Adidas’ record-breaking super shoes have officially broken marathon running

There was a time when a racing flat meant a pair of zero-drop, thin-soled running shoes. I remember running the Windsor Half Marathon in an ASICS Type A9, very much a low-stack trainer that, at the time, was the norm, and my calves were sore for a week afterwards.

Back then, we thought that was the only way; we accepted that running any distance would require our legs to put in a tremendous amount of work. Cushioning was minimal; rebound was moderate at best.

Running culture was much less hype-driven, and while "niche" isn’t the right word to describe it, the sport was certainly less popular than it is today. Runners are nerdy to this day, but back then, I can’t say it was cool to call yourself one.

Latest Videos From

The birth of the super shoe

That all changed about a decade ago with the advent of high-stack trainers. Running shoes all of a sudden because these ultralight, tall monsters could propel you forward with ease, all the while preserving your legs. It was magic.

While Nike certainly wasn’t the only company putting out high-stack shoes – Hoka’s (then Hoka One One, a much smaller brand) Carbon X was a really good model – the sport giant’s Vaporfly 4%, and its successor, the Vaporfly NEXT%, is the shoe that many associate with a new era in running.

Built around Nike's ZoomX foam, a Pebax-derived material with roots in aerospace applications, the Vaporfly 4% was designed to improve running economy by around 4% compared with conventional racing shoes.

That might not sound like much, but over a marathon distance, it means you can run the race without completely ruining your legs.

All of a sudden, you started seeing people wearing Nikes everywhere at the start lines. And as the shoes became more abundant, it seemed that all PBs were broken left, right, centre. The shoes were elevated to mystical heights, and any self-respecting runner wanted to get hold of a pair.

The limits of speed

Of course, manufacturers wanted to push the idea further. If one still (carbon) plate embedded in a soft foam could help runners this much, how about adding more? Maybe taller foams would help preserve the legs even more? The sky was the limit... until it wasn’t.

People – presumably those who didn’t have a pair of Vaporflys – started complaining about the ‘unfair advantage’ the shoes provided. Putting on a non-high-stack, non-plated shoe for a race meant losing to those who had them. Some went as far as to call the Vaporfly ‘mechanical doping’.

Professional bodies took notice, too, including the World Athletics (WA), which quite literally drew the line at the Vaporfly, declaring that any shoes with a maximum stack height of 40 mm and more than one plate would be banned from official races, quickly curbing the enthusiasm of both manufacturers and runners.

This felt like a punch in the face for many; after all, we were so close to breaking the two-hour marathon barrier. Runners have come painfully close to running the full 26.2 miles in under two hours, but even the fastest runners could only chip away a few seconds at a time.

Chasing 1:59

Needless to say, seeing the success of the Vaporfly (and the Alphafly) and other similar shoes, all companies started producing their own versions of the concept, eventually evening the playing field. Adidas, New Balance, Saucony and ASICS (even On) all had a super shoe in their stables, offering high rebound and maximum cushioning in an extremely low-weight package.

Yet, due to the limitations imposed by WA, progress was slow, though not for lack of trying. Before the INEOS 1:59 project, a highly orchestrated event that saw marathon legend Eliud Kipchoge break the two-hour barrier under ‘unofficial’ circumstances, Adidas attempted to do the same; there is even a book about it (Ed Caesar – Two Hours: The Quest to Run the Impossible Marathon).

Over the years, a surprising number of runners came incredibly close to the coveted 1:59 marathon time, including Eliud Kipchoge (2:01:09) and the late Kelvin Kiptum (2:00:35), but something always got in the way. The sub-2-hour marathon seemed just as elusive as always, despite the efforts of some incredible athletes and amazing innovations along the way.

Herzogenaurach strikes back

Over this period, Nike, the company that created the disruptive Vaporfly, seems to have slowed down its innovation efforts. To this day, all Nike racing shoes use the same ZoomX foam as the original Vaporfly, albeit with tweaks to slightly change running dynamics.

And while Nikes are still fast, if you want truly innovative running shoes, you might want to look elsewhere. One of the brands that has been pushing the envelope is Adidas, the biggest rival of the Portland-based sports giant.

I wouldn’t say Adidas has been struggling, but the brand has certainly had some issues establishing itself as a running-focused sportswear manufacturer. The company had huge success with football and lifestyle products, letting the running shoe side of things go a bit astray.

That’s not to say there weren’t any good running shoes coming from Herzogeanauch; on the contrary. The Adizero line featured some incredible models, including the Adios Pro 4, which I ran in at the Loch Ness Marathon. Thoroughly enjoyed those shoes (and the Bostons).

That said, Adidas thought this wasn’t enough, and searched for ways to innovate within the confines set by the 40mm-stack-height-plus-one-stiff-plate rule. In 2024, the company launched the Pro Evo 1, its lightest super shoe to date.

The Pro Evo 1 became infamous not just for its incredibly lightweight construction, but also for its reported one-marathon lifespan, meaning its performance wasn’t guaranteed beyond 26.2 miles.

The shoes didn’t fall apart after one race, but they wouldn’t provide maximum benefits, either. In a world where sustainability matters more and more, Adidas chose to go the other way, optimising its pinnacle racer for performance only.

Three records, one shoe

Despite the out-of-the-box thinking, the Pro Evo 1 didn’t break the two-hour barrier. Sure, the shoes were light and agile, but evidently not significantly faster than the competition. Marathon times stayed in the 2:01 area, for now.

The second iteration didn't come a lot closer, either. Then, in 2026, just before the London Marathon, Adidas announced the third iteration of the shoes. The shoes are now even lighter – sub-100g in some sizes – and claimed 1.6% improvement in running economy.

The announcement followed the usual cadence: the Pro Evo 3 were announced just before the race, when the brand released a very limited batch for sale to signal they were available to the public, and the sponsored elites ran the race in the shoes.

However, something has changed this time in a big way. Instead of running the marathon in just over two hours, Sabastian Sawe and Yomif Kejelcha came in under two hours. Better still, Tigist Assefa also won the race with a women’s only WR of 2:15:41. The common thread was that all these athletes wore the new Pro Evo 3.

Now, I would like to emphasise that, despite advancements in shoe innovation and refinements in training methods, nothing detracts from the incredible athletic performance of these athletes. The speed with which they completed the race is astonishing, to say the least. No shoes will make you an hour faster over a marathon distance.

That said, at the level these athletes operate, every tweak that provides any improvement counts. 0.1% improvement over 26.2 miles can shave off seconds, let alone 1.6%. To run anywhere near as fast as these people, you’ll have to tap into every possible improvement you can find.

Seemingly, until the Pro Evo 3, these enhancements didn’t yield a sub-2-hour marathon time. Add the shoes and not one, not two, but three athletes run marvellous times, which, to me at least, settles the debate on ‘mechanical doping’.

To clarify, I don’t mean that any of them are actually doping, but the shoes did seemingly provide enough of an advantage to push through previously insurmountable marathon times.

The fact that two athletes broke the two-hour barrier in the same race is incredible and a testament not just to their training but also to the innovation machines working behind the scenes.

What comes after sub-two?

As Nike said in its social media post after the race, the clock has indeed been reset. I don’t think we’ll see hordes of runners running sub-two marathons all of a sudden, something people said would happen, referencing Sir Roger Bannister’s sub-4-minute mile in the 50s.

Not to belittle Sir Roger’s incredible achievement, running training in those days was a lot less optimised than today. The fastest long-distance runners have to dedicate all their time to their craft in 2026, and the 2-hour marathon time is already pushing the limits of human physiology. We won’t be seeing 1:55 times any time soon, or ever.

That said, Adidas has opened the door to a world where sub-two-hour times are achievable, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw more shoes from other brands, enabling more runners to run much faster than before.

Best of all, this all happened at a time when running as a sport was incredibly popular. Will you or I ever run a sub-two-hour marathon? Unlikely, but we can run faster than before, thanks to these amazing shoes, and that’s enough for me.