Are big shoe brands holding back better shoes?

On the 28 June 2025 episode of The Energy Blueprint Podcast, Xero Shoes co-founder Steven Sashen made a striking claim: a major sports brand secretly tested a more natural shoe that cut injury rates by half compared to their top-selling model — and then shelved it.

A more natural shoe, as Sashen describes, is designed to let feet move and flex as they naturally would. It’s flat from heel to toe (no elevated heel), thin-soled for ground feel, wide at the toes for natural toe spread, and free of built-in arch support or stiff structure. It prioritizes natural movement and foot strength over artificial cushioning or control.

“They found fewer injuries… and they still sell the old shoe. If we injured 30% of users in 12 weeks, I’d be explaining this from a jail cell.”

Here, Sashen is pointing out what he sees as a double standard. He says that if his own company released a shoe that injured nearly one in three customers in just three months, regulators would shut them down or even hold him legally accountable — yet big brands face no such consequence. He’s arguing that these companies knowingly continue selling injury-prone shoes simply because they’re profitable.

This critique fits into a broader pattern: research shows injury rates among runners have stayed stubbornly high despite decades of “supportive” shoe technology, and studies have found little evidence that cushioned or motion-control shoes prevent injuries.

Sashen also described sitting next to a Brooks rep at a sports science conference who claimed their shoes “give you more spring in your step.” He countered:

“Nothing propels you forward or puts a spring in your step other than your legs… You can’t violate the laws of physics.”

Should We Listen?
Sashen’s points are provocative — and not without merit. He questions marketing buzzwords like “energy return,” which physics doesn’t support in the way it’s often advertised. Yet as the co-founder of a minimalist shoe brand, he has a clear business interest in discrediting traditional shoe companies. And because he never names the brand behind the shelved shoe, his claim can’t be independently verified.

The Bottom Line
Sashen may be biased, but his argument raises a fair question: are big brands protecting consumers — or just protecting their profits? His challenge is clear: question the marketing, look at the evidence, and let your feet decide.