Sports Medicine

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 411–422 | Cite as

The Effect of Footwear on Running Performance and Running Economy in Distance Runners

  • Joel T. FullerEmail author
  • Clint R. Bellenger
  • Dominic Thewlis
  • Margarita D. Tsiros
  • Jonathan D. Buckley
Systematic Review



The effect of footwear on running economy has been investigated in numerous studies. However, no systematic review and meta-analysis has synthesised the available literature and the effect of footwear on running performance is not known.


The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of footwear on running performance and running economy in distance runners, by reviewing controlled trials that compare different footwear conditions or compare footwear with barefoot.


The Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), EMBASE, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine), CINAHL and SPORTDiscus databases were searched from inception up until April 2014. Included articles reported on controlled trials that examined the effects of footwear or footwear characteristics (including shoe mass, cushioning, motion control, longitudinal bending stiffness, midsole viscoelasticity, drop height and comfort) on running performance or running economy and were published in a peer-reviewed journal.


Of the 1,044 records retrieved, 19 studies were included in the systematic review and 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. No studies were identified that reported effects on running performance. Individual studies reported significant, but trivial, beneficial effects on running economy for comfortable and stiff-soled shoes [standardised mean difference (SMD) <0.12; P < 0.05), a significant small beneficial effect on running economy for cushioned shoes (SMD = 0.37; P < 0.05) and a significant moderate beneficial effect on running economy for training in minimalist shoes (SMD = 0.79; P < 0.05). Meta-analysis found significant small beneficial effects on running economy for light shoes and barefoot compared with heavy shoes (SMD < 0.34; P < 0.01) and for minimalist shoes compared with conventional shoes (SMD = 0.29; P < 0.01). A significant positive association between shoe mass and metabolic cost of running was identified (P < 0.01). Footwear with a combined shoe mass less than 440 g per pair had no detrimental effect on running economy.


Certain models of footwear and footwear characteristics can improve running economy. Future research in footwear performance should include measures of running performance.


Standardise Mean Difference Metabolic Cost Shoe Condition Barefoot Runner Footwear Condition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. Dr. Dominic Thewlis has been a recipient of funding from ASICS Oceania (ASICS Oceania Pty Ltd, Eastern Creek, NSW, Australia) to undertake separate research. All other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest and have no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work.


  1. 1.
    Hennig EM. Eighteen years of running shoe testing in Germany—a series of biomechanical studies. Footwear Sci. 2011;3(2):71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moore IS, Jones A, Dixon S. The pursuit of improved running performance: can changes in cushioning and somatosensory feedback influence running economy and injury risk? Footwear Sci. 2014;6(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rothschild CE. Primitive running: a survey analysis of runners’ interest, participation, and implementation. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(8):2021–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Richards CE, Magin PJ, Callister R. Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence-based? Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(3):159–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perl DP, Daoud AI, Lieberman DE. Effects of footwear and strike type on running economy. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(7):1335–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Warne JP, Warrington GD. Four-week habituation to simulated barefoot running improves running economy when compared with shod running. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2012;24(3):563–8. doi: 10.1111/sms.12032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanson NJ, Berg K, Deka P, et al. Oxygen cost of running barefoot vs. running shod. Int J Sports Med. 2011;32(6):401–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saunders PU, Pyne DB, Telford RD, et al. Factors affecting running economy in trained distance runners. Sports Med. 2004;34(7):465–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Divert C, Mornieux G, Freychat P, et al. Barefoot-shod running differences: shoe or mass effect? Int J Sports Med. 2008;29(6):512–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luo G, Stergiou P, Worobets J, et al. Improved footwear comfort reduces oxygen consumption during running. Footwear Sci. 2009;1(1):25–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nigg BM, Stefanyshyn DJ, Cole G, et al. The effect of material characteristics of shoe soles on muscle activation and energy aspects during running. J Biomech. 2003;36:569–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roy JPR, Stefanyshyn DJ. Shoe midsole longitudinal bending stiffness and running economy, joint energy, and EMG. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(3):562–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thomson RD, Birkbeck AE, Tan WL, et al. The modelling and performance of training shoe cushioning systems. Sports Eng. 1999;2(2):109–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rubin DA, Butler RJ, Beckman B, et al. Footwear and running cardio-respiratory responses. Int J Sports Med. 2009;30:379–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frederick EC, Howley ET, Powers SK. Lower oxygen demands of running in soft-soled shoes. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1986;57(2):174–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928.
  18. 18.
    Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, et al. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(1):3–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Higgins JPT, et al. Meta-analysis involving cross-over trials: methodological issues. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):140–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burkett LN, Kohrt WM, Buchbinder R. Effects of shoes and foot orthotics on VO2 and selected frontal plane knee kinematics. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1985;17(1):158–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Franz JR, Wierzbinski CM, Kram R. Metabolic cost of running barefoot versus shod: is lighter better? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(8):1519–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hamill J, Freedson PS, Boda W, et al. Effects of shoe type on cardiorespiratory responses and rearfoot motion during treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1988;20(5):515–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hardin EC, Van Den Bogert AJ, Hamill J. Kinematic adaptations during running: effects of footwear, surface, and duration. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(5):838–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lussiana T, Fabre N, Hebert-Losier K, et al. Effect of slope and footwear on running economy and kinematics. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23:246–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sinclair J, Taylor PJ, Edmundson CJ, et al. The influence of footwear kinetic, kinematic and electromyographical parameters on the energy requirements of steady state running. Mov Sport Sci. 2013;80:39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Squadrone R, Gallozzi C. Biomechanical and physiological comparison of barefoot and two shod conditions in experienced barefoot runners. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 2009;49(6):6–13.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tung KD, Franz JR, Kram R. A test of the metabolic cost of cushioning hypothesis during unshod and shod running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(2):324–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bosco C, Rusko H. The effect of prolonged skeletal muscle stretch-shortening cycle on recoil of elastic energy and on expenditure. Acta Physiol Scand. 1983;119:314–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Buchheit M, Laursen PB, Leblond F, et al. Effect of dorsiflexion shoes on the energy cost of running. Sci Sports. 2010;25:81–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Faiss R, Terrier P, Praz M, et al. Influence of initial foot dorsal flexion on vertical jump and running performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(9):2352–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jones BH, Knapik JJ, Daniels WL, et al. The energy cost of women walking and running in shoes and boots. Ergonomics. 1986;29(3):439–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mercer JA, Branks DA, Wasserman SK, et al. Physiological cost of running while wearing spring-boots. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(2):314–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Berg K, Sady S. Oxygen cost of running at submaximal speeds while wearing shoe inserts. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1985;56(1):86–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jones BH, Toner MM, Daniels WL, et al. The energy cost and heart-rate response of trained and untrained subjects walking and running in shoes and boots. Ergonomics. 1984;27(8):895–902.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Morgan DW, Miller TA, Mitchell VA, et al. Aerobic demand of running shoes designed to exploit energy storage and return. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1996;67(1):102–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Brizuela G, Llana S, Ferrandis R, et al. The influence of basketball shoes with increased ankle support on shock attenuation and performance in running and jumping. J Sports Sci. 1997;15(5):505–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Volek JS, et al. The effects of ten weeks of resistance and combined plyometric/sprint training with the Meridian Elyte athletic shoe on muscular performance in women. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(3):882–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stefanyshyn D, Fusco C. Increased shoe bending stiffness increases sprint performance. Sports Biomech. 2004;3(1):55–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Killgore GL, Coste SC, O’Meara SE, et al. A comparison of the physiological exercise intensity differences between shod and barefoot submaximal deep-water running at the same cadence. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(12):3302–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rife RK, Myrer JW, Vehrs P, et al. Water treadmill parameters needed to obtain land treadmill intensities in runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(4):733–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Williams KR, Cavanagh PR, Ziff JL. Biomechanical studies of elite female distance runners. Int J Sports Med. 1987;8:107–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hanson NJ, Berg K. Response to the letter to the editor: is barefoot running more economical? [letter]. Int J Sports Med. 2012;33:250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kram R, Franz JR. Is barefoot running more economical? [letter]. Int J Sports Med. 2012;33:249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Conley DL, Krahenbuhl GS. Running economy and distance running performance of highly trained athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1980;12:357–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Svedenhag J, Sjodin B. Physiological characteristics of elite male runners in and off-season. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 1985;10(3):127–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Foster C, Daniels JT, Yarbrough RA. Physiological and training correlates of marathon running performance. Aust J Sports Med. 1977;9:58–62.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Williams KR, Cavanagh PR. Relationship between distance running mechanics, running economy and running performance. J Appl Physiol. 1987;63(3):1236–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hopkins WG, Hawley JA, Burke LM. Design and analysis of research on sport performance enhancement. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999;31(3):472–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Paquette MR, Zhang S, Baumgartner LD. Acute effects of barefoot, minimal shoes and running shoes on lower limb mechanics in rear and forefoot strike runners. Footwear Sci. 2013;5(1):9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ridge ST, Johnson AW, Mitchell UH, et al. Foot bone marrow edema after a 10-wk transition to minimalist running shoes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(7):1363–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Milner CE, Ferber R, Pollard CD, et al. Biomechanical factors associated with tibial stress fracture in female runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(2):323–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rooney BD, Derrick TR. Joint contact loading in forefoot and rearfoot strike patterns during running. J Biomech. 2013;46:2201–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joel T. Fuller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Clint R. Bellenger
    • 1
  • Dominic Thewlis
    • 1
  • Margarita D. Tsiros
    • 1
  • Jonathan D. Buckley
    • 1
  1. 1.Sansom Institute for Health ResearchUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations