Wore vapor flys for 5k today and pred by 1 minute.

i'll give OP 4/10, no hobbyjogger who runs 20 min 5ks would actually post here.

I'm not buying any of these cheating shoes, any times I run, I will actually run them, not have shoes to do it for me. That goes for 4%, Next %, Kipchoge spring shoes, and any of the other carbon fiber spring models from other brands.

kjlhhlhjkl wrote:

i'll give OP 4/10, no hobbyjogger who runs 20 min 5ks would actually post here.

I'm not buying any of these cheating shoes, any times I run, I will actually run them, not have shoes to do it for me. That goes for 4%, Next %, Kipchoge spring shoes, and any of the other carbon fiber spring models from other brands.

Hey, I'll wear them and fairly whiz right by you and feel absolutely no guilt whatsoever. A shoe is a shoe is a shoe...

oregon oldtimer wrote:

One factor that I have heard little about with respect to the vaporfly is the leg muscle fatigue issue. the shoes may not have a significant (measurable) impact in the early part of a race; however, if it reduces cumulative fatigue, this may be highly significant after 2-3 hours (EMG work would get at this question). Another factor is the use of these shoes in training. Does it reduce fatigue on a day-to-day basis thereby allowing the muscles to recover quicker so that the overall quality of training is better?

These two things for sure. They have been mentioned, but most people are quick to credit the "spring of the plate", which I think is nonsense.

1. Less fatigue later in the race. Simple as that. It's pretty brutal around mile 19 in the Zoom Streak or some Adios, that's for sure.

2. And yes, the quicker you recover in training, the higher quality it will be. Even if it's incremental, over time it can add up. While I don't have any data to support this, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence. However, the same would apply to say, a Hoka Clifton as well then. Or a lot of highly cushioned shoes.

To me, the Vaporfly is a like a very light weight Hoka Clifton. Nothing more. Reduced muscle fatigue, but still in a lightweight shoe.. Idea for the marathon distance.

You do realize running shoes in 1930 weighed 5 pounds, now they weigh less than 1 pound.

Kickapoo wrote:

You do realize running shoes in 1930 weighed 5 pounds, now they weigh less than 1 pound.

My point is that running shoes, tracks, medical, training, etc., have always gotten better. They always will.

But there should come a point where we stop what we can to make it the man or woman setting the record.

Let's not have it be the shoe.

You've got to be completely stupid if you think we cannot make shoe that enables a person to run faster

with it than without it. It's like saying automobile engines will not become more efficient.

"Bob Schul Country wrote:

Once again......I have the 4% for about a year now and have done the running and racing in them experimenting with the heart rates I run at with them on compared to Hoka Clifton.

Its not close. I did a 10 mile time trial at a HR of 80% in both shoes. The 4% were ran 4 minutes faster over 10 miles with the same HR.

One of the benefits that people never talk about is the feel you have the next day (or lack thereof). You can run a hard race in them and you feel less fatigue the next day."

We also have 1:59.40 and the guy was not even trying.

This is not a scientific experiment. 1 person, different days, different weather, etc. This is an opinion based on very little data with no controls. A scientific experiment should not have a predefined conclusion and should have a lot of data. Sometimes it is inconclusive, sometimes the result is surprising, but the data gives the conclusion. So far, the studies are showing improvements.

Kickapoo wrote:

You do realize running shoes in 1930 weighed 5 pounds, now they weigh less than 1 pound.

This is appallingly wrong. In the 1930's, Samuel Ritchins was making his custom S.T.A.R. shoes for runners. The shoes weighed 5.5 ounces. Go read Tom Derderian's Boston Marathon.

my 2c wrote:

Kickapoo wrote:

You do realize running shoes in 1930 weighed 5 pounds, now they weigh less than 1 pound.

This is appallingly wrong. In the 1930's, Samuel Ritchins was making his custom S.T.A.R. shoes for runners. The shoes weighed 5.5 ounces. Go read Tom Derderian's Boston Marathon.

I don't know what his point was anyways. I wasn't arguing that shoes haven't evolved. I simply stated that the VF could be benefitting runners due to less fatigue incurred later in a race. And also, less fatigue day to day in training. Same idea as a Hoka, only a lot lighter.

Totally. 1 person is a data point, not a scientific experiment. Totally. But it doesn't mean that the data point should be offhandedly dismissed - unless it doesn't align with your own suspicions and, in that case, dismiss away.

But... I've done this repeatedly - at 1km and 1 mile distances and the results are the same every time. How many others here have done that? I didn't do it to make a point, I was interested in seeing if the hype about the VFs was real. When I weighed the Saucony A8s on the kitchen scale and then the VFs, I wondered if the VFs could indeed be more than a marathon shoe. I didn't run time trials to convince anybody here but I proved to myself that the VFs are not worthy of being my go-to shoe for short distances. What others do is up to them. It's a (mostly) free world.

In any case my point was really about distance and the OP's post. Nike has only ever claimed that the VF is 4% faster than their previous fastest marathon shoe. Others have claimed that they provide an advantage at different distances - and I suppose that could be true depending on what shoe they're comparing with. The OP claimed 60 seconds out of 20-ish minute PR and my experience (not suspicion) tells me it's not the shoe - I could have believed 10-15 seconds but not a full minute. No way. Unless the previous PR was run in boots.