Dear sports footwear manufacturers, 

Women’s foot anatomy, biomechanics and life stages are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from men’s! 

And also, female-based designs might boost women’s COMFORT and INJURY PREVENTION and PERFORMANCE! 

Shocker! 

Sincerely,

Every female runner in existence. 

---

In all seriousness, news has come through the wire that sports footwear brands are being urged to abandon the outdated ‘shrink it and pink’ approach to women’s running shoes, as new research highlights that most designs fail to meet the anatomical and biomechanical needs of women across different life stages. 

What women want

The study published in BMJ Open Sports & Exercise Medicine has found that women’s running shoes – often smaller, lighter, and coloured differently from men’s – are rarely designed with female anatomy in mind. 

Instead, most are built using a ‘last’ or foot-shaped mould, based on the male foot. 

The researchers argue that this approach overlooks critical differences between men’s and women’s feet, including width, arch height and heel shape, as well as life-stage changes during pregnancy, postpartum and ageing. 

“Female-, rather than male-based, designs might not only boost women runners’ comfort, but also enhance injury prevention, and their performance,” say the researchers.

The study, which involved 21 recreational and competitive runners aged 20–70 from Vancouver, Canada, explored what women prioritise in running shoe design. 

Comfort, injury prevention and performance topped the list. 

Participants wanted a wider toe box, a narrower heel and greater cushioning. 

Competitive runners valued performance-enhancing features, such as carbon plates, provided they didn’t sacrifice comfort. 

Mothers in the study reported needing larger, more supportive shoes during and after pregnancy, while older runners sought added cushioning to accommodate age-related changes. 

‘Women’s needs aren’t proactively met through current footwear’

This study involved only a small number of participants, and the researchers acknowledge that participants came from a specific geographical area, which may limit the generalisability of the findings.

Nevertheless, they suggest: “Overall, our findings highlight a critical gap in the design of running footwear, which has been traditionally based on male anatomy and biomechanics.

“While participants did not always report an inability to find footwear, their narratives reflected a process of trial-and-error adaptation, often without guidance or purpose-built solutions. 

“This suggests that their needs are not proactively addressed through current footwear design or communication.”

And they conclude: “We strongly recommend that the footwear industry should move beyond simply scaling down men’s shoes to fit women’s feet. 

“Instead, there is a need for sex- and gender-specific designs that accommodate the distinct foot morphology of women and their social constructs and preferences, all of which evolve across the lifespan.”