ABSTRACT This study investigated the effects of a hollow‐structured advanced footwear technology (HAFT) compared with a normal advanced footwear technology (NAFT) on running economy (RE) and lower‐limb biomechanics in habitual non‐rearfoot strike (NRFS) runners. Sixteen male NRFS runners completed biomechanical and metabolic testing under both footwear conditions at a constant speed of 15 km/h. Compared with NAFT, the HAFT reduced energy cost by 2.9% after corrected for shoe mass (HAFT: 14.54 ± 1.00 W/kg; NAFT: 14.98 ± 1.09 W/kg; p = 0.001). Meanwhile, when running in the HAFT, which featured greater midsole compression (HAFT: 2.35 ± 0.08 cm; NAFT: 1.69 ± 0.08 cm; p < 0.001), higher energy storage (HAFT: 15.64 ± 1.45 J; NAFT: 11.03 ± 1.45 J; p < 0.001), and higher energy return (HAFT: 14.00 ± 1.30 J; NAFT: 9.87 ± 1.30 J; p < 0.001) than NAFT, runners exhibited increased leg stiffness (HAFT: 33.62 ± 6.03 kN/m; NAFT: 29.56 ± 5.54 kN/m; p = 0.001), and higher distal rearfoot positive work (HAFT: 0.86 ± 0.35 J/kg; NAFT: 0.41 ± 0.11 J/kg; p < 0.001). These improvements could be explained by a combination of direct mechanical effects (greater midsole energy storage and return), biomechanically mediated effects (changes in lower‐limb energetics), and shoe–runner interaction effects, consistent with an NRFS‐oriented hollow‐structured plate–foam design.
Suo et al. (2026) studied this question.