Running shoe statistics at a glance

This is the numbers page. If you want shoe picks, start with my best running shoes under $100 or the New Balance vs Brooks vs Hoka comparison. For the wider market, see the footwear statistics hub and my US footwear market statistics.

Key findings

1. The Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) counted 52.3 million US road runners in 2025 and 17.2 million trail runners. About 29 million of the road runners did not run often enough to count as core, which OIA defines as 50 or more outings a year. That leaves roughly 23 million core runners (my subtraction). It is a trade-group survey, not an official count.
2. Running is growing but getting more casual. OIA says casual road running has grown about 7% a year over three years while core road running is down about 1.1%.
3. Races are busier per event. RunSignup says average per-race participation rose 5% from 2024 to 2025, after 8% and 11% in the two years before. US marathon participation was 432,562 in 2024, still 12.8% below the 2014 peak of 496,178 (RunRepeat).
4. Running shoes are the strongest part of a flat market. Circana says US running shoe dollar sales and unit sales both rose 13% in the first half of 2026, performance footwear dollars rose 6%, and all footwear dollars rose 1% with units down.
5. Prices did not drive the running gain. Because dollars and units both rose 13%, the average price of a running pair looks roughly flat. That is my inference from rounded figures, since Circana publishes no average price.
6. Four running brands reported double-digit growth: On 30.0% in 2025, ASICS 19.5%, Brooks 16% and HOKA 15.9% in its year to March 2026. The periods, currencies and scope differ and none is running only, so it is not a ranking.
7. Recreational runners had 7.7 injuries per 1,000 hours of running and novices 17.8, about 2.3 times as many (my calculation), in a meta-analysis of 13 studies. The studies defined injury differently.
8. No shoe type has a clear injury edge. A Cochrane review of 12 trials with 11,240 participants found little or no clear difference between types of running shoe, mostly at low or very low certainty. Choosing shoes by foot posture probably makes little or no difference, but those trials used military recruits.
9. Carbon-plate racing shoes have a measured effect, in a narrow setting. In a lab study of 18 male high-caliber runners, a Nike prototype lowered the energy cost of running by about 4%, with individual gains of roughly 1.6% to 6.3%.
10. Shoe life is brand guidance. Brooks says performance running shoes typically last 300 to 500 miles, or 4 to 6 months of regular use. I found no independent test.

What we know about running shoes and what we don’t

Here’s where the public evidence stands as of October 2026. Official statistics barely touch running, so most of this rests on trade groups, companies and journals.

15 running shoe statistics you can cite

Each card has one number, one sentence of context and its source. “Copy text” opens a box with the sentence, the source and a link back here. Please cite the original source for any single statistic. Cards marked E are my own calculations, and the method is on the card or in the dataset.

How many people run in the US?

I looked for a government number first and there isn’t one. The most recent count I could trace is OIA’s 2026 Running Report, which covers 2025. Its public summary is titled “Running Is Growing. But It’s Becoming a Casual Habit, Not a Core Pursuit”, and the numbers back that up.

<figure style="margin:0"><a href="https://urbanstylefootwear.com/running-shoe-statistics/"><img src="https://urbanstylefootwear.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/usf-us-runners-by-type-2025.png" alt="Chart of US runners in 2025: 52.3 million road runners, about 29 million casual, about 23 million core, 17.2M trail" width="800" style="max-width:100%;height:auto"></a><figcaption>Source: UrbanStyle Footwear, based on Outdoor Industry Association 2026 Running Report data. <a href="https://urbanstylefootwear.com/running-shoe-statistics/">Running Shoe Statistics 2026</a></figcaption></figure>

• Casual runners are most of the growth. OIA says casual road running has grown about 7% a year over three years, while core road running (50 or more outings a year) is down about 1.1%. About 29 million road runners did not run often enough to count as core, which is 55% of the total (my calculation).
• Trail running is smaller and growing. OIA puts trail runners at 17.2 million, up 6.6% in 2025 and 57% since 2019, with core trail runners up 7.8%.
• The public page has gaps. It doesn’t show the sample size, the survey method or the definition of a runner. The full report is for members, and I haven’t read it.

What the race data says

• Marathons. RunRepeat, using World Athletics data, counted 432,562 US marathon participants in 2024 from 6,352 events. That is 12.8% below the 2014 peak of 496,178. Women were 41% of participants, and the average finish time was 4:34 against 4:39 in 2019. RunRepeat excluded elite runners, walks, charity runs and obstacle races.
• All race sizes. RunSignup’s 2026 RaceTrends report says per-race participation grew an average of 5% from 2024 to 2025, after 8% in 2024 and 11% in 2023. It covers more than 97,000 events and 12.2 million registrations, and 86% of race weekends had fewer than 500 participants.
• The top races. Running USA says participation at the nation’s top races rose in 2025 across the 5K, 10K, half marathon and marathon. The release gives no figures.
• Everything else. The Sports & Fitness Industry Association says about 250 million Americans took part in at least one activity in 2025, a record. That covers 126 activities and not only running, and I couldn’t read its running-specific figures because they are in paid reports.

My read. Participation is healthy but shallower than the headline suggests. More people are running a little, fewer are running a lot, and marathon numbers haven’t recovered their 2014 peak.

Are running shoe sales growing in 2026?

Circana tracks US retail sales, and its August 17, 2026 post is the freshest running footwear data I could find at the source. It reports changes, not totals, so I can tell you the direction and the size of the move but not how many dollars or pairs that is.

<figure style="margin:0"><a href="https://urbanstylefootwear.com/running-shoe-statistics/"><img src="https://urbanstylefootwear.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/usf-us-footwear-sales-growth-by-category-h1-2026.png" alt="Chart of US footwear sales growth in the first half of 2026: running up 13%, performance up 6%, all footwear up 1%" width="800" style="max-width:100%;height:auto"></a><figcaption>Source: UrbanStyle Footwear, based on Circana Retail Tracking Service data, first half of 2026. <a href="https://urbanstylefootwear.com/running-shoe-statistics/">Running Shoe Statistics 2026</a></figcaption></figure>

• Running led. Circana’s own words are that running shoes “continued to lead gains, with category dollar and unit sales both climbing +13%”.
• Performance footwear rose 6% in dollars with units up, and cross-training, golf and volleyball also grew.
• Everything else was flat. Total footwear dollars rose 1%, held up by higher average selling prices while units fell. Circana says sport lifestyle footwear declined and running-inspired styles grew, though not enough to offset it.
• The price story. Running dollars and units both rose 13%, so the average price per pair looks roughly flat, within about a percentage point either way because of rounding. That is my inference. Circana gives no average price.
• The outlook is cautious. Circana’s Future of Footwear report expects 2026 to end roughly flat for the industry, with price gains offsetting lower unit demand. It says nearly half of consumers report delaying purchases or choosing lower-priced alternatives.

What this does not tell you

It doesn’t give a dollar size for running, an average price, a brand split or a definition of the running category beyond Circana’s own. For the wider picture of footwear prices, see my US footwear market statistics: all footwear prices were up 3.6% in August 2026 from a year earlier (BLS index values, my calculation), but that is not a running shoe price.

Which running brands are growing fastest?

I looked at the companies that publish growth figures. Pick a brand below to see its numbers and why I wouldn’t line it up against the others.

<figure style="margin:0"><a href="https://urbanstylefootwear.com/running-shoe-statistics/"><img src="https://urbanstylefootwear.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/usf-running-brand-sales-growth-2025-2026.png" alt="Chart of sales growth: On 30%, ASICS 19.5%, Brooks 16%, HOKA 15.9% and the US running shoe market up 13%" width="800" style="max-width:100%;height:auto"></a><figcaption>Source: UrbanStyle Footwear, based on company results and trade reports for On, ASICS, Brooks and HOKA, and Circana data. <a href="https://urbanstylefootwear.com/running-shoe-statistics/">Running Shoe Statistics 2026</a></figcaption></figure>

• It isn’t a ranking. On’s figure is in Swiss francs for calendar 2025, ASICS is the whole group in yen, HOKA is one brand inside Deckers for a year ending in March, and Brooks gives only a percentage.
• None of them is running only. HOKA, On and ASICS sell more than road running shoes, and I found no running-only figure for any of them.
• Reported against constant currency. On’s growth was 35.6% in constant currency, which strips out exchange-rate moves. The 30.0% in the chart is what it reported.
• Who is missing. Nike, New Balance, Saucony, Mizuno and others weren’t in the results I could read at the source, so this is not the whole market.

How often do runners get injured, and do running shoes prevent it?

How often runners get hurt

This comes from a meta-analysis in Sports Medicine that pooled 13 studies (eight prospective cohort studies and five randomised controlled trials).

To make the rate concrete, I did some rough arithmetic. A runner who logs about 150 hours a year (around three hours a week for 50 weeks) would expect roughly 1.2 injuries at the recreational rate and 2.7 at the novice rate. That assumes risk is steady per hour, which it isn’t, so treat it as an illustration and not a prediction. The studies also defined injury in different ways, and the paper does not pool an overall rate across all runner types.

Does the shoe matter?

The Cochrane Library review is the best evidence I found on this. It covers 12 trials with 11,240 participants, and it found that most comparisons showed no clear difference in injuries.

<figure style="margin:0"><a href="https://urbanstylefootwear.com/running-shoe-statistics/"><img src="https://urbanstylefootwear.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/usf-running-shoe-type-and-injury-risk-cochrane-review.png" alt="Chart of Cochrane results on running shoe type and injury risk: all three confidence intervals include 1.0" width="800" style="max-width:100%;height:auto"></a><figcaption>Source: UrbanStyle Footwear, based on the 2022 Cochrane review of running shoes and injury prevention. <a href="https://urbanstylefootwear.com/running-shoe-statistics/">Running Shoe Statistics 2026</a></figcaption></figure>

• Cushioned vs minimalist. Neutral or cushioned shoes “may make little or no difference” against minimalist shoes (5 trials, 766 people, low certainty).
• Soft vs hard midsoles. Also little or no difference (2 trials, 1,095 people, low certainty).
• Motion control and stability shoes. The review rated the evidence very low certainty, so it is uncertain whether either reduces injuries.
• Choosing by foot posture. Prescribing shoes by foot type probably makes little or no difference (3 trials, 7,203 people, moderate certainty). All three trials used military recruits, so they may not apply to recreational runners.
• What it can’t say. No trial compared running shoes with non-running shoes, so the review doesn’t tell you whether to wear running shoes at all.

My read. I’d choose shoes on fit and comfort and not pay extra for an injury-prevention promise the research doesn’t back. The bigger gap in these numbers is between novices and everyone else, which is about how you ramp up, not what you wear.

Do carbon plate running shoes really make you faster?

The study is Hoogkamer and colleagues, published in Sports Medicine in 2018. They compared a Nike prototype with the Nike Zoom Streak 6 and the adidas Adios BOOST 2 at 14, 16 and 18 km/h.

• Small and specific. Eighteen men, all high-caliber runners, tested in a lab. It tells you little about recreational runners, women or longer wear.
• A prototype. The shoe tested was a Nike prototype, not a retail shoe off the shelf.
• Energy cost isn’t a race time. Lower energy cost at a given speed suggests you could go faster, but it is not a measured finishing time.
• Not every runner gained the same. The individual range was from roughly 1.6% to 6.3%.
• What I didn’t check. I didn’t review later studies of other carbon-plate shoes, or who funded this one.
• Rules. World Athletics limits sole thickness and the number of rigid plates in competition shoes. The limits date from 2020 and I haven’t read the 2026 rulebook, so I haven’t quoted numbers. Check the current rule if it matters for your race.

For most recreational runners I’d treat these shoes as an optional race-day purchase, not a training necessity. That’s my opinion, not a finding of the study.

How long do running shoes last?

This is the figure most guides repeat, and the manufacturer’s own support page is where I could trace it. Brooks also says what you use the shoes for matters, because everyday walking or work puts steady pressure on the mesh and cushioning and breaks it down faster, and that rotating between pairs helps. Unworn shoes can deteriorate too, especially the adhesives, so cool, dry storage slows it.

• The two numbers agree. At 20 miles a week, 300 to 500 miles takes 15 to 25 weeks, about 3.5 to 6 months (my arithmetic), which fits Brooks’s 4 to 6 months.
• Signs to replace them. Brooks lists smooth, worn-down tread, a compressed midsole, tears or fraying in the upper, shoes that feel flat or unsupportive, and new pain or soreness without a change in routine.
• The gap. A manufacturer has a reason to say shoes wear out. I’d use the range as a prompt to inspect your shoes, not as a hard deadline.

Why do running statistics from different websites disagree?

Almost every mismatch I hit came down to one of these eight.

Who measures what?

Running data comes from five kinds of source, and each answers a different question. Government statistics barely appear, which is part of why this page has so many industry numbers. Select a step to see what it covers and how I use it.

How good is the evidence behind running shoe statistics?

• The peer-reviewed rows are the strongest, and they are about injuries and shoe performance, not sales or participation.
• Tier C is a mixed bag. Trade-group surveys, race platforms and company results are useful, but the publishers have an interest in a growing market and rarely show a full method.
• Counts are not quality scores. A tier A row is not automatically right for your question, and a tier C row is not automatically wrong. The tier tells you where to look first.

What I’m watching next

I don’t forecast. These are the releases that would change this page, and what I’ll do when they land.

• Circana’s full-year 2026 footwear report. It would give a full-year running figure to replace the first-half one. I expect it in early 2027, but I haven’t seen a date.
• Company results. New quarterly results from On, Deckers (for HOKA), ASICS and Brooks would update the brand explorer and chart.
• The next OIA Running Report and RunSignup RaceTrends. Each would give a second year of runner and race data. I’ll update the counts when they appear.
• Running-specific SFIA figures. If I can read them at the source, I’ll add them.
• A trustworthy average price or pairs per runner. I found neither, and I’d add them if an official or well-documented source appears.
• Corrections. If you know of an official source for the number of US runners or a documented running shoe market size, email me.

Every change goes in the freshness log.

Where other running shoe statistics articles go wrong

I read two of the pages that rank for running statistics before building this one. Some of what follows I saw there, and the rest are traps that are easy to fall into. This is not a complete audit of anyone’s work.

• Problem 1Global market forecasts that contradict each other on the same page, such as $2.9 billion and $10.1 billion for 2032, with no explanation.
• Problem 2Participation counts with no definition of a runner, and global and US figures mixed together.
• Problem 3Performance claims about shoes with no source attached.
• Problem 4Survey percentages with no sample size, date or question wording.
• Problem 5Brand revenue quoted without the period, currency or whether it is the whole company.
• Problem 6A lab result for elite runners presented as a promise for every runner.
• Problem 7No downloadable data, so nobody can check or reuse the numbers.

How can the evidence help you choose running shoes?

This is practical advice, separate from the research. It reflects what the studies above do and don’t show, plus my own opinions where I say so.

1. Choose on fit and comfort first. The Cochrane review found no shoe type with a clear injury edge, so a shoe that fits you beats a shoe with a promise. Measure with my foot measuring guide and use the size conversion calculator if you’re ordering a different brand.
2. Skip the foot-type shopping. Choosing shoes by foot posture probably makes little or no difference to injuries, though the trials were in military recruits.
3. Write the date on the shoe and track miles. Brooks says 300 to 500 miles is typical, and I’d inspect the tread and midsole at the low end of that range.
4. Ramp up slowly if you’re new. Novices had about 2.3 times the injury rate of recreational runners. That’s my reading of the arithmetic, not a finding about training plans.
5. Treat carbon plates as a race-day choice. The 4% result is from 18 elite-level men in a lab. Decide whether the cost makes sense for how you race.
6. Know the return policy. Fit problems are common, and return windows differ by brand. See my shoe return statistics before you order online.
7. Stay on budget. Prices rose 3.6% in the year to August 2026 for all footwear, so a plan that worked last year may buy slightly less. See my best running shoes under $100 and the Prime Day shoe deals page.

Sources and evidence tiers

Evidence hierarchy

• APeer-reviewed research. Original data or systematic reviews in journals: the injury meta-analysis, the Cochrane review and the carbon-plate energy study.
• BOfficial statistics. Only the BLS consumer price index for footwear appears on this page.
• CIndustry research, surveys and company statements. OIA, SFIA, RunRepeat, RunSignup, Running USA, Circana, and the company results from On and Brooks. Useful, but the publisher may have a commercial interest.
• DSecondary reporting. Trade press reports of HOKA and ASICS results that I could not check against the company release, and the market-size forecasts on roundup pages.
• EEstimates and calculations. My own arithmetic and comparisons, with the method stated.

Primary versus secondary data

Primary source: the organisation that collected or published the data. Secondary source: an article summarising someone else’s data. Where I could only read a secondary source, the table says so.

Source table

Methodology and limitations

How I built this page. I looked for official statistics first, then research and company releases, then trade reports, and only then articles. For each figure I recorded the source, date, sample and what kind of evidence it is, and I opened the original wherever it was open to me. I read the Circana, OIA, RunRepeat, RunSignup, SFIA, On Holding, Brooks and the three research papers’ pages on October 19, 2026, and the BLS series through FRED. Where I calculated something, such as a difference, a share or an illustration, it’s labelled E and the method is in the dataset.

What I left out. I left out foot-strike percentages because I could not verify them at the source, running participation counts from paid SFIA reports, global runner and Parkrun figures that I only saw second-hand, brand market shares, any average price or pairs-per-runner claim, and market-size forecasts from paid research.

Limitations you should know about

• OIA’s method isn’t public. The public page doesn’t show the sample, the definition of a runner or the survey method, and “core runner” counts rest on its 50-outings rule.
• Circana gives changes, not totals. I have no dollar size, no average price and no brand split, and the average-price inference rests on rounded percentages.
• Two brand figures are second-hand. HOKA and ASICS come from trade press reports of company results, and I could not open the releases themselves.
• Brand figures aren’t running only. They cover whole brands or groups, with different years and currencies.
• The injury review has limits. Injury definitions varied between studies and it pools no overall rate across runner types.
• The Cochrane review has gaps. Certainty is mostly low or very low, and the foot-posture trials used military recruits.
• The carbon-plate study is small. It tested 18 men with a prototype, and I haven’t reviewed later work.
• Shoe life is manufacturer guidance. I found no independent test.
• World Athletics rules. I haven’t read the 2026 rulebook, so I haven’t quoted any limits.
• The page is US-focused. The injury and shoe research is international and mixes regions.

Data freshness

Last full source review: October 19, 2026. Next scheduled review: January 2027.

Corrections. If you spot an error or have better data, email info@urbanstylefootwear.com with the subject “Data correction”. I’ll check it and note any change in the table above. How I test and review products is explained in our methodology.

For journalists and researchers

You can use the statistics and charts on this page with credit to UrbanStyle Footwear. Wherever you can, please cite the original source printed with each statistic. My own calculations are marked tier E and can be cited to me.

Media kit

Cite this page

<a href="https://urbanstylefootwear.com/running-shoe-statistics/">Running Shoe Statistics 2026 by UrbanStyle Footwear</a>

Related resources

More from UrbanStyle

• Footwear statistics 2026 (hub)
• US footwear market statistics 2026
• Footwear spending statistics 2026
• Shoe return statistics 2026
• Online shoe shopping statistics 2026
• Shoe size statistics 2026
• Best running shoes under $100
• New Balance vs Brooks vs Hoka
• Prime Day shoe deals
• Ultimate footwear buying guide
• Footwear knowledge hub
• How to measure foot size at home
• Shoe size conversion calculator
• How we test shoes
• Contact

Primary sources

• Videbaek et al., 2015
• Relph et al., Cochrane 2022
• Hoogkamer et al., 2018
• BLS CPI
• Circana, H1 2026
• Outdoor Industry Association, 2026
• RunRepeat, 2025
• RunSignup RaceTrends, 2026
• Running USA, January 2026
• SFIA, 2026 topline
• On Holding, full year 2025
• Brooks press release, 2025
• Brooks support page
• World Footwear on Deckers
• World Footwear on ASICS
• US Footwear Market Statistics