{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031161473087818695, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.235294117647059, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Cushioning versus stability].

Cushioning and stability are still key words for functionally constructed sport shoes. The goal of this investigation is to present and discuss the possibilities and limits of these shoe properties. Here, stability is not regarded as rigidity (like in a ski boot), but as a "dynamic stability" in the sense of functionality which supports the foot under load in such a manner that no unphysiological movements are provoked. Cushioning (in physics terminology: "damping") is defined to reduce and eliminate (kinetic) energy. When considering the impact peak in running, this peak can be reduced by using hard shoe soles with large heel flares. However, by doing that, large levers are introduced which produce an increased distance to decelerate the touchdown. This is basically the opposite of dynamic stability. Current shoe sole materials (homogeneous/isotropic) improve the "cushioning" but enhance the instability. New ways of shoe construction using more sophisticated anisotropic materials may lead out of this dichotomy.