Could somebody explain the rationale behind 18- or 19-minute 5k runners wearing super shoes?

Thomas Cruz wrote:

r2k83 wrote:

Before "super shoes", the faster runners were wearing minimal, lightweight racing flats that the "midpackers" weren't comfortable wearing. After "super shoes" the "midpackers" are the ones more likely to have the money to $200+ on these shoes and the faster runners are jealous that they don't have that kind of money or are too cheap to spend it on such shoes for a 5k.

Personally, having tried the Skechers Speed Elite and Saucony Endorphin Pro, I haven't found them to be worth the price tag (or even wearable in the case of the Saucony).

Is there evidence of a financial divide between frontrunners and mid-packers?

Not really other than the frontrunners are usually younger and people tend to have more money to spend as they get older. There are plenty of HS and college age kids with Vaporflys and the like at races, though. It is more about frugality. I know a guy who ran his marathon PR (2:33) in a pair of shoes he picked up at KMart for $15. Whatever works for you.

hobby jogger extraordinaire wrote:

Not sure about this logic. Running shoes are a tool for doing an activity that you enjoy. The pleasure is the activity, not the consumption of the tools. If you need a high end pair of shoes to enjoy a race, perhaps you don't actually enjoy the activity, but rather get pleasure from the gear for the activity. I am able to enjoy a race with a $75 pair of racing flats and get faster through my training. A pair of $250 racing shoes is not going to improve my enjoyment of that race (except for maybe a leg destroying marathon).

Perhaps a better comparison is the enjoyment factor of a dinky small town marathon (Trader Joes wine or a minivan) vs. a big city marathon (top shelf wine or a sports car).

...running in those shoes is actually pretty enjoyable. regardless of times, they're just fun to run in.

As a fellow 16min 5k runner, get over yourself. There was a time when I thought breaking 17 was going to be an incredible accomplishment. Then I did it and remembered Abbey D'Agostino got tripped at the Rio Olympics, tore her ACl, got back up, and still finished that race in 17:10. You're not special, buttercup.

Age group awards? If their competition is wearing them and are gaining a (real or believed) advantage, then they will be at a disadvantage if they are not wearing them.

Why not buy the best gear you can buy IF you can afford it?

hobby jogger extraordinaire wrote:and usually run in the 16:00s and 17:00s. I just wear traditional racing flats rather than super shoes, mostly because I'm cheap.

If I wanted the opinion of a 16 - 17 minute 5k runner I’d ask my wife. Or my 14 year old son.

embarrassing wrote:

hobby jogger extraordinaire wrote:and usually run in the 16:00s and 17:00s. I just wear traditional racing flats rather than super shoes, mostly because I'm cheap.

If I wanted the opinion of a 16 - 17 minute 5k runner I’d ask my wife. Or my 14 year old son.

So your wife is faster than Brian Sell´s wife?

I could only read the subject line and about half a sentence of OPs riveting tale.

1. Even if you're running a half or full marathon, you don't need a super shoe.

2. The VAST majority of us on here aren't going for anything other than a new PR, maybe an AG placing if it happens to work that way, when we do a half or full marathon. Thus, the choice to wear a super shoe is just that...a choice.

3. Even if you're a mid pack runner, which, again, the VAST majority of us on here fall in that category, maybe you just want to run in the more fun shoes. I've got my beef with the super shoes, but if the overall outcome of anything isn't being affected by an 18:00-20:00 (or 25-30:00 5k runner, why get up in arms about the issue?

Or did one of them edge you out in the virtual Turkey Trot or snipe a Strava segment from you?

Murdock wrote:

Why not buy the best gear you can buy IF you can afford it?

Why not just buy AG podium medal instead of racing?

Imma get me some soon, and I can't break 25 minutes for 5k currently.

We want the technology. Money is no issue for me, so why not?

The anti-Super Shoe people are just tiresome at this point. The shoes are legal, affordable and widely accessible across brands. You can buy a shoe that will last you 150-300 miles of racing (about 6-50 races depending on who you are) for a cost well under what all those races will set you back to run. If they all cost 300 or 500 bucks I'd get it. But they cost 150-275 bucks at full price. And they're objectively a better product and value than high-end flats or regular flats. I ran my marathon PB in Bostons I got for 50 bucks so I get it. My legs were also absolutely trashed afterwards and in retrospect I'd swap shoes if I could do it over again.

This is great perspective! Thank you for responding.

Doesn't bother me that much, just wondering about motivations. The basis of the sport is the fastest person should win, not the one with the best equipment. All of the sports you mentioned take strides to ensure fair competition with limitations on equipment. Kinda ruins the competition and fairness aspect if a sport with universal appeal all of a sudden is gatekeeping with $250 shoes that don't last long.

The underlying theme of your argument is basically an ad hominem attack, which doesn't bother me at all, but does work to invalidate your own argument. Congrats on running so well in your 50s.

Rather than anything special, I pretty much think of myself as another speck in the universe that happens to run some random distances faster than most people, among other personal attributes. I got over and past myself long ago. Quite satisfied these days. How are you?

The 18 and 19 minute groups are keeping this sport funded - from local races through major marathons and the salary of the elites.

Without the masses of these good folks shelling out $200+ for a shoe that probably costs $10 to manufacturer and ship, there would be a lot less money to be shared by the shoe companies.

Give them a break (I'm not one of them...can barely break 23 these days).

RunSpikeRun wrote:

1. Even if you're running a half or full marathon, you don't need a super shoe.

2. The VAST majority of us on here aren't going for anything other than a new PR, maybe an AG placing if it happens to work that way, when we do a half or full marathon. Thus, the choice to wear a super shoe is just that...a choice.

3. Even if you're a mid pack runner, which, again, the VAST majority of us on here fall in that category, maybe you just want to run in the more fun shoes. I've got my beef with the super shoes, but if the overall outcome of anything isn't being affected by an 18:00-20:00 (or 25-30:00 5k runner, why get up in arms about the issue?

Or did one of them edge you out in the virtual Turkey Trot or snipe a Strava segment from you?

Don't have Strava and I could care less if somebody beats me. I'm happy for the competition. My competition at the few recent available races has been high schoolers and college kids wearing trainers, rather than anyone in super shoes.

1. You are right, but I can't argue against the fact that super shoes reduce the impact and also have lowered times for marathon qualifying standards. Basically need them to compete at the longer distances.

2. Agreed, but I just was wondering about the choice.

3. Not up in arms, just asking the question.

hobby jogger extraordinaire wrote:

Kinda ruins the competition and fairness aspect if a sport with universal appeal all of a sudden is gatekeeping with $250 shoes that don't last long.

You're just 3 years too late with this take, dude. Competitive shoes can be had for 175-200 bucks. There's no supply shortages like in the past — they can be had easily. All brands makes them pretty much, and the technology is no longer proprietary. They last hundreds of miles, which could be dozens of races (all of which cost at least 20 bucks and up to or exceeding the cost of the shoe in some cases). Nearly anyone who is any good has them at any major race, and the only gatekeeper is about 50-75 bucks.

Racing flats? Do you think you are a pro or something? What's the point of that when you are running 16:00s and 17:00s? Back in my day the kids running that slow weren't even given shoes. Some would tie a bit of brown paper to their feet with twine to look like they were good enough to wear shoes, but it was just sad. I see a loser running as slow as you wearing shoes and I just laugh. What's the point? You need to train a bit harder instead of wasting your money on shoes. Loser.

Steffen wrote:

short answer wrote:

They have money to spend on chasing illusions.

I don´t for a second believe they will make me faster. Actually, I know they don´t. I have done workouts in "super shoes" and one week later I hove done the exact same workout in a pair of NB1400 and the times are pretty much identical.

A guy in the neighbourhood goes to Poland several times every year and spend a fortune on hookers. At least my hobby is a little healthier.

Does that make him run faster (other than from his wife)?

Why do people buy porsches and ferraris?