How much faster are lighter shoes?

just saying.... wrote:Additionally, with a lighter shoe, you have to compress less foam while pushing off. It is like the difference between running on asphalt and soft grass: when you run on grass, you get much less energy return for the amount of force you put into the ground because you have to spend a lot of energy just compressing the surface so that you have something solid to push off of.

It would seem like then that the ideal training would always be in heavier trainers on grass or trail, and then race in flats (or whatever). Work with heavy, and then racing light feels easy.

My research has shown that the Converse Chuck Taylor All-Star shows the best technical response in the racing environment. The All-Stars provide an ideal balance of protective weight with reduced cushioning. In addition the 'Chucks' are machine washable for post race cleaning. These racing shoes are also available in a high top model to assist runners with reduced ankly stability. Athletes Foot awarded the Chuck Taylor All-Star a 5 star rating.

interesting stuff wrote:

It would seem like then that the ideal training would always be in heavier trainers on grass or trail, and then race in flats (or whatever). Work with heavy, and then racing light feels easy.

No because heavy shoes mess up the mechanics, and running barefoot improves one's mechanics.

My experience:

Over a marathon, lighter shoes lead to more pounding of the quads, and so muscle fatigue occurs sooner. So some sort of cushioning to delay this fatigue is worth the additional cost.

I have run marathons in 235g shoes (Asics Skylon), and this is jsut enough. I have a slightly heavier shoe 270g, and I feel better (although not tested in marathon yet), relative to the Sklyon.

For longer races, there is nothing worse than having too little cushioning. It is a false economy....

Dont' laugh: Derek Clayton ran in Dunlop tennis shoes

Off the Grid wrote:

My experience:

Over a marathon, lighter shoes lead to more pounding of the quads, and so muscle fatigue occurs sooner. So some sort of cushioning to delay this fatigue is worth the additional cost.

You're confusing cushioning with protection. Cushioning doesn't protect your feet, legs. body from impact but increases the impact, so you get more tired more quickly with cushioniong. What you probably had was a lighter shoe with less cushioning and also less protection.

A better tradeoff would be more protection, and get rid of the cushioning.

Ticktock wrote:

55 pounds is about a half step or so. Over 26 miles that'd be 13 steps, or 10 seconds I guess.

The answer to how much faster you can run with lighter shoes depends (as so many things do) upon your leg speed velocity. If you are a high leg speed velocity runner you will find that the reduced weight of your shoes will likely make the difference between struggling to match your old PRs while running time trials in your local turkey trots and really racing for the win.

Now, for this particular fellow who apparently only takes 1.3 steps per second, lighter shoes would make no difference whatsoever. For a runner, he may well hold the world record for slowest leg speed velocity. Indeed, some sleep walkers have been known to post marks above 2 steps per second leading to a certain irony in Ticktock boasting to his co-workers that they could beat him "only in their dreams."

A quick Google search shows a lot of doubt on this issue but a few guesses are that 1 ounce = a savings of 2 seconds/mile. Also, I think that a lighter shoe generally allows the foot to flex better and more naturally than a heavier one which improves your running economy and mechanics and therefore will ultimately result in faster times.

light shoes = fast times wrote:

After a conversation w/ a friend who wants to run a Marathon in a German engineered leather running shoe that probably weighs in at 15 ounzes or so, he didn't want to believe me that shoe weight still makes a difference, even for non-top-tier-level-runners.

So, what I am looking for is some scientific writing or a rule of thumbs that tells me for each ounce the shoe is less heavy how much faster can i run, given that my legs don't cramp up because of the lack of cushio.

Any ideas?

I don't have a study I can refer to, but come on, why do we even need to debate this in a case where some poor runner can't grasp the difference in running performance between a clunky 15oz shoe and say 8 oz racing flat??

When I began racing over 35 yrs ago, I was kinda mislead by this idea that you need all this "protection" that heavy shoes provide. But when I actually raced in racing flats a few years later, I was shocked at the increase in running performance.

I don't do most of my training in RFs but when i do train in them, the difference extremely obvious.

I did get into some trouble when began racing in a 5.6 oz shoe. My calfves had some cramping, which was due to the shoes I believe. But after more training in them I'm fine. And I just feel faster in them. Would be bothered if I had to race in heavier shoes. Lighter shoes are best for racing.

There's an old rule of 1 sec per mile per ounce, but some of the studies that have been done suggest that a 12 ounce shoe reduces RE by 4.7% compared to no shoe, which comes to about 0.4% per ounce and comes to 1 sec per mile per ounce for running at 4 minute mile pace.

There appears to be no effect if running slower than 6 min/mi.

While lighter shoes definitely tend to allow for faster running, I'd actually argue that this isn't due to weight per se. I haven't tested this, but I'd be willing to bet that one would see faster results (at least over distances that are short enough to be run significantly faster than training pace) that one would see faster results in low-profile racing flats with some added weight that doesn't affect fit or structure to bring the weight up to 12oz than one would in a standard 12oz trainer. Point being that it seems to me that what makes lighter shoes faster is the characteristics that influence mechanics and energy transfer. Racing flats tend to have stiffer, flatter, less cushioned midsoles, encouraging quicker turnover and losing less energy due to compression of a pillowy midsole. In other words, I would be inclined to wear whatever I feel is going to make me most comfortable and efficient by encouraging the kind of stride that makes sense to use for the particular distance - thus spikes for the mile, light flats for the 10k, slightly more substantial flats for the marathon, etc.