There is an added risk to these super stack height shoes. I bought the Mizuno Rebellion Pro last year. It was legal because there was a large cut out in the heel where the measurement is done. But the actual heel stack height is more than 50mm. I ran really well in the shoe and then started to get a sore back. The side to side instability of such a huge stack height was causing all kinds of stress to my hips and lower back. It got so bad I struggled to tie my shoes. I had to quit running for 2 weeks. I went back to a lower stack shoe and the pain eventually went away. But I can see why people like them. The shoes feel bouncy and the Mizuno's were only 8 ounces, which seems impossible for the such a mountain of a shoe.
This is something I can't wait to see the actual studies behind. DoctorsOfRunning does a great job looking at movement impacts of shoes from a PT perspective, and I find that they put the shoe landscape into great perspective now.
An aside (quote from the article) -
Those models, legal and illegal, are helping drive the growth in running-shoe sales. While the number of pairs of running shoes sold actually fell 2% over the past two years, the dollar value of running shoes sold has jumped 14%, according to the market analysis firm Circana.
Anyone can tell you that shoe sales have grown because of increase in shoe prices, not because of increase in shoes sold. Almost every shoe (save for daily trainers like Asics Cumulus) has increased price over the past year, around $5 a pair every year.
1. There is caution to be found in the extremes. For every person shilling a Xero shoe is another pushing the Skyward X. Each have their benefits (strengthening natural movement/increasing recovery speed) on paper, but it doesn't matter if the shoes aren't tried on by the person wearing them.
2. As the super-shoe tech trickles down to trainers, shoe companies will find more consumers want something safe and no frills. The "illegal shoes" won't work or help if your knees and hips can't handle the shifting load. Don't get an Altra and a Puma Nitro Elite 3 because they're too deviant from each other, but strengthen the areas the shoes won't.
3. Illegality is hilarious, because it's not like the shoes are breaking any laws anyone reading the WSJ will be subject to. It's just a desire to hop back on the Jordan 1-style hype machine.
4. Surprised more people aren't talking about ATPU foam being the new PEBA(X). Shoe foam stiffness, heel bevel/toe spring, wide base, composition - all that stuff is where the real question of impact lies. The height is just one part of it.
5. Seriously, people need to stop trying to make Xero shoes work for the mass market. Not since Born To Run have people so valiantly popped their Achilles for the sake of a natural feel.
Every PR run in new shoe tech should have an asterisks lol. They can take multiple minutes off a marathon time.
Why does it matter? There was bound to be technological advancements.
I'm not a huge fan of super shoes for much else than a way to use a resource to be the best version of myself on race day. If it makes me train better, faster, longer, so be it. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
Proper nutrition takes minutes off a marathon time. Good weather takes minutes off a marathon time. Training takes minutes off a marathon time. In a sport full of optimization, it would be weird to avoid that for the sake of purity, and still run in races on paved roads with hydration stations, in better clothing, with more training knowledge, and claim it's just like before.
Reliance on super shoes is bad for the body. But using your resources? Good! Just wish it wasn't such a financial expenditure to do so.
Bouncy-shoes apologists really don’t want to hear about their bouncy shoes. They would rather not accept the fact that, without them, their 14:58 5k would be 20 seconds slower.
agreed. i also don't want to hear about hicham el guerrouj's 3:26 because he wore spikes which also gives you an unfair advantage.
Right now, most of the "illegal" shoes are just super-cushioned trainers. They would not be as fast in a road race as the best legal racing shoes.
Now, I'm sure that the shoe companies could make illegal shoes that are faster than their best current racing shoes, but why bother? People are buying 50mm shoes for how they feel, not to shave every last fraction of a second off their race times.
yeah. i think the upcoming brooks hyperion max 3 breaks the stack height that is allowed in a race, but it's not even a faster shoe than actual racing flats. you simply get the benefit of better cushioning and less fatigue after a hard session due to modern technology.
In the early 2000s when I worked in a ski/snowboard shop, the "King of Speed" started a snowboard line and he was the first one to add carbon fiber strips down the side of snowboards. Carbon fiber is known to bend and rebound at 3X the energy put into it. These snowboards were designed for boarder cross races to accelerate faster off of turns and to have some good old fun...faster. They were getting returned, because people were coming in with broken wrists and collarbones. I rode one and you better believe it worked. Now fast forward to modern times. Every track and field organization has some sort of rule that does not permit devices that aide a runner in propelling themselves forward unless it's the handicapped division. So how are these shoes legal? I don't get it. I compare it to the days of Michael Phelps winning every single race in '08 and setting a world record with third place also doing it and it was "blamed" on those shark suits they were wearing.
No one claims that "the shoes" don't make a difference, it's the exact amount that people disagree on.
And it's funny to see people being unable to differentiate road shoes and track spikes. No decent college runner or elite runs in 40mm road shoes for legit track races, and if they do, their results are invalid.
It's pretty boring to have to clarify these points every time this discussion comes up.
Semantics. Before bouncy shoes (and just a few short years ago), anyone using the term “stack height” when describing a racing shoe would have gotten blank stares. If your shoe has a “stack height” you’re wearing bouncy shoes.
And, yes, I’ve seen d1 college runners race in bouncy road shoes.
It's not semantics. Track spikes are limited to 20mm by WA regulations, which is not much higher than pre 2017 racing flats and spikes, if at all.
All of the studies conducted on superspikes so far have shown they grant about 2s per mile over old spikes for decent college level runners at 1500m on up, and the data suggests even less of an improvement for world class elites. In contrast, road shoes are more on the order of 2 to 3 minutes for a world class marathon, so roughly 5 to 6 seconds per mile.
I wore traditional flats and spikes in high school and transitioned to superspikes my first year of college. No one who currently runs believes that wearing Dragonflys give remotely the same advantage as wearing Alphaflys.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
i'm honestly so heartened (and relieved) to see so many people in this thread being clear-eyed about cheater shoes and how ridiculous and comical they are. sometimes it feels like i'm shouting into the wind. simply stating the simple fact that someone's 5k PR would be 20-30 seconds slower without cheater shoes is so triggering for some people and they're unable to rationally see that technology is going to (has already) become something that fundamentally changes the nature of the sport, and lines need to be drawn.
Yes. Cheater shoes are like the singing TV shows (AGT, BGT, The Voice, AI) using auto tune to improve performances on their TV broadcasts. You're not hearing a live performance, just as with cheater shoes you are not getting a live performance.
I'm hoping the ridiculous trend toward maximalism causes some company to release a 22-24 mm stack racing flat with no gimics, no wide toe boxes, no spring plates. If they did that now, they could corner the market, but maybe that market is tinier than I think.
Adizero Adios 9. I have it and it's perfect for this.
Bouncy-shoes apologists really don’t want to hear about their bouncy shoes. They would rather not accept the fact that, without them, their 14:58 5k would be 20 seconds slower.
agreed. i also don't want to hear about hicham el guerrouj's 3:26 because he wore spikes which also gives you an unfair advantage.
Gave him an unfair advantage as compared to what? The guy in 1849, one year before spikes were invented in 1850? Track spikes have been around for 175 years bruh.