As the sport of distance running has evolved, the shoes that runners wear have changed in response to the never-ending pursuit of faster running and improved recovery. In the 1970s, minor differences existed between the different products on the market. In recent years, the release of “super shoes” catapulted runners into speeds that were previously unimaginable. On the other hand, the barefoot running community and entire shoe brands argue in favor of a more minimalist approach to what we put on our feet. Runners are faced with an abundance of information and even more shoe opinions, but very little concrete data exists to back up the claims of increased performance. Where’s the truth in it all? What should I put on my feet?
I began running in 2003 with a local track club focusing on the 800 meter and 1600 meter races. After a couple years of focused training, I was able to compete on a regional and national level in track and field through AAU and USATF sanctioned events. Fast forward to early adulthood, and I was struggling to complete a 2 mile run in the heat of the summer. Now, I am a sub 3-hour marathoner who has competed in multiple ultra-marathons, including finishing one 100-ultra-marathon. In regards to shoe selection, this large variety of running experiences gives me a big range of anecdotal information on how different shoes help runners of all shapes and sizes. The TLDR of my findings are that runners need to be able to answer “Yes” to 4 criteria:
1. Does the shoe maximize my potential speed?
2. Does the shoe help prevent injury?
3. Do I like the way I look in this shoe?
4. Given my skill level, am I spending a reasonable amount on this shoe?
For question #1 – you want a lightweight shoe to run fast. Recently, carbon plate midsole technology has also increased speeds for certain levels of athletes. The details of the carbon plate technology is further explained later in this post.
For question #2 – In my opinion, the bulk of injury prevention is related to your strength, mobility, health, and intelligent training. However, your shoes play a role as well. One way a shoe prevents injury is by absorbing some of the force generated when your feet hit the surface on which you are running. The foam on the sole of a shoe is one of the main ways a shoe absorbs force. Most running shoes manufactured by shoe companies will offer foam material and depth of foam that will maximize force absorption. Since this is satisfied, the priority here is making sure your comfortable in the shoe.
For question #3 – This is a personal preference.
Lastly, for question #4 – I am not a financial planner, but this is subject to the judgement of the individual. If you run a 45-minute 5k and want to purchase $250 racing shoes, that is your call to make.
When sifting through shoes that are on the market, there are two categories of shoes that stand out from the others due to the amount of research surrounding the shoe type. These two categories are barefoot/minimalist shoes and carbon plate technology shoes.
Let us first sort out the mess between barefoot running vs. running with traditional shoes. In 2009, author Christopher McDougall released Born to Run. This non-fiction novel describes the author’s experiences with a the Tarahumara tribe, a community of gifted long-distance runners in the Mexican Copper Canyons. Long story short, the riveting story telling of McDougall created a cult-like following in the United States that became obsessed with two things. The first was running really, really long distances, similar to the Tarahumara. The second was running with minimalist shoes, or often barefoot. Essentially, McDougall noticed a few key differences between the standard American runner and the Tarahumara. The average American ran with highly cushioned running shoes, while the Tarahumara run with huaraches (basically car-tire sandals.) Additionally, roughly half of all runners’ experience injury every year (van Mechelen, 1992.) According to McDougall’s experience, the Tarahumara seemingly keep running incredibly high mileage without getting injured. While shying away from making conclusive claims about traditional running shoes, McDougall experience inspired many to make their own conclusions regarding a “running shoe conspiracy.” However, this observation is incredibly interesting, and it sparked a decade’s worth of research into the topic. It also sparked an entire sub-industry of running and training shoes.
Once a wide body of scientific information was gathered regarding barefoot running, the clouds that blurred our vision over the facts of the matter began to clear.
Altman and Irene’s “Barefoot Running: Biomechanics and Implications for Running Injuries” summarizes a good portion of the knowledge while logically walking (running?) the reader through the conclusion that modern shoes aren’t the enemy, but poor biomechanics are. Interestingly, what does running barefoot force the runner to do? Adjust their biomechanics so that they don’t injure themselves. One great study that paints this picture is Daoud et. Al “Foot strike and injury rates in endurance runners: a retrospective study.” In this study, 52 collegiate middle-and-long distance runners were evaluated on their running form and injury history. The most striking result of this study highlights the injury occurrence between rear foot strikers vs. forefoot strikers. While traumatic injury rates were not significantly different, repetitive stress injuries were twice as common for the rearfoot striking group.
In summary, what does barefoot running do? It forces runners to adjust their form to be efficient from an injury prevention standpoint. The two main ways that runners do this are by reducing the length of their stride and adjusting the location that their foot strikes the ground from the heel to the midfoot or forefoot. If you take short stride, forefoot striking runners and put them in modern shoes, they will, on average, have fewer repetitive stress injuries than their long stride, heel striking counterparts. If you take this a step further, short stride, forefoot striking runners in modern running shoes will be maximizing injury prevention versus barefoot running or minimalist running shoe groups with similar running form.
Admittedly, I drank the minimalist Kool-Aid once upon a time. This short period in my recreational running career ended with a few results. On the plus side, I am a short strider and a habitual fore-foot striker that rarely has running related injuries while running 70+ mile weeks. On the negative side, I pushed my luck running with minimalist shoes a little too long and ended up with pain in my forefoot that lasted for nearly a year and may have delayed forward progress.
But what about the marathon runner Abebe Bikila that won the Olympic marathon without shoes in 1960? For starters, this guy’s shoes fell apart shortly before the race for which he originally planned on wearing shoes. Additionally, his time was approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes – roughly 7 minutes behind the shoe-wearing Olympic marathon winners in 2012, 2016, and 2021. And what about our ancestral hunters running barefoot in the plains of Africa chasing down wild game? I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you’re not chasing down any wild animals for sustenance any time soon. If you are, please post it to YouTube. I promise I will give it a watch.
I’m not arguing that it is impossible to run fast and far while barefoot. The point I am making is that barefoot is not the best, permanent route to achieve injury prevention and personal records. At best, when used strategically, barefoot running is a tool in a runner’s arsenal to improve running form and foot strength. But if your goal is to run exclusively barefoot, then yes, it can be done.
Now that the barefoot misconception is out of the way, this brings us to the next question: why are some running shoes $250, and do I need these to run? The short answer here is no. Nike was involved in a project called “Breaking2” starting in 2014. The goal of this project was to finally break the 2-hour barrier for the marathon, which at multiple points in history, was called “impossible”. Luckily, Nike has some pretty smart shoe designers that eventually released the first commercially available shoe with a carbon fiber plate in the midsole, the Nike Zoom Vaporfly 4%. were shown to provide an energy efficiency increase of 4% vs running with traditional shoes that included 18 (Eluid Kipchoge eventually broke the 2-hour barrier in October of 2019 wearing the ZoomX Vaporfly 4%.) Following the shoe release, the race to lightweight shoes with maximum energy return and propulsion was on. Now, nearly every running shoe manufacturer has incorporated the carbon fiber midsole into the design of their racing shoes.
As a recreational runner – do you need these shoes? Probably not. Will they provide you with a benefit? Maybe, but keep in mind that the 4% increase in energy efficiency was derived from analyzing the performance of elite level athletes. 18 subjects in A Comparison of the Energetic Cost of Running in Marathon Racing Shoes (Hoogkamer, et al.) showed an energy expenditure decrease of 4% when wearing prototype running shoes (carbon fiber midsole plate) vs. established, foam-midsole running shoes. Keep in mind that all subjects had recently run a sub-31 minute 10-km race at sea level, a sub-32 minute 10-km race at the local altitude, or an equivalent performance in a different distance running event. This doesn’t mean that carbon plate shoes won’t work for athletes competing at slower speeds, but the science on the shoes for other athletes is not clear. My take from this evidence is that the carbon fiber plate may result in a speed increase for my performance. If I can find a shoe that satisfies this along with my design and cost criteria, I’m happy.
Speaking of cost - As a 2:54 marathoner, I have yet to purchase running shoes that exceed $150.00. In fact, the most I have spent on running shoes in adulthood is $111.97, though the full retail price would have been $170.00. In fact, at a few points in my running career, I have spent the bulk of my weekly miles running in shoes under $20.00 in cost. Your mileage may vary if you choose to do this, but the support of the $20.00 shoe was sufficient for me to prevent injury.
Recently, I have enjoyed running in shoes manufactured by Swift Running. They are a small business that has different models serving different running purposes, including an affordable daily trainer and a lightweight carbon plate midsole shoe for speed work. Their simple designs satisfy my preferred aesthetic.
To summarize the main points of my analysis: do shoes matter? Absolutely. Is there a one size fit for everyone? Absolutely not. Does modern shoe technology help my ability to run efficiently and prevent injury? Yes. Do I need to sell my house to buy the best running shoes? Probably not. Should I start to run outside barefoot? If you don’t mind looking like a clown, sure, but please start slow to prevent injury. For me, I will always research new shoes, but for the time being, I love running in my Swift Running shoes.
Sources:
McDougall, Christopher (2009). Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen. Knopf. pp. 304. ISBN 978-0-307-26630-9.
van Mechelen, W. Running Injuries. Sports Medicine 14, 320–335 (1992). https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199214050-00004
Altman, Allison R. PhD1; Davis, Irene S. PT, PhD2. Barefoot Running: Biomechanics and Implications for Running Injuries. Current Sports Medicine Reports 11(5):p 244-250, September/October 2012. | DOI: 10.1249/JSR.0b013e31826c9bb9
DAOUD, ADAM I.1; GEISSLER, GARY J.2; WANG, FRANK3; SARETSKY, JASON2; DAOUD, YAHYA A.4; LIEBERMAN, DANIEL E.1. Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: A Retrospective Study. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 44(7):p 1325-1334, July 2012. | DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182465115
Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S., Frank, J.H. et al. A Comparison of the Energetic Cost of Running in Marathon Racing Shoes. Sports Med 48, 1009–1019 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0811-2
-- Written by : Conner White
Ultra & Road Running Coach
