total placebo
total placebo
suckers wrote:
total placebo
So you've run in them? Tell us what shoes you blind tested with and how you proved the placebo effect please.
joho wrote:
You look adopted wrote:
+1
Looks like a lot of people will pay good money to break 4 hours.
the vast majority of people i've seen wearing them are sub 2:40 marathoners.
and from the anecdotal evidence i'm hearing at the very least the shoes feel awesome and stop your legs from getting so banged up.
[/quote]
the vast majority of people i've seen wearing them are sub 2:40 marathoners.
and from the anecdotal evidence i'm hearing at the very least the shoes feel awesome and stop your legs from getting so banged up.[/quote]
Yes, your feet and legs feel great with the soft zoom x foam and large stack height, but without a doubt, the carbon plate makes your more economical and allows you to run faster. I have done tons of workouts back to back with other shoes and monitoring heart rate, and it's noticeable how much easier it is to run the same pace in the VF. As someone else said, the only people who think it's placebo or a marketing hype thing haven't actually run in them. It only takes one run under 7 minute pace and you'll see. Expensive? Sure. Value? Of the charts more value than any other shoes I have ever run in or owned.
All I have is results for three of my marathoners. Now up front I am not a Nike guy, I'm not a Nike fan, i haven't worn Nikes, and I have been known to steer my athletes clear of Nike when choosing shoes. I'm a Brooks guy, have been since 1994 when I was one of the people on their Athlete Development Program which has morphed a few times with different names and stipend/equipment levels, I'm currently one the folks on the Brooks ID Program. My top female is sponsored by Skechers, and I have a small training group here in San Antonio that is provided gear by Skechers. Again, I'm not a Nike guy.
Here are my fall/winter marathon results from the three runners who wore the VaporFly 4%
Runner #1 - 35 y/o male that I've coached for a couple years now, in 2016 he ran the Chicago Marathon and finished in 3:04:20. At the time it was pretty big PR for him. He reloaded and trained for the 2017 NYC Marathon, his training wasn't a lot different from what he did for Chicago, he had progressed to where he could run faster training paces and the goal was to run a sub 3. He wore the 4% and ran 2:55:33. Off the top of my head I think he ran a few seconds slower the 2nd half of NYC
Runner #2 - 34 y/o female that I've coached for 4 years. (she's runner #1's training partner) In 2015 she ran a 3:00:04 at Grandmas, reloaded and ran a 2:59:36 at The Byron College Station Marathon. in Dec of 2015. She decided to take a short break from running as her husband and her adopted a child and she needed to focus on that. By the end of 2016 she was back to training full time and she too focused on NYC. Her training wasn't much different than her 2:59. She too wore the 4% and with a goal of 2:55. She ran 2:53:02 and I believe ran a 2 min negative split
Runner #3 - 33 y/o female that I've coached for 7 years. She has alway trained/raced in Saucony and adidas boost. She had broken 3:00 in 2012 and then in 2015 at The Grandma's Marathon she ran 2:48:17. She tried to run the B standard at the 2015 CIM but had a horrible race, came back a few weeks later and ran 2:51 at the 2016 Houston Marathon. She and her husband started there family shortly there after and most of 2016 was pregnancy. In March of this year she started training full time and we decided to run Houston. After runners 1 and 2 (they all know each other) had the results with the 4% she decided to try them out. She ran a 1/2 in December with a result that was not really impressive. However she still purchased a pair and wore them for Houston, the goal was 2:45 and she ran 2:44:21. She slowed down the last 7k but that was more due to stomach/Gastro issues and less about leg/bonk
All three said their legs felt much less fatigued and less beat up than in any of their previous marathons.
Now I also had a runner run Chicago in October. She didn't wear the 4% as she is one of my Skechers sponsored runners. She has a 2:42:03 marathon PR from CIM 2015 and ran 2:44:16 at the 2016 trials. She suffered a stress reaction in Dec 2017 and didn't want to wear racing flats for Chicago so she wore the Skechers Ultra Road 2 training shoes. Very light weight (6:4 oz and 4mm drop) She ran 2:44:04. She too said her legs felt much less fatigued and less beat up.
I mention the Skechers because I think the extra cushion has a large part to play in how people are running better over longer distances in the 4%. I know the first 3 runners are convinced the shoes helped them maintain their effort over the entire marathon. Obviously you have to do the training and can't rely on a pair of $250 shoes to make you run fast.
Wow, these look like the real deal.
John Snows wrote:
Wow, these look like the real deal.
Why do you think so today?
Two rivals purchased pairs this weekend.
What's knew? wrote:
John Snows wrote:
Wow, these look like the real deal.
Why do you think so today?
This moran has been bumping every VF thread he can find this afternoon
I'm just trying to find answers and figure out whether I should buy a pair. Your the moran.
am i the only one that thinks the vaporflys look ridiculous? especially from behind lol.
John Snows wrote:
I'm just trying to find answers and figure out whether I should buy a pair. Your the moran.
Saucony make a wide variety of shoe types for every runner.