## 3 Results  
Comparison of discrete biomechanical variables showed no significant results as seen in Table 1.  
Analysis of vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) variables when normalized by body weight over the stance phase revealed no significant results between conditions. As seen in Figure 1, both shoe conditions produced VGRF curves which appear to be nearly identical. When comparing sagittal plane joint angles in the ankle, knee, and hip normalized over stance, there appeared to be no significant difference between shoe conditions as seen in Figure 2.  
The comparison of sagittal plane joint moments shows no significant difference between shoe conditions as seen in Figure 3.  
A comparison of VO2, RER, and minute ventilation (VE) between conditions showed no significant results as seen in Table 2.  
Comparison of subject comfort perception showed no significant difference as seen in Table 3.  
Figure 1: Mean VGRF in the dominant leg (BW) normalized by time comparing male and female shoe conditions. The female shoe is represented in blue (C1), and the male shoe is represented in orange (C2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline  & **Female Shoe (C1)** & **Male Shoe (C2)** & \(t\)**-Test (\(\alpha\) = 0.05)** \\ \hline
**Kinetics** & & & \\ First Peak Vertical GRF (BW) & \(971.99\pm 177.99\) & \(938.32\pm 202.19\) & \(0.1843\) \\ Peak Anterior GRF (BW) & \(135.70\pm 22.35\) & \(135.89\pm 22.11\) & \(0.8175\) \\ Peak Posterior GRF (BW) & \(156.12\pm 21.57\) & \(153.92\pm 20.29\) & \(0.1983\) \\ Peak VGRF (BW) & \(1396.59\pm 167.41\) & \(1394.31\pm 174.89\) & \(0.6825\) \\
**Angles** & & & \\ Hip & & & \\ Sagittal Contact (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(34.16\pm 4.80\) & \(34.29\pm 5.01\) & \(0.8500\) \\ Sagittal Off (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-4.63\pm 4.94\) & \(-4.51\pm 4.78\) & \(0.7646\) \\ Peak Adduction (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(14.09\pm 4.28\) & \(14.34\pm 4.10\) & \(0.4901\) \\ Sagittal ROM (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-38.79\pm 3.86\) & \(-38.81\pm 3.74\) & \(0.6761\) \\ Knee & & & \\ Sagittal Contact (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-10.175\pm 3.99\) & \(-9.92\pm 4.31\) & \(0.6671\) \\ Flexion (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-37.28\pm 4.59\) & \(-37.31\pm 4.40\) & \(0.8168\) \\ Sagittal Off (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-15.24\pm 4.60\) & \(-15.35\pm 5.20\) & \(0.4563\) \\ Adduction (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(0.63\pm 3.12\) & \(0.45\pm 2.83\) & \(0.8206\) \\ Loading ROM (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-27.10\pm 5.32\) & \(-27.39\pm 5.30\) & \(0.5294\) \\ Propulsion ROM (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(18.40\pm 14.85\) & \(18.01\pm 15.44\) & \(0.4816\) \\ Ankle & & & \\ Foot Strike (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(6.00\pm 5.80\) & \(6.86\pm 7.03\) & \(0.2561\) \\ Peak Dorsiflexion (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(17.27\pm 4.39\) & \(17.60\pm 5.00\) & \(0.5208\) \\ Peak Plantarflexion (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-18.77\pm 4.34\) & \(-18.97\pm 4.87\) & \(0.8619\) \\ Sagittal ROM (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-32.41\pm 14.86\) & \(-32.63\pm 15.69\) & \(0.1747\) \\
**Moments** & & & \\ Hip & & & \\ Peak Extension (Nm/kg) & \(-0.93\pm 0.19\) & \(-0.93\pm 0.17\) & \(0.8976\) \\ Peak Flexion (Nm/kg) & \(0.88\pm 0.14\) & \(0.89\pm 0.13\) & \(0.4914\) \\ Peak Abduction (Nm/kg) & \(-1.81\pm 0.24\) & \(-1.81\pm 0.21\) & \(0.9474\) \\ Knee & & & \\ Peak Extension (Nm/kg) & \(1.91\pm 0.32\) & \(1.90\pm 0.36\) & \(0.7806\) \\ Peak Abduction (Nm/kg) & \(-0.71\pm 0.22\) & \(-0.72\pm 0.24\) & \(0.3796\) \\ Ankle & & & \\ Peak Plantarflexion (Nm/kg) & \(-3.47\pm 063\) & \(-3.45\pm 0.63\) & \(0.5620\) \\ Peak Inversion (Nm/kg) & \(0.55\pm 0.25\) & \(0.53\pm 0.27\) & \(0.3352\) \\ Peak Eversion (Nm/kg) & \(-0.08\pm 0.06\) & \(-0.08\pm 0.06\) & \(0.6444\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Average dominant leg discrete biomechanical values. Data are presented as mean \(\pm\) standard deviations with their associated \(p\)-values from the paired \(t\)-test (\(\alpha\) = 0.05). Figure 2: Average sagittal plane joint angles of the ankle, knee, and hip in the dominant leg normalized by % stance. The shaded areas represent standard deviations for each part of the stance phase.