Are running shoes too cushioned today?

No.

But isnt such cushioning unnatural and harm running form and the robustness of the foot? Have you also seen how shoes deform the toes?

Barefoot... no. Minimal is best for some runners. Cushioned is better for other runners.

FWIW, I participated in a shoe cushioning treadmill test a few years ago. I wore chest sensors and an oxygen mask and shoes that were identical except the cushioning had been changed in the forefoot and heel.

The results were insightful. The shoes that had the most responsive feel were no more efficient than the softer shoes. But that wasn't the most interesting.

What was interesting is that after running a couple of minutes, I could "feel" my running form adapting to the change in the shoe cushioning! Sometimes, I could even see this slight change reflected in my oxygen efficiency as my foot strike adapted to the shoe.

Too cushioned for you, maybe, not for me.

Its quite unnatural to communicate with other humans electronically as well. I think the worlds best marathoners have great form despite running with cushioned shoes btw. Dont think to much about this.

This is one of those topics where the "experts" go back and forth.

Back in the 90s it was all about the cushioning.

About a decade or so ago, minimalist was all the rage, because it let your feet bend, flex, and do what they naturally do.

Then the boing boing pogo shoes came along, and the runners are all wearing Herman Muenster stilts again.

Eventually, the pendulum will swing back the other way, and the beat goes on.

is there no strong evidence for anything then?

I put "experts" in quotes because most of the "evidence" in this field is more driven by marketing than science. Be wary of any "new findings" that compel you to buy what the "expert" is selling.

"Running shoes" are now made for the masses, not just runners. This way the companies have a broader customer base. The broader base has a 40% obesity rate. They need higher stacks/softer shoes. Imagine being 300 pounds and standing in the same size 10 pegasus as a 140 pounder. Runners make up a very small percentage of sales.

There are so many variables and so little money for the science that it's hard to say definitively. You've got dozens of flavors of EVA, Pebax, TPU that all perform differently, some of which are seriously affected by temperature, rocker vs. non-rocker, drop height, many different types of plates/shanks, dual density foams, durability, your own biomechanics. So even if cushioning does something, there's 30 other things going on that have their own impact.

FWIW, The Doctors of Running Podcast had a good discussion of this with a scientist who did controlled studies finding that cushioning does reduce injury risk:

open.spotify.com

Doctors of Running Podcast

Listen to Doctors of Running Podcast on Spotify.

Link:open.spotify.com/show/794NXYZXZtBvUneH...

Imagine we would have big springs under our feet. The spring would absorb the impact during landing and release it later on. A higher stacked shoe has more possibilities to do so, compared to a lower stacked shoe. There is evidence that more cushion protects the muscles, bones and joints better. The runner can do more miles/week. The runner does not lose as much muscle perfomance during a longer run (e.g. Marathon). So having a responsive cushioned shoe is clearly better. All bigger companies are now on this train. And they have to be light also. Weight plays also a roll.

So i would say, the (good) running shoes were never better.

Yes, of course. But you're asking the wrong people. It's like going to an all you can eat buffet and asking a bunch of fat people if it's good to not be fat.

This is all because the WOKES started pushing their cushy shoes (aka foot safe spaces) on everyone

There is no evidence of this.

There IS evidence that barefoot and minimalist running causes injuries, just in different places. There IS evidence that an improper transition to minimalist tenets increases injury risk. There IS evidence that minimalism does not mesh with obesity. There IS evidence that obesity is increasing. There IS evidence that more supportive, cushioned shoes decrease fatigue while increasing time to exhaustion. Worry about your feet- that's totally fine, but understand that there is no cure for injuries. Anyone who preaches there is is selling something.

I subscribe to a common sense approach.
If I am 140 pounds running 20 miles a week then cushioning is not necessary or relevant.

If I am running 100+ miles then it is relevant. If I am north of 180 pounds then mileage doesn’t matter, I likely need cushioning.

I am primarily a cyclist and in particular, a sprinter. I race a lot of criteriums and track races on the velodrome. I'm not the sort of cyclist that can dance on the pedals up a mountain road. Sprinters are big but not obese. I weigh about 200 pounds and am 5'10" on a good day. That is big for a runner but about average for a cyclist that specializes in sprinting. My BMI is probably around 25% but I have minimal body fat. There are a lot of athletes that are big like I am but that are not obese.

That said, my cross-training is primariy rowing, running, and hiking and I ski in the winter. Because of my size, I prefer a well-cushioned shoe. I primarily run on trails but when I run on the roads, I really want a cushioned shoe. If I run in more minimal shoes, my knees take a pouding. So while I agree that there are many obese runners that need cushioned shoes, there are also others that are bigger but not obese that also benefit.

Can you link to the study? I am aware of the nike react vs stability shoe study, but not this one.

It was by Laurent Malisoux. He has a bunch of relevant papers, but to be honest I haven't read them, just listened to the podcast.

Yes, the number one factor for running injuries is training for races.