GEAR FOCUS
Zero drop or stability? Pronation or supination? The running shoe market is hugely diverse and, at times, confusing and costly. But fear not, because Jack Sexty’s here with his guide on the present and future of running shoes for tri...
Our complete guide to the run shoe market, the future of shoe tech and the six best pairs to buy
Lacing up your trainers and heading out the door is the simplest of the three triathlon disciplines, and should be one of your most straightforward multisport purchases, right? Think again, because choosing running shoes can be a minefield of decisions and choices, from zero drop contenders to maximal offerings, heavily-cushioned shoes to barefoot running alternatives. And that’s before factoring in budget, your traditional triathlon distances and, yes, the allimportant aesthetics…
Much of this convoluted decision process is necessary because running traditionally causes more injuries than swimming and biking. So gaining some understanding of the things that make contact with the tarmac, trails, treadmill or track will go some way towards making sure you prevent niggles with footwear that works for you.
A good place to start is to learn how your feet actually hit the ground as your stride, which you can find out by getting a gait analysis at any good running shop. If you ask nicely, a running coach could also take a look at your stride and gait during controlled efforts (at a track session,
for example), but the more nuanced details of your technique will be revealed with close-up footage captured while you run on a treadmill. Gait analysis is free in all running shops we’ve come across, and takes about 15 minutes.
BEST FOOT FORWARD
Runners are roughly categorised by how far forward/far back the foot lands at the beginning of each foot strike, and on which side it tends to roll. We split the former into heel, midfoot and forefoot strikers. Although heel striking is generally thought of as an inefficient way of running because of the longer ground contact time, around 80% of us land with the heel first.
The barefoot running movement popularised the notion that midfoot or forefoot striking is more efficient, so minimal shoes with limited heelto-toe drop (usually from 0-5mm) were made to encourage this style of landing. Heel-to-toe drop is the difference in height between the heel and the toe of the shoe, and, generally, more supportive shoes made for heel strikers and/or those who overpronate will have a greater drop to cushion the landing all the way through the stride. Racier, lightweight shoes tend to have a drop from around 8mm down to nothing at all.
If you’re a habitual heel striker, it isn’t all bad news. Numerous studies suggest it’s more efficient to heel strike at speeds down to 4:20mins/km, and trying to change it could lead to trouble. A 2017 study in the Journal of Sport and Health Science found no obvious benefit in changing from heel to forefoot striking and, in some cases, participants got injured by placing greater stress on tissue that isn’t usually put under so much load. Rather than trying to get up on your toes like Alistair Brownlee, sticking with your natural strike pattern is recommended.
Pronation refers to how your foot rolls when it hits the ground. Overpronation means that the foot rolls inwards excessively on landing; supination or underpronation is when you land heavily with the outside of the foot and it roll inwards. Those lucky enough to have a neutral gait still land on the outer edge of the foot, but it rolls in a controlled manner that distributes weight more evenly. Overpronators will generally want a stability shoe that offers more support and cushioning to even out the extra forces being applied to the more delicate inner edge of the foot, while underpronators/neutral runners are best with neutral shoes.
PLATE EXPECTATIONS
The information above would suggest stability options are more supportive and pillow-like underfoot, while neutral shoes are low to the ground and aggressive. Yet that’s not always the case, and the latest wave of cutting-edge kicks from the likes of Hoka One One and Nike – the first and second most popular shoe brands at the Ironman Worlds in 2018 – have foam and cushioning that provide propulsion rather than support.
Nike’s Zoom Vaporfly 4% shoe (Nike claim it improves running efficiency by 4%), seem to have been on the feet of every major marathon winner since the first prototypes were launched back in 2017. The most notable is Eliud Kipchoge, who obliterated the marathon record in Berlin last year with a time of 2:01:39. In 2018, one of the first independent studies published in
Sports Medical reported improvements of between 1.2 – 4.2% in 24 runners wearing the Vaporflys compared to the Adidas Adizero Boost during four sets of five minute treadmill efforts.
Another 2018 study involving 10 male competitive runners concluded that the extra energy return is actually coming from the incredibly flexible and resilient foam in the midsole, what Nike call ZoomX. The carbon plate, which is bent slightly at the forefoot, acts as a lever that
“It’s just a question of when not if, all major run shoe brands will produce carbon-injected shoes”
rolls the toe forward, allowing the foam to work its magic without adding extra load to the ankles.
Hoka’s recently launched Carbon X employs similar technology, with one of their sponsored ultramarathoners, Jim Walmsley, breaking the 50-mile world record wearing the shoes in May.
But what about running shoes that offer triathlon-specific advantages? Unlike tri wetsuits and bikes, there’s yet to be a running shoe that offers any real performance improvements, just practical ones in the form of built-in quick-tie laces and perhaps a heel loop at the rear to help you pull them on quickly in T2. Multiple ITU world champion, Spencer Smith, says: “I’ve used both tri-specific running shoes and traditional racing flats and, although it’s a personal choice, I felt no advantage using a tri-specific shoe.”
TECH TAKEDOWN?
With plenty of evidence pointing towards carbon-injected shoes with extra squishy midsoles providing performance benefits, it appears that it’s just a question of when, not if, all the major running shoe brands will follow suit with their own take. Unless, however, we see Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)-style rules implemented in running to halt the influence of technology on performance.
A similar situation arose in competition swimming in the early 2000s, when swimmers began wearing a cutting-edge full bodysuit from Speedo that was purported to decrease drag by up to 24%. Swimming’s governing body decided the advantage was too great, and banned it in 2009.
Should running shoe tech follow suit? Smith disagrees. “If you look at what the UCI has done in the past and is currently doing now – for example, what sock length a rider can wear, among other super picky regulations – it’s overstepping the mark. I love to see innovation, and I’m a big believer in using whatever legal means available to improve performance.”
One of the most exciting developments in recent years is the prospect of 3D-printed shoes. It’s already been explored by the US brand Brooks in partnership with tech giants HP. Their FitStation platform makes a 3D scan of the foot, which, along with a gait analysis, then creates 3D-printed orthotic insoles. Adidas showed their 3D-printed prototype back in 2016, while Nike revealed their first 3D-printed upper last year.
FUTURE FOCUS
So what does the future of trispecific running shoes hold? Those with good memories and eagle eyes may have noticed that the gold medal-winning Australian mixed relay team at last year’s Commonwealth Games used the same shoes for both the bike and run legs. As the bike leg was short and flat, they simply decided the time saved in transition was worth it over the extra stiffness provided by being clipped in. So will we ever see a purpose-built triathlon shoe for the bike and run?
William Watt of Specialized can’t see it happening, as bike and run shoes are built to cope with such different demands placed on your feet and limbs. “Given our investment and commitment towards both Retül and Body Geometry to optimise a rider’s experience on the bike, the answer would be no at this time. The body performs in a different way biomechanically when riding compared to running, and the shoe support required is completely different to optimise performance, even before you consider the pedal retention system.”
So where do running shoes go from here? It’ll be interesting to see how the competition responds to the carbon tech now being used by Nike and Hoka, especially since a study has recently suggested this isn’t necessarily the component providing the performance gains in Nike’s 4% shoe. 3D printing technologies are also an exciting development – the idea of a shoe totally custom-made to suit your biomechanics is one that’ll surely offer benefits to us all.