The special Nike's are allegedly 4% faster. But faster than what? Some plus Nike Vomero training shoes? Zoom Streak 6 racing flats? Faster than being barefoot?
The special Nike's are allegedly 4% faster. But faster than what? Some plus Nike Vomero training shoes? Zoom Streak 6 racing flats? Faster than being barefoot?
Zoom Streak 6.
"the shoe used 4% less energy to run at the same pace as the Nike Zoom Streak 6"
https://www.si.com/edge/2017/03/07/nike-zoom-vaporfly-elite-sub-two-hour-marathon-attempt
Nike never said they were 4% faster. Just 4% more efficient
My question ....."Is 4% of the pupulation stupid enough to believe you will be 4% more efficient if you wear these things?
Exactly ^^^^
The only new energy in the system is what the runner ingests over the course of the marathon. The rest represents a closed loop in which the shoes can only provide more or less comfort. Are these shoes providing so much more comfort that a runner can do something different than in pretty much and reasonable marathon shoe? No , they are not.
4% faster than light!
The data are from here:
http://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#
!/4196/presentation/10832
The result was that when running at paces of 6:54, 6:02, and 5:22, the metabolic rate (calories/minute, essentially) when wearing the Zoom Vaporfly was on average 4% lower than the metabolic rate when wearing the Zoom 6 or the Adios Boost 2.
This was done with small weights added to the shoes to make them all the same mass (the Zoom 6 and Zoom Vaporfly evidently weigh substantially less than the Adidas shoe).
The runners were sub-elite but well-trained (10k PR of at least 31:00, VO2max 72±3).
Hope this is helpful!
That link got F'd up, sorry. Here is the text:
Authors
Wouter Hoogkamer1, Shalaya Kipp1, Jesse H. Frank1, Emily Farina2, Geng Luo2, Rodger Kram1. 1University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, CO. 2Nike, Inc., Portland, OR. (Sponsor: Ray Browning, FACSM)
Disclosures
W. Hoogkamer: None.
Abstract
Running shoe features (low mass, cushioning, midsole bending stiffness) have been shown to individually reduce the energetic cost of running. Recently, energetic cost has been directly linked to time-trial performance.
PURPOSE: To quantify the energetic cost of running in three marathon racing shoes: a prototype and two shoes currently available to runners.
METHODS: 18 sub-elite runners (sub-31min 10km at altitude or equivalent; altitude VO2max: 72.1±3.4 ml O2/kg/min) ran six 5 min trials (3 shoes × 2 replicates) in: a prototype shoe (NP), and two established marathon shoes (NS6) and (AB2), all equilibrated to 250g/shoe (the mass of AB2, size 10) during three separate sessions - 14, 16 and 18 km/hr. The order of the shoe conditions within a session and the session speed order were pseudo-randomized, mirrored and counterbalanced. The NP shoe has a novel, lightweight and highly resilient midsole and a carbon fiber plate that stiffens the shoe in longitudinal bending. We measured submaximal VO2 and VCO2 during min 3-5 and averaged metabolic rate (W/kg) for the 2 trials in each shoe model. Blood [La] measured after the last trial of each session and RER indicated running energetics were at steady-state (
One more try, sorry:
Authors
Wouter Hoogkamer1, Shalaya Kipp1, Jesse H. Frank1, Emily Farina2, Geng Luo2, Rodger Kram1. 1University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, CO. 2Nike, Inc., Portland, OR. (Sponsor: Ray Browning, FACSM)
Disclosures
W. Hoogkamer: None.
Abstract
Running shoe features (low mass, cushioning, midsole bending stiffness) have been shown to individually reduce the energetic cost of running. Recently, energetic cost has been directly linked to time-trial performance.
PURPOSE: To quantify the energetic cost of running in three marathon racing shoes: a prototype and two shoes currently available to runners.
METHODS: 18 sub-elite runners (sub-31min 10km at altitude or equivalent; altitude VO2max: 72.1±3.4 ml O2/kg/min) ran six 5 min trials (3 shoes × 2 replicates) in: a prototype shoe (NP), and two established marathon shoes (NS6) and (AB2), all equilibrated to 250g/shoe (the mass of AB2, size 10) during three separate sessions - 14, 16 and 18 km/hr. The order of the shoe conditions within a session and the session speed order were pseudo-randomized, mirrored and counterbalanced. The NP shoe has a novel, lightweight and highly resilient midsole and a carbon fiber plate that stiffens the shoe in longitudinal bending. We measured submaximal VO2 and VCO2 during min 3-5 and averaged metabolic rate (W/kg) for the 2 trials in each shoe model. Blood [La] measured after the last trial of each session and RER indicated running energetics were at steady-state ( `` 3.0 mmol/L and < 0.91, respectively). We compared the 3 shoes over 3 speeds using a two-way ANOVA with repeated measures.
RESULTS: A significant main effect for shoe (P < 0.0001) indicated the NP shoes required 4.0±1.3% (mean±SD) less energy than the NS6 and AB2 shoes (NP vs. NS6: P < 0.0001; NP vs. AB2: P < 0.0001), which had similar metabolic costs (NS6 vs. AB2: P = 0.34): NP 16.45±0.89, NS6 17.16±0.92 and AB2 17.14±0.97 W/kg averaged across 3 speeds. Although the shoe × speed interaction effect was significant (P = 0.0005), post-hoc analyses suggest that relative percent differences between shoes were similar at the 3 running speeds (all P %% 0.56).
CONCLUSIONS: The new shoe reduces the cost of running by 4.0% as compared to two other established marathon racing shoes.
This study was supported by Nike Inc. EF and GL are employees of Nike Inc., RK is a paid consultant to Nike Inc.
It would be interesting to see this same method of comparison on a large scale - across all major running shoe models.
Maybe this particular measure of "efficiency" varies as much as 5% between popular shoes in the market and these two being compared are just on ends of the spectrum? Maybe 1% is the range and this actually is a major breakthrough?
cheater shoes wrote:
It would be interesting to see this same method of comparison on a large scale - across all major running shoe models.
Maybe this particular measure of "efficiency" varies as much as 5% between popular shoes in the market and these two being compared are just on ends of the spectrum? Maybe 1% is the range and this actually is a major breakthrough?
Good question.
Relatedly, the "between-session reliability" of the main measurement for these results (rate of oxygen consumption) is about 2%:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15514515...meaning that if you went in and did the same test twice on different days, odds are your metabolic rate would be the same without about 2%, so it suggests that a 4% difference when wearing different shoes is at least partially due to the shoes.
The two features of shoes that have pretty clearly been shown to affect metabolic rate are (i) weight and (i) cushioning:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22367745https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24441213[also the classic study by Ned Frederick where every 100g of shoe increased the metabolic rate by about 1%; not on PubMed]
The Vaporfly seems to have the best of both worlds there (light but with substantial cushion) along with the whole energy return thing. I'd actually expect the weight and cushioning to be more important than the energy return but I'm speculating there.
Am I reading the studies right? More cushioning = fewer calories burned. Streak 6 at 18mm and Adios Boost at 13mm are the same. Vaporfly at 21mm is more efficient than both. Boost may be the most efficient material per mm, no?
I'd like to see other tests using efficiency. Stack height? Drop? Has anyone done an efficiency study on the Victory with and without carbon shank? Anecdotally, that feels like a spring to me.
Isn't the equipment to do this kind of testing pretty widely available? Could most PT places that offer VO2 testing do this in their spare time?
Bad Wigins wrote:
4% faster than light!
That is rather optimistic marketing.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2017 World 800 champ Pierre-Ambroise Bosse banned 1 year for whereabouts failures