Very rare you meet anyone who goes from basic shoes to cushioned shoes they fit their needs, taking into account stability if needed, or preference to plush or firmer.
It's very hard to sit on the fence when the evidence you can feel in your legs. Even if it's placebo you can get good super foam shoes for training for 120 euro with the new puma. Why anyone would not use them, when using a system like this is staggering. The whole idea of this system is small, tiny enhancements or gains where you can get them.
I find it hard to believe and someone would be almost trolling to suggest something like the puma Velocity 4 doesn't protect the legs slightly more than the Pegasus. But nothing polarise like running shoes I guess. But to me, it's a no brainer. You are going to buy shoes anyway.
Also, no way only 2s difference. Try run reps in something like Evo SL and then go run same reps in something like brooks GTS. We are not talking 2s here. Difference is vast.
Sometimes people want to be argument and obtuse just for sake. Just suck it up and buy some good shoes it's 2025 not 1999.
Very rare you meet anyone who goes from basic shoes to cushioned shoes they fit their needs, taking into account stability if needed, or preference to plush or firmer.
It's very hard to sit on the fence when the evidence you can feel in your legs. Even if it's placebo you can get good super foam shoes for training for 120 euro with the new puma. Why anyone would not use them, when using a system like this is staggering. The whole idea of this system is small, tiny enhancements or gains where you can get them.
I find it hard to believe and someone would be almost trolling to suggest something like the puma Velocity 4 doesn't protect the legs slightly more than the Pegasus. But nothing polarise like running shoes I guess. But to me, it's a no brainer. You are going to buy shoes anyway.
Also, no way only 2s difference. Try run reps in something like Evo SL and then go run same reps in something like brooks GTS. We are not talking 2s here. Difference is vast.
Sometimes people want to be argument and obtuse just for sake. Just suck it up and buy some good shoes it's 2025 not 1999.
Old runners like me will remember racing in stuff from the 80-90s. Truly awful shoes. Tegla Laroupe felt good back then, but looking back they surely just bash up the legs versus anything today. You don't need to really have a study on it to know that today's shoes protect you more. It can only be a good thing and allows us either to train more or recovery better of the past.
I'm thankful I lived and ran long enough to actually run in shoes that not only protect you and clearly make you faster, are also fun to run in! Absolutely no reason not to invest a tiny bit more money in something that ticks all those boxes compared to the rubbish we ran in, even 3 years ago when it comes to daily shoes.
The race shoe tech has slowed down but the advantages and advances is mins blowing in daily trainers to an old geezer like me who has been running since 1986!
Up to 1300 km from a pair of super shoes? What brand/model, and do you run on a track?
I run on the road, and super shoes are generally shredded after less than half this mileage. Many of the models have soles that are not particularly stable and not suited for gravel, tight turns etc. The wear on the soles make them even less stable, bordering on unsafe.
I run mostly gravel/paved roads, approx 50-50. I used three pairs of adios pro 2 , and one adios pro 3 pair, all of them lasted even longer, between 1500 and 2000 km. The foam was still in good condition, but upper got completely torn after such mileage. The foam in those models (which is also in EVO SL, my pair has currently 1300 km and is still good) is super super durable. I have to add that in all pairs carbon rods broke somewhere between 300 and 500 km, but I noticed no difference at all.
The adios pro 4, however, are now at approx. 500 km, and already feel terrible-very squishy, so I am considering to retire them. The same is with Nike, I got one VF3 model to 1000 km, but it was a stretch. Typically they decline rapidly after 500 km.
I have heard others saying the carbon broke. Silly question, how do you know it has broken, if no noticeable difference?
Not sure why anyone wouldn't wear super shoes for all their workouts if they can afford it. Ingebrigtsen wears alphaflys for his morning sessions on treadmill and vaporflys in the afternoon for his faster intervals fwiw
I run mostly gravel/paved roads, approx 50-50. I used three pairs of adios pro 2 , and one adios pro 3 pair, all of them lasted even longer, between 1500 and 2000 km. The foam was still in good condition, but upper got completely torn after such mileage. The foam in those models (which is also in EVO SL, my pair has currently 1300 km and is still good) is super super durable. I have to add that in all pairs carbon rods broke somewhere between 300 and 500 km, but I noticed no difference at all.
The adios pro 4, however, are now at approx. 500 km, and already feel terrible-very squishy, so I am considering to retire them. The same is with Nike, I got one VF3 model to 1000 km, but it was a stretch. Typically they decline rapidly after 500 km.
I have heard others saying the carbon broke. Silly question, how do you know it has broken, if no noticeable difference?
Sometimes it is broken on the visible spot, and if it not, it can be heard - an obnoxious clicking until things smooth out. Otherwise no difference whatsoever.
To the guy saying the difference is higher than 2s/km. Of course it depends on what you consider a "basic shoe". If it is the heaviest and/or the cheapest shoe possible, then the difference is obviously higher. I estimated the difference between the brand's top-of-the-line model (which is trully a super shoe), and the brand's versatile model (like Boston, maybe EVO SL, etc.). At least I consider the versatile shoes "basic" shoes - if you own only one pair, you should own such shoes. I don't know anybody, who would wear the heaviest shoes for their workout days if they have an alternative, so this is why I assumed some decent versatile shoes as basic.
Is there not some researchers suggesting that everyday wear of super shoes weakens the lower legs,
Barefoot running makes the lower legs bullet proof. No one is suggesting that now, but super shoes are at the other extreme of this.
Not disagreeing with anyone here, but we don’t know the long term impact, and whether this is positive or negative.
i am too old for it to affect me, but I wonder about the youngsters who will never run in anything other than super shoes.
I think an older discussion is probably relevant here, that is whether it's better to train on harder surfaces (concrete/asphalt) or softer surfaces (dirt, grass, treadmills).
My personal feeling aligns with what Jakob apparently does: wearing super shoes on a treadmill makes sense. Hard surfaces and uncushioned impacts create a mechanical bottleneck sooner than the softer counterparts. Of course, there must be some limit to this - we can't go infinitely softer and softer until what we're doing hardly resembles running. That's when you may as well be cross training.
But for the adaptations we're targeting with subt training, that'd be my inclination.
However Jakob is training for 1500m/5000m on a synthetic track, which is also a soft surface and those are relatively short distances. If you're preparing for a road marathon, I could see it beneficial for some people to condition their bodies for those mechanical forces. Plenty of people break down mechanically in the marathon, unable to do their aerobic fitness justice. Especially in hillier marathons.
Someone preparing for road races, especially hilly marathons, certainly shouldn't do all their training on a treadmill. And neither should it all be barefoot or with so much downhill that it's impossible to repair all the resulting damage.
In any case, would most people generally benefit (in terms of being able to increase training load and thus get fitter) from nudging toward more "soft" training by wearing super shoes for all their workouts, as opposed to racing flats or some other less protective shoe? The "anecdata" is almost universal from elites and elite coaches: yes this is generally beneficial and recommended. On this topic, I don't really care to wait for scientists to design and run enough experiments to reach a strong consensus. If it turns out this was all misguided, so be it. But anyone waiting for scientific consensus to support everything they're doing is going to be 5-10+ years behind current best-known practices. And with shoes, you can feel free to hedge your bets however you like by creating whatever shoe rotation you want and wearing super shoes for whatever proportion of your training runs you think is optimal for you.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
Stop being amazed by "leg turnover". I know a guy who runs for 20 years or so, is very short for a male like 160cm or something, runs high mileage, has around 200 cadence "omg such an amazing leg turnover" and only has a 3:15 marathon PB 3 years ago.
Stop being amazed by "leg turnover". I know a guy who runs for 20 years or so, is very short for a male like 160cm or something, runs high mileage, has around 200 cadence "omg such an amazing leg turnover" and only has a 3:15 marathon PB 3 years ago.
Yup. John Korir ran his 2:02 Chicago marathon with a cadence only in the 180s while running 4:32 mile pace. He does his easy runs at a 160 cadence. His cadence is well below a lot of joggers.
Lot of elites on strava have a relatively low cadence but it seems to be working for them obviously.
Old runners like me will remember racing in stuff from the 80-90s. Truly awful shoes. Tegla Laroupe felt good back then, but looking back they surely just bash up the legs versus anything today. You don't need to really have a study on it to know that today's shoes protect you more. It can only be a good thing and allows us either to train more or recovery better of the past.
I'm thankful I lived and ran long enough to actually run in shoes that not only protect you and clearly make you faster, are also fun to run in! Absolutely no reason not to invest a tiny bit more money in something that ticks all those boxes compared to the rubbish we ran in, even 3 years ago when it comes to daily shoes.
The race shoe tech has slowed down but the advantages and advances is mins blowing in daily trainers to an old geezer like me who has been running since 1986!
I started running in the 1970s and have been using this thread for very high age group records, system works great I am 72 now and running better than I was in my early 60s. I think shoes help greatly though as well to allow training systems like this to thrive, daily running with just building brick after brick. Not only for PBs but the more you can run and recovery from when you find good shoes. There's a lot of great choice out there. I wince at the lack of impact protection in what is already a demanding sport right up until the mid 2000s.
If I waited for science studies to catch up with the tech I'll be dead before they tell me what I already know, move with the times and use the shoes to your advantage. I'm quite an old skool kinda guy and am late to the party when it comes to new things, but even an old fud like me isn't going to let this one slip by.
Not to play old timer card like I do to my grand kids, but those old enough to remember and with an open mind rather than "it was better back in the day attitude" can tell you all you need to know about the recovery protection today's shoes provide. Glad to see another old timer agree.
It's one of those things I don't even see as a debate. As someone else said, you will be buying shoes anyway, just get ones that offer the even more superior foams and shock absorbion.
Stop being amazed by "leg turnover". I know a guy who runs for 20 years or so, is very short for a male like 160cm or something, runs high mileage, has around 200 cadence "omg such an amazing leg turnover" and only has a 3:15 marathon PB 3 years ago.
Huge sirpoc fan here. Legend of the hobby jogger community. But it's pretty unusual his running style. I remember seeing a video of it from London marathon, very comical I also laughed.
I think he's not exactly small, 173cm? Plodding around at 60-65% MHR at a cadence of 200 is up there with 'highly unusual'.
Big believer in the new shoes. I especially enjoy the super trainers, a little less expensive and can save the pop in your super racers. A few that i love are the zoom fly 6, Mizuno Flash, and the endorphin speed line. For non plated, Streakfly 1 and adios 9 are awesome too.
Stop being amazed by "leg turnover". I know a guy who runs for 20 years or so, is very short for a male like 160cm or something, runs high mileage, has around 200 cadence "omg such an amazing leg turnover" and only has a 3:15 marathon PB 3 years ago.
Huge sirpoc fan here. Legend of the hobby jogger community. But it's pretty unusual his running style. I remember seeing a video of it from London marathon, very comical I also laughed.
I think he's not exactly small, 173cm? Plodding around at 60-65% MHR at a cadence of 200 is up there with 'highly unusual'.
I remember that video. I thought he could be a pro race walker if he ever gets tired of running. With that high of a cadence I'm sure he nearly always has 1 foot on the ground at all times. Thought I read somewhere where he said he heel strikes too so he likely has 1 straight knee too out front.