I asked GORE-TEX why trail runners avoid waterproof shoes, and its answer made more sense than I expected

A couple of years ago, my colleague Pat published an article arguing that trail running shoes shouldn't be waterproof, explaining why adding a waterproof membrane to footwear designed for running through unpredictable terrain can sometimes create more problems than it solves.

The article made several compelling points about water drainage, breathability, and the added cost of waterproof footwear, especially when you're likely to encounter streams, deep puddles, and boggy trails.

I spent considerable time running off-road over the years, and I can appreciate the argument. Waterproof running shoes might seem like the obvious choice for Britain's notoriously wet conditions, but a fundamental problem becomes apparent as soon as you step into water deeper than the shoe's collar.

So, when I recently visited GORE-TEX's headquarters in Putzbrunn, Germany, to celebrate the company's 50th anniversary, I put the question directly to its footwear experts: if serious trail runners often prefer non-waterproof shoes, why does GORE-TEX keep developing waterproof running footwear?

Their response made more sense than I expected (not like I thought it wouldn’t), and it reinforced something I've come to appreciate through my own running experience. That is, waterproof footwear matters less when conditions are wet and more when moisture is likely to reach your feet.

The problem with waterproof running shoes

The main argument against waterproof trail running shoes is relatively straightforward. While a waterproof membrane prevents rain and external moisture from penetrating the upper, it cannot stop water entering through the opening around your ankle.

If you're running through deep puddles or crossing streams, water can enter from above the collar, leaving you with wet socks inside a shoe that isn't particularly good at letting liquid water escape.

Waterproof membranes let moisture vapour pass through, but that doesn't mean they can drain the water sloshing around inside your shoes after an unexpected plunge into a stream.

Non-waterproof trail running shoes generally have the advantage here, as their more open construction lets water drain more readily while also providing better ventilation during high-intensity efforts.

It's one reason why competitive trail runners, particularly those tackling technical courses with multiple water crossings, often favour lightweight, non-waterproof footwear.

Interestingly, the GORE-TEX team didn't attempt to dismiss this argument during our discussion.

They acknowledged that elite athletes competing in demanding trail races might not choose waterproof shoes, but pointed out that competitive racing represents only a small part of the running market (fair point).

For recreational runners and people training throughout the colder months, the considerations can be quite different.

Not all wet trails are created equal

The conversation made me think about the distinction between running through water and running in wet conditions, because the two experiences aren't necessarily interchangeable.

A typical autumn morning in the UK often brings dewy grass, and trails can be damp from overnight drizzle. You might run for an hour without hitting a single puddle deep enough to submerge your shoes, but conventional mesh uppers might still let in some moisture.

Waterproof running shoes make sense here, because keeping external moisture from penetrating the upper can help your socks stay dry, potentially making the experience much more comfortable.

The same applies to winter training sessions on relatively predictable routes, where you're more concerned about cold, damp conditions than negotiating deep streams or knee-high bogs.

Compromises remain, of course. Waterproof footwear can feel warmer and less ventilated than its non-waterproof equivalent, and a membrane won't stop your feet from getting damp from sweat during particularly demanding efforts.

However, for an easy morning run, a winter training session or even a casual walk along muddy woodland paths, those compromises might be perfectly acceptable.

The right shoe for the right run

During the visit, GORE-TEX also discussed technologies such as Invisible Fit, which integrates the waterproof membrane more closely with the shoe's upper to create a construction that feels less intrusive than traditional waterproof footwear.

Many trail runners already use this technology, including the Brooks Cascadia 20 GTX, Altra’s Experience Wild 3+ GTX and the NNormal Tomir 02 GTX, to name a few.

It's an interesting development, especially for runners who've found waterproof shoes too stiff or bulky, though construction improvements don't eliminate the fundamental limitations of a low-cut waterproof shoe.

Personally, I still wouldn't choose waterproof trail running shoes for an event where I knew I'd be crossing streams or running through deep bogs, because once water gets inside, I'd rather have footwear that allows it to escape.

But for everyday running on familiar trails without significant water crossings, I can see the appeal of keeping rain, dew, and moisture from vegetation off my socks.

Ultimately, my conversation with GORE-TEX didn't convince me that every trail runner needs waterproof shoes, nor did it undermine the arguments made in T3's original article.

Instead, it highlighted that waterproof running footwear shouldn't be judged solely by the demands of competitive trail racing, because the conditions on a leisurely woodland run can differ greatly from those on a mountain ultra.

And while I'd still reach for non-waterproof shoes on unpredictable terrain, I wouldn't dismiss GORE-TEX trail runners on a cold, drizzly morning on familiar trails, especially if the alternative meant spending the rest of my run with damp socks.