1:n))-1)*dt);
t2 = gait_time;
time2 = t2';
clear m n
LRLR = polyfit(time2,c_tpk,1);

figure(8)
plot(time2,c_tpk);
 68

LRint = LRLR(1,1);

%% Calculating slope (rise/run)

%with BW

if accept_HTpeak == 'y'
LR_Slopez = (PKS(1,1)-BWz(1,1))/(LOCS(1,1));
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'n'
LR_Slopez = (c_res_sel_y)-BWz(1,1)/(c_res_sel_get);
end

%% Middle 60% of First Peak%%

if accept_HTpeak == 'y'
tpkz = LOCS(1,1);
elseif accept_HTpeak == 'n'
tpkz = c_res_sel_get;
end

to_peakz = BWz(1:tpkz);
cz = round(20 / 100 * length(to_peakz));
c_tpkz = to_peakz((cz+1):((length(to_peakz))-(cz+1)));

%% Linear Regression%
%with BW

Fs = 2000; %sampling frequency

dt = 1/Fs; %time interval between samples
[m,n] = size(c_tpkz);
gait_timez = (0:dt:(length(c_tpkz(:,1:n))-1)*dt);
t2z = gait_timez;
time2z = t2z';
clear m n
LRLRz = polyfit(time2z,c_tpkz,1);

figure(9)
plot(time2z,c_tpkz);

LRintz = LRLRz(1,1);

%%
cell_letnum = input('Cell ID (ex. A1): ','s');
xlswrite('E:\Footwear_Study\Loading_Rates.xls',LRintz,'Sheet1',cell_letnum)