As a recent new user of Next%, the major contribution of the shoe IMO is that it keeps your legs noticeably more fresh during a race. I don’t think they are significantly faster than other shoes. Its just that Nike was able to make a fast shoe with huge cushioning that is still light.
Anyone who has more fresh legs in a race is going to run faster.
Subway Surfers wrote:
In Rojo's recent thread on the Vaporfly it was 2.9% more efficient than the Mutumbo spike. So it is decent at short distances.
I really don't understand any of you people. It takes 400 miles just to get the sponginess out of shoes. Most well made shoes can easily make it to 1,000 miles.
Running375 wrote:
This one might be interesting?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjLO5-lR7j8&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3N7hxI0yr--IxR7xoKAOjTsZwEHTdtXyc1Gs6dMIoCwGS2YjN_JkPOsU0
Guy is very fit if he can run that pace producing less than 2 mmol lactate. Didn't expect the difference to be THAT big in favor of the Nike shoes (much lower lactate).
Ok, he is a 14:39/30:20/1:07 guy, that explains a lot. I'm still not convinced they can be that much faster than the Adios I'm wearing, but this test pretty much excludes the mental aspect.
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
Guy is very fit if he can run that pace producing less than 2 mmol lactate. Didn't expect the difference to be THAT big in favor of the Nike shoes (much lower lactate).
Ok, he is a 14:39/30:20/1:07 guy, that explains a lot. I'm still not convinced they can be that much faster than the Adios I'm wearing, but this test pretty much excludes the mental aspect.
Actually no, the test is useless. If he used the shoes in the order they show at the end, it shows that the Next% is faster than the Flyknit4%, but then that the VF4% is MUCH worse than the Next% which is obviously wrong.
It seems that after running the first two reps, he couldn't clear the lactate fully in the 4 min break and had higher starting lactate levels. This means the Adios could have been as good as the Next%, had he used them as second pair of shoes.
Also, the test was done on treadmill which is not what these shoes are designed for.
DC Wonk wrote:
As a recent new user of Next%, the major contribution of the shoe IMO is that it keeps your legs noticeably more fresh during a race. I don’t think they are significantly faster than other shoes. Its just that Nike was able to make a fast shoe with huge cushioning that is still light.
Anyone who has more fresh legs in a race is going to run faster.
I tend to concur. I tested the VF 4% out of the box for a HR-controlled mile on the track sandwiched between my normal minimalist shoes and they were no faster at the same HR, but when I put my normal shoes back on, the impact difference was marked. At the end of a marathon or even a 10K-21K that would probably be the difference right there.
I have 2 pairs of next%. My old ones have 40 miles on them. Tried the new ones on and there is a ton more cushion. I ened up using the old ones for a marathon anyway but just wanted to note that.
Paul,
I just ran the NYC Marathon and had the exact same problem. I like the cushion of these shoes, but something about the carbon plate and its lack of flex seems to push my toes forward until they hit the upper in a way that causes a lot of pain. I also have long skinny toes (hammer toes) that typically need more volume in the toe box. I usually wear 11.5 in Pegasuses but I went with a 12 for the Next% precisely because I hoped to avoid hammering my toes into the end of the shoe. I'm starting to think that the supposed 4% advantage isn't worth it. These shoes really hurt me in the final 5 miles of the race. (Then again, everything hurt by that point).