Amy Cragg on Zoom Vapofly 4% Shoes: "I think they’re worth a lot..they kind of save your legs in training."

Ok we have to stop the hype. These are great shoes with awesome cushion, but they don’t make you faster. They also are not going to keep you from getting hurt.

I’ve done 4-5 tests with the vaporfly, 4%, and next%... Multiple 2 mile repeats at 5:20 marathon pace. The data is always basically the same. I get a very similar pace, wattage and heart rate.

I do enjoy running in them, but I can’t get them to make me faster. I also am intrigued that many Nike athletes keep claiming less abuse while running and still are getting hurt?

Otq dreamer wrote:

Ok we have to stop the hype. These are great shoes with awesome cushion, but they don’t make you faster. They also are not going to keep you from getting hurt.

I’ve done 4-5 tests with the vaporfly, 4%, and next%... Multiple 2 mile repeats at 5:20 marathon pace. The data is always basically the same. I get a very similar pace, wattage and heart rate.

I do enjoy running in them, but I can’t get them to make me faster. I also am intrigued that many Nike athletes keep claiming less abuse while running and still are getting hurt?

Yeah, good post by someone who's not paid by Phil. Have you noticed the injury rate by the shoe's biggest fans? Why was this thread started? Amy just got healthy. Rupp has not. Rupp also has not run a marathon in anything else. Flanagan had to quit. They're dropping like flies. Kipchoge alive and kicking, as far as we know. Keep in mind he's who the shoe was designed for. Meant to be perfect for him. Everybody else may be shooting themselves in the foot (pun intended). Tell me when the Bowerman team is all fine and fit and the road-racing wing of NOP (Rupp, Hasay) is too. Until then, I won't think the injury epidemic is coincidental to the carbon concept.

Otq dreamer wrote:

I’ve done 4-5 tests with the vaporfly, 4%, and next%... Multiple 2 mile repeats at 5:20 marathon pace. The data is always basically the same. I get a very similar pace, wattage and heart rate.

I do enjoy running in them, but I can’t get them to make me faster.

What is the purpose of these tests?

The OP describes how these shoes benefit long distance training and the last six miles of marathon racing by saving your legs, thus making you able to run over the prolonged marathon distance faster. Testing over 2 mile repeats is irrelevant to that (unless you're running 20 miles say before commencing your repeats).

I don’t understand why there is still a debate about the shoes... NYT did extensive research on huge amounts of Strava data and concluded that there is a benefit. Likewise for multiple lab-tests also posted on this site + a WR was run in them. I personally knocked of over 40sec of my 10K record with these shoes. As someone mentioned earlier, they are great on roads, not on softer terrain and not good in turns.

So Rojo, believe it or not I am actually friends with some top Kenyan distance runners and interestingly I've asked of them (the ones that are Nike athletes) about the Vaporflys. The consistent response was that they weren't sure if the Vaporflys were that much faster than the Streak 6s but the difference was noticeable the day after a half marathon. They could resume training the next day. This would suggest that the magic was the foam or foot positioning. The truth is this advantage Nike currently enjoys will slowly be arbitraged out.

Agreed I'd wager money that in 20 years these shoe's biggest users would be total cripples. The Metatarsals need to flex.

Please tell me that this is not the same Amy Cragg that ran 34:30 yesterday at Beach 2 Beacon?

The purpose of the tests is mainly curiosity and trying to figure out what shoes to use in the Chicago Marathon this fall.

My workouts are pretty long and fairly structured. ....20+ miles yesterday....I get a decent feel for fatigue. I’m obviously not a researcher so this is just my opinion. I did some 26 mile sessions last year alternating the ZoomFly and 4%. I’d say in total I have done 20 runs near 20 miles where I have messed around swapping shoes.

Yesterday

3mi WU:

5x2 miles with 1 mile floats(15miles)

5 mil CD.

I changed SNKRS a few times between intervals to see if Pace/Hrate/power changed. I was on the track at marathon pace.

My main objective is to just get some confidence in shoe and sock selection, and just curiosity.

Without getting deep into the weeds.... I can feel differences in how the cushion feels, but I’m not sure how that translates to actual performance.

My heart rate/power/pace is almost identical in my Zoomfly, 4%, Next%.

5:20-25pace/320W/150-155heart rate.

They all feel very different, but I haven’t noticed a miracle yet.

I have run 3 marathons in the 4% and I do really love the shoes, but my last 10k has been awful in all of them. So personally I still think it’s a great marathon shoe but it doesn’t make 26.2 miles any easier for me.

What about shorter distances? Specifically the 10k. And actual race TIMES in each of these shoes.

Again, you haven't provided hard evidence.

Do you people only race 'thons in the Vaporfly?

You're such a tool Otq dreamer, which is why you are dreaming, "wattage" is a cycling term, not for running. It can't be quantified. What did you wear, a POS Stryd on your shorts or did you change each shoe? Busted.

Moonshot thanks for the great post. Super constructive. I just wanted to share my actual experience since obviously I’m not paid by Nike to fuel the hype machine.

I did swap the Stryd from shoe to shoe. It took 5 seconds, and I agree wattage and running is still a bit sketchy but I’m surprised it does seem to be really consistent so whatever magic they put in that tiny black pod is pretty impressive.

I think more importantly I referenced the pace and Heart rate. I ran all of the efforts in 10:40+\~ and my ending Heart Rate was 153-154.

I posted because I thought the data was interesting and relevant. I’m slightly slower than Amy Cragg but not by much. I think the shoes feel great, but I’m not sure they are as magical as they are marketed. People are still bonking in them and getting hurt.

Puzzled wrote:

I don’t understand why there is still a debate about the shoes... NYT did extensive research on huge amounts of Strava data and concluded that there is a benefit.

I'd quibble with your "extensive research." That NYT article was based on flawed data (which they conceded, I believe), and also was full of misleading graphics.

If you want, go back to that article and look at the graphics

1) if you removed the VF, could you make a compelling argument for the Streak being vastly superior based on that article (answer: yes)

2) they had a graph: "median time in race times when runners change shoes" - that graph emphasized the "best guess" (i.e. the mean score) which showed a big differential between the VF and other shoes. Problem is, you want to be looking at the confidence intervals, not the mean score. When you looked at the confidence interval for the VF, it overlapped completely or near completely with several different shoes - not at all the same gap you saw with the mean score.

OTQ dreamer - I’d be interested to take a look at the stryd data!

I’ve compared quite a few shoes as well. Just in my own testing.

Did you notice the LSS, GCT, or Vertical oscillation change at all?

NameAndStuff wrote:

What Are They Worth? wrote:

To most everyone else they are worth $250 if you are willing to spring for them.

The 4% cost $175 in two stores near me now--not much more than the expensive trainers that most companies offer. The Next% are $250 at one local store before the discount that any regular customer can get, but I've heard that most stores can't get them yet (?)

There's no question that the 4% help in the last 6 miles of the marathon. Huge change in how your quads hold up.

For those of us who don't want to spend $175 on every day trainers but want much of the benefit, the Zoomfly Flyknit is great, and I've purchased multiple pairs online for under $100.

does the zoom fly have any ZoomX foam?

forcerunner wrote:

OTQ dreamer - I’d be interested to take a look at the stryd data!

I’ve compared quite a few shoes as well. Just in my own testing.

Did you notice the LSS, GCT, or Vertical oscillation change at all?

OTQ, and any other LetsRunner - I'd be interested in ACTUAL RACE TIMES. Like Fethi, I'd would like those who have RACED in both Vaporfly AND Flyknit to post there actual race results.

Is that asking too much? Specifically race results OTHER than the 'thon.

Look, why should I shell out for Vaporfly if it is only worth 10 seconds more over 10k than Flyknit. Is it worth more than 10 seconds over 10k?

Otq dreamer wrote:

Ok we have to stop the hype. These are great shoes with awesome cushion, but they don’t make you faster. They also are not going to keep you from getting hurt.

I’ve done 4-5 tests with the vaporfly, 4%, and next%... Multiple 2 mile repeats at 5:20 marathon pace. The data is always basically the same. I get a very similar pace, wattage and heart rate.

I do enjoy running in them, but I can’t get them to make me faster. I also am intrigued that many Nike athletes keep claiming less abuse while running and still are getting hurt?

Cragg's claim is that cushioning saves your legs from the pounding of the roads, which is particularly acute in the last 6 miles of a marathon. I don't think that'd be captured in two mile repeats. But I agree with everything you've said.

Do you have the injury rate data for those running in vaporflys vs. those who do not? I didn't think so...

Using quantitative terms like "rate" and then listing a series of anecdotes is a bit disingenuous. Just saying.

I actually said: "I did strain one of my quads". Maybe if I strained both quads, I might be concerned. I doubt that this was related to the shows. Probably due to some steep downhills. Anyhow, I have not heard anyone else state that they strained their quad or quads after running in them.

Force Runner,

Running currently in all models of the ZoomFly.

The efforts with the 4% had 10nK/m and the Next% were all around 9nK/m.

*Pace/effort/hrate was almost identical.