Compression Garments: The Promise
Runners constantly seek strategies to optimize their performance, and compression garments have emerged as a widely adopted technological aid in this pursuit. These specialized items, typically fashioned from materials like nylon and synthetic elastic fabrics, exert a precise amount of firm pressure on a runner's body. The idea behind these garments, which include tights, socks, calf sleeves, and shorts, posits a range of potential physiological and biomechanical advantages. Proponents suggest that this targeted compression could lead to several benefits for runners, such as:
- Improved blood flow to the working muscles.
- Reduced soft tissue vibration: Minimizing the oscillation of muscles during impact, which could theoretically lessen energy waste and muscle fatigue.
- Improved movement control and stability: The supportive pressure might enhance proprioception (the body's sense of its position in space) and stabilize joints.
- Decreased exercise-induced muscle damage: Potentially limiting micro-tears and inflammation.
- Faster recovery time: While often associated with post-exercise use, some theories extend this benefit to during exercise by mitigating damage.
With continuous advancements in design and increasing market demand, the appeal of compression gear for runners has only grown, driven by the promise of these performance-enhancing effects. Nevertheless, the scientific evidence supporting significant performance enhancements from wearing compression garments during running has been inconsistent and, at times, contradictory.
Rigorous Scientific Review
To cut through the noise, a recent and comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis by Wang et al. (2025) [1] synthesized data from numerous randomized control trials (RCT) on compression garments and running performance. In particular, they conducted an extensive search across six major databases, identifying 51 eligible studies involving 899 participants up to September 2024. The primary outcomes of interest were race time and time to exhaustion, representing direct measures of running performance. Secondary outcomes included running speed and pace, submaximal oxygen uptake, tissue oxygenation, and soft tissue vibration.
To evaluate the quality and reliability of the included studies, several gold-standard tools were employed:
- The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool assessed potential biases within each randomized trial.
- The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale determined the overall methodological quality of the RCTs.
- The Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system rated the certainty of the evidence for the effect estimates.
This meticulous methodology ensures that the conclusions drawn are based on the highest available scientific rigor, providing a robust answer to the question of compression garments' efficacy in running.
Key Findings and Implications
The observed impact from compression garments across studies was quantified with the standardized mean difference (SMD), where values close to zero indicate a trivial impact, and p-values, which tell how strong the evidence of an observed effect is (compared to no effect at all) - small p-values indicating larger significance. The findings were clear: despite the widespread popularity of these garments, the analysis indicates that their performance-enhancing benefits during running are largely unsubstantiated:
- In terms of primary outcomes, runners wearing compression garments showed no significant improvement in race time (SMD = -0.07, p = 0.40). Similarly, there was no significant change in time to exhaustion (SMD = 0.04, p = 0.72). These null findings were consistent across various garment types (e.g., shorts, tights, sleeves, stockings), different race distances (from short sprints to marathons), and diverse running surfaces (tarmac, track, treadmill, mountainous terrain).
- Additionally, no significant effect was found on running speed and pace (SMD = 0.17, p=0.10), submaximal oxygen uptake (SMD = -0.02, p = 0.78) which is how efficiently the body uses oxygen at lower intensities, or tissue oxygenation (SMD = -1.06, p = 0.32).
- Compression garments did lead to a small but statistically significant reduction in soft tissue vibration (SMD = -0.43, p < 0.01). This refers to the oscillation or "jiggling" of muscles during impact, which compression garments effectively dampen, suggesting a potential biomechanical effect, even if this doesn't translate to direct performance gains.
It is important to note that the certainty of evidence for these findings was rated low to very low, largely due to methodological weaknesses in many included studies. A substantial proportion of trials (75%) had a high risk of bias, particularly in randomization and reporting. Additionally, studies often featured small sample sizes, with a median of just 13 participants. A notable limitation was also the lack of monitoring or reporting of adverse events.
To summarize, based on this updated synthesis of current research, runners should understand that compression garments are unlikely to provide a direct performance boost for speed or endurance during a run. While they might offer a subjective sense of support or comfort by minimizing muscle vibration, athletes seeking tangible improvements in race outcomes may need to focus on other evidence-backed training and physiological strategies.
References
- Wang W et al. "Do compression garments enhance running performance? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis", J Sport Health Sci 14 (2025) 101050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2025.101028