Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Ethylene vinyl acetate and polyurethane are widely used materials for shoe midsoles. The present study investigated the durability of running shoes made from ethylene vinyl acetate and one type of polyurethane (polyurethane-1), which have similar hardness and density, and another type of polyurethane (polyurethane-2), which has high hardness/density. All shoes differed from one another only in terms of the midsole material used. Eight male runners participated in the present study and used the shoes to run 500 km (10 × 50 km). The cushioning and energy return characteristics of each shoe were measured using an impact tester before and after each 50-km run. The results showed that as the running distance increased, the peak force of midsole materials changed with different patterns. Ethylene vinyl acetate and polyurethane-1 showed greater cushioning than polyurethane-2 over 500 km (ethylene vinyl acetate, 918.2-968.0 N; polyurethane-1, 909.6-972.9 N; polyurethane-2, 983.0-1105.6 N). Polyurethane-1 showed greater cushioning from 200 km to 300 km compared with 0 km (0 km, 972.9 ± 66.3 N; 200 km, 909.6 ± 61.2 N; 250 km, 921.9 ± 51.2 N; 300 km, 924.6 ± 51.9 N). The cushioning of ethylene vinyl acetate shoes was diminished after 500 km compared with that at 0 km (968.0 ± 25.9 N vs. 921.1 ± 20.1 N). Ethylene vinyl acetate resulted in greater energy returns than polyurethane. Both foam category and hardness/density affected the critical biomechanical properties of running shoes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: