Data Sheet 2_Shoe–ground loading responses across three 3D-printed arch-support heights in normal- and high-arched marathon runners: an arch-type-stratified secondary analysis.zip

In the primary balanced analysis, relative to Single, FDR-supported differences were concentrated in impulse-distribution measures: MIF increased by 17.9%–19.5% in normal-arch runners under 12–24 and 15–24 and by 18.0%–23.0% in high-arch runners across all three supports, whereas MLI decreased by 14.0%–24.0% and 12.0%–19.7%, respectively. In this analysis, no MaxPP or MetaPP comparison met the FDR threshold. In normal arches, MIF was 7.4% higher under 12–24 than 9–24 (q = 0.041) and 9.0% higher under 15–24 than 9–24 (q = 0.003); no direct support-condition comparison was FDR-significant in high arches.

Neither the 15 between-arch change comparisons nor the five Arch Type × Condition interactions reached FDR significance in the balanced analysis, and the same 0/15 and 0/5 pattern was retained in the full-cohort sensitivity analysis. Exploratory temporal differences were localized mainly to early-to-middle stance for midfoot force share and middle-to-late stance for dynamic MLI.</p>Conclusion<p>In the primary balanced analysis, condition-related differences were expressed more consistently in MIF and MLI than in peak-pressure measures.

Across the balanced and full-cohort analyses, there was insufficient evidence that static arch type systematically modified the height-specific or overall condition-related response pattern. The analyses did not establish overall superiority of either the 12- or 15-mm configuration. Future studies should integrate dynamic arch characteristics, comfort, and longer-term adaptation.</p>