For fifty years, major brands have invested billions in research to reduce injuries and improve runners’ performance. Problem: almost all of these innovations were designed for men’s feet. This is the clear finding of a study published in the journal BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, and relayed by Newsweek, which dismantles half a century of biased design.
“Our findings highlight a critical gap in running shoe design, historically based on male anatomy and biomechanics”write the authors. Their conclusion: we must put an end to the practice of “shrink it and pink it — or how the female versions are just the pink and miniature version of the male product.
Most running shoes are designed using a 3D mold that reproduces the shape of a male foot. To make the model feminine, we simply reduce the size and often play with color. On the other hand, the specific morphology of the female foot – more pronounced arch, narrower heel, wider forefoot – remains ignored.
The Canadian research teams behind the study recruited 21 runners, aged 20 to 70, divided between occasional runners and competitors. Their weekly mileage ranged from 19 to 28 miles (30 to 45 km), and several had run during or after pregnancy.
What women want
When asked about their priorities, participants placed comfort first, ahead of injury prevention and performance. Most asked for a wider forefoot, narrower heel and more cushioning. Experienced athletes said they appreciated the carbon plates, which were supposed to improve performance, but not at the expense of comfort.
Women were primarily looking for shoes capable of limiting injuries – a major issue in a sport where stress fractures and ligament pain more frequently affect female runners. The role of the seller remained crucial: expertise and specialist advice often guided the purchase more than the brand itself.
Mothers who continued running during pregnancy or postpartum expressed a clear need: more support, width and stability. Older women demanded more cushioned insoles, better suited to reduced bone density or slower recovery. “Needs change with age, pregnancy or training load”underlines the study; an observation rarely taken into account by manufacturers.
For decades, the marketing of women’s sports has been content to adapt what exists to the “supposed tastes” of women – pastel colors, narrower cuts and gendered motivational speeches. But the BMJ’s work reminds us that it is not just a question of aesthetics: it is an issue of health, performance and inclusion.
Researchers are calling on brands to design real specific ranges, based on the biomechanical data of the female foot and on the social realities of sport: differentiated practices, maternity periods, morphological diversity. “Preferences and bodies change throughout life”they insist, and the collections should reflect this.
Even if the sample remains limited (21 women in Vancouver), this study is part of an underlying trend. Several brands, aware of the delay, are starting to develop truly gendered technologies, like certain adaptive soles inspired by women’s running research.
