Nike/adidas slayer: Puma Super shoe 3.5% better economy than Alphafly etc.

So I've always thought the PRO racing should be like F1 where the IAAF can actually drive innovation. Example: New ruling announced tomorrow of a max stack of 32mm for all 2027 road races shoes. Likewise, some plate restrictions on materials and angles.

Now manufacturers have 2 years to come up with their own super shoe that fits into these specifications. This would be a lot of fun as a spectator and would force some really interesting shoe innovations

It would make sense. Taylor Roe is just out of college and setting a world best in the 10 mile like she did is actually insane. She was very good in college but not like close to thinking she was this good especially at this point. Is she truly as good or better across road distances that nearly all of our American road greats in history at this point (Deena, Shalane, Kara, Joannie, Sara Hall, Huddle)? Also, considering someone mentioned her 10k at the TEN weeks before was basically the pace she did on the roads for 10 miles, is it possible the Puma road shoes are substantially better?

I also remember looking at the results from Alex Maier and being wildly impressed by his Houston performance while he is similarly just out of college...ahead of Klecker at this point on the roads too...is it likely that two Puma athletets fresh out of college just happen to be really great at roads or is it possible the shoes are doing quite a lot?

This is me. I stand by my review, they're excellent. But I also will be super interested to hear reviews from people above 3 hours. I'm disappointed to hear they'll be $300. I don't want that to be the new standard...we've already been creeping towards that number. With tariffs and such, $500 racers (outside of the Adidas pair) might become the norm. That sucks

they were not wearing these new pumas.

I'm one of the fast hobby joggers (2:24 PB) with a couple of pairs, ready to race London.

Used them for first time today (I was saving them as I was running an ill-fated 24 hour race last weekend) and they felt good, and paces were good for same RPE/HR. Most similar to Asics Metaspeed Sky Edge of what I've used previously in terms of feel.

I think the proof will be race day. I agree being gifted something, does make you (even if it's subconscious) much more inclined to sing something praises. If I PB (having done basically no marathon specific work as I was targeting trying to get into GB 24 hour team, only 14 days post a gruelling 18 hour race for me😭) I'll agree with the hype.

I know someone in that program. They had an incredibly good race recently.

They don't mean 3.5% better than Alphafly. They mean 3.5 percent better running economy than in an Alphafly. So basically it means normal supershoes are like Zoom Streaks by comparison.

Great to see companies doing this, and credit to the research team for their robust protocols (often not the case with some of the super shoe studies that have been coming out). This is a group that we can have a lot of confidence in the validity of the observations.

But, one very important thing to remember about this is that the study compared the new shoes to 3 super shoes that we don’t have prior comparative data on.

I’ve done lab testing on the new Alphafly 3 in one athlete, and it was inferior to the Vaporfly 3 (~1.5% worse). I know of two other labs who had analogous findings in single athletes. Not a full study, but some consistent pilot smoke. Additionally, a friend and collaborator, Dustin Joubert/@labratrundown, did a nice mini case series with the Adidas Pro Evo, and for 2 of the 3 athletes it was discernibly worse than other super shoes. I’ve also tested the first iteration of the Fast-R shoes, and they were no different than control flats. I imagine the 2s they used here improved, but there’s some context.

It’s important to remember that some of these new shoes like the Alphafly 3 may not be better, and may in fact be worse (as has been the case in our limited observation). Just because an athlete runs fast in a shoe doesn’t mean the shoe helped, and it doesn’t exclude the possibility that the shoe even held them back a bit (relative to other offerings on the market).

I get why the research team used those two shoes, Alphafly 3 and Adidas Pro Evo as marathon WR shoes, but it would have been great to have a shoe like the Vaporfly for which we have a lot of historical data/publications to compare against (and for context, all iterations of the VF have tested very consistently in my experience).

I only add that information to remind us that the difference of the new Puma shoes relative to the “best” (ie, generalizably best) super shoes may not be 3.5%, but could no doubt still be substantially better (1.0-2.5%) than something like the Vaporfly series. Ie, it can be true both that they’re 3.5% better than the AF3s and Evo Pros, but a little bit less than that relative to other shoes on the market. I really would love a larger study on those shoes relative to old flats and/or the Vaporfly.

I’d commend Puma on (a) pushing the envelope in the design and development processes and (b) promptly publishing data to back up marketing claims. It would be great to see companies consistently follow suit.

I’ll be honest - I figured there was certainly room to continue to improve within the design space (ie, the stack height limitation), but even a consistent 2-2.5% improvement past the benefit of the current form of super shoes (3-3.5% or so) was the upper ends of what I figured was feasible in that space, and thought that was a few years away. It’ll be interesting to see if this evolves further. I’m very curious about Saucony’s new shoe, as they seem to also be using a new foam with even better compliance and resilience as well. I suspect individualization of the architecture is the next frontier - it would be great to develop and validate field tests for individuals without access to labs.

2:16 guy is 6 minutes behind Ruth.

No super shoe is gonna drop ya from 2:16 (5:15) to 2:10(4:58)

So these are under the 40mm stack height for WA shoes? All these tall shoes look and feel even more ridiculous to me. I guess its all in the name of return, but I just can't get used to them no matter how hard I try. It throws my stride timing off.

All are entitled to their own opinions and I respect yours.

But I find his current writing overall to be quite the contrary. I think you can perhaps attribute some of your disappointment to the editors of Outside (titles, length, maybe even the topics they want him to write about, etc.)

His overall output IMO is as good as ever. He also writes for the Globe & Mail and other publications. Yes, even RW.

His newest book, The Explorer's Gene (I am just starting it) is a smooth read. Highly recommended. And no, I am not a paid shill - haha!

With that claim, no runners who train 6X + per week can afford not to try them

Burnsy, you're actually missing significant context here. The Fast R 1s were NOT a super shoe, as those who wore them would likely tell you.

The 1's were a light, solid, uptempo training shoe with surprisingly good stability that could do a bit of everything. They just happened to look pretty extreme, design-wise. Kind of the 'reverse sleeper.' So no, you wouldn't have seen any change in stats.

For the two's Puma decided to create a super shoe. They switched from dual density to full length foam, extended the plate, and maxed the stack. Basically, they made an alpha fly to their Vaporfly (nitro elite).

Your conclusion (not using R3 = not racing with any kind of "cheater shoes") would only follow if Puma didn't have any other super shoes.

Rory Linkletter is a Puma runner. Sub 2:05 for him?

Image:cdn.outsideonline.com/wp-content/uploa...

If you look closely at this shoe, only about 1/3 of the outsole/undersurface, maybe less, is in contact with the ground. It's like two springs connected by a stiff platform on top under the foot, with an almost continuous rocker from heel to toe under the whole thing. They've even extended the sole beyond the front-end of the toe-box to get a little extra leverage at toe off.
Wild!

which is the opposite of what nike has done. more foam sticking off the back.

Image:i.ebayimg.com/images/g/MmYAAOSwkIFlCF-...