Does Compression Gear Improve Running Performance? A Deep Dive into the Science of Squeeze

You've probably heard people swear by compression socks, tights, and sleeves to improve performance. I’ve never been a fan of them, but I have worn a few pairs during my day. They’re supposed to increase blood flow, reduce muscle vibration, and help you run faster and longer.

But does the science back this up?

A recent meta-analysis of 51 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) sought to answer that question. The research looked at 899 runners across multiple studies, analyzing whether compression garments make runners faster or help them run longer (in scientific speak—do they improve time to exhaustion?)

The answer was a resounding “no.”

Wearing compression garments did not significantly improve race times or extend time to exhaustion. Compression gear also failed to improve running speed, oxygen uptake, or tissue oxygenation—key factors for endurance performance.

The one clear benefit? Compression garments significantly reduced soft tissue vibration, which could aid in muscle recovery and reduce fatigue perception—not an unimportant finding but perhaps meaningless because this didn’t appear to translate into race-day performance (that’s all we really care about after all).

The study also found no difference in effectiveness based on garment type, race type, or running surface—meaning those pricey compression tights probably won’t make a difference whether you’re racing a 5K or a marathon.

Key takeaways for runners (and their wallets): Compression won’t make you run faster—but it might help with recovery. If you like wearing compression gear, keep using it—but don’t expect a performance edge.

You can find the full text of this study in the Journal of Sport and Health Science.

RELATED ARTICLE: Do Compression Boots Really Speed Up Recovery?​

🎙️ Is It True That…? Debunking Running Myths & Revealing Running Truths

This week on the pod, Alex, Katelyn, and Michael dive into some of the biggest running myths and whether they actually hold up to science.

Does running on soft surfaces really reduce injury risk? Should you always negative split your race? And are super shoes really a game-changer for everyone—or just for the speedsters?

What about legal and safe performance enhancers?

Hit play, and let’s get into it! 🎧🏃‍♂️

Or listen and subscribe to the show wherever you get your podcasts:

Most Runners Can’t Identify Their Foot Strike Pattern—Here’s Why It Matters

Think you know how your foot hits the ground when you run? You might want to think again. A recent study reveals that over half of endurance runners incorrectly identify their foot strike pattern—and it could be impacting their performance and injury risk.

Researchers from the University of Florida (my alma mater) analyzed data from 710 endurance runners who had undergone biomechanical gait analysis. Runners were asked to self-report their foot strike as rearfoot (heel-first), non-rearfoot (midfoot or forefoot), or "don’t know." Their actual foot strike was determined using high-speed video and 3D motion capture during treadmill running.

Most runners were spectacularly poor at identifying their foot strike.

Only 42.7% of runners accurately identified their foot strike pattern. Rearfoot strikers were particularly bad at this—just 34% got it right, compared to 70% of non-rearfoot strikers. Furthermore, a whopping 81% of runners who said they didn’t know their foot strike pattern were rearfoot strikers. These runners—the “don’t know” group—had the highest prevalence of running-related injuries.

Shoe characteristics were also important for determining injury risk. Shoes with a high heel-to-toe drop were linked to lower accuracy in identifying foot strike patterns and a higher risk of sustaining a running-related injury. Non-rearfoot runners tended to wear lighter shoes with lower heel heights and heel-to-toe drops, which may aid in their more accurate self-assessment.

Rethinking your gait now? Here’s what you can do to apply these findings:

• Get a gait analysis: If you’re unsure about your foot strike—or think you know—it’s worth having it professionally assessed. Many runners are surprised to learn they’ve been misinterpreting their form. I’ve had several of these done throughout my career (a few by the same researchers who conducted this study!) and each has given me valuable takeaways that have improved my running and reduced my injury risk.

• Pay attention to the heel-to-toe drop, weight, and height of your running shoes: A lower drop might help you better sense your strike pattern and reduce injury risk. This doesn’t mean you need to go minimal…but something to consider.

• Don’t change your gait blindly (or too quickly): The study showed that trying to alter your foot strike without proper understanding can backfire, increasing injury risk. Work with a coach or specialist if you’re planning to modify your gait.

More on this study in the journal Frontiers in Sport and Active Living.

RELATED ARTICLE: Running Gait Analysis: What To Expect + Benefits + How It Works​

Fueling for the Long Haul—How Carbs Influence Your Durability

Endurance events are generally run at a consistent moderate intensity, but races can be stochastic—with speed and intensity increasing at certain points and decreasing at others in an unpredictable fashion.

Tour de France cyclists experience this oscillatory nature of endurance events often—they need to respond to quick and large changes in power output to match a surge or stay with the Peloton on a steep climb. After hours of pounding the pavement or in the saddle battling fatigue, these surges can be tricky. But fueling properly—with carbohydrates—could allow us to handle intensity transitions better.

A recent study explored how consuming carbs during prolonged cycling impacts performance, particularly at key intensity thresholds. From steady efforts to all-out sprints, the findings reveal how carbs can help keep you in the race.

To appreciate the study’s findings, it’s helpful to understand the exercise intensity zones analyzed:

• VT1 (first ventilatory threshold): This marks the moderate-to-heavy intensity transition—the breakpoint in the relationship between oxygen uptake and ventilation (breathing rate). Power output at VT1 was used as a marker of metabolic efficiency, with moderate intensity below VT1 characterized by minimal metabolic disturbances and heavy intensity (above VT1) marked by rising blood lactate and oxygen consumption.
​
​• Severe-intensity domain: Defined by its unsustainable nature, this domain involves maximal effort where physiological variables like lactate and oxygen consumption spike to their limits.

Researchers recruited 12 trained cyclists and triathletes (10 males, 2 females, average age 31) who completed a test of their power output at VT1 and a 5-minute time trial on fresh legs to determine their baseline performance. Then they did the same two tests after 2.5 hours of moderate-intensity cycling, during which they consumed 60 grams of carbohydrates per hour on one occasion and no carbs (the placebo) on another.

Carbohydrate ingestion partially mitigated the decline in power output at VT1, the moderate-to-heavy intensity transition: Power output dropped by 3% in the carb condition and by 6% in the placebo condition compared to the “fresh” condition.

In the 5-minute time trial, power output also declined in both conditions compared to baseline: Carb consumers saw a 4% decrease vs. baseline while the placebo consumers saw a 10% decrease.

These findings provide a couple of practical takeaways that can help you fuel smarter for better durability:

• Consuming 60 grams of carbs or more per hour during prolonged exercise could help you when you need to kick-start the engines in the middle of or at the end of a race or training session, especially at the transition from moderate to heavy exercise—a critical zone for pacing in endurance events like the marathon which is run somewhere just below this intensity.
​
​• Understanding where you are on the intensity spectrum can help you optimize your fueling strategy for performance. If you’re going out on a long run that’s nowhere near the moderate-to-heavy transition, you might not need an aggressive fueling strategy. If you’re planning a 20-mile marathon long run workout with higher-intensity efforts sprinkled throughout, bring along some fuel!

This study was published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology.

RELATED ARTICLE: How To Fuel For A Marathon: What To Eat Before, During, + After Your Race​

SHORT STUFF You Don’t Want To Miss

• A Deep Dive into the World of Peak Endurance Performance with Olav Aleksander Bu​

If you’re an endurance athlete looking to level up your performance—and don’t mind going deep into the weeds of physiology—this episode of The Peter Attia Drive with sports scientist Olav Aleksander Bu is packed with insights.

Bu breaks down the key metrics that matter most—like VO2 max, lactate threshold, and functional threshold power (FTP)—and why testing these consistently (not just once in a while) is critical for making real progress. He also dives into the nuances of training across different sports and the evolving science of fueling, especially when it comes to using carbs efficiently during long races. One of my favorite parts of the discussion was the talk of the “nutrition technology” that’s changing the endurance fueling game.

HERE’S WHAT ELSE YOU WOULD HAVE RECEIVED this week if you were a subscriber to the complete, full-text edition of “Run Long, Run Healthy.” SUBSCRIBE HERE.
​​
​• Training Load Metrics Predict Carb Use and Energy Burn
​
​• Strength Training for Runners—Does It Really Make You Faster and Injury-Free?
​
​• Taking Time Off From Training Doesn’t Destroy Your Fitness. You Might Come Back Stronger
​
​• Strava PR vs. Real PR: The Great Running Debate
​
​• How Much Protein Do Runners Really Need?
​
​• Steve Prefontaine On The “Art” Of Running

That’s all for now. Thanks for reading. As always—Run Long, Run Healthy.
​
~Brady