Back

Supershoes or Superhumans? A controlled analysis of sex-specific road-running performance evolution in the era of advanced footwear technology

Blattmann, L.; Hamacher, D.; Tucker, R.; Healey, L.; Mason, J.

2026-07-03 physiology
10.64898/2026.07.03.736031 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Advanced footwear technology (AFT) improves running economy and is widely credited with recent performance improvements in road running, with observational analyses consistently demonstrating that women have improved more than men. In contrast, laboratory studies generally report similar running economy responses to AFT in both sexes, leaving the observational-experimental divergence unresolved. A fundamental limitation of observational work is the absence of a control condition, making it impossible to separate AFT-related gains from concurrent performance trends. We addressed this by comparing performances between pre-AFT (2009-2015) and AFT (2017-2024) eras across road-running events (10km, half marathon, marathon) and throwing events (shot put, discus, javelin, hammer), the latter serving as an active control condition subject to the same broad athletic trends but unaffected by footwear technology. The top 50 performances per event, era, and sex were converted to World Athletics points and analysed using linear mixed-effects models. Performances improved significantly between eras ({beta} = 0.294, p < .001), with gains substantially larger in road running than in throwing ({beta} = 0.731, p < .001). The sex-specific pattern of improvement also differed between event categories (era x event type x sex interaction, {beta} = 0.786, p < .001): road-running improvements were greater in women than men (4.51% vs 2.62%), whereas throwing improvements did not differ by sex (0.93% vs 1.14%). These findings suggest that AFT benefits women more than men in competition, whether through a greater physiological response or more effective translation of economy gains to race performance, and suggest current laboratory protocols may be insufficiently sensitive to detect potential sex-specific effects.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 11%
18.2%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 3%
11.7%
3
Journal of Experimental Biology
259 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
9.5%
4
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.1%
5
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 30%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
6
Experimental Physiology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
7
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.0%
8
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
9
Journal of Applied Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
10
European Journal of Applied Physiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
11
The Journal of Experimental Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
12
Journal of Biomechanics
64 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.3%
13
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
14
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
15
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
16
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 36%
1.1%
17
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
18
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
19
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
20
The Journal of Physiology
150 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
21
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
22
Biology Open
156 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
23
Acta Physiologica
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
24
European Journal of Neuroscience
189 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
25
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
36 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
26
Hormones and Behavior
45 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
27
PNAS Nexus
159 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
28
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 36%
0.6%
29
Physiological Reports
40 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%