Back

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

Kettner, C.; Stetter, B. J.; Stein, T.

2026-04-21 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.04.16.719110 bioRxiv
Show abstract

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

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.4%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 12%
15.0%
3
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.3%
50% of probability mass above
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 17%
6.4%
5
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.9%
6
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.7%
7
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
8
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
9
Journal of Orthopaedic Research
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
10
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
11
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.8%
12
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
13
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
Journal of Applied Physiology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
16
npj Microgravity
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
17
The FASEB Journal
175 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
18
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
19
Gait & Posture
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
20
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
21
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
38 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
22
Human Movement Science
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%
23
Biophysical Journal
545 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
24
Acta Biomaterialia
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%