The National Running Show: Community, Consumerism, and Critical Thinking

I want to start by saying this clearly: I had a really good time at The National Running Show.

Running show goodies 🙈🙈🙈

Attending felt a bit like a pilgrimage (because we all know running is secretly a cult). Jokes aside, it felt like a coming together of people who, for the most part, care deeply about running; not just as a sport, but as a practice that shapes identity, wellbeing, and community. It was great to finally meet people I’ve known only through Instagram, to put faces to usernames, and to have real conversations beyond a comment section or DM. There was something grounding about that.

I also enjoyed hearing a range of inspirational speakers, and on a more practical note, I made some significant savings on products I genuinely needed for upcoming training and races, alongside picking up a few freebies. That’s part of the appeal of these events, and I won’t pretend otherwise.

When Small Brands Get It Right

One of the most encouraging aspects of the show was the number of smaller companies who are clearly doing things well.

These were brands founded by people who care deeply about their product, who understand the problem they’re trying to solve, and who want to connect with runners as people rather than simply as consumers. You could feel the difference immediately: founders on the stall, knowledgeable ambassadors who actually use the product, and conversations that went beyond surface-level sales pitches.

Brands like TrailSkin, Highland Fuel Nutrition, and High & Dry Beer stood out as examples of this. Each had identified a genuine need or looked at something existing and thought, we can do this better. That kind of innovation feels rooted in lived experience rather than marketing trends, and it shows.

The Darker Side of Running Consumerism

On the flip side, the show also highlighted the worst aspects of fitness marketing.

There has been a noticeable flooding of low-efficacy products in the running space, particularly around the current electrolyte craze, which I’ve discussed elsewhere. This is a classic example of marketing creating a problem in order to sell you the solution—convincing runners that they are deficient, fragile, or at constant risk unless they buy this product.

Unsurprisingly, the stalls operating under this model were often staffed by hired promotional workers for the day. When asked anything beyond the most basic, rehearsed talking points, the answers quickly ran out.

When Marketing Becomes Dangerous

More concerning, however, were the moments where marketing crossed into territory that felt genuinely unsafe.

I had a conversation with one company selling two topical balms. One, they claimed, should be applied before running to “relax the muscle and make it more powerful.” The other was a pain-relief cream that, according to the rep, could be applied to injuries so you could “keep running.”

By this point in the day I was tired, and I’ll admit I just nodded along—but these kinds of claims are not harmless. Encouraging people to run through injury or implying physiological effects without evidence risks real harm.

They weren’t alone. Another company confidently claimed to sell “the most shock-absorbent insole in the world.” When I questioned how they substantiated such a bold statement, I was met with vague references to “science.” Which science? Where are the references?

Even more importantly, increased shock absorbency does not equate to reduced injury risk. Research has shown that while foot orthoses may reduce sports injuries, shock-absorbing insoles do not (Mayer, 2016). So even if the claim were true, it doesn’t deliver the benefit runners are actually being sold which is the implied injury reduction. This, again, is a familiar marketing tactic: implying performance or injury-prevention benefits that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

A Note of Optimism

Despite all of this, there was one genuinely positive thread running through the consumerism.

Many brands showed a clear awareness of environmental and sustainability concerns. From packaging choices, to products designed to extend the life of gear or repair rather than replace it, to the use of recycled materials and lower-impact production methods—it was encouraging to see sustainability being treated as a core consideration rather than an afterthought.

Final Thoughts

The National Running Show is, inevitably, a complex space. It sits at the intersection of community and commerce, inspiration and influence, evidence and exaggeration. My experience reflected all of that.

I left feeling energised by the people, encouraged by the smaller brands doing things right, and reminded of the importance of critical thinking in a sport that is increasingly commodified. Running doesn’t need fixing. Runners don’t need endless solutions to invented problems. What we do need is honesty, evidence, and a bit more trust in the resilience of the human body.

References

Mayer, S. (2016) Foot orthoses reduce sports injury but shock absorbing insoles do not, study finds. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i250