## 1 Introduction  
Running has become a prevalent leisure sports activity among individuals pursuing a healthy lifestyle [1]. Putting aside its positive impacts on health, the negative side effects of running-related injuries should also be taken into account. The annual incidence rate for running injuries typically ranges from 37% to 56%. For long-distance runners, the literature reports injury rates ranging from 2.5 to 12.1 percent per 1000 h of running [2]. The majority of running injuries are lower extremity injuries, with a notable prevalence of knee-related injuries, followed by injuries related to the ankle and hip joints. It has been claimed that lower limb biomechanics during running are linked to both running injury etiologies [3] and running performance [4]. The different characteristics of running shoes have been suggested as potential avenues for reducing the risk of running injuries, though the injury-preventive effects of various running shoes are not clear [5]. Running shoes, serving as the intermediary between the feet and the ground during a run, have the potential to substantially modify running biomechanics [6]. Bionic shoes refer to footwear that incorporates design elements inspired by biological systems or natural movement patterns [7]. These shoes frequently strive to improve comfort, performance,and overall biomechanical attributes [8]. Research specifically exploring the biomechanical connection between bionic shoes and conventional running footwear is limited. In one study, after a 5 km run in bionic shoes, the abduction angle of the hip was reduced significantly to a safe condition by the neuromuscular system, sensorimotor system, and proprioception to avoid injuries [9]. Using the same bionic shoes and under experimental conditions, the bionic shoes showed decreases in vertical instantaneous loading rate (VILR) before a 5 km run, which indicated a better cushioning effect or shock absorbance. After a 5 km run, the contact time of the bionic shoes was shorter, which showed the shoes' capacity to produce average vertical GRF. These findings provide evidence that bionic shoes can better prevent injuries [10; 11]. However, these types of bionic shoe studies focused on modifying the soles of shoes to improve running gait, and limited attention has been given to researching bionic shoes with modified midsoles, particularly those involving changes in midsole thickness, for the study of lower extremity biomechanics. Additionally, in a previous study [12], there was little impact on foot strike pattern or stride duration when comparing with shoes with a different midsole thickness. In addition to shoes, running velocities also influence lower limb biomechanics [13]. Overcoming the challenges encountered, [PERSON] discovered that parameters of gait kinematics were affected by running velocity in an overall condition. For the sagittal plane, peak values of lower limb angles increased at higher running velocities, except for the peak ankle dorsiflexion angle. Parameters such as joint moments, joint work, and ground reaction forces (GRF) in gait kinetics were also affected by running velocities increasing from 2.5 m/s to 4.5 m/s (9 km/h to 16.2 km/h) [14]. [PERSON] investigated the running velocity increase from 3.50 m/s to 8.95 m/s (12.6 km/h to 32.2 km/h) and found that in the sagittal plane, the knee joint work was not influenced by the increased running velocity during the stance phase. In contrast, the ankle joint work increased from a velocity of 3.50 m/s to 5.02 m/s (12.6 km/h to 18 km/h) [15]. [PERSON] observed that the biggest velocity effects were found from velocities of 8 km/s to 12 km/h, and compared with the knee extension moment, the peak plantar flexion moment increased greater, which indicated that lower joints, such as the ankle joint, are burdened to a lager extent [16]. Taking into account the impact of running velocity and the choice of running shoes, [PERSON] observed that the plantar flexion at touchdown underwent alterations based on both velocity and shoe type.