ArticlePloS one2025
How does it feel to run in minimalist and advanced footwear technology shoes: A qualitative study involving male recreational runners.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined the perceptions and experiences of male recreational runners when using minimalist racing flats (FLAT, Saucony Endorphin Racer 2) and advanced footwear technology (AFT, Nike Vaporfly 4%) shoes, compared with their habitual shoes (OWN). Eighteen runners completed three 1.5 km outdoor trials, running in OWN first, followed by FLAT and AFT in a randomised counter-balanced order. Semi-structured interviews conducted before and after each trial provided qualitative data, analysed using a six-phase reflexive thematic approach. Five interconnected themes emerged: 'novelty and familiarity', 'feel', 'performance', 'biomechanics', and 'injury'. Runners' perceptions were shaped by iterative feedback loops combining experiential, educated, and instinctual assessments. OWN shoes were generally ranked highest for comfort and lowest for perceived injury risk due to familiarity and balanced design. Novel shoes elicited mixed reactions. FLAT shoes were valued for their lightweight and natural feel, but raised concerns about discomfort and potential injury from minimal cushioning and support. AFT shoes were appreciated for their bounciness and performance potential, but raised concerns about instability and excessive cushioning. Findings indicate that footwear comfort is multifaceted, context-dependent, and not always aligned with performance or injury reduction. Runners often prioritised performance over comfort in competitive scenarios, highlighting the inherent trade-offs in footwear selection and the importance of personalised approaches. Concerns about injury and biomechanics changes underscore the need for gradual transitions to novel footwear. By adopting a real-world approach, this study advances understanding of footwear perceptions, emphasises the dynamic and subjective nature of runners' experiences, and offers practical implications for runners, clinicians, and shoe manufacturers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.