## 3 Results  
### Effects of the Shoe Conditions  
Wearing NN increased the range of motion (ROM) of the hip joint by 57-68% (\(p\) = 0.001) of the stance phase after running for 5 km, as shown in Table 1. There was no significant effect on the ankle and knee joints' ranges of motion. The first peak ground reaction force and instantaneous loading rate increased significantly after 5 km of running at high temperatures (\(p\) = 0.001; \(p\) = 0.009) in both shoe conditions. In the EVA group, there was no significant effect of the main effect of temperature on muscle activation on the RF, MG, and SOL muscles' average EMG activity, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. Wearing NN increased the torque in the sagittal plane of the knee by 21-23% (\(p\) = 0.001) and 37-45% (\(p\) < 0.001) of the stance phase after running for 5 km, as shown in Table 2. There was no significant effect on the peak sagittal torque of the hip and ankle joints. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Joint (\(\mathbf{x}^{*}\))** & **Variables** & \begin{tabular}{c} **EVA** \\ **(Pre)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **EVA** \\ **(Post)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **NN** \\ **(Pre)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **NN** \\ **(Post)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **NN** \\ **Main Effect Shoe** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Main Effect Temp** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Interaction Effect** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Hip & ROM & \(34.0\pm 1.7\) & \(34.2\pm 3.8\) & \(34.2\pm 3.3\) & \(37.8\pm 3.4\) & \(\mathbf{F}=69.708;p=0.001\) & \(\mathbf{F}=1.785;p=0.252\) & \(\mathbf{F}=1.640;p=0.270\) \\ Knee & ROM & \(25.7\pm 2.9\) & \(27.2\pm 2.6\) & \(25.6\pm 2.4\) & \(24.9\pm 2.0\) & \(\mathbf{F}=1.237;p=0.328\) & \(\mathbf{F}=0.137;p=0.730\) & \(\mathbf{F}=0.600;p=0.482\) \\ Ankle & ROM & \(25.8\pm 3.3\) & \(28.1\pm 4.9\) & \(24.7\pm 1.7\) & \(28.9\pm 1.7\) & \(\mathbf{F}=0.013;p=0.916\) & \(\mathbf{F}=14.307;p=0.019\) & \(\mathbf{F}=0.657;p=0.463\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Statistical significance was set at \(p<0.05\). The significant differences in interaction effect are based on the results of Bonferroni post hoc tests (\(\alpha=0.008\)). The bold figure represents significant differences.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Sagittal joint ROM for the hip, knee, and ankle joints. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Joint Torque** & **EVA (Pre)** & \begin{tabular}{c} **EVA** \\ **(Post)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **NN** \\ **(Pre)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **NN** \\ **(Post)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Main Effect Shoe** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Main Effect Temp** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Interaction Effect** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Hip-deion torque & \(1.0\pm 0.1\) & \(1.0\pm 0.1\) & \(0.8\pm 0.02\) & \(1.2\pm 0.1\) & \(\mathbf{F}=0.173;p=0.718\) & \(\mathbf{F}=7.867;p=0.107\) & \(\mathbf{F}=21.078;p=0.004\) \\ Knee-flexion torque & \(0.7\pm 0.1\) & \(0.8\pm 0.1\) & \(0.7\pm 0.03\) & \(0.9\pm 0.1\) & \(\mathbf{F}=47.701;p=0.002\) & \(\mathbf{F}=31.750;p=0.006\) & \(\mathbf{F}=0.205;p=0.674\) \\ Ankle-dossifecion torque & \(2.4\pm 0.1\) & \(2.4\pm 0.04\) & \(2.5\pm 0.1\) & \(2.4\pm 0.2\) & \(\mathbf{F}=0.424;p=0.550\) & \(\mathbf{F}=3.642;p=0.129\) & \(\mathbf{F}=2.178;p=0.214\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Statistical significance was set at \(p<0.05\). The significant differences in interaction effect are based on the results of [PERSON] post hoc tests (\(\alpha=0.008\)). The bold figures represent significant differences.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Sagittal joint torque peak values for the hip, knee, and ankle joints. The envelope area of COP increased significantly after a 5-kilometer run in EVA and decreased significantly after the same run in NN (F = 47.456; \(p<\) 0.001), as shown in Figure 4. There was no significant effect on the range of displacement and total displacement of COP.