Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Carbon-plated shoes show minimal biomechanical impact in healthy adults

Carbon-plated shoes show minimal biomechanical impact in healthy adults
Photo by National Cancer Institute / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Carbon-plated shoes show no consistent biomechanical advantage over non-carbon-plated shoes in healthy adults.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of fifteen studies evaluated the biomechanical effects of carbon-plated running shoes (CPS) versus non-carbon-plated shoes (NCPS) in healthy adults aged 18 to 70. The primary outcomes were step frequency, leg stiffness, and joint power at the metatarsophalangeal, ankle, knee, and hip.

The analysis found no significant differences in leg stiffness, knee power, hip power, or metatarsophalangeal power between CPS and NCPS. Effect sizes were small and confidence intervals included zero, indicating no meaningful change.

A borderline reduction in ankle power was observed with CPS, but this finding was not supported by other joint measures. Step frequency showed a non-significant decrease, suggesting subtle adaptations rather than systematic redistribution of lower-limb mechanics.

Limitations include low to moderate certainty in the evidence, and adverse events were not reported. The findings indicate that CPS do not produce consistent biomechanical changes compared to NCPS in healthy runners.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedMay 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Carbon-plated running shoes (CPS) combine compliant foams with embedded carbon-fiber plates to increase longitudinal bending stiffness and potentially improve running economy. However, whether CPS systematically alter running biomechanics compared with non-carbon-plated shoes (NCPS) remains unclear. To quantify the biomechanical effects of CPS in healthy adults. A systematic review and meta-analysis of crossover trials comparing CPS vs. NCPS was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD420251058609). Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Scopus, LILACS, and Embase (July 2025). Eligible studies included healthy adults (18–70 years) running in CPS and NCPS. Outcomes were step frequency (steps·min−¹), leg stiffness (kN·m−¹), and peak positive joint power (W·kg−¹) at the metatarsophalangeal (MTP), ankle, knee, and hip. Random-effects models were used to estimate standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Fifteen studies were included. No significant differences were observed between CPS and NCPS for leg stiffness (SMD = −0.12; 95% CI: −0.46 to 0.23; p = 0.44), knee power (SMD = 0.21; 95% CI: −0.10 to 0.52; p = 0.12), hip power (SMD = −0.23; 95% CI: −1.36 to 0.90; p = 0.56), or MTP power (SMD = 0.13; 95% CI: −1.87 to 2.12; p = 0.85). A borderline reduction in ankle power was observed with CPS (SMD = −0.71; 95% CI: −1.42 to 0.00; p = 0.05). Step frequency showed a small, non-significant decrease (SMD = −0.16; 95% CI: −0.32 to 0.01; p = 0.06). Certainty ranged from low to moderate. CPS do not produce consistent changes in joint power or leg stiffness compared with NCPS. Biomechanical adaptations appear subtle, with possible distal joint effects but no systematic redistribution of lower-limb mechanics.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.