# Impact of Advanced Footwear Technology on Running Economy at Slower Running Speeds: A Randomised, Cross-Over Investigation

## TL;DR

This study finds that advanced running shoes improve running efficiency even at slower speeds, which is beneficial for recreational runners.

## Contribution

The study demonstrates that advanced footwear technology improves running economy at slow speeds, not just high speeds.

## Key findings

- AFT shoes reduced oxygen cost compared to traditional and mixed shoes across all tested speeds.
- Shoes prioritizing energy return and softness decreased running economy compared to AFT shoes.
- Comfort had a stronger influence on shoe preference than metabolic efficiency.

## Abstract

Compared with traditional running shoes, Advanced Footwear Technology (AFT) improves the oxygen cost of running (O2 cost) for athletes competing at fast speeds. Less clear are the effects of these modern shoes at the slower speeds commonly adopted by recreational runners. Therefore, this study’s primary aim was to assess the effects of AFT shoes on O2 cost at slow running speeds.

Fourteen moderately-trained runners (6 men, 8 women, age 25.5 ± 2.8 years, body mass index 21.7 ± 2.3 kg m−2, V̇O2peak 49.8 ± 5.1 ml O2 kg−1 min−1) ran at four speeds (7.5, 9.0, 10.5 and 12.0 km h−1) with three different footwear conditions: traditional running shoes (On Cloudrunner 2, TRA); AFT shoes (On Cloudboom Echo 3, CBE); and prototype shoes combining AFT and standard features (high compliance, energy return, and mass; On Prototype, MIX). The full protocol was repeated on three different days by each participant.

Combining all tested speeds, O2 cost was lower for CBE compared with both TRA (−5.4 ml O2 kg−1 km−1, 95% CI: −6.9 to −3.9 ml O2 kg−1 km −1, p < 0.001) and MIX (−4.1 ml O2 kg−1 km−1, 95% CI: –−5.6 to −2.6 ml O2 kg−1 km −1, p < 0.001), whereas no difference between MIX and TRA could be detected (95% CI: −3.4 to 0.8 ml O2 kg−1 km−1, p = 0.269). Differences in O2 cost between shoes were independent of speed. Perceived effort was lower for CBE compared with TRA only (−0.2 points, 95% CI −0.4 to −0.1 points), whereas no differences were detected for perceived comfort between any of the shoes (p = 0.377). No clear effect of footwear was detected for cadence, ground contact time, or leg stiffness. Comparing the most and least liked shoe models revealed preference for both lower O2 cost and higher comfort, with larger effect sizes for comfort.

AFT shoes can provide meaningful metabolic savings even at very low running speeds, with no distinguishable speed-dependence, which cannot be explained by changes in spatiotemporal variables. AFT shoes for recreational runners should be further improved to maintain metabolic efficiency while not sacrificing perceived comfort, which is a stronger determinant of shoe preference.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-026-00977-3.

Early research suggests that improvements in running economy from advanced footwear technology shoes are limited to high running speeds.We demonstrate that advanced footwear technology shoes improve running economy in speeds ranging from 7.5 to 12.0 km h−1 in moderately trained runners, with no discernible speed-dependent effect.We further show that shoes prioritizing energy return and softness over shoe mass led to a decrement in running economy in this population compared with advanced footwear technology shoes, with no noticeable gains in perceived comfort.

Early research suggests that improvements in running economy from advanced footwear technology shoes are limited to high running speeds.

We demonstrate that advanced footwear technology shoes improve running economy in speeds ranging from 7.5 to 12.0 km h−1 in moderately trained runners, with no discernible speed-dependent effect.

We further show that shoes prioritizing energy return and softness over shoe mass led to a decrement in running economy in this population compared with advanced footwear technology shoes, with no noticeable gains in perceived comfort.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-026-00977-3.