+1 for that last part
+1 for that last part
HITHEREYOU wrote:
America's fury wrote:
Shocked that Hoka is so low on that list. I think i see more people wearing those than Nike.
Not really, how many kids do you see with Hoka shorts, tops, caps on? I.e. zero. Hoka pretty much only do moon boots for middle aged runners and that's it.
To be fair, middle aged runners are probably a good portion of runners. At the high school level we're definitely nominated by Nike and Brooks though, but I can certainly see Hoka outselling say adidas or some other brands in terms of running shoes
Why doesn't LetsRun.com put up the money and pay a researcher to do a study on the various carbon fiber shoes?
rojo wrote:
Alex Hutchinson has the interesting details in Outside. The test was only for one athlete and the guy who did the study said it statistically should be considered a dead heat.
Alex Hutchinson wrote:
[Canadian marathon record holder Malindi Elmore] brought in a pair of Saucony Endorphin Pros and a pair of Vaporfly Next%, which at the time was the newest Nike model. She ran a series of short stages on the treadmill, starting at 14 km/hr (6:54 per mile, on pace for a 3:00 marathon) and progressing up to 17.6 km/hr (~5:30 per mile, 2:24 marathon pace), while breathing through a mask to measure her oxygen consumption. On the first day, she did the entire test sequence in the Nikes then repeated it in the Sauconys; on the second day, she did it the other way around to ensure the results weren’t skewed by fatigue.
McCasey knew about the testing plan. “Of course, there are natural nerves when Saucony’s lead innovation story, the Endorphin Pro, would be stacked up against our competitors by a third party,” she admits. Although no one has released any data publicly, the Next% is rumored to be another percent or two better than the original Vaporfly 4%—a formidable benchmark for the Endorphin Pro. But the results, it turned out, were a wash.
Here’s what the data looked like at 2:24 marathon pace, which is what’s most relevant for Elmore’s race goals, averaged over both days of testing:
https://www.outsideonline.com/sites/default/files/2020/11/10/malindi-elmore-shoe-chart.jpgYou can see that the values are nearly the same: 181.4 ml of oxygen per kilogram per kilometer in the Vaporflys, and 180.5 ml/kg/km in the Endorphins. A lower number is better, because it means you’re burning less energy to sustain the same pace. But in this case, the 0.5 percent difference is much smaller than the “smallest worthwhile change” (SWC), which is a statistical measure of how much running economy values tend to vary between different runners.// It’s also smaller than the “typical error,” which is a statistical measure of how much running economy values tend to vary when you test the same runner under the same conditions over and over. So the Endorphins are a tiny bit better numerically, but statistically it’s a dead heat.
In my mind, I find this to be interesting but am not going to accept it as fact considering it's so limited in size and has quotes from PR people at Saucony. I think it's a joke that a larger study hasn't been done. I've talked to Geoff Burns about doing one ourselves.
We need to know how the shoes from various companies stack up and we need to see how much the response varies person to person. What if we learn that one athlete is way better in only a certain brand's shoes?
https://www.outsideonline.com/2418501/malindi-elmore-shoe-test-vaporflys-saucony?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=onsiteshare
180 ml/kg/km? Girl needs to eat some carbs.
America's fury wrote:
Shocked that Hoka is so low on that list. I think i see more people wearing those than Nike.
Hoka seems to be very American based company, find it hard to get Hoka in many running stores in Europe, but it has improved. Can't find fault in them, extremely comfortable. I've done a few marathons in Germany and easily 70% shoes are Adidas Adizero.
What's interesting is as shoe companies accelerate their own innovation and development of updates to their carbon plate racing shoes, and including Saucony, the "best shoe" for an athlete will be more similar than it is different, by the time of the Sapporo 2021 Marathon. Really Malindi could be wearing one of any 4 or 5 brands' carbon plate racing models and do great in any of them, as by the time the 2020ne Olympics arrive, the Endorphin Pro v1 will be old news.
Work in a university exercise science lab that could theoretically do this type of study, good points made here. The biggest barrier is the cost IMHO. It's a study I'd love to see done, but I can see why it hasn't been done in a more neutral environment.
Normally, with studies involving shoes (or other "devices" such as prosthetics, braces, implants etc.) there is some type of funding agreement where the items are given to you. In some cases this is somewhat indirect (ie. medical company we worked with provided NB trainers for use in testing of their non-shoe products).
It is unlikely that all/any shoe company would do in-kind donations for this type of study because it might result in their product looking bad. The best hope would be an investor who is interested in a more neutral result such as a running store, Letsrun/running media (though admittedly both orgs rely a bit on advertising money, so maybe not so inclined). A federal sports agency might fund this, but I think for the most part they tend to focus research money on sports that their countries do well in (ie. not distance running if you're in a G8 country lol).
The cost is not trivial. If you want a decent sized study (maybe 20-30 people, men and women) and you want to test a decent array of shoes (Nike vs. adidas, vs. Hoka, vs. Saucony vs. NB) at ~$200-300 per pair that's 10s of thousands on shoes alone (recall: not all participants will have same shoe size, so can't just buy 1 of each).
How does Saucony Endorphin Pro 2 compare to original?
Can buy the original online for $99 VS $199 for Pro 2. What would you do.
Be detailed and/or provide link if this been discussed extensively on prior thread.
Thanks in advance.
I was wondering the same thing but honestly I don't ever see Endorphin shoes making podiums at ether local or international events.
Pro & Pro 2 are largely the same shoe. Only difference is in the upper but I found both to be comfortable for all races 5k to marathon. $99 is a steal for the original and I’d go with that! While the vaporfly is probably faster for most people, the endorphin pro is not far behind and you’ll likely get double the miles out of it.
Tony CT wrote:
I was wondering the same thing but honestly I don't ever see Endorphin shoes making podiums at ether local or international events.
That’s more of a function of the athletes who these companies sponsor, not the shoe itself. Kipchoge (and any Nike athlete) would still run a ridiculous time in the endorphin pro haha
American men regularly now run sub 13 5k and sun 27 10k but marathons stuck at 2:07. What gives?
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Gjert did it again - produces another Diamond League champ. Nordas over Lobalu and Grijalva 7:33.49
Nordas running 3:34 with one shoe is proof that supershoes don’t work
