OVERALL 3CREVIEWS
SCORE:
70/100
RANKED 1ST OF 2 SOCKS TESTED - See the other socks tested here
A colourful, reliable but pricey knee-length compression sock.
We tested the CEP's The Run Socks (Tall) to the full, and, to make sure we aren't being bias, we had 4 additional 3C Reviewers who tried and tested these socks over a variety of activities - say hello to Louise, Richard F, Janet and Richard B!
We questioned our testers on a range of factors including style, comfort, value, key selling points and post exercise benefit to name a few, whilst we researched and dug into CEP's sizing system, workplace ethics and manufacturing - not forgetting online reviews either! We combined all this information to give the socks a score out of 100. This is what we found:
PRODUCT OVERVIEW
Brand: CEP
Make/Model: The Run Socks (Tall) or 4.0
Cushioning: Moderate
Colours Available: 7 - Black, White, Petrol, Royal Blue, Pink, Ocean, Rose (Women's only)
Price: £44.95
Materials: 83% polyamide, 17% elastane
CEP's The Run Socks Tall are CEP's headlining compression sock, taking on new branding, having moved away from 2.0/3.0 names. These are technically the 4.0, just with a shiny new label. As the name suggests, these are designed and marketed with runners in mind, with blister-free fit, strong compression and padding being key features.
Product Highlights:
- Excellent Aesthetic and Style
- Amazing range of colour options
- The production of these socks have excellent Ethical Practices/Workers Rights
Product Downsides:
- Recovery benefit mostly limited to leaving socks on post-session which isn't always practical
- Not great value for money
- Materials have numerous, serious negative impacts for the environment
76/100
LOUISE | RICHARD F | JANET | RICHARD B |
84/100 | 67/100 | 78/100 | 73/100 |
65/100
This is just an overview of the thorough process I undertook to really get my teeth into these products - albeit not literally! Below is a list variables I took into account into the scoring. Simply click on the topics parts that interest you about CEP's The Run Socks (Tall!) to read more.
CONTENTS
3C Reviewers Score Criteria:
- Comfort
- Fit
- Quality
Desk Research Score Criteria:
PART 1
3C REVIEWERS FEEDBACK:
76/100
The four testers were told to go about their usual exercise habits with socks for a minimum of 10 sessions, whether that be running, or other activities. This was important, as whilst they are built for running, I think it’s important for the socks to be versatile, and I wanted to see how they fared in a range of activities.
So what did our testers think of these socks?
AESTHETIC - 9.4/10
Louise (10) - Richard F (8.4) - Janet (9.5) - Richard B (9.5)
Considering that aesthetic is a very subjective element and that we have 4 different testers, it’s quite significant how unanimously well the look and style of these socks was received. In fact it was the highest scoring feature of these socks when looking at the feedback for all four testers.
I gave all four testers different colours: Louise (Pink/Black), Richard F (Ocean/Petrol), Janet (Rose/Dark Red) and Richard B (White). For Louise and Janet, these were very well received, with both being very complimentary to the aesthetic, scoring their socks 10/10 for colour! Richard B scored a little lower with 8, but commented how professional they looked. Richard F scored even lower with 4 - he did not like the light blue! But, when I showed Richard B and Richard F the remaining colours and asked if there’s any they would have preferred in hindsight, both picked plain Black, with them giving the Black colour scores of 10 and 8, respectively. Even Louise, who already loved her Pink/Black ones, showed love for the plain Black too!
The style/design/pattern of the socks was also received well, with the 4 of them scoring the style 9.3/10 on average. Both Janet and Richard F commented how much they liked two tone colour design - Richard F simply didn’t like the colour he’d tested (which is on me!).
I also asked the testers, how much out of 10 would they rate the importance of colour/style when it comes to purchasing a product like this. And the responses were mixed. Louise deemed aesthetic an essential part of the purchasing decision, giving the importance a 10/10. Janet however rated comfort significantly above aesthetic, with her only giving colour/style a 3/10 for importance. The Richard’s came in between, with Richard B and Richard F, giving aesthetic 5 and 7 out of 10 respectively. These scores were added into the calculation to give CEP’s The Run Socks (Tall) their overall aesthetic score.
Louise considered these socks to be aesthetically superior to the Compressport Full Run Socks - a sock I will be reviewing in due course!
COMFORT - 8.8/10
Louise (9) - Richard F (7) - Janet (10) - Richard B (9)
Comfort was rated well across the board. From my perspective, whilst they were comfortable, the most notable thing about these socks was the tightness, something that Louise, Richard B and Janet all observed. But this wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. Janet commented how she loved the feel of them and that she felt ready to run the moment she had them on - considering she had been going through some knee troubles at the time, that’s saying something! Richard B commented that despite them being tight and hard to get on, once they were on, they were very comfortable.
But both Janet and Richard F experienced some pinching and/or bunching at the top near the knee. So much so for Richard F that it was his main reason for not liking the socks as a whole. The compression was deemed comfortable, but the socks finished high on his calves, resulting in the socks causing discomfort/irritation behind the knee when the knee was bent.
'WOW' FACTOR - 8.8/10
Louise (10) - Richard F (7) - Janet (10) - Richard B (8)
Initial first impressions were very positive, with no additional comments made by any of the testers. They looked good and felt good, contributing to the great score. The first impressions, in hindsight, were maybe a touch on the optimistic side, but ultimately all four testers weren’t discouraged with the socks out of the packaging!
FIT - 8.8/10
Louise (9) - Richard F (7) - Janet (9) - Richard B (10)
Once again, the socks performed great here too, with all four responding favourably to how these socks fit. Janet noted how stretchy yet sturdy the socks fit whilst Richard B also commented about how they felt very supportive around the calves when golfing. Louise simply added how much she loved the fit.
But the testers had a number of comments on how the socks could fit better. Janet noted that the sock itself didn’t fit around the foot well, with the socks feeling a bit too big. She suggested that the size guide should better match the foot size - something I go into a LOT of depth in the Size Guide part of this review! Richard F, as mentioned, said that the socks seem to come up a little high around his knee and bunched up, causing discomfort. Louise and Richard B both noted how difficult they were to get on (and off!). Louise mentions how it’s particularly tough when they were used in hot weather with the moisture and humidity being a problem. I personally used them post swimming, and my slightly damp calves made it a nightmare to get them on to a point I was concerned they might rip!!
I found the fit to be a bit too tight, with my calves feeling somewhat suffocated when lactic was building on hill climbs, uptempo etc.. But, to be fair, the calves did recover quickly and continued running nicely.
Louise noted how she actually prefers the feel and fit of the knee length compression socks over the fit/feel of calf sleeves. I’m not reviewing calf sleeves in this series, but I thought it was an interesting comment to make, especially if any of you are torn between socks or sleeves!
QUALITY - 8.8/10
Louise (9.5) - Richard F (8.5) - Janet (9) - Richard B (8)
I know! Another 8.8/10! These testers are being consistent! But it also reflects the consistent high standard/quality of these socks. The testers were asked if they perceived the socks to be of a high quality having held them and put them on, but BEFORE trying them properly. They were then asked again AFTER they tested them to see if their opinion had changed. Overall, the quality was perceived to be pretty great. For Richard F, he thought the socks maybe weren’t quite as high a quality as he expected/hoped, having initially scored a 9 and then 8 after. Louise however was the opposite, thinking even more highly of them after trialling them, boosting her initial score 9 to a full 10/10.
VALUE - 5.1/10
Louise (6.7) - Richard F (6.7) - Janet (3.3) - Richard B (3.4)
You may have already seen in the review overview, the RRP of CEP’s The Run Socks (Tall) is £44.95. I asked all four testers before trialling them, and without looking up the price online, how much do they think these socks sell for? And then after trying them, I asked them again in case their view had changed. And ALL four of them came back with guesses considerably under the actual RRP. Both Louise and Richard F, who are experienced runners, predicted the closest, both guessing £30. Janet and Richard B on the other hand assumed they were much cheaper, coming in at only a THIRD of the actual RRP going for £15 and £15.50 respectively.
Interestingly, Richard B initially guessed £15, and then changed his guess to £15.50 after having tried them. Now, knowing Richard B, I’m unsure if this was a little comical flare by chucking an extra 50p on his guess, or if he genuinely believed they were worth more than he initially thought. Given how positive he’s been about the socks, I may be miscalculating him. But he did go 50p up and not down, which also implies some positive reflection on his experience with them.
The average guess of the 4 testers was £22.63. Almost half the actual price. Implying that either the testers don’t buy much in the way of knee length compression socks or that, realistically, the CEP The Run Socks (Tall) are a bit overpriced.
MARKETED FEATURES - 7/10
Louise (7) - Richard F (5.7) - Janet (8) - Richard B (7.7)
CEP has three main claims on their website about what The Run Socks (Tall) do and how they benefit your training. I asked each tester how much they believe in each of the three statements/claims out of 10 given their experience with them. The above scores are the average score each tester gave across all three claims. This is what our 3CTesters thought of each of CEP’s marketed features:
“The Run Compression Socks feature a proven blend of materials and wrinkle-free fit for blister-free running”
5.8/10
Louise (7) - Richard F (5) - Janet (5) - Richard B (6)
This marketing point was the least believable according to our testers. Louise was the most positive - and even she still got blisters with them! Maybe being a little too positive on her part. It implies that the users maybe felt the socks didn’t reduce much friction compared to normal socks. Overall, the testers called bullsh*t the most on this claim - and I don’t entirely disagree where they are coming from (I break this down later in the Marketing and what the Science Says section!)
“Targeted medi compression wraps around your calves and activates the supply of nutrients – for noticeably lighter legs and a feel-good effect”
8.3/10
Louise (7) - Richard F (7) - Janet (10) - Richard B (9)
This was the most believable of the three claims CEP gives, according to the four testers. This implies these socks did make a difference to the 3CReviewers on their various activities, leaving them with fresher feeling legs during and after using them. I personally found this benefit most noticeably when on a spin bike and post fartlek running.
“The anatomical design and padded zones in the foot reduce exhausting muscle vibrations – for optimum cushioning and greater endurance”
7.3/10
Louise (7) - Richard F (5) - Janet (9) - Richard B (8)
This claim split the testers the most. This may be due to them doing different activities and hence having a different experience. Or maybe the claim itself is a little misleading and down to interpretation on what the claim is actually saying - something I also dig into in the Marketing and what the Science Says section. But the testers' feedback suggests the socks somewhat-to-strongly help to reduce exhausting muscle vibrations.
BRAND RECOGNITION - 3/5
Louise (4.3) - Richard F (3.8) - Janet (2.5) - Richard B (1.5)
I asked each of the four testers how aware were they of CEP before reviewing the socks, and, even if they hadn’t heard of them, how good a reputation do they think CEP has? Janet and Richard B weren't aware of the brand at all. However, they both scored CEP’s reputation as decent, with Janet basing her positive score on the feel and design of the socks, whilst Richard B said the positive experience with the socks influenced his score, albeit a slightly more reserved one. But given CEP is a compression specialist, it’s not a big surprise that Janet and Richard B haven’t heard of them.
Louise and Richard F were more familiar with the brand. CEP heavily markets towards the running community and Louise and Richard F have both done a lot of running, hence the potential recognition. They were also complimentary to CEP’s reputation, with Richard F basing his feedback on the fact he sees the products on reputable and trusted online retailers and in running magazines. He added that he’s unaware of any bad press associated with CEP. Louise on the other hand has tried and used CEP before and is very positive on her past experiences with the brand.
POST EXERCISE BENEFIT - 2.3/5
Louise (0) - Richard F (4) - Janet (0) - Richard B (5)
Given one of the more common and well marketed features of compression socks is the recovery effect they offer the calves, it’s paramount that people wear the socks for a period of time after exercise to maximise post-exercise benefit. So I asked the testers whether or not they kept the socks on post activity/exercise and whether or not they felt a benefit.
Louise and Janet didn’t keep the socks on, and hence missed out on a significant benefit of having these socks. But this isn’t necessarily their fault, and is maybe a problem with how compression socks are expected to be used in general. For example, Louise said she didn’t leave the socks on as she needs to shower and get on with the day, which is hardly her fault, but perhaps a limitation of the socks. Janet didn’t either as they pinched near her knee and didn’t want to keep them on any longer than needed. The socks demand time. To benefit fully from them, they require you to exercise in them and then wear them for around 30 minutes afterwards - if not longer. So if the socks aren’t perfect or you simply don’t have the luxury of time, it’s worth considering what it is you want from the socks and if they are worth the investment.
Meanwhile, Richard B and Richard F both found the time to keep them on post exercise and found that, yes, they did have a noticeable improvement on their calves, feeling somewhat fresher! Richard F, however, was skeptical, believing such an effect could be just a placebo. I often left them on post exercise, and I was also dubious, but, in reflection, I didn’t suffer with any calf niggles whilst testing them, indicating some positive influence.
THICKNESS - 4/5
Louise (5) - Richard F (5) - Janet (5) - Richard B (1)
When it came to the thickness of the socks, Louse, Richard F and Janet all found the thickness to be perfect and had no criticisms of any sort - even despite it being summer, they weren’t too hot etc. Richard B however found them too thin, so much so he had to put another sock over the top so his feet didn’t move so much in his golf shoes. And these aren’t even from CEP’s Ultralight (very thin) range! To be fair to CEP, these aren’t built or designed for golf, but be aware if you like thick padded socks, these may not be the ones for you.
DID THE TESTERS LIKE THEM? - 3.8/5
Louise (YES) - Richard F (NO) - Janet (YES) - Richard B (YES)
Despite all four testers being fairly positive about the socks, only 3 would go on to say that they actually, explicitly liked them, with Richard F being the odd one out. He commented that the colour and pinching behind the knee were his main reasons for not liking them. But when asked if his answer would have been different had he tried/tested the black pair (which he much preferred aesthetically), he commented that the pinching/irritation behind the knee was too significant to like them, no matter the colour.
Janet, Richard B and Louise all liked the socks.
OTHER COMMENTS
I asked the testers a few additional questions to help me understand their experience with the socks better. For example, when asked if the testers had owned previous knee length compression socks before, Janet said she had tried Discoball socks (not a brand I’m familiar with!), but went on to say that the CEP were better as the height up to the knee was preferable, even if they did pinch at the top a little.
Richard F and Louise both mentioned that they washed fine. Janet said hers lost some colour and shrunk a little post wash, but ultimately still looked great and felt fine.
Louise commented that she would totally recommend them.
I liked them too, but I would not recommend them for yoga, as they reduce sensitivity in the foot and reduce grip, making my feet work harder to maintain my position - which wasn’t pleasant! They aren’t designed for yoga, so I can’t penalise CEP too much! I also had reduced sensitivity during foam rolling, which could be advantageous to those who find foam rolling the calves too painful!
PART 2
THE DESK RESEARCH:
65/100
ONLINE REVIEWERS SCORE - 8.2/10
The initial plan here was to find the product profile on Google and utilise the reviews there, but this was difficult to do as the reviews on the Google Profile for this product wasn’t exclusive for this specific model of sock by CEP. So, instead I found reviews that were explicitly for the CEP The Run Socks (Tall) on various CEP websites and this was what we found…
Online reviewers, on average, gave these socks a score of 4.09 out of 5. The reviewers were considerably favourable, with the most applauded feature of the socks being the comfort, with a third of all positive reviews stating how comfortable they were. Following that, the next positive was CEP's customer service - which isn’t a sock feature but interesting nonetheless!
Other notable positive comments include the support the socks provide, being superior to their predecessor, how lightweight they are, the build and compression quality, the style and colour, the in-exercise feeling/benefit and also the breathability of the socks.
The most notable criticisms were how hard they were to put on (which was also found by Richard B and Louise!) and poor durability, with the socks often tearing or developing a hole, sometimes when putting them on with force. These comments came from 60% of all the negative reviews.
Other notable criticisms, interestingly, include claiming that these are inferior or on par to the previous model, which contrasts the fact that a number of other users said the exact opposite.
THE RANGE OF STYLE AND COLOUR OPTIONS - 4.5/5
CEP always delivers strong on their main line of compression socks when it comes to colour choice, and that’s no different for The Run Socks (Tall). CEP released 6 colours at launch consisting of two neutral (black and white) as well as four additional colours (petrol/dark red; pink/black; ocean/petrol; rose/dark red) making the most of its two tone design and offering a mixture of loud combos. Another colour has since been added - a unitone Royal Blue!
The only criticism is gender specific colours. It reinforces stereotypes and whilst the more vibrant pink/black variant is available in men's sizes (which is great!) they could have made the rose/dark red colour also available in Men's. It may not be to my personal tastes, but I'm sure there will be some who fall into the Men’s sizing that may love the colour but find it isn’t available to them.
The CEP Run Socks (Tall) only come in one design/pattern, which isn't uncommon for compression socks, regardless of brand. But this may be a bit limiting for those who like bright colours, but not the two tone look. However, to be fair, once your trainers are on, the foot portion is mostly covered by the shoes, and hence the two-tone effect isn't as strong an aesthetic as the pictures may imply. There are the unitone options, but other than the recently released royal blue variant, the other unitone colours are the less loud black and/or white options. Those looking for a bright coloured sock portion and a more neutral upper are hence out of luck at the time of writing and will have to wait for future updates.
All the CEP The Run Socks (Tall) Colours
PRICE AND VALUE FOR MONEY - 1.6/5
Quality does often come with a price, and for some, paying £44.95 for a pair of socks is eye-watering. But when taking into account its quality, are they really that expensive?
The CEP The Run Socks are the 4th most expensive of the 10 being tested, so middle of the pack, but still on the more premium end of the market. When combining this with the testers value score and feedback, the price (£44.95) is just okay value, but this product at that price has a long way to go to be considered a bargain and totally worth the extra money.
MARKETING AND WHAT THE SCIENCE SAYS - 5.5/10
Sports brands make plenty of claims of what a product can do for you and your training/fitness/wellbeing/recovery and CEP is no different. How does CEP's claims for The Run Socks Tall hold up?
"The Run Compression Socks feature a proven blend of materials and wrinkle-free fit for blister-free running." - 7/10
The problem with this statement is that it's vague. A proven blend implies that it has been backed by research or in practice. Given CEP lists no science or journals to back this up, it suggests the ‘proven blend’ comes from their history of sock making, which, to be fair to them, is their strong point, with a significant number of past positive reviews to back this up. But what is it proving, per say? Proven to do what? They don't specify. They also state the socks have a ‘blend of materials’, which is a little misleading, suggesting these socks have been engineered with numerous materials in a complex structure, when in fact there are only two materials used, polyamide and elastane.
Wrinkle-free fit sounds good, but what is ‘wrinkling’ referring to? Is it alluding to the ‘bunching up’ that can happen to a sock when on a run, or it is implying the sock is anti-creasing? When it comes to performance, you’d hope for the former. But the socks can bunch up if not put on correctly, no matter the material. Elastane can help keep garments crease free - but not necessarily free from bunching up. When it comes to anti-bunching, this is likely referring to the compressive stay-put fit of the socks, reducing the risk of in session discomfort and irritation to the skin.
‘Blister-free’ running is a more explicit and bold claim… and fundamentally false. The socks may prevent blisters due to the fact the socks stay in place due to the compression, reducing irritation, but it won’t stop blisters in between toes, or the result of other external factors, like poor fitting shoes or running technique. The statement implies it will prevent all blisters. These socks hence aren’t ‘Blister-Free’, just that the socks themselves won’t contribute to blisters.
So can socks really help prevent blisters? Studies over recent years have shown that yes - yes they can! But it matters what materials the socks are made from (Baussan et al., 2010; Baussan et al., 2013). With the correct materials and design, they can help to reduce not only the frequency of blisters, but also the severity of them (Tiggelen et al., 2009). One study went further, looking at the biomechanical implications when blisters aren’t prevented, suggesting that, albeit indirectly, blister-reducing socks can help prevent biomechanical injuries as a result of getting blisters (Knapik et al., 1996)!
Whilst not necessarily contrasting these findings, there are studies that found that material of the sock isn’t the only key factor. One study, for example, found that foot sweat/hydration was a more superior factor than sock material when it comes to the formation of blisters (Tasron et al., 2015). But these two factors aren’t separate, as sock material can be used to reduce excess foot sweat/moisture, especially as certain materials, particularly bio-ceramic ones (Escamilla-Martínez et al., 2022), can be of significant use. CEP however does not clarify its claim on how these socks manage blisters.
When it comes to CEP’s The Run Socks (Tall) though, none of these aforementioned studies specifically tested CEP socks nor the polyamide/elastane combo these socks are built from. Most of these studies just looked at general running socks. It’s clear that socks can have a positive influence on blister prevention, but the lack of research provided by CEP’s website etc., as well as any openly available evidence about socks with a similar blend of materials/compression socks puts a question over the legitimacy of this statement. CEP does list moisture management as a key part of the socks design, reflecting the importance of managing foot wetness in the prevention of blisters. But polyamide, which makes up 83% of the socks structure, isn’t a very breathable material and its moisture wicking abilities, whilst certainly beneficial, aren’t exceptional.
"Targeted medi compression wraps around your calves and activates the supply of nutrients – for noticeably lighter legs and a feel-good effect." - 5/10
Compression brands often claim that by wearing compression garments, you recover more effectively and efficiently, leaving you feeling fresher for the next day/training session. But CEP does not include the word ‘recover’ here, or similar, and hence CEP here implies that the benefits extend to in-session benefits too.
The terminology here is, again, vague. What does it mean to ‘activate’ the supply of nutrients? Were the nutrients previously stationary? What nutrients, and where are they coming from? Moreover, the benefits given are very subjective: ‘noticeably lighter legs’ is incredibly hard to quantify. Shouldn't it be lighter feeling legs? They definitely won’t make your legs literally lighter. How do you define a ‘feel good effect' other than it feeling good? What causes this effect? And is this referring to a placebo effect or a more concrete physiological change? Assumptions can be made to answer some of these questions, but CEP should be being more specific, especially when they claim their products are ‘medically based', and provide evidence for these claims.
Having explored CEP's website thoroughly, I couldn't find any reference to an academic journal backing this up. However, when exploring medi's (the parent company) website, there was a reference for the claim that "compression garments help to wearing compression garments improves muscle metabolism and promotes a more rapid recovery after athletic exertion" The reference provided was: Dr. med. S. Sadoun et al, Dermat. Nachrichten 9/02 compression. There was no link nor name of the journal/study. When looking for said journal though, Google scholar was unable to find it even when breaking down the reference, to the journal of Dermatology and 9/02 being the date of release. There is a journal posted by his author in that month, but the article is not about compression, it’s about sclerosing foam - which may explain why the reference itself doesn't give the articles name. The journal is also locked behind a paywall. However, Dr. Sadoun is an researcher who has done some promising research surrounding compression, but more regarding venous disease rather than sports performance.
medi, rather proudly, states it does it's own research and development - such research remains out of public reach. CEP uses this research, claiming on their website they utilise this valuable medical data. CEP strongly implies that their socks have medical benefits, saying they are 'Medically Driven' which is misleading, as even CEP themselves, under there FAQ section, says their products aren't a replacement for medical garments.
When it comes to other available research, wearing knee length compression socks can result in a marked increase in oxygen supply - hence helping both performance and recovery (Sergio et al., 2020). Interestingly, this study also found that knee length socks perform better than calf sleeves - which maybe reflects what Lou found. Another study found that wearing such socks led to an improvement in performance over a 5km time trial, but the study admitted the reasons behind this weren't clear (Brophy-Williams et al., 2019) as the variables they measured did not correlate with performance. But one study did identify that effectiveness of these socks can depend strongly on the time of use, sock design and the athlete themselves (Born et al., 2013). However, it’s been suggested that the performance benefits of the socks are due to the enhanced effect they have on recovery, rather than the socks directly improving performance (Brophy-Williams et al., 2017). It’s also important to consider that performance is potentially positively affected by the psychological benefit i.e. placebo.
But some studies observed no notable performance benefits, with one stating that, at maximal efforts, knee length compression socks showed no benefit in performance whatsoever (Rivas, 2005). Studies did observe that the rate of recovery improves when wearing such socks, particularly for fairly inactive people (Montoye et al., 2021), helping speed up recovery by 6% - potentially more if the socks are graduated properly, even when accounting for the placebo effect! (Armstrong et al., 2015) Low pressure compression socks were found to be optimal for post session recovery, especially after low intensity exercises, with higher compression recommended for more advanced athletes (Shen et al., 2021).
Some journals found compression socks had no bearing on either recovery or performance. Across multiple factors and variables, knee length compression socks failed to make any impression in one study, with the socks doing nothing to help improve performance, post-exercise-soreness or recovery (Fletcher et al., 2014). A second study found that wearing compression socks for 24 hours after a marathon failed to have any notable impact on the test subjects' ‘muscle damage’ (Zaleski et al., 2019).
Overall, there’s a lot of contradicting evidence. Many of these studies monitored different variables which make them hard to directly compare and discuss. As a whole, the benefits knee length compression socks have on performance is debatable. But their recovery benefits, for the most part, seem to be more widely accepted. However, as said, the statement that CEP themselves provide is very vague.
"The anatomical design and padded zones in the foot reduce exhausting muscle vibrations – for optimum cushioning and greater endurance." - 4.5/10
Muscular vibrations and their relationship to muscular tuning, and the subsequent fatiguing effect they have on muscles is a fairly new area compression brands have leaned into. The claim is that compression of the calf by the socks can reduce said vibrations and minimise the resulting fatigue. CEP utilises this claim but the statement they give isn’t clear. The ‘anatomical design’ may be referring to the compression, but then why not just say compression?? The statement also implies that by managing ‘exhausting muscle vibrations’ helps the cushioning - which I can’t make sense of. The statement also claims that the padded zones/cushioning in the foot part of the socks is what reduces vibrations, not the compression itself alone. Hence, this should also then apply to the short socks CEP offer, but when looking at the CEP mid cut and low cut compression options, there is no mention of vibrations at all. This then suggests the vibration management IS just due to the compression in the calf. In case of any misunderstanding, and to keep an open mind, I decided to look at evidence for both hypotheses! As a whole, I think I see what this statement is trying to say, but it’s so full of key marketing buzzwords, it almost fails to make sense.
The idea of these vibrations is that as we do certain exercise, our body repeatedly makes contact with the ground or other surfaces, creating a vibration. Our muscles dampen such vibrations via muscle tuning. But muscle tuning, whilst useful, uses energy, contributing to the fatigue of a given muscle. As our muscles tire, muscle tuning becomes less effective (Friesenbichler, 2013), which leads to more vibrations over time. These vibrations increase the rate of fatigue further, creating a feedback loop, so the longer this cycle continues, the greater the risk of burnout and/or injury, and hence its importance.
I found four studies that tested compression socks and their impact on reducing muscular vibrations. One highlighted how compression garments showed promise in reducing muscular vibrations when jumping (Friesenbichler, 2013) with a second showing that compression seems to be particularly effective at reducing the vibrations of the lower limb i.e. the calves (Narusawa et al., 2021). Another found that compression socks help to improve ankle proprioception significantly and hence reduce the rate of fatigue (Chang et al., 2022), as proprioception helps the muscles manage and respond to vibrations (Physiopedia, 2022). However, effectiveness can vary depending on the area being compressed. For example, the effect of compression on the vastus lateralis (outer quad) on skiers helped the test subjects perform better for longer, but other muscles had little benefit/effect and reduced vibration wasn’t the only variable at play (Sperlich et al., 2013).
CEP implies that the socks cushioning also helps to reduce muscular vibrations. Cushioning and its ability to soften foot impact feels like it should have a significant effect on reducing impact-derived vibrations. But are the socks cushioned enough to really make any notable difference? The research found was fairly positive about the importance of cushioning and the potential it has for managing such vibrations (Nigg, 2001). A few looked specifically at shoe hardness and cushioning (Wakeling et al., 2002; Reinschmidt and Nigg, 2000) and found that cushioning has a significant impact on dampening vibrations and minimising the need for muscular tuning. But too much cushioning can decrease energy return and actually add to fatigue (Millet et al., 2006). The biggest issue here though is that, not a single study I could find (of which I read through many!) looked specifically at sock cushioning. Most of the studies honed in on the items/kit that would be substantially more important in regards to the cushioning they offer, including inserts, orthotics and the shoes people use. The cushioning of The Run Socks (Tall) is not exceptional, and so the socks likely contribute only a small portion of the overall cushioning that the average fitness goer uses.
When it comes to vibration control via compression, the studies are encouraging, but the number of studies is lacking and hence there is inadequate depth of understanding, with all four studies also looking at different activities and variables. There’s not much, but what there is, is positive but further research is needed. But the sock cushioning lacks any real backing. On the face of it, it makes sense, of course more cushioning will soften impact - softer impact, less vibrations right? In this case, despite crawling through dozens of journals, I feel like my search terms in Google Scholar were simply not harnessing the right results. But CEP customers shouldn't have to search the deeper part of the web to find such info. There’s a lack of evidence in general for compression socks and their ability to dampen vibrations, let alone THESE socks as well. Cushioning is likely to help reduce vibrations, but in comparison to other structures like the shoes and insole, socks make up a small amount, especially to do so notably. The theory is sound, but the research just isn’t there.
TOTAL = 7 (Blisters) + 5 (Nutrient Supply) + 4.5 (Vibration/Fatigue) = 16.5/30 = 5.5/10
Overall, there is evidence. I just wish CEP would reference the journals that are applicable to these socks and their subsequent claims. But to be fair, CEP is NOT the only one - far from it. I understand the unwillingness to release any of their own studies in case other brands copy and paste what they are doing when it comes to manufacturing and developing their unique selling points, but this in turn means consumers just have to hope and trust a brand without any evidence on their claims.
SIZE RANGES AND SIZE PRECISION - 5/10
CEP’s size scale for their socks goes from 2 to 5, represented as roman numerals (i.e. II - V). The use of the roman numerals is great as it somewhat reduces the stigma traditional ‘Small’ to ‘XL’ sizing systems have i.e. pre-defined expectations on sizes and the mental health issues from external or societal pressures on ‘acceptable’ clothing size.
Size II is exclusively available for ‘Women’, whilst the size V is exclusively available for ‘Men’. The only difference between ‘Women’s’ and ‘Men’s’ in regards to fit are the proportions of the foot and lower limb length with the length of the leg and foot being longer in the ‘Men’s’ version. This is arguably a fair assumption by CEP, however this negatively affects those who are on the edge of the size ranges e.g. women who have above average leg and foot length and men who have below average.
When it comes to sizing, we want a size chart that encompasses as large a range of calf and foot sizes as possible to ensure few to no people are excluded. And CEP sizing does accommodate for a great spectrum of calf sizes! For ‘Women’, CEP provides for calf girths from 25cm to 44cm - so a 19cm range. Whilst ‘Men’s’ start at 32cm and go up to 50cm - a range of 18cm. This is a great range, beaten only by 2XU who has sizes for any person between 30cm - 50cm calf girth (20cm range)
But compression brands should also look to offer precise sizing. Yes, I want two opposing things! I want inclusivity - there should be few people excluded from any size chart. But I also want each size offered to fit a small precise range, to ensure that for each person the size fits, the size fits them well. For example, if my calves have a girth of 40cm and my feet are a UK10, I'd be sceptical if the size I am recommended by a brand can accommodate calves with a girth between 35cm - 50cm or UK9 -15, as I'd be concerned the socks would be rather baggy on me. For CEP’s The Run Socks (Tall), each size accommodates for a calf girth variation of around 5.5cm per size. This is on par with 2XU and only beaten by Hilly who has more accurate calf sizing of 4cm per size.
Overall, the size range from CEP is great. Out of the 26 ‘3C Review’ testers, whilst not all tested CEP socks, ALL of them would have fit into a size, from runners to powerlifters. Interestingly, they ALL would have fit into either a size III or IV. This means that there were two entire sizes that weren't even required for this group of people (II and V). That may be a coincidence, or maybe a sign that CEP should look to add a new size between sizes III and IV, which may accommodate for a more specific, precise range of calf circumference, to make their great fit even better.
CEP base their sizing on the circumference of the widest part of your calf. This makes sense, given the main region the compression is helping is the calf. Afterall, if the compression doesn't fit right, why buy compression socks? However, there is no mention of foot/shoe size. This means CEP makes assumptions based on calf size on what your foot size is, assuming the bigger the calf, the bigger the foot. A similar assumption is made on lower limb length. This, in most cases, is a sound assumption, but there are many people who have sizable calves compared to their feet, whilst some have larger feet, but slim legs. This means that, yes, the calf may feel supported and comfortable, but the foot may suffocate from the tightness or swim around with the excess room. Yes, they are compression socks, but they are first and foremost socks and hence the foot size should be a part of the sizing process/choice. CEP is the only brand to take just calf girth as a guide to fit socks.
Am I saying that brands should manufacture multiple new sizes to accommodate all possible foot/shoe size and calf size combos? Maybe. It is arguably rather impractical, especially when combining all the colours they come in, but only in the sense that it would be expensive to do. A smaller step that CEP could look into in the meantime is to make it clearer what foot size each of their socks sizes caters for, not just calf circumference, so consumers can make informed choices i.e. their shoe size may be size V but their calves are only a size III - they may want to compromise with size IV.
It is understandable why CEP (or their competitors) may not want to do this, as customers may feel deflated if their feet and calves don't correspond to the same ideal size the socks offer and hence move to another brand, rather than try to work out a compromise when picking a size. So, from a brand perspective, I could understand why they’d keep the sizing simple, but then there could/should be greater clarity on how to pick sizes by creating a graph that helps customers best identify the closest size to them for maximum benefit from the product.
ETHICAL OPERATIONS - 10/10
So where are the socks made? Despite some competitors outsourcing to cheaper, ’developing’ nations, the production of The Run Socks (Tall) remains in western Europe, in CEP's home country, Germany. Germany is considered one of the best countries for Workers Rights according to the Right Union Survey 2022, and hence CEP’s German workers will benefit from these great standards for working conditions and pay.
Germany ranks 9th in the world for minimum wage and the Local Purchasing Power Index suggests Germany is a very affordable place to live in when taking into account the average income and the cost of living, ranking them 4th in the world.
It is difficult to be specific for just CEP, as it’s challenging to find any information regarding the exact working conditions and employee-employer relations at CEP nor exactly how much the workers in CEP factories are paid. But, from what we can assume given the standard Workers Rights and the basic level income in the country of production (Germany), we can assume that workers are treated and paid fairly.
There are no obvious violations of workers rights that I can find regarding CEP. When searching rather extensively for any controversies regarding CEP, and its parent company medi, I can not find anything - and neither can any of my four 3C Review testers! Nor could I find any controversy surrounding the current CEO, Ian Grant. It’s not a big company and maybe not newsworthy even if there are disgruntled employees. However, Glass Doors, which provides insight on working experiences in various businesses around the globe, rates CEP 4.5 stars - the US branch at least. So nothing here that stands out particularly problematic, only that it’s a small company and that can come with limitations for some employees as a result - but that’s it. When looking for more information on CEP’s parent site, medi, I also discovered an Anti -slavery commitment, which I assume extends to CEP. You can read this commitment here.
Although whilst exploring the website the statement: "We are neither willing nor obliged to participate in dispute resolution procedures before a consumer arbitration body" comes across a little passive aggressive and implies they aren't willing to take responsibility for systemic product issues.
MANUFACTURING AND THE ENVIRONMENT - 3.4/10
When it comes to materials, CEP’s The Run Socks (Tall) are made from polyamide (83%) and elastane (17% ) - otherwise known as spandex/lycra! CEP doesn't state if either of these materials have been recycled, suggesting CEP uses virgin yarns. Virgin yarns aren’t uncommon and synthetic materials are frequently used in sports gear. But just because these materials are common, doesn’t mean they don’t have their issues.
Polyamides are favoured in sports gear because of their durability and stretchy properties, especially ideal for the compressive fit that compression garments need, whilst elastane’s phenomenal ‘stretch and recovery’ properties are highly valuable. But both are made from petroleum/oil, and hence derive from fossil fuels, which are not renewable or sustainable. Furthermore, these materials require chemical and energy intensive processes to make them, with elastane is very hazardous to handle as elastane's precursor, Polyurethane, is a known carcinogenic. Both materials produce huge quantities of greenhouse gases during production, with polyamides in particular producing huge quantities of the significantly bad nitrous oxide. Both are known to shed microplastics, which is a growing concern as it pollutes waterways and the food we consume and, due to the nature of the elastane fibres, synthetic dyes are used, which pollute numerous water sources. Both materials are also not biodegradable and hence many products made from polyamides/elastane end up in landfill.
In recent years, efforts are being made by the industry to reduce water and energy consumption when producing such materials and dyes. There have been breakthroughs in producing a plant based polyurethane for an eco alternative to traditional elastane (like EcoLycra), which would mitigate the impact of using fossil fuels. There is also growing optimism when it comes to recycling elastane, but as elastane is often blended with other materials, it makes the process difficult and expensive. Plus, with virgin elastane being so cheap, there is less incentive to innovate - but there are a couple of companies working on this. Moreover, recent significant advancements on recycled polyamides are helping to clear up ocean plastic whilst only using half of the energy it takes to make virgin polyamide. Moreover, there are also bio- based polyamides available like BioNylon which use 100% caster oil, rather than fossil fuels. However, like EcoLycra, more research is needed to see how they perform compared to normal polyamides and elastane, whilst understanding factors like durability, recyclability and energy usage to determine the true environmental impact on such bio-alternatives - but they are promising! CEP does not explicitly say they use such alternatives and they won’t be the only brand, but CEP also doesn't offer or promote any recycling or carbon offsetting schemes to reflect the use of fossil fuels in their products either.
CEP manufactures these socks in Germany, one of the biggest producers of polyamides, meaning the materials are unlikely to be shipped vast distances. Elastane, however, is most likely produced in China, India or the USA, meaning despite its already terrible environmental record, these materials have to be transported thousands of miles before they even get to CEP’s factories.
Another area of performance textiles to consider is ‘Forever Chemicals’ (PFA's) which are ominous substances that bioaccumulate in every living organism, which means you will almost certainly be home to a number of such chemicals. As implied, they do not break down and last for an incredibly long time and the science shows they aren’t particularly friendly either. Whilst more research needs to be done, they appear to be linked to elevated risks of cancer (namely kidney and testicular), disruption to the immune system and decreased vaccine response, liver damage, higher cholesterol and developmental issues in babies. ‘Forever Chemicals’ are often applied to products in the form of an extra coating applied later in the manufacturing process to textiles, to give benefits like: water repellency, heat/stain/oil/alcohol resistance, dust repellency and breathability, and this in turn improves the item's durability. So if your clothing has any of the above properties, it’s likely, unless specified otherwise, to have PFAS on them. It's not uncommon a substance at all, which makes the health impacts all the more ominous. CEP’s The Run Socks (Tall), don’t list any of these benefits, except for breathability.
CEP works with OEKO-TEX, a company which gives brands certifications based on various ethical and production standards, of which CEP has been certified the Standard 100 badge. This simply means that the socks have no toxic compounds in them, and aren’t harmful to human health. OEKO-TEX recently updated its standards to include a more strict level of PFAS, but this implies that some products will still have some PFAS’s as it’s not a ban, just a limit. Furthermore, this update doesn’t seem to include the Standard 100 that these socks are certified for. It’s unlikely these socks have much - if any - PFAS's in them, but, given the growing concern of such ‘Forever Chemicals’, it would be in CEP’s interest to promote if these products are indeed PFAS free.
Similar goes for Vegan status. Whilst these socks are made from synthetic materials, it doesn't mean animal products aren’t used somewhere along the production line. I have a strong suspicion that these socks are Vegan, but it would make things a lot easier if CEP were more explicit on this and had a Vegan certification, like their competitors SKINS, to put any concerns to rest. A simple step which could go a long way to make people feel confident and informed when purchasing.
So the materials used are both made from unsustainable materials, are energy and chemically intensive to make, aren't biodegradable, produce seriously bad greenhouse gases, are toxic to handle when being made and create microplastics. So, no, not good. They are recyclable and the industry is making a steady but marked transition to using more recycled options on top of the development of eco-alternatives. At the moment, it seems CEP is not a part of such developments and also doesn't offer any carbon offsetting schemes. Polyamides/elastanes are at least durable and fit for purpose, but these socks have a long way to go to bolster this score!
AND THAT'S IT!
Thank you so much if you've made it this far! If you enjoyed this blog, please consider following Cam'sCamcorder on Youtube, or subscribing to the blog here! We've loved doing it and I hope you found something useful and productive from this blog.
References
Armstrong, S., Till, E., Maloney, S. and Harris, G., 2015, Compression Socks and Functional Recovery Following Marathon Running: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 29(2), p. 528-533
Baussan, E., 2010, Experimental simulation and modeling of sock-to-skin friction during running. Other. Université de Haute Alsace - Mulhouse, 2010. English.
Baussan, E., Bueno, M., Rossi, R. and Derler, S., 2013, Analysis of current running sock structures with regard to blister prevention. Textile Research Journal, 83 (8), p.836-848.
Born, DP., Sperlich, B. and Holmberg, HC., 2013, Bringing Light into the Dark: Effects of Compression Clothing on Performance and Recovery. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 8(1), p.4-18
Brophy-Williams, N., Driller, M., Kitic, C., Fell, J. and Halsona, S., 2017, Effect of Compression Socks Worn Between Repeated Maximal Running Bouts. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 12(5), 621-627
Brophy-Williams, N., Driller, M., Kitic, C., Fell, J. and Halsona, S., 2019, Wearing compression socks during exercises aid subsequent performance. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 22(1), P.123-127
Chang, L., Fu, S., Wu, S., Witchalls, J., Adams, R., Waddington, G. and Han, J., 2022, Effects of graduated compression socks on ankle inversion proprioception of half-marathon runners at different running distances. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 25(6), p.529-534
Escamilla-Martínez, E., Gómez-Martín, B., Sánchez-Rodríguez, R., Fernández-Seguín, LM., Pérez-Soriano, P. and Martínez-Nova, A., 2022, Running thermoregulation effects using bioceramics versus polyester fibres socks, Journal of Industrial Textiles, 51(8), p.1236-1249
Fletcher, L., Raab, S., Sanderson, S. and Vargo, L., 2014, Efficacy of Compression Socks to Enhance Recovery in Distance Athletes. Sport and Art, 2(2), p15-18
Friesenbichler, B., 2013, The Influence of Externally Applied Vibration and Compression on Muscular Performance and Recovery. (Doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/28208
Knapik, J., Hamlet, M., Thompson, K. and Jones, B., 1996, Influence of Boot-Sock Systems on Frequency and Severity of Foot Blisters. Military Medicine, 161(10), p.594–598.
Millet, G., Perrey, S., Divert, C. and Foissac, M., 2006, The role of engineering in fatigue reduction during human locomotion — a review. Sports Engineering, 9, p.209–220
Montoye, A., Mithen, A., Westra, H., Besteman, S. and Rider, B., 2021, The Effect of Compression Socks on Maximal Exercise Performance and Recovery in Insufficiently Active Adults. Int J Exerc Sci. 14(7), p.1036-1051
Narusawa, T., Okuyama, T. and Tanaka, M., 2021, Study on Body Surface Vibration of Lower Leg Muscles When Wearing Compression Socks. Proceedings of the IIP Information, Knowledge and Precision Machinery Division Lectures, 2021(2021), The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Nigg, B., 2001, The Role of Impact Forces and Foot Pronation: A New Paradigm. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 11(1), p.2-9
Physiopedia Contributors, 2022, Proprioception. [online] Available at: <https://www.physio-pedia.com/Proprioception> [Accessed 12 September 2022].
Reinschmidt, C. and Nigg, B., 2000, Current Issues in the Design of Running and Court Shoes. Journal of Sports Injury and Sports Damage, 14(3), p.72-81
Rivas, E., 2005, The effects of compression socks during submaximal and maximal running in competitive distance runners. Texas A&M University - Kingsville ProQuest Dissertations Publishing,1427336.
Sergio, D., Rosso, G., Malfatti, L., Testa, M. and Licciardi, A., 2020, Lower Limb Compression Socks with Biomechanical Concepts. Journal of Scientific and Technical Research, 32(5), p.25266 - 25272
Shen, Y., Sui, J. and Xie H. 2021, Effects of Compression Socks on Muscle Recovery after Induced Fatigue. AATCC Journal of Research, 8(2):68-71
Sperlich, B., Born, DP., Swarén, M., Kilian, Y., Geesmann, B., Kohl-Bareis, M. and Holmberg, HC., 2013, Is leg compression beneficial for alpine skiers?. BMC Sports Science, Medicine, and Rehabilitation, 5(18), p1-12
Tasron, D., Thurston, T. and Carré M., 2015, Frictional behaviour of running sock textiles against plantar skin. Procedia Engineering, 112 (1), p.110 -115.
Tiggelen, D., Wickes, S., Coorevits, P., Dumalin, M. and Witvrouw, E., 2009, Sock Systems to Prevent Foot Blisters and the Impact on Overuse Injuries of the Knee Joint. Military Medicine, 174(2), p.183–189.
Wakeling, J., Nigg, B. and Rozitis, A., 2002, Muscle activity damps the soft tissue resonance that occurs in response to pulsed and continuous vibrations. Journal of Applied Physiology, 93(3), p.1093-1103
Zaleski, A., Pescatello, L., Ballard, K., Panza, G., Adams, W., Hosokawa, Y., Thompson, P. and Taylor, B., 2019, The Influence of Compression Socks During a Marathon on Exercise-Associated Muscle Damage. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 28(7), p.724–728