Blumaka Research & Testing

Tested by labs.
Proven by athletes.

Every number on this page traces back to a named lab, a dated report, or a documented field test, not a marketing script. This is the data behind Blumaka's cushioning, durability, and performance claims, drawn directly from independent biomechanics testing, third-party lab reports, and real-world athlete studies.

Aerial view of a sprinter crossing the finish line on a track
90%Ran faster in independent biomechanics testing
17%More cushioning than the average insole tested
14%Higher energy return than the average insole tested
1,000Mile cushioning guarantee, backed by mileage testing
Independent biomechanics lab, 3D motion capture + force plates
Heeluxe impact & wear testing, ASTM F1976
41 real golfers, on-course, two independent tests
10 athletes, 190 trials, cleated turf
The Biomechanics

Faster off the line.
Stronger through every stride.

Blumaka NonSlip Insoles went head-to-head against each athlete's own stock insole for 190 trials on artificial turf, with cleated turf shoes required for every trial. An independent biomechanics lab tracked the results with 3D marker-based motion capture and embedded force plates in September 2022.

Athlete planting and cutting hard on a turf field during a training session
90%
of athletes ran faster
90%
increased stride length
80%
started faster (increased acceleration)
80%
stopped faster (increased braking force)
80%
increased knee stability on landing
70%
increased drive force off the back leg
Source: Independent biomechanics lab study, Sept. 30, 2022. Blumaka NonSlip Insoles, named Konnect in the report, vs. each athlete's stock OEM insole, 10 athletes / 190 total trials, processed via the Visual3D motion-capture pipeline. The report specifies the test was run on turf rather than dirt, with cleated turf shoes required throughout to limit slippage. Of the metrics above, running velocity (p=0.0053) and stride length (p=0.028) reached statistical significance; the remaining metrics reflect the share of athletes who improved but did not reach the same significance threshold in this sample size. No metric showed a majority decline.
The Impact Lab

Softer landings.
Cushioning that doesn't quit.

Blumaka foam went through Heeluxe's "Hulk" mechanical impact tester, the industry-standard ASTM F1976 method for footwear cushioning. The independent testing lab measured how much force each insole absorbs, how much energy it returns, and how much of that cushioning survives real mileage.

17%
More cushioning

Blumaka insoles absorb 17% more impact force than the average insole in Heeluxe's testing database.

14%
Higher energy return

Blumaka insoles return 14% more energy than the average insole in Heeluxe's testing database. That's a combination Heeluxe's own data shows most foams can't achieve at once.

Cushioning retained after heavy mileage

Two separate Heeluxe durability tests pushed Blumaka foam against other common midsole materials through simulated running miles, tracking how much cushioning height and force-absorption survived.

Blumaka midsole
Comparison midsole
FAILURE THRESHOLD 0% 50% 100% 96.6% 73.7% FAILED vs. Super Critical Foam @ 750 mi 85% 73% FAILED vs. Premium EVA @ 675 mi
Percent of original cushioning retained after simulated-mileage impact testing on complete shoes. Heeluxe defines cushioning failure as 15% degradation from new — the dashed line. The Super Critical Foam shoe broke down after 150 miles; a Blumaka midsole takes more than five times as many impacts to break down.
93%

of cushioning retained after 800 miles, worn by a 265-lb runner, per the Heeluxe Hulk Impact Test, Oct. 2024.

87%

of cushioning retained after 1,389 miles, the basis for Blumaka's 1,000-mile cushioning guarantee.

Source: Heeluxe Hulk Impact Testing, ASTM F1976 standard (weighted-piston mechanical impact rig, tested on a 12.5mm 40A rubber base). The 800-mile (265-lb runner) and 1,389-mile figures are insole tests on specific product variants; the 750-mile and 675-mile comparisons above are midsole tests on complete shoes. Heeluxe defines cushioning failure as 15% degradation from new, and the 87% retained at 1,389 miles is the basis of Blumaka's 1,000-mile guarantee. Heeluxe has tested footwear for 13 years against a database of more than 514 insoles and 4,500 complete shoes.
Pressure Mapping & Wear Testing

Five constructions tested.
The data picked one.

Blumaka didn't choose its production foam by feel. Heeluxe put five insole constructions in front of eight testers, scored each on a 7-point scale, and mapped the pressure under every foot. The construction that won on all three comfort measures, and carried the lowest pressure at both the heel and the forefoot, is the one we put into production.

Comfort scores — 7-point scale

Overall comfort — Blumaka5.17
Overall comfort — ETPU 504.17
Heel cushion — Blumaka5.17
Heel cushion — ETPU 504.33
Forefoot cushion — Blumaka4.83
Forefoot cushion — ETPU 504.33

Plantar pressure mapping

Forefoot — BlumakaLow
Forefoot — ETPU 50Extremely high
Heel — BlumakaLow
Heel — ETPU 50Moderate

Heeluxe reports plantar pressure on a four-step scale — low, moderate, high, extremely high — rather than as a numeric value.

5.17/7

The highest overall comfort score of the five constructions tested, alongside the highest heel and forefoot cushion scores and the lowest pressure at both the heel and the forefoot. Heeluxe's recommendation was to take this construction to production, and that is the foam Blumaka makes.

Source: Heeluxe insole comfort and pressure testing, March 2021. Eight testers, men's size 9, walking protocol, 7-point subjective comfort scale (1 = Extremely Poor, 7 = Excellent). Five constructions were tested: BLM, ETPU 50, Blue 1, Blue 2 and Red 1. The Blumaka figures above are the Blue 2 construction, which Heeluxe recommended for production. ETPU 50 is expanded TPU, the comparison material. Pressure mapping is reported qualitatively, not in psi.
On the Course

41 golfers. Two independent tests.
One insole change.

Thirty-nine club members ran the same test at Harbour Plaza Golf Club, led by PGA instructor Kevin Smeltz alongside a second PGA-affiliated instructor: their own clubs and shoes, first with stock insoles, then with Blumaka insoles swapped in. A launch monitor and dual force plates tracked what changed across all 41 golfers, and the results were independently reviewed.

Kevin Smeltz, PGA golf instructor who led the testing at Harbour Plaza Golf Club
Kevin Smeltz
PGA Golf Instructor
91%of golfers improved at least one measured performance metric
83%saw increased ball speed off the driver
80%saw increased driver carry distance
73%of measured swings produced more ground-reaction force
“All differences were statistically significant.” Human Rithm, independent review of testing results. No payment or sponsorship was provided by Blumaka to either party.
Sources: Two related studies at Harbour Plaza Golf Club: (1) an independent review by Human Rithm of pairwise-t-test results across 34 analyzed golfers (Jan. 2026 report), and (2) a launch-monitor and dual-force-plate study led by PGA-affiliated instructors Kevin Smeltz and Jason Wu (Nov. 2025 report), using a Foresight GCQuad launch monitor and Smart2Move force plates. Both compared each golfer's own shoes/insoles against the same shoes fitted with Blumaka insoles. Reported percentages reflect the share of golfers or swings that improved on a given metric; some improvement magnitudes (yards, mph) were reported only for the subset who improved, not the full sample.
In Their Own Words

Field notes from real use.

Personal case study · self-reported · single athlete

Connor Moore, M.S., PhD, logged his own driver and fairway-wood distances for three months before switching to Blumaka insoles, then three months after. He adjusted each shot for weather and altitude using on-course tracking technology.

296 → 323 ydsAverage driver distance (+9%)
262 → 280 ydsAverage 3-wood distance (+7%)

He also reported that insoles which previously needed replacing 4–5 times a year now last him a full season.

Connor Moore, M.S., PhDSelf-tracked, 100 shots before / 100 shots after, Feb.–May 2023
Connor Moore lining up a putt on the green
Connor Moore
PhD Bioengineer & Pro Golfer
Full Transparency

Where our numbers
come from.

This page draws only from the reports below. Where we are free to distribute the full document, the report name links to it.

ReportTester / AuthorMethodSampleDate
Testing Our Performance — master summarySource for the mileage and database comparisons Heeluxe Insole + midsole durability, force impact, energy return, heat Database of 514 insoles / 4,500 shoes 2020–2025
Biomechanics Performance StudyFull report not publicly distributable Independent biomechanics lab 3D motion capture + force plates, cleated turf 10 athletes / 190 trials Sept. 2022
Hulk Impact Testing (multiple reports)Max Cushion report →Thin & Used report → Heeluxe, ASTM F1976 Weighted-piston mechanical impact rig New & used insole samples, multiple variants 2021–2025
Golf Performance Review Human Rithm (independent, unpaid) Statistical review of on-course results 41 golfers (34 analyzed) Jan. 2026
Golf Performance Study Kevin Smeltz & Jason Wu, PGA-affiliated instructors Launch monitor + dual force plates 41 golfers Nov. 2025
Insole Comfort & Pressure Testing Heeluxe 7-point comfort survey + plantar pressure mapping 8 testers, 5 insole constructions Mar. 2021
Personal Driving-Distance Case Study Connor Moore, M.S., PhD Self-tracked, on-course distance log 1 athlete, 100 shots pre / post 2023–2024
The Products These Tests Used

See the insoles behind the numbers.

Every result on this page was measured on a Blumaka insole you can buy today. If you are not sure which one fits your sport or your feet, the quiz takes about a minute.