NERunner03533 wrote:
...The shoe talk is taking away from good performances. Yes, they help. But you still have to go out & execute.
I really don't see the need to add this. The point of the shoe discussion is, how much difference do the shoes themselves make, all other things being equal?
Maybe for fast runners in race efforts the differences are not that great, but for plenty of us hobby joggers out there the PEBA midsoles are big difference makers. For daily miles, my subjective reaction to PEBA plus nylon plate (Endorphin Speed 2) was similar to the change from EVA to Boost almost ten years ago. They are a revelation.
I'm old and most recently have run most of my training base miles at ~9:30. Putting on the Endorphin Speed 2s I immediately shaved 15-25 seconds per mile at the same perceived exertion. If I push at all I drop down to 9:00 pace. For old timers like me that sort of gain in pace versus effort is seriously re-energizing.
I'm surprised to hear that young speedsters don't get more 'bounce' from these super shoes.
BigHelpBump wrote:
Maybe for fast runners in race efforts the differences are not that great, but for plenty of us hobby joggers out there the PEBA midsoles are big difference makers. For daily miles, my subjective reaction to PEBA plus nylon plate (Endorphin Speed 2) was similar to the change from EVA to Boost almost ten years ago. They are a revelation.
I'm old and most recently have run most of my training base miles at ~9:30. Putting on the Endorphin Speed 2s I immediately shaved 15-25 seconds per mile at the same perceived exertion. If I push at all I drop down to 9:00 pace. For old timers like me that sort of gain in pace versus effort is seriously re-energizing.
I'm surprised to hear that young speedsters don't get more 'bounce' from these super shoes.
If you compare the super shoes to a pair of daily trainers, then you’re going to see a huge improvement in speed.
However, that’s not a fair comparison.
“Speedsters” are comparing the performance benefits of the super shoes with standard racing flats - in races.
Racing flats have always given people a performance boost over daily trainers. The question is whether that boost is enlarged with the new super shoes.
no
Right, so maybe 2-3%, if you are a high responder.
Internetsherlock wrote:
Why don't you guys post your mile timing or the reps lap time before and after, that way we can see the relationship between the various variable.
It's true the slower the time the more improvement it seem to have, based on my observation. I have seen several 3:00 marathon runners improved by 10 minutes after the shoes, but for 2:30 runners looks like 3-5 min improvement. And then for 2:20 looks like 1-3 minutes.
Yes, that's how percentages generally work.
NERunner03533 wrote:
I mean, this topic has gotten a ton of coverage but I'll still add in some of my usual thoughts. Shoes, alone, don't account for all of the improvement. Training, conditions, recovery, etc., all matter. Pacing matters. You're not gonna run 4% faster if you go out faster than you should.
Elite marathoners were getting ~90s-2:00 bump. Less than that for half marathon & under. Then there's the matter of what super shoes you're wearing & how well you respond to them. Labrat rundown found a 3% running economy boost from the Alphafly's. Now who on here knows if they're getting that full 3% or something different? A 36 minute 10k runner is not a 34 minute 10k runner because they put the shoes on. Maybe they were always a 34 minute runner or learned how to train/race. With a 36 minute 10k, there's still a lot of time on the table from better training. We're almost never getting the perfect recipe for races -- 40-50 degrees, no wind, well rested/recovered, uninterrupted training block, coming off a taper, etc.
The shoe talk is taking away from good performances. Yes, they help. But you still have to go out & execute.
Same training. All paces just became faster when people switched to the shoes
It did not improve when I wore the Nike Next %. I did not PR from my previous fastest time in a regular racing flat. But then I ran another 10K in the adidas Adios Pro and was able to improve my time by about 45 seconds.
juanito wrote:
Compared to my 13.1 time actually improved by about 4% when I got the original 4% flyknits -- with very similar fitness, similar conditions, same course. Compared to Asics Gel Noosa shoes.
Now, it'll be interesting to see your time, next time you race that course and wear something else but a super shoe.
I ran two races, 1 year apart, same course. I had way shakier training for the 2nd race, and was a solid 10 lbs heavier. I ran 15:32 for 5k in the first race. I ran 15:13 the next year. I finished in the same spot (7th), and every person in the top 10 the second year was wearing them. Pretty much all times were about that much faster or more, multiple guys from year 1 were there in year 2. I've since always assumed 6 seconds per mile for your pretty good local guy.
A additional data point FWIW, I ran the same 5K course last week and last night. Last week in 2018 Vaporflies and last night in 2021 Vaporfly Nexts. Last night's time was 27 seconds faster and not sure how much fitness I gained in 7 days, training each week was similar.
Maybe go to the treadmill. do a variety of intervals (2x. 1 with super shoe, and the next without. by setting the speed and grade you have a controlled study. Slap on a heart rate monitor and and you have all of the tools. If you have as a 6min mile at 1% with a HR of 141bpm, then the same protocol, except you change the shoes……and the carbon shoes yield a lower heart rate, then you can figure how much faster