1
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:13020  
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39718-x
www.nature.com/scientificreports
Gender differences in footwear 
characteristics between half 
and full marathons in China: 
a cross‑sectional survey
Yuyu Xia 1,11, Siqin Shen 2,3,4,11, Sheng‑Wei Jia 1,5*, Jin Teng 6, Yaodong Gu 2, Gusztáv Fekete 4, 
Tamás Korim 7, Haotian Zhao 8, Qiang Wei 9 & Fan Yang 5,10*
There are concerns about the risk of injuries caused by marathons in China. Since male and female 
runners have different injury risks, gender differences in running shoe functionality should be 
further complemented. A supervised questionnaire survey of 626 marathon runners was collected. 
The questionnaire was categorized into four sections: (1) participant profile, (2) importance of shoe 
properties, (3) functional evaluation of shoe properties and (4) importance ranking of shoe properties. 
The Mann–Whitney U test, Fisher’s exact test of cross tabulation and Chi‑square test, and two‑way 
ANOVA were used to analyze the results of this survey. The significance level was set at P < 0.05. 
The full marathon participants were older than the half marathon participants. There was no gender 
difference in the importance of shoe features to elite runners. In addition, women are more concerned 
about upper elasticity and have higher requirements for running shoes than men. Women were more 
focused on injury prevention, while men were more focused on running performance. Heel cushioning 
was identified by all participants as the most important running shoe feature. There were no gender 
differences between elite players’ demand for running shoes, but significant gender differences were 
found between genders at other running levels.
In recent years, marathon running has gained tremendous popularity in China. The number of national marathon 
and road running events surged from 51 in 2014 to a staggering 1828 in 2019, representing an increase of over 
30 times in just five years. Furthermore, the total number of participants reached an impressive 7.12 million, 
showing a significant 22.22% increase compared to the previous  year1. This surge in participation reflects the 
fact that marathons are no longer limited to talented runners but have become inclusive, attracting individuals 
of all ages and skill  levels2. However, alongside the rise in popularity and participation, the occurrence of long-
distance running-related injuries has also  increased3. Consequently, scholars have directed their attention towards 
studying the biomechanics, performance, and sports equipment related to  running4–6. Among the various fac-
tors that impact running, the choice of running shoes has emerged as a critical consideration for  runners7. I In 
marathons, running shoes serve the primary purposes of protecting runners’ feet from friction and cushioning 
the impact force generated during ground contact. This impact force can reach levels ranging from 2 to 5 times 
the body weight, potentially leading to running-related  injuries8–10. Research has demonstrated that altering 
footwear properties can influence the movement characteristics of runners, thereby affecting both their sports 
performance and the risk of  injuries11–13, For instance, tuning the forefoot longitudinal bending stiffness of run-
ning shoes can reduce energy loss in lower limb joints and improve overall running  performance11; Similarly, 
increasing midsole thickness has been found to enhance the moment arm of the lower extremity, optimizing the 
running mechanism and improving running  economy12,13.
OPEN
1School of Social Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. 2Faculty of Sports Science, Ningbo University, 
Ningbo, China. 3Faculty of Engineering, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, Hungary. 4Savaria Institute of 
Technology, Eötvös Loránd University, Szombathely, Hungary. 5Li Ning Sports Science Research Center, Li Ning 
(China) Sports Goods Company Limited, Beijing, China. 6Department of Sports Biomechanics, Beijing Sport 
University, Beijing, China. 7Department of Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Pannonia, 
Veszprém, Hungary. 8Department of Physical Education, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China. 9Department 
of Physical Education, Tangshan Normal University, Tangshan, China. 10Department of Physical Education and 
Research, China University of Mining and Technology-Beijing, Beijing 100083, China. 11These authors contributed 
equally: Yuyu Xia and Siqin Shen. *email: jiashengwei@li-ning.com.cn; yangfan6@li-ning.com.cn
2
Vol:.(1234567890)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:13020  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39718-x
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
In addition to the increasing popularity of marathon running, there has been a notable rise in the number 
of female participants. In 2020, over 50 million Americans participated in running or jogging, with only 9% of 
the participants being male (Rizzo, N. Statistics. 120 + Running Statistics 2021/2022. Available online: https:// 
runre peat. com/ resea rch- marat hon- perfo rmance- across- natio ns (accessed on 7 March 2020).). Studies suggest 
that long-distance running strategies should be tailored based on gender, age, and the specific event a runner 
is training  for14. Males and females exhibit differences in anatomical characteristics in long-distance running. 
Female runners tend to demonstrate a greater range of movement in their hip and knee joints compared to male 
runners, which results in lower joint stability for females compared to  males15. These findings highlight the 
distinct needs of males and females when it comes to sports equipment. However, current footwear developers 
primarily produce female running shoes based on scaled-down versions of male lasts, which is an unreasonable 
approach for female runners. It is evident that shoe construction should consider the differences in foot shape 
and running characteristics between males and females, as well as the specific demands of  runners16–18. It is evi-
dent that such an approach is unreasonable for female runners. Shoe construction should take into account the 
differences in foot shape and running characteristics between males and females, as well as the specific demands 
of the  runners8,16,19. In comparison to the large number of participants in distance running, only a select few 
individuals, such as footwear designers and manufacturers, have the expertise to design and determine the con-
struction of running  shoes20. While there is an abundance of studies and theories on the biomechanical aspects of 
Chinese long-distance running, such as kinetics and lower limb  kinematics15,16,21,22. While previous studies have 
investigated the characteristics of sports shoes for various activities such as gym workouts, football, basketball, 
tennis, and badminton using  questionnaires23–27, limited information is available regarding the specific require-
ments of running shoes for marathon runners. Therefore, the self-perception of marathon runners when wearing 
running shoes remains an important aspect that requires further investigation and analysis. Understanding how 
marathon runners perceive the characteristics of their running shoes is crucial for designing footwear that meets 
their specific needs and enhances their overall running experience and performance.
Therefore, the purpose of this cross-sectional study is to examine gender differences in the perception of 
running shoe requirements among participants of different performance levels in Chinese full/half marathons. 
By doing so, we aim to contribute to the improvement of running shoe design by taking into account gender-
specific and other individual characteristic demands".
Methods
Study design and participants. 
This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Hangzhou Marathon 
held by the China Athletics Association (Hangzhou, China) in November 2019. The basic inclusion criteria were: 
above 18 years old, demonstrating regular participation in long-distance running by engaging in the activity at 
least four times per week for the past six months, and having participated in at least one competition of more 
than 5 km, including both full marathon (42.195 km) and half marathon (21.0975 km) races. The exclusion 
criteria were: lower limb surgery or neurological injury.
Sample size calculation. 
The sample size for this study was determined using the online Sample Size Cal-
culator (Raosoft Inc., Seattle, WA, USA, raosoft.com). Considering a 5% margin of error, 95% confidence inter-
val, and 50% response distribution, a sample size of 381 was recommended. It is worth noting that approximately 
36,000 runners were enrolling in the marathon’s competitions. A total of 822 runners were approached, and 626 
runners returned their responses and consented to participate in the study, resulting in a response rate of 76.2%.
Instruments and data collection. 
Data were collected through a supervised questionnaire that consisted 
of four sections. The questionnaire was categorized into four sections: (1) participant profile, (2) importance of 
shoe properties, (3) functional evaluation of shoe properties, and (4) importance ranking of shoe properties. All 
questionnaires were conducted after the participants finished the competition.
In the first section, participant profiles were obtained, including information such as gender, age, body height, 
body weight, race distance (full Marathon (42.195 km) or Half Marathon (21.0975 km)), and finish time.
The second section assessed the importance of various shoe properties as common requirements during 
running. The evaluated variables included forefoot curvature, forefoot bending stiffness, forefoot elasticity, heel 
curvature, heel cup, heel height, heel cushioning, midfoot anti-twist, midsole hardness, midsole thickness, out-
sole grip, guidance line, insole shape, upper breathability, upper elasticity, carbon fiber plate, shoelace, and shoe 
mass. Participants indicated their preferences on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly unimportant) 
to 5 (Extremely important).
In the third section, participants were asked to evaluate whether specific shoe properties improve running 
performance or prevent sports injuries. The shoe properties assessed were the same as those in section two, 
and participants provided ratings using references A (Not important for running performance or preventing 
injuries), B (Important for running performance), C (Important for prevention of injuries), and D (Important 
for both running performance and prevention of injuries). The fourth section involved participants ranking the 
importance of shoe properties, and they selected the top three properties they deemed most important.
This study referred to the “Chinese Athletics Association Marathon Runners Level Evaluation Standards,” and 
the participants were classified into the following age groups: 18–29 years, 30–34 years, 35–39 years, 40–44 years, 
45–49 years, 50–54 years, 55–59 years, 60–64 years, and 65 + years. Furthermore, each participant’s finish time 
was divided into the following performance groups: elite-level (87 runners), first-level (191 runners), second-
level (210 runners), and third-level (138 runners) (As shown in Supplementary Table S1).
3
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:13020  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39718-x
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Ethical considerations. 
The research protocol was reviewed and approved by the Li Ning Institutional 
Ethics Committee in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (approval code: LN-
IRB-2019-003). Prior to participation, all participants were provided with detailed information regarding the 
purpose and content of the study. Informed consent was obtained from each participant. The research did not 
involve human clinical trials or animal testing.
Data validity and collection. 
To ensure the consistency and reliability of the factor loadings, Cronbach’s 
α coefficient was employed in this study, resulting in a value of 0.874, which indicated acceptable reliability of 
the questionnaire. The suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed using the Bartlett spherical test and 
the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test. The KMO value of 0.905 indicated that the questionnaire data were suit-
able for factor analysis. Furthermore, the Bartlett’s test result  (X2 = 3017.032, df = 153, P = 0.000) confirmed the 
necessity of the analysis.
The questionnaire was administered in the field, and participants completed it under the supervision of 
researchers who provided guidance to ensure the validity of the data. Researchers explained the definitions of 
footwear and foot-related terminology to avoid misunderstandings, particularly for participants with limited 
knowledge of footwear construction. Additionally, researchers ensured that participants did not provide ran-
dom or missing answers, thus maintaining the questionnaire’s quality. All questionnaires were completed after 
participants finished the competition.
Data analysis. 
Descriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics of the participants in the first 
section of the study. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was conducted on the data from the second and third sec-
tions, which revealed that the data did not conform to a normal distribution (P < 0.05). Therefore, non-paramet-
ric tests were used for further analysis. The Mann–Whitney U test was employed to analyze gender differences 
in the “Importance of shoe properties” section, and Fisher’s Exact Test of Cross tabulation and Chi-square test 
were used for the analysis of the “Functional evaluation of shoe properties” section. Two-way ANOVA was used 
to analyze the interaction characteristics of gender and race within the context of our cross-sectional survey 
investigating gender differences in footwear characteristics between half and full marathons in China. The sig-
nificance level was set at P < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, 
IL, USA). All figures in this study were created using Origin 2021 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, 
USA).
Result
Characteristics of the participants. 
A total of 626 questionnaires were collected in this study. The basic 
information of the participants is presented in Table 1, and all respondents gave informed consent and partici-
pated voluntarily. As shown below, most runners were males (76.2%), male and female participants in the full 
marathon were older than the half marathon, and females had lower body mass index (BMI) values than males.
Furthermore, this study used two-way ANOVA to analyze the interaction characteristics of gender and race 
in this survey, and found that there was no interaction between gender and race items on BMI  [F(1,622) = 1.789, 
P = 0.182, η2 = 0.002]. The main effect analysis showed that gender  (F(1,622) = 34.290, P < 0.001, η2 = 0.052) and 
race events  [F(1,622) = 1.789, P < 0.05, η2 = 0.008)] had significant effects on BMI, respectively. For race items, the 
BMI values of males in both the full marathon and half marathon were significantly higher than that of females 
(P = 0.001, 0.000). For gender, males who participated in the half marathon had a significantly higher BMI value 
than the full marathon (P = 0.001), but there was no significant difference in females.
Importance of shoe properties. 
In Table 2, females were more concerned about upper elasticity than 
males, and females’ demand for running shoes was generally higher than males. The Mann–Whitney U test 
found no gender differences in evaluating the importance of shoe properties by elite-level runners in the full 
marathon. Compared with first-level male runners, females rated forefoot bending stiffness and upper elastic-
ity as higher importance (P = 0.044, 0.001). For second-level runners, females reported higher importance of 
midsole hardness and upper elasticity than males (P = 0.024, 0.007). In addition, the importance scores of upper 
elasticity and shoelace in the third-level female runners were significantly higher than those of the male runners 
(P = 0.043, 0.046).
For half-marathon runners, there were no gender differences in the evaluation of shoe properties’ importance 
between elite-level and second-level runners, and the differences were mainly found in first- and third-level 
Table 1.  Characteristics of participants.
Gender
Male (n = 478)
Female (n = 148)
Race
Half marathon (n = 129)
Full marathon (n = 349)
Half marathon (n = 79)
Full marathon (n = 69)
Mean ± SD
Mean ± SD
Mean ± SD
Mean ± SD
Age (yr.)
35.4 ± 8.3
37.4 ± 9.6
37.3 ± 9.1
41.3 ± 9.9
Body height (cm)
173.3 ± 5.5
172.1 ± 5.5
160.1 ± 5.0
161.1 ± 5.3
Body weight (kg)
70.8 ± 11.7
66.6 ± 9.0
54.7 ± 8.8
54.0 ± 11.3
BMI (kg/m2)
23.6 ± 3.6
22.3 ± 3.3
21.1 ± 3.0
21.0 ± 4.4
4
Vol:.(1234567890)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:13020  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39718-x
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
participants. Table 3 showed that the importance score of forefoot elasticity for first-level female runners was 
significantly lower than that of males (P = 0.034). Third-level female runners rated upper elasticity as more 
important than males (P = 0.017), while third-level males reported higher importance of carbon fiber plate and 
shoe mass (P = 0.028, 0.022).
Functional evaluation of shoe properties. 
The Fisher’s Exact Test was used to compare males’ and 
females’ functional evaluation of shoe properties.
Table 2.  Gender differences in full-marathon participants’ perceptions of the importance of shoe properties 
(Mean ± SD). *Indicates a significant difference, P < 0.05.
Shoe function
Elite-level
P
First-level
P
Second-level
p
Third-level
P
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Forefoot curvature
3.83 ± 0.72
3.33 ± 1.49
0.549
3.54 ± 0.81
3.80 ± 0.63
0.104
3.46 ± 0.84
3.35 ± 0.70
0.509
3.32 ± 0.87
3.73 ± 0.77
0.103
Forefoot bending stiffness
3.97 ± 0.81
3.17 ± 1.07
0.054
3.74 ± 0.95
4.16 ± 0.61
0.044*
3.82 ± 0.89
4.00 ± 0.72
0.370
3.60 ± 0.82
3.87 ± 0.62
0.258
Forefoot elasticity
4.23 ± 0.78
3.50 ± 1.26
0.129
4.00 ± 0.92
4.16 ± 0.78
0.482
3.95 ± 0.80
4.04 ± 0.75
0.658
3.77 ± 0.82
3.73 ± 0.77
0.624
Heel curvature
3.69 ± 0.93
3.00 ± 1.00
0.170
3.37 ± 0.90
3.56 ± 0.80
0.341
3.50 ± 0.86
3.43 ± 0.71
0.572
3.43 ± 0.88
3.33 ± 0.94
0.876
Heel cup
3.60 ± 0.82
3.50 ± 1.26
0.782
3.82 ± 0.82
3.60 ± 0.75
0.204
3.88 ± 0.82
3.65 ± 0.81
0.219
3.43 ± 0.88
3.60 ± 1.02
0.675
Heel height
3.80 ± 0.86
4.17 ± 0.37
0.301
3.68 ± 0.96
3.60 ± 0.75
0.631
3.60 ± 0.86
3.78 ± 1.02
0.259
3.50 ± 0.92
3.87 ± 0.72
0.167
Heel cushioning
4.33 ± 0.89
4.17 ± 1.07
0.814
4.34 ± 0.78
4.48 ± 0.64
0.486
4.40 ± 0.73
4.39 ± 0.64
0.795
4.37 ± 0.58
4.20 ± 0.91
0.773
Midfoot anti-twist
4.00 ± 0.83
3.50 ± 1.26
0.394
3.93 ± 0.87
4.12 ± 0.86
0.242
4.08 ± 0.87
4.17 ± 0.76
0.714
3.90 ± 0.85
3.67 ± 0.94
0.317
Midsole hardness
4.01 ± 0.78
4.17 ± 0.69
0.700
3.91 ± 0.82
4.24 ± 0.81
0.052
3.89 ± 0.90
4.35 ± 0.70
0.024
3.78 ± 0.84
3.87 ± 0.88
0.700
Midsole thickness
3.86 ± 0.80
3.33 ± 1.25
0.327
3.69 ± 0.83
4.04 ± 0.77
0.053
3.60 ± 0.85
3.96 ± 0.75
0.072
3.70 ± 0.84
3.67 ± 0.87
0.771
Outsole grip
4.29 ± 0.76
3.50 ± 1.26
0.102
4.21 ± 0.81
4.36 ± 0.62
0.503
4.14 ± 0.77
4.48 ± 0.50
0.072
3.93 ± 0.93
4.07 ± 0.85
0.744
Guidance Line
3.67 ± 0.86
3.00 ± 1.29
0.190
3.66 ± 0.86
3.92 ± 0.84
0.234
3.70 ± 0.82
4.04 ± 0.81
0.082
3.45 ± 0.90
3.20 ± 0.65
0.170
Insole shape
3.84 ± 0.92
3.17 ± 0.69
0.078
3.65 ± 0.81
3.68 ± 0.88
0.902
3.54 ± 0.86
3.83 ± 0.82
0.130
3.28 ± 0.82
3.47 ± 0.62
0.477
Upper breathability
4.10 ± 0.86
3.83 ± 0.90
0.516
4.11 ± 0.73
4.04 ± 0.66
0.514
4.16 ± 0.72
4.04 ± 0.55
0.325
3.93 ± 0.70
4.00 ± 0.73
0.787
Upper elasticity
4.03 ± 0.93
3.33 ± 1.11
0.127
3.74 ± 0.91
4.36 ± 0.56
0.001*
3.63 ± 0.92
4.17 ± 0.56
0.007*
3.53 ± 0.87
4.07 ± 0.77
0.043*
Carbon fiber plate
4.19 ± 0.87
3.67 ± 0.94
0.195
3.84 ± 0.97
3.84 ± 0.92
0.845
3.92 ± 0.85
3.74 ± 0.94
0.450
3.55 ± 0.94
3.73 ± 0.77
0.597
Shoelace
3.71 ± 0.93
3.67 ± 0.47
0.790
3.61 ± 0.94
3.68 ± 1.12
0.383
3.47 ± 0.77
3.65 ± 0.91
0.248
3.38 ± 0.80
3.93 ± 0.85
0.046*
Shoe mass
4.46 ± 0.73
4.33 ± 0.75
0.662
4.39 ± 0.77
4.44 ± 0.50
0.863
4.33 ± 0.67
4.57 ± 0.50
0.159
4.32 ± 0.65
4.33 ± 0.70
0.866
Table 3.  Gender differences in half-marathon participants’ perceptions of the importance of shoe properties 
(Mean ± SD). *Indicates a significant difference, P < 0.05.
Shoe function
Elite-level
P
First-level
P
Second-level
p
Third-level
P
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Forefoot curvature
3.63 ± 0.86
3.33 ± 0.47
0.510
3.54 ± 0.78
3.54 ± 0.76
0.960
3.40 ± 0.79
3.47 ± 0.62
0.714
3.54 ± 0.80
3.59 ± 0.78
0.826
Forefoot bending stiffness
3.38 ± 0.48
4.00 ± 0.00
0.077
3.93 ± 0.75
3.75 ± 0.60
0.198
3.75 ± 0.90
3.77 ± 0.96
0.859
3.85 ± 0.84
3.82 ± 0.89
0.963
Forefoot elasticity
3.75 ± 0.43
4.00 ± 0.82
0.623
4.18 ± 0.66
3.79 ± 0.71
0.034*
3.87 ± 0.94
3.87 ± 0.99
0.923
4.12 ± 0.67
3.82 ± 1.03
0.400
Heel curvature
3.38 ± 0.70
4.00 ± 0.82
0.323
3.36 ± 0.77
3.42 ± 0.70
0.951
3.46 ± 0.84
3.17 ± 0.69
0.137
3.29 ± 0.89
3.45 ± 0.72
0.560
Heel cup
3.75 ± 0.66
3.67 ± 0.47
0.909
3.29 ± 0.96
3.79 ± 0.82
0.072
3.48 ± 1.05
3.70 ± 0.74
0.555
3.78 ± 0.84
3.45 ± 0.84
0.153
Heel height
3.50 ± 0.87
3.67 ± 0.47
0.742
3.46 ± 0.91
3.67 ± 0.80
0.616
3.44 ± 0.93
3.60 ± 0.76
0.617
3.68 ± 0.75
3.55 ± 0.72
0.367
Heel cushioning
4.50 ± 0.71
4.33 ± 0.47
0.567
4.25 ± 0.69
4.25 ± 0.60
0.850
4.27 ± 0.96
4.37 ± 0.71
0.962
4.44 ± 0.66
3.95 ± 1.19
0.145
Midfoot anti-twist
4.38 ± 0.86
4.33 ± 0.47
0.735
3.68 ± 0.93
3.92 ± 0.64
0.435
3.73 ± 1.04
3.70 ± 0.69
0.551
4.05 ± 0.82
3.86 ± 1.01
0.562
Midsole hardness
3.75 ± 1.09
4.33 ± 0.47
0.456
3.75 ± 0.83
3.96 ± 1.02
0.271
3.90 ± 0.74
3.90 ± 0.75
0.846
3.93 ± 0.64
3.86 ± 1.01
0.864
Midsole thickness
3.25 ± 0.83
3.33 ± 0.47
0.722
3.43 ± 1.02
3.75 ± 0.83
0.357
3.50 ± 0.84
3.63 ± 0.60
0.571
3.49 ± 0.74
3.77 ± 0.79
0.173
Outsole grip
3.88 ± 1.05
3.33 ± 0.47
0.394
4.21 ± 0.56
3.88 ± 0.73
0.087
4.00 ± 0.90
3.83 ± 0.90
0.380
4.24 ± 0.73
3.86 ± 1.18
0.340
Guidance Line
3.88 ± 0.78
3.67 ± 0.47
0.741
3.57 ± 0.78
3.54 ± 0.71
0.863
3.42 ± 0.84
3.40 ± 0.92
0.933
3.63 ± 0.69
3.64 ± 0.71
0.974
Insole shape
3.75 ± 0.97
4.00 ± 0.00
0.737
3.25 ± 0.87
3.54 ± 0.64
0.328
3.37 ± 1.06
3.43 ± 0.80
0.980
3.59 ± 0.91
3.59 ± 0.78
0.847
Upper breathability
3.88 ± 0.33
4.00 ± 0.00
0.540
3.82 ± 0.71
3.92 ± 0.70
0.898
3.87 ± 1.02
3.93 ± 0.89
0.903
4.02 ± 0.78
4.00 ± 1.09
0.582
Upper elasticity
4.13 ± 0.78
4.33 ± 0.47
0.741
3.82 ± 0.80
3.83 ± 0.69
0.774
3.58 ± 0.93
3.90 ± 0.79
0.123
3.61 ± 0.85
4.09 ± 0.90
0.017*
Carbon fiber plate
3.50 ± 1.22
4.00 ± 0.00
0.515
3.75 ± 0.87
3.71 ± 0.61
0.797
3.62 ± 0.98
3.40 ± 0.71
0.291
3.73 ± 0.77
3.32 ± 0.55
0.028*
Shoelace
3.50 ± 1.41
3.67 ± 0.47
0.981
3.61 ± 0.90
3.58 ± 0.81
0.814
3.35 ± 0.96
3.23 ± 0.76
0.609
3.49 ± 0.83
3.36 ± 0.93
0.659
Shoe mass
3.88 ± 1.27
4.67 ± 0.47
0.323
4.43 ± 0.49
4.21 ± 0.58
0.186
3.98 ± 0.99
4.00 ± 0.77
0.718
4.37 ± 0.79
3.82 ± 1.07
0.022*
5
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:13020  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39718-x
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
This study found no gender differences in elite-level runners’ functional evaluations of shoe properties for 
full-marathon runners. There were significant gender differences in functional assessments of first-level runners 
in outsole grip, upper elasticity, shoe mass, and guidance line (P = 0.048, 0.002, 0.015, 0.001), as shown in Fig. 1.
Further conducted pairwise comparisons found that for outsole grip, 57% of males believed that this property 
was important in improving running performance, significantly higher than 32% of females (Fig. 1). Conversely, 
44% of females thought the outsole grip was important for preventing sports injuries, more than 21.1% of 
males. Compared with 4% of females, 35% of males believed that the upper elasticity was neither beneficial for 
improving running performance nor preventing sports injuries. However, 32% of women felt the upper elasticity 
was important for preventing sports injuries, significantly higher than 14% of males. In addition, 7% of males 
thought shoe mass was important for preventing sports injuries, markedly less than 24% of females. 44% of 
females believe that the importance of the guidance line was reflected in preventing sports injuries, and 4% of 
females considered that this property could prevent sports injuries and improve running performance, which 
was significantly higher than that of males.
Second-level participants’ functional evaluation of shoe properties found significant gender differences in 
outsole grip and midsole hardness (P = 0.046, 0.025), as shown in Fig. 2. For the outsole grip, 21.9% of males 
reported that the property was not crucial for running performance and injury prevention, and only 4.3% of 
females agreed with this, a significant difference. In contrast, 8.7% of females rated the characteristic as neces-
sary for running performance and injury prevention, significantly more than 1.9% of males. Their evaluation of 
the function of midsole hardness was similar, males (30.5%) who rated that midsole hardness was not crucial 
for both running performance and injuries prevention significantly over females (8.7%), and females who con-
sidered that midsole hardness was necessary for both running performance and injuries prevention (13%) were 
significantly more than males (2.9%).
Fisher’s Exact Test showed no gender differences in functional evaluations of shoe characteristics between 
elite and second-level runners for half-marathon participants. However, gender differences existed between 
first-level and third-level runners.
Specifically, there was a significant gender difference (P = 0.012) in the functional evaluation of outsole grip 
for first-level runners in the half marathon. A pairwise comparison found that 45.8% of females and 14.3% of 
males rated this feature unimportant for running performance and injury prevention (Fig. 3). The proportion 
of females was significantly higher than that of males. In addition, 50% of males considered that the property of 
Figure 1.  Gender differences in shoe properties functional perception of first-level participants in the full 
marathon. Note: (A) Not important for running performance and prevent injuries, (B) Important for running 
performance, (C) Important for prevent injuries, (D) Important for both running performance and prevent 
injuries. *Indicates a significant difference, P < 0.05.
6
Vol:.(1234567890)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:13020  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39718-x
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
outsole grip was essential to running performance, significantly more than 12.5% of women, which was statisti-
cally significant, as shown in Fig. 3.
In addition, there was a significant gender difference in functional evaluations of upper elasticity and forefoot 
bending stiffness among third-level runners (P = 0.011, 0.002). 46.3% of males and 13.6% of females thought 
upper elasticity was unrelated to running performance or injury prevention. However, 18.2% of females rated 
upper elasticity as necessary for injury prevention, significantly more than 2.4% of males.
Furthermore, 61% of males and 17.3% of females considered forefoot bending stiffness unimportant for run-
ning performance and injury prevention, indicating a statistically significant difference. However, 12.2% of males 
reported this function as important for injury prevention, significantly less than 45.5% of females. Compared 
to 0% of males, 9.1% of females reported that this feature was important for running performance and injury 
prevention, indicating a significant difference, as shown in Fig. 4.
Importance ranking of shoe properties. 
This study used descriptive statistics to conduct frequency 
statistics on the importance of shoe characteristics ranked by males and females in the full marathon and half 
marathon, respectively. Both males and females agreed that “heel cushioning” was the most critical running shoe 
feature, but there were differences in the ranking of other shoe features.
Specifically, the three properties that male full marathon participants rated as the most important were “heel 
cushioning,” “forefoot elasticity,” and “shoe mass.” The top three shoe traits for females were “heel cushioning,” 
“midfoot anti-twist,” and “forefoot bending stiffness,” as shown in Fig. 5.
Figure 2.  Gender differences in functional perception of shoe properties second-level participants in the full 
marathon. Note: (A) Not important for running performance and prevent injuries, (B) Important for running 
performance, (C) Important for prevent injuries, (D) Important for both running performance and prevent 
injuries. *Indicates a significant difference, P < 0.05.
Figure 3.  Gender differences in functional perception of shoe properties first-level participants in the half 
marathon. Note: (A) Not important for running performance and preventing injuries, (B) Important for 
running performance, (C) Important for preventing injuries, (D) Important for both running performance and 
preventing injuries. *Indicates a significant difference, P < 0.05.
7
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:13020  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39718-x
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Figure 4.  Gender differences in functional perception of shoe properties of third-level participants in the 
half marathon. Note: (A) Not important for running performance and preventing injuries, (B) Important for 
running performance, (C) Important for preventing injuries, (D) Important for both running performance and 
preventing injuries. *Indicates a significant difference, P < 0.05.
Figure 5.  Ranking of the importance of shoe properties. (A)- Full-male; (B)- Full-female; (C)- Half-male; (D)- 
Half-male;. The red box represents the top three ranked shoe characteristics.
8
Vol:.(1234567890)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:13020  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39718-x
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
In addition, half-marathon participants identified "heel cushioning," "midfoot anti-twist," and "forefoot elas-
ticity" as the three most important characteristics of shoes, as shown in Fig. 5. Furthermore, upon analyzing the 
data separately for male and female participants, we found that female participants rated "shoe mass" as one of 
their top three preferred characteristics, while male participants favored "forefoot elasticity" and "forefoot bend-
ing stiffness" as their preferred features".
Discussion
In this study, we observed a significantly higher number of male participants completing marathon races com-
pared to females. According to the "2019 China Marathon Big Data Report" released by the Chinese Athletics 
Association, the number of participants increased by 14.28% in 2019 compared to 2018. Among them, the 
number of male participants in China was considerably higher than females. However, in the half marathon 
races, the number of female participants exceeded that of males, aligning with the findings of our study but 
contrasting with the trend observed in the United  States28. These findings highlight the gender disparities in 
marathon participation in China, with a higher proportion of males in the full marathon category and a higher 
engagement level of females in the half marathon category.
To better understand the reasons behind these gender differences, it is important to consider factors such as 
motivation and demographics. The "2019 China Marathon Big Data Report" revealed that male full marathon 
runners in China were more motivated, accounting for 74.63% of all male participants. In our study, we found 
a similar trend, with 73% of male participants completing the full marathon. In contrast, the percentage of male 
participants in the half marathon was 27%, while females accounted for 53% of all female participants. These 
findings suggest that in Chinese marathon events, there is a significantly higher number of male participants in 
the full marathon category compared to females, while female participants demonstrate a higher level of engage-
ment in the half marathon category.
Furthermore, our study explored the age distribution of marathon participants and found that female par-
ticipants were older than male participants, with an average age of over 35 years old. This result is consistent 
with the analysis of the age group of Chinese marathon runners from 2016 to 2019, indicating that the primary 
finishers of Chinese marathons are predominantly middle-aged individuals. Several factors, including physical 
and mental needs, social influence, and disposable time, may contribute to this age  distribution29.
In addition to age, we also examined the influence of gender and age on athletic performance. It was observed 
that regardless of gender, participants who completed the full marathon were older compared to those who com-
pleted the half marathon. This finding suggests that older participants are more inclined to participate in longer 
endurance sports, reflecting their greater emotional control and sense of responsibility for completing  tasks5,30.
Another aspect we investigated was the relationship between participants’ BMI and their involvement in 
marathon races. We found that the BMI values of male full marathon participants were significantly lower than 
those of half marathon participants, and the BMI values of female participants were significantly lower than 
those of male participants. Previous cross-sectional studies have suggested that BMI contributes to the risk of 
running-related injuries in population  samples31–33. More specifically, a low BMI even increases female runners’ 
risk of lower extremity  injury31. Specifically, a low BMI increases the risk of lower extremity injury in female run-
ners due to their tendency to have lower body fat percentages compared to non-marathon  females32,33. Although 
some studies have shown no direct association between participants’ BMI and injury risk, considering BMI as a 
potentially modifiable risk factor becomes relevant if it is influenced by marathon  activity34.
Moving on to the preferences for shoe characteristics among elite runners, we found no gender differences 
in these preferences in both the half and full marathon categories. This observation indicates that elite runners, 
regardless of gender, possess a comprehensive understanding of shoes after extensive training sessions and 
consistently prioritize shoe properties that enhance athletic  performance35,36. Their knowledge enables them to 
select more suitable running shoes that align with their specific running  requirements35,36.
Forefoot bending stiffness is a crucial factor in footwear performance  development37, and it plays a significant 
role in maintaining both comfort and performance in running  shoes38. Furthermore, it has been observed that 
increasing the forefoot bending stiffness in footwear can reduce the extent of metatarsophalangeal joint extension 
during  movement39. In our study, female marathon participants consistently ranked forefoot bending stiffness 
as their third most important consideration, indicating a higher expectation for this characteristic compared to 
males. These findings highlight the significance of forefoot bending stiffness in meeting the specific needs and 
preferences of female runners. Previous studies on gender differences in Chinese foot shape show that Chinese 
females have a lower first-toe height than  males19. Therefore, females wearing running shoes with the same 
forefoot bending stiffness at the same running interface need to generate a larger metatarsophalangeal joint 
moment, which is more likely to increase the risk of injury of metatarsal stress  fractures39. The subjective reports 
of female runners also underscore this point.
Additionally, female full marathon runners expressed a higher level of concern about the upper elasticity of 
running shoes compared to males. Previous studies have shown that upper elasticity is a critical factor affect-
ing comfort and may impact shoe choice  preferences40. Biomechanical studies have also shown that changes in 
the upper elasticity can even lead to changes in running  patterns41. This preference for footwear comfort aligns 
with the notion that for runners, emotional value and overall experience hold significance, alongside athletic 
 performance42.
Moreover, our study analyzed the preferences of runners based on their finishing times and identified specific 
characteristics that different levels of runners prioritize. For instance, female three-level finishers, who took 
the longest to finish the race, emphasized the necessity of shoelaces. This preference aligns with the idea that 
shoelaces allow for a more comfortable shoe fit, enabling runners to adjust the tightness to obtain a custom fit 
that accommodates the shape of their  foot43. Therefore, the fit design of shoelaces is vital for marathon runners, 
9
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:13020  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39718-x
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
as increased long-distance running time may lead to increased foot movement in the shoe, and ill-fitting laces 
can cause blisters and subungual  hematomas44,45.
In this study, full-marathon first-level males emphasized forefoot elasticity significantly more than  females46. 
Studies have shown that changing the flexibility of the forefoot area of a running shoe can provide a greater 
range of motion in the forefoot and increase activation of the calf  muscles47,48. Chen et al.’s research showed 
that increasing the forefoot elasticity of the soles of running shoes can reduce the activity of  muscles49, thereby 
reducing energy consumption and improving exercise performance. In the half marathon, the first-level male 
participants also emphasized forefoot elasticity compared with females, which was consistent with the statistics 
for full-marathon participants.
A study has examined the impact of shoe mass on preference, performance, and biomechanical  variables50. 
In another study, it was found that for every 100g reduction in shoe weight, running economy improved by 1% 
and running performance improved by 0.7%51. In this research, third-level males reported higher importance 
of shoe mass. Specifically, heavier footwear reduced comfort in second and third-level runners and increased 
energy requirements at all running levels, potentially reducing  preference52. Heavier shoes had a significant effect 
on ankle angle, ankle  moment53 and plantar pressure (second and third-level runners)54, which is consistent 
with the results of this study.
In the “Functional evaluation of shoe properties” part, females were more concerned about whether these 
properties were necessary for injury prevention, while males were more concerned about the importance of 
shoe properties to running performance, which may be because females’ shoe lasts usually downsized versions 
of males’ shoe lasts, and women rarely buy suitable shoes when purchasing running shoes, and inappropriate 
shoes will increase the risk of injury during  running16. However, males can usually buy shoes that fit their feet 
and preference, which can improve sports performance.
Heel cushioning was reported in this study as the most critical function for all participants, which is an 
essential function of running shoes. Robbins et al. suggest that the increased cushioning in running shoes can 
attenuate the perceived magnitude of forces acting on the foot plantar  surface55. The study by Mark et al. showed 
that runners (rearfoot strike pattern) used the same pair of running shoes to run 480 km, and the amount of 
heel cushioning of the rear running shoes would be reduced by 16% to 33%56. Based on previous research results 
by Taunton et al., heel support and cushioning function will decrease with running shoes, and the risk of long-
distance running injury will  increase57. Therefore, stabilizing the heel cushioning performance of running shoes 
is significant for preventing injuries. In addition, male and female participants in the same schedule have different 
attributes of shoes ranked second and third, and the same-gender participants of different programs also have 
different opinions. Based on our findings and previous studies, it is important to consider specific characteristic 
designs in running shoes for different genders and different race distances. For example, our results had shown 
that female runners may benefit from shoe designs that address factors such as heel cushioning, midfoot anti-
twist, and shoe mass. On the other hand, male runners in marathon races have shown a preference for shoe char-
acteristics such as heel cushioning, forefoot elasticity, and forefoot bending stiffness. These examples highlight 
the need for gender-specific and race-specific considerations in running shoe design.
Limitations
Our study has several limitations that should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings and considering 
their generalizability. Firstly, it is important to note that participants in our study did not wear the same shoes, 
which may have resulted in variations in wearing experiences and shoe  preferences58. This heterogeneity in 
footwear selection could introduce bias and potentially influence participants’ perceptions of shoe properties, 
thereby affecting the validity of our findings. Therefore, caution should be exercised when generalizing the results 
to populations where participants wear standardized shoes.
Secondly, our study recruited a relatively smaller number of elite players, which limits the generalizability of 
the findings to the elite athlete  population59,60. Elite athletes often possess unique characteristics and preferences 
that differ from recreational runners, and their perceptions of shoe properties may vary significantly. Hence, the 
applicability of our results to elite-level marathon runners should be interpreted with caution.
Additionally, we acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on various aspects 
of society, including the field of sports and athletics. Unfortunately, our study did not assess data from the years 
2020–2022, which coincided with the height of the pandemic. This represents a limitation in capturing the 
potential influence of the pandemic on Chinese marathon runners and their perceptions.
Conclusion
There were no gender differences between elite players’ demand for running shoes, but significant gender differ-
ences were found between genders at other running levels. Both males and females agreed that “heel cushioning” 
was the most critical running shoe feature. Females pay more attention to the protection brought by shoes, while 
males pay attention to the sports performance of shoes.
In conclusion, our study underscores the importance of considering gender and distance factors when design-
ing running shoes. The distinct characteristics demanded by male and female runners, along with the variations 
related to different running distances, emphasize the need for customization and optimization in the development 
of running footwear. We believe that our findings contribute valuable knowledge to the field and have practical 
implications for the running shoe industry.
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.
10
Vol:.(1234567890)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:13020  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39718-x
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Received: 26 March 2023; Accepted: 29 July 2023
References
 1. Sui, W. & Yang, J. Running middle-class–marathon craze in transforming period of China. Sport Soc. 0, 1–12 (2022).
 2. Rygiel, V., Labrador, H., Jaworski, C. A. & Chiampas, G. Review of injury patterns of the 2018 Bank of America Chicago marathon 
to optimize medical planning. Curr. Sports Med. Rep. 21, 149–154 (2022).
 3. Hsu, C.-L., Yang, C.-H., Wang, J.-H. & Liang, C.-C. Common running musculoskeletal injuries and associated factors among 
recreational gorge marathon runners: An investigation from 2013 to 2018 taroko gorge marathons. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public 
Health 17, 8101 (2020).
 4. Chen, L. H. et al. Study of the foot morphology of recreational marathon runners. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J. Sport Eng. Technol. 
236, 43–52 (2022).
 5. Yang, S.-J. et al. Gender and age differences in performance of over 70,000 Chinese finishers in the half- and full-marathon events. 
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 7802 (2022).
 6. Hoogkamer, W. et al. A comparison of the energetic cost of running in marathon racing shoes. Sports Med. 48, 1009–1019 (2018).
 7. Toon, D., Vinet, A., Pain, M. T. G. & Caine, M. P. A methodology to investigate the relationship between lower-limb dynamics and 
shoe stiffness using custom-built footwear. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J. Sport Eng. Technol. 225, 32–37 (2011).
 8. Clinghan, R., Arnold, G. P., Cochrane, L., Drew, T. S. & Abboud, R. J. The use of in-shoe pressure analysis in the evaluation of 
running shoes. Clin. Biomech. 23, 668–669 (2008).
 9. Liu, W. & Nigg, B. M. A mechanical model to determine the influence of masses and mass distribution on the impact force during 
running. J. Biomech. 33, 219–224 (2000).
 10. Zadpoor, A. A. & Nikooyan, A. A. Modeling muscle activity to study the effects of footwear on the impact forces and vibrations 
of the human body during running. J. Biomech. 43, 186–193 (2010).
 11. Honert, E. C., Mohr, M., Lam, W. K. & Nigg, S. Shoe feature recommendations for different running levels: A delphi study. PLoS 
ONE 15, 1–17 (2020).
 12. Fu, F. et al. Effect of the innovative running shoes with the special midsole structure on the female runners’ lower limb biomechan-
ics. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 10, 866321 (2022).
 13. Hunter, I. et al. Running economy, mechanics, and marathon racing shoes. J. Sports Sci. 37, 2367–2373 (2019).
 14. Cuk, I., Nikolaidis, P. T., Villiger, E. & Knechtle, B. Pacing in long-distance running: Sex and age differences in 10-km race and 
marathon. Medicina (Lithuania) 57, 389 (2021).
 15. Isherwood, J., Wang, H. & Sterzing, T. Running biomechanics and running shoe perception of Chinese men and women. Footwear 
Sci. 13, 55–67 (2021).
 16. Sinclair, J., Greenhalgh, A., Edmundson, C. J., Brooks, D. & Hobbs, S. J. Gender differences in the kinetics and kinematics of 
distance running: Implications for footwear design. Int. J. Sports Sci. Eng. 6, 118–128 (2012).
 17. Krauss, I., Grau, S., Mauch, M., Maiwald, C. & Horstmann, T. Sex-related differences in foot shape. Ergonomics 51, 1693–1709 
(2008).
 18. Wunderlich, R. E. & Cavanagh, P. R. Gender differences in adult foot shape: Implications for shoe design. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 
33, 605–611 (2001).
 19. Hong, Y., Wang, L., Xu, D. Q. & Li, J. X. Gender differences in foot shape: A study of Chinese young adults. Sports Biomech. 10, 
85–97 (2011).
 20. Hoerzer, S., Trudeau, M. B., Edwards, W. B. & Nigg, B. M. Intra-rater reliability of footwear-related comfort assessments. Footwear 
Sci. 8, 155–163 (2016).
 21. Clermont, C. A., Benson, L. C., Edwards, W. B., Hettinga, B. A. & Ferber, R. New considerations for wearable technology data: 
Changes in running biomechanics during a marathon. J. Appl. Biomech. 35, 401–409 (2019).
 22. Gao, Z., Mei, Q., Xiang, L. & Gu, Y. Difference of walking plantar loadings in experienced and novice long-distance runners. Acta 
Bioeng. Biomech. 22, 127–147 (2020).
 23. Apps, C., Liu, H., Pykett, J. & Sterzing, T. Gym training shoe requirements in China and England. Footwear Sci. 7, 51–62 (2015).
 24. Brauner, T., Zwinzscher, M. & Sterzing, T. Basketball footwear requirements are dependent on playing position. Footwear Sci. 4, 
191–198 (2012).
 25. Althoff, K. & Hennig, E. M. Criteria for gender-specific soccer shoe development. Footwear Sci. 6, 89–96 (2014).
 26. Sterzing, F. et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for liver tumors. Strahlenther. Onkol. 190, 872–881 (2014).
 27. Shen, S. et al. Gender and leg-dominance differences in shoe properties and foot injuries in badminton: A cross-sectional survey. 
J. Foot Ankle Res. 15, 1–11 (2022).
 28. Vitti, A., Nikolaidis, P. T., Villiger, E., Onywera, V. & Knechtle, B. The, “New York City Marathon”: Participation and performance 
trends of 1.2 M runners during half-century. Res. Sports Med. 28, 121–137 (2020).
 29. Tian, H. B., Qiu, Y. J., Lin, Y. Q., Zhou, W. T. & Fan, C. Y. The role of leisure satisfaction in serious leisure and subjective well-being: 
Evidence from Chinese marathon runners. Front. Psychol. 11, 1–10 (2020).
 30. Garcia-Naveira, A., Ruiz, R. & Pujals, C. Personality differences according to participation in or abstention from sport, competi-
tion level and age category in football players based on costa and MCCRAE’S model. Revista de Psicologia del Deporte 20, 29–44 
(2011).
 31. Bennell, K. L. et al. Risk factors for stress fractures in female track-and-field athletes: A retrospective analysis. Clin. J. Sport Med. 
5, 229–235 (1995).
 32. Bennell, K. L. et al. Risk factors for stress fractures in track and field athletes: A twelve-month prospective study. Am. J. Sports Med. 
24, 810–818 (1996).
 33. Scott, S. A., Simon, J. E., Van Der Pol, B. & Docherty, C. L. Risk factors for sustaining a lower extremity injury in an army reserve 
officer training corps cadet population. Mil. Med. 180, 910–916 (2015).
 34. Mohseni, M. M., Filmalter, S. E., Taylor, W. C., Vadeboncoeur, T. F. & Thomas, C. S. Factors associated with half- and full-marathon 
race-related injuries: A 3-year review. Clin. J. Sport Med. 31, 277–286 (2019).
 35. Cohler, M. H. & Casey, E. A survey of runners’ attitudes toward and experiences with minimally shod running. PM&R 7, 831–835 
(2015).
 36. Rothschild, C. E. Primitive running: A survey analysis of runners’ interest, participation, and implementation. J. Strength Condi-
tion. Res. 26, 2021–2026 (2012).
 37. Stefanyshyn, D. & Fusco, C. Athletics: Increased shoe bending stiffness increases sprint performance. Sports Biomech. 3, 55–66 
(2004).
 38. Oleson, M., Adler, D. & Goldsmith, P. A comparison of forefoot stiffness in running and running shoe bending stiffness. J. Biomech. 
38, 1886–1894 (2005).
 39. Stefanyshyn, D. J. & Wannop, J. W. The influence of forefoot bending stiffness of footwear on athletic injury and performance. 
Footwear Sci. 8, 51–63 (2016).
 40. Tay, C. S., Sterzing, T., Lim, C. Y., Ding, R. & Kong, P. W. Overall preference of running shoes can be predicted by suitable percep-
tion factors using a multiple regression model. Hum. Factors 59, 432–441 (2017).
11
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientific Reports |        (2023) 13:13020  | 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39718-x
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
 41. Onodera, A. N., Neto, W. P. G., Roveri, M. I., Oliveira, W. R. & Sacco, I. C. N. Immediate effects of EVA midsole resilience and 
upper shoe structure on running biomechanics: A machine learning approach. PeerJ 5, e3026 (2017).
 42. Furukawa, H., Matsumura, K. & Harada, S. Effect of consumption values on consumer satisfaction and brand commitment: Inves-
tigating functional, emotional, social, and epistemic values in the running shoes market. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 9, 158 (2019).
 43. Frey, C. Foot health and shoewear for women. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1976–2007(372), 32–44 (2000).
 44. Mailler-Savage, E. A. & Adams, B. B. Skin manifestations of running. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 55, 290–301 (2006).
 45. Fukano, M. & Iso, S. Changes in foot shape after long-distance running. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 1, 30–38 (2015).
 46. Arellano, C. J., Hoogkamer, W. & Kram, R. B. T.-I.-C. P. A. How biomechanical improvements in running economy could help 
break the 2-hour marathon barrier (2016).
 47. Ishikawa, M., Komi, P. V., Grey, M. J., Lepola, V. & Bruggemann, G.-P. Muscle–tendon interaction and elastic energy usage in 
human walking. J. Appl. Physiol. 99, 603–608 (2005).
 48. Goldmann, J.-P., Sanno, M., Willwacher, S., Heinrich, K. & Brüggemann, G.-P. The potential of toe flexor muscles to enhance 
performance. J. Sports Sci. 31, 424–433 (2013).
 49. Chen, C.-H., Tu, K.-H., Liu, C. & Shiang, T.-Y. Effects of forefoot bending elasticity of running shoes on gait and running perfor-
mance. Hum. Mov. Sci. 38, 163–172 (2014).
 50. Sobhani, S. et al. Effect of rocker shoes on plantar pressure pattern in healthy female runners. Gait Posture 39, 920–925 (2014).
 51. Kipp, S., Kram, R. & Hoogkamer, W. Extrapolating metabolic savings in running: Implications for performance predictions. Front. 
Physiol. 10, 79 (2019).
 52. Sobhani, S. et al. Rocker shoe, minimalist shoe, and standard running shoe: A comparison of running economy. J. Sci. Med. Sport 
17, 312–316 (2014).
 53. Hollander, K., Argubi-Wollesen, A., Reer, R. & Zech, A. Comparison of minimalist footwear strategies for simulating barefoot 
running: A randomized crossover study. PLoS ONE 10, e0125880 (2015).
 54. Sobhani, S. et al. Biomechanics of running with rocker shoes. J. Sci. Med. Sport 20, 38–44 (2017).
 55. Robbins, S. E., Hanna, A. & Jones, L. A. Sensory Attenuation Induced by Modern Athletic Footwear (ASTM International, 1988).
 56. Cornwall, M. W. & McPoil, T. G. Can runners perceive changes in heel cushioning as the shoe ages with increased mileage?. Int. 
J. Sports Phys. Ther. 12, 616 (2017).
 57. Taunton, J. E. et al. A prospective study of running injuries: The Vancouver Sun Run “In Training” clinics. Br. J. Sports Med. 37, 
239–244 (2003).
 58. Fife, A., Ramsey, C., Esculier, J.-F. & Hébert-Losier, K. How do road runners select their shoes? A systematic review. Footwear Sci. 
1–10 (2023).
 59. Joubert, D. P. & Jones, G. P. A comparison of running economy across seven highly cushioned racing shoes with carbon-fibre 
plates. Footwear Sci. 14, 71–83 (2022).
 60. Knopp, M. et al. Variability in running economy of Kenyan world-class and European amateur male runners with advanced 
footwear running technology: Experimental and meta-analysis results. Sports Med. 53, 1255–1271 (2023).
Author contributions
F.Y. and S.W.J. designed this study; J.T., Q.W. and H.Z. distributed and collected questionnaires; Y.G., G.F. and 
T.K. performed the statistical analyses and outcome assessments; Y.X. and S.S. wrote the original draft. All authors 
revised and approved the final manuscript.
Competing interests 
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 
10. 1038/ s41598- 023- 39718-x.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to S.-W.J. or F.Y.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and 
institutional affiliations.
Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or 
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the 
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this 
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the 
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not 
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from 
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
© The Author(s) 2023

Gender differences in footwear characteristics between half and full marathons in China: a cross-sectional survey.
Xia, Yuyu,Shen, Siqin,Jia, Sheng-Wei,Teng, Jin,Gu, Yaodong,Fekete, Gusztáv,Korim, Tamás,Zhao, Haotian,Wei, Qiang,Yang, Fan