Sub-2-Hour Marathon Shoes: How the Tech Works

Sub-2-Hour Marathon Shoes: How the Tech Works

The two-hour barrier was broken twice today.

In record-legal conditions at the London Marathon, Sabastian Sawe of Kenya crossed the line in 1:59:30, 65 seconds inside Kelvin Kiptum’s world record.

Yomif Kejelcha of Ethiopia followed in 1:59:41 on his marathon debut. Jacob Kiplimo of Uganda took third in 2:00:28, also under the previous world record. Sawe and Kejelcha both wore the Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3, launched three days before the race. Kiplimo wore another supershoe, the Nike Alphafly 4 prototype.

So begins the new generation of endurance running tech.

What happens next

London 2026 was warm. Late April in central London delivered conditions several degrees above the optimum for marathon performance, which at elite pace costs roughly two to three seconds per kilometre. The 1:59:30 mark was set despite that. Berlin, in late September, on the flattest course in the major marathon calendar, is the next obvious target. Eight of the ten men’s marathon world records before Kelvin Kiptum’s Chicago run were set there. The same Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3, on the Berlin course in cool autumn air, invites a faster time.

Nike will respond. Kiplimo’s 2:00:28 in third place was set in a prototype Alphafly 4, and Nike effectively created the modern supershoe category with the Vaporfly 4% in 2017. Watching Adidas take the first race-legal sub-2 will not sit comfortably in Beaverton. A consumer Nike racer under 100 grams is the obvious counter, and the deadline is Berlin.

The technology will not stay in the marathon. The same supercritical foams and stiffening elements have already lowered the half-marathon, 10K, and the 5,000m and 10,000m track records. Ruth Chepngetich’s women’s marathon record of 2:09:56, set in Chicago in October 2024, is the next mark most exposed to the new generation of shoes.

How the tech gains accumulate

Three effects compound to produce the modern supershoe. To varying degrees, all are relevant to any distance runner.

  • Mass. Lower shoe weight reduces the metabolic cost of swinging the foot through each stride. Published research suggests roughly a 1 per cent gain in running economy per 100 grams removed. This is NOT the same as you carrying a tiny amount less weight; the saving is linked to a swinging weight.
  • Foam. Modern supercritical foams, including PEBA, TPEE and TPU compounds, return more elastic energy than the EVA midsoles they replaced. A thicker, softer stack returns more energy per footstrike. Adidas Lightstrike Pro Evo, the foam in the Pro Evo 3, is TPEE-based.
  • Plate. A stiff carbon element, whether plate, rods or perimeter rim, restricts metatarsophalangeal joint flexion (now you know), lengthens the effective foot lever and smooths the rollover at toe-off.

The combination, capped at 40mm of stack, has shaved seconds off the world record in each generation. These culminated in today’s amazing times.

Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3 in silver, used at the 2026 London Marathon

 

The complete sub-two-hour list

Only three people have ever gone under 2 hours for the marathon distance. Everyone was set in a carbon-plated supershoe.

  • Eliud Kipchoge, 1:59:40.2. INEOS 1:59 Challenge, Vienna, 12 October 2019. Nike Alphafly prototype. Paced by 41 rotating elites and a lead vehicle, not eligible for ratification.
  • Sabastian Sawe, 1:59:30. London Marathon, 26 April 2026. Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3. The first sub-two-hour mark was set in race conditions.
  • Yomif Kejelcha, 1:59:41. London Marathon, 26 April 2026. Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3. Marathon debut.

No other runner has gone under two hours. Kipchoge’s Monza Breaking2 attempt in 2017 stopped at 2:00:25, and Kiptum’s Chicago world record of October 2023 stood at 2:00:35.

The Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3

Let’s dive into the tech details of the Evo 3.

The shoe used by Sawe and Kejelcha is the first carbon-plated marathon racer to weigh under 100 grams.

  • Weight: 97 grams in a men’s UK 8.5, around 30 per cent lighter than the Pro Evo 2 (I have a pair – they are fast!)
  • Stack: 39mm at the heel, 36mm at the forefoot, 1mm under the World Athletics legal ceiling of 40mm.
  • Foam: a new generation of Lightstrike Pro Evo, claimed to be 50 per cent lighter than the version used in the Pro Evo 2.
  • Stiffening: ENERGYRIM, a carbon-fibre frame around the outer edge of the midsole rather than under the foot. Lighter than a full plate, allowing the foam to compress directly beneath the foot, while the perimeter rim provides propulsion.
  • Outsole: Continental rubber on the forefoot.
  • Adidas claims: 1.6 per cent better running economy than the Pro Evo 2, 11 per cent more forefoot energy return.
  • Price: $500!

What this means for amateur runners

Normally, I would be cautious about new tech and say something like, “For mere mortals, there is no need to get excited.” However, there is no need to be cautious here; these shoes and similar supershoes will make any runner faster, at least faster than a regular GBP/USD 100 pair you might currently use. Almost anyone reading this article WILL knock off about 30 seconds from their 5K PB… maybe more if you are typically a slower runner.

That said, the carbon element delivers most of its benefit at an elite pace, where ground contact is brief and toe-off mechanics dominate the stride.

The foam delivers benefit at every pace. For a runner targeting a four-hour or five-hour marathon finish, much of the running-economy gain comes from the foam rather than the plate. Opinion: a shoe with a modern supercritical foam and no carbon may capture most of what matters at a fraction of the cost.

One caveat. High-stack soft-foam shoes without a stiffening plate can feel less stable, particularly for runners prone to ankle problems or on uneven surfaces. Take a cautious first outing before committing to one for race day.

Regular runners on a budget: look for a supercritical foam such as PEBA, TPEE or TPU. Brand language varies.

FAQ

Q: What shoes did the sub-2 marathon runners wear at London 2026?

Sabastian Sawe and Yomif Kejelcha both wore the Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3, the first carbon-plated marathon racer under 100 grams. Jacob Kiplimo, third in 2:00:28, wore a Nike Alphafly 4 prototype.

Q: How many sub-2-hour marathons have ever been run?

Three. Eliud Kipchoge ran 1:59:40.2 at the INEOS 1:59 Challenge in Vienna in October 2019, but that was a paced exhibition and not eligible for ratification. Sabastian Sawe ran 1:59:30 at London 2026, and Yomif Kejelcha ran 1:59:41 in the same race. They are the only sub-two-hour performances on record.

Q: Will the London 2026 marathon record fall again?

Probably yes, and possibly soon. London 2026 was run in warm conditions that cost roughly two to three seconds per kilometre at elite pace. Berlin in September, on the fastest course in the major marathon calendar, is the obvious next target for the same shoe in cooler air.

Q: Will Nike release a sub-100-gram racer to match the Adidas Pro Evo 3?

Almost certainly. Nike created the supershoe category with the Vaporfly 4% in 2017 and is unlikely to let a competitor break the first race-legal sub-2 mark. The Alphafly 4 prototype worn by Jacob Kiplimo at London is the platform on which a consumer answer is most likely to be built. Berlin in September is the deadline that matters.

Q: Do amateur runners need a carbon-plated supershoe to gain from this technology?

The carbon element delivers most of its benefits at an elite pace. For a runner targeting a four-hour or five-hour marathon, the bigger contribution comes from a modern supercritical foam (PEBA, TPEE or TPU), now available in shoes priced well below the $500 of the Pro Evo 3. A supercritical-foam shoe without a carbon plate may capture most of what matters at a fraction of the cost. High-stack soft-foam shoes without a plate can feel less stable, so a cautious first outing is sensible before race day.

 

Last Updated on 3 May 2026 by the5krunner


My favourite kit and nutrition

  • Maurten — the race nutrition trusted by elite athletes. Gels and drink mix engineered to be easy on the stomach.
  • Garmin 90-degree charging adapter — the small adapter that keeps your charging cable tidy at the stem. Essential for race day.
  • Garmin charging puck — the fastest and most reliable way to top up your Garmin before a session.
  • Ravemen FR300 — front light that mounts directly under your Garmin or Wahoo head unit. Keeps your bars clean and your beam pointed where it matters.
  • Garmin Varia RTL515 — radar rear light that alerts you to vehicles approaching from behind. Pairs with your Edge or Garmin watch.
  • Stryd — the footpod that brings running power to your Garmin. The single most useful running upgrade I have made.
  • Favero Assioma Pro RS2 — the power meter pedals most serious cyclists end up choosing. Accurate, easy to move between bikes.


Reader-Powered Content

Buy me a coffee

This content is not sponsored. It’s mostly me behind the labour of love, which is this site, and I appreciate everyone who supports it.

Support the site: Follow (free, fewer ads) · Subscribe (paid, ad-free) · Buy Me A Coffee ❤️

All articles are written by real people, fact-checked, and verified for originality. See the Editorial Policy. FTC: Affiliate Disclosure — some links pay commission. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

9 thoughts on “Sub-2-Hour Marathon Shoes: How the Tech Works

  1. I think you probably know this but while Nike ZoomX started the super shoe midsole race with supercritical Pebax (PEBA from Arkema), adidas uses TPEE as the basis for Lightstrike Pro and Lightstrike Pro Evo. Puma nitro was originally TPEE and has evolved to aTPU. All three of those chemistries are used in different supercritical foaming, molding and — in the case of Lightstrike pro evo — milling techniques to manufacture super shoe midsoles for various brands. I’m not 100% certain but I think adidas has stuck with TPEE chemistry and just different advanced processing techniques to develop Lightstrike Pro and pro evo foam across generations of shoes.

  2. I own a Nike Pegasus 41 (no carbon) and Adidas Adios Pro 4 (carbon) and have run the same course under same conditions at same HR and the difference is around 10/15 sec per km in a 4:50:km pace, which is massive (and nowhere near elite numbers). Unsure if it is the carbon plate, but the Adios Pro feel and prove to be a much faster shoe.

    1. hi i’ve doen similar tests with similar super shoes and maybe at that speed the saving is around what you say. it’s almost certainly a saving of a few tens of seconds for alomst everyone doing a 5k.

  3. I ran in the very first London marathon in 1981… If today’s runners were to use shoes from that period, the 2 hour barrier may not have been breached. It’s similar to cycling, F1, and any other sport that has advanced with tech aid. In order for a level playing field, all specs for tech should have a ceiling for true comparison. Basically the better the tech, the more performance is enhanced. But let’s not take away the brilliant jaw dropping runs of those guys who smashed the world record. Truly amazing.

    1. ha ha yes! there is no way that shoes from 1981 would power a sub-2 hour marathon in 2026.
      I suppose there are parallels with F1 but there are far fewer rules governing running tech that make a difference. Much less to tinker with when designing a shoe and surprising that it took show tech so long to find a better foam.

  4. Had the great privilege of exhibiting at the Marathon. Record breaking all-round.

    Thanks very much for sharing your quality insights.

  5. This saddens me. If the question is “Who is using the best technology to augment the human body?”, then I can complete a marathon in around 45 seconds, and a trained fighter pilot would take about half that. If the question is “Who’s the best athlete?”, then augmenting people with go-fast technology makes that question impossible to answer. So exactly what question are we trying to answer?

    1. I take the point and agree.
      However the top atheltes proabbly all have similar tech after a ashort while, so the answer is still roughly the same. that said, even the ‘best’ athelte or best team might lose on the day from luck or bad preparation

      Q: who is the best F1 driver?
      is much harder to answer where tech plays a much more significant role in determining the result.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *