To be clear, I got a 6% improvement (in seconds/Km) with the Nike 4%. Not “efficiency” gains, not perceived effort…. Actual 6% drop in time. If you watch the videos of the lab test, they are actually talking about people improving their times by 3% (but then you don’t see that in any videos of people “testing” the shoe).
So you go from 6% to 6.2%. You aren’t going to notice that.
…actually, prediction for me is to go down to 4.5% to 5.5%. The Nike 4% was basically designed for my stride length, cadence, foot strike…. I would lose some of that with the Puma.
…all the reviews that I see are pretty useless. they spend more time talking about the laces and the tongue than the 3.6% improvement.
it’s pretty simple. run your typical 6x1k and see if you are now doing it in 2:53.5 rather than 3:00 with your other super shoes. easy enough. No, I felt good or it felt a little weird running in them. Do you get that extra 3.6% or not. 3.6% is major. You more than notice that. You would be going from a 9:00 3km to an 8:40 3km. That’s approximate 1 year of training to go from 9 to 8:40
I actually got a 6%+ improvement with the 4% (out of the box, then improvement was less already the second time I used them). They also got me injured (but that’s another story). It was not. oh I fell a little strange in them. it was OMG, this is insane. Very verifiable
So in my case, it would be going from 9:32 (normal shoes) to 9:00 with the 4% (because it was 6% for me - super high responder) and then 8:40 with the Puma.
YOU NOTICE THAT
3.5% better means you go from 4% efficiency improvement to 4.14%. That isn’t big enough to measure with a treadmill run. Getting to 6% would be a 50% improvement not a 3.5%. This is middle school math…. You aren’t going to notice <1s/mile
Maybe you should have continued learning math after middle school then. If you improve from using flats at 100 oxygen units per second at one pace (using 100 for illustration), a 4% improvement from flats -> first gen supershoes would make that pace cost 96 units/second. An additional 3.5% improvement from first gen supershoes to the new Puma ones would mean: 96 * (0.965) = 92.64 units/second at that pace. That's an improvement of 7.4% compared to the original baseline, which is non-super flats.
That's also just oxygen consumption efficiency, so it doesn't mean your race times will be 7.4% faster.
3.5% better means you go from 4% efficiency improvement to 4.14%. That isn’t big enough to measure with a treadmill run. Getting to 6% would be a 50% improvement not a 3.5%. This is middle school math…. You aren’t going to notice <1s/mile
Maybe you should have continued learning math after middle school then. If you improve from using flats at 100 oxygen units per second at one pace (using 100 for illustration), a 4% improvement from flats -> first gen supershoes would make that pace cost 96 units/second. An additional 3.5% improvement from first gen supershoes to the new Puma ones would mean: 96 * (0.965) = 92.64 units/second at that pace. That's an improvement of 7.4% compared to the original baseline, which is non-super flats.
That's also just oxygen consumption efficiency, so it doesn't mean your race times will be 7.4% faster.
Only problem is that isn’t what the math says. Puma is saying they are 3.5% better than Nike. Not almost 100%. I get it that a lot of people struggle with math but as I said this is a basic middle school concept. Ibunderstand why puma markets it like this. Lots of people struggle like you do and think they are getting some huge improvement.
The poster you are replying to is correct. A percent change needs to be measured from some baseline. In this case, the baseline is in Nikes. The FR3 shows 96.5% W/kg compared to the Nikes, not 3.5% of the Nike's 4%.
You only need to look at the graph shown in the article. Nike is around 16.5 W/kg. 16.5 * (1-3.5%) = 15.92 W/kg, which appears to be where the FR3s are. If the Nikes are 4% better than a non-supershoe, then the non-supershoe would be 16.5 * (1 + 4%) = 17.16 W/kg. So compared to a non-supershoe, the FR3s would be (17.16 - 15.9) / 17.16 = 7.34% better.
Does anyone else feel like the quality of Alex Hutchinson’s stuff has dipped lately? I used to love his stuff, but recently I’ve felt like it’s been more clickbait/advertising. Probably has more to do with Outside’s editors and the state of the magazine industry than Hutchinson himself though.
I saw an expected lifespan from Puma in one review of 200 miles. Not sure I'm ready to pay $1.50 per mile even if they are the greatest thing since EPO
Maybe you should have continued learning math after middle school then. If you improve from using flats at 100 oxygen units per second at one pace (using 100 for illustration), a 4% improvement from flats -> first gen supershoes would make that pace cost 96 units/second. An additional 3.5% improvement from first gen supershoes to the new Puma ones would mean: 96 * (0.965) = 92.64 units/second at that pace. That's an improvement of 7.4% compared to the original baseline, which is non-super flats.
That's also just oxygen consumption efficiency, so it doesn't mean your race times will be 7.4% faster.
Only problem is that isn’t what the math says. Puma is saying they are 3.5% better than Nike. Not almost 100%. I get it that a lot of people struggle with math but as I said this is a basic middle school concept. Ibunderstand why puma markets it like this. Lots of people struggle like you do and think they are getting some huge improvement.
Only problem is that isn’t what the math says. Puma is saying they are 3.5% better than Nike. Not almost 100%. I get it that a lot of people struggle with math but as I said this is a basic middle school concept. Ibunderstand why puma markets it like this. Lots of people struggle like you do and think they are getting some huge improvement.
So you go from 6% to 6.2%. You aren’t going to notice that.
…actually, prediction for me is to go down to 4.5% to 5.5%. The Nike 4% was basically designed for my stride length, cadence, foot strike…. I would lose some of that with the Puma.
Please explain stride length, cadence, foot strike. Which well known runner does your form most closely resemble.
It's funny, but the technology has gone from defense to offense. I was excited when racing flats in the 80s started adding a little more cushioning to protect my feet, while still being light in weight. Now, it's all about the energy return. They've basically become springs attached under a running shoe upper.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
…actually, prediction for me is to go down to 4.5% to 5.5%. The Nike 4% was basically designed for my stride length, cadence, foot strike…. I would lose some of that with the Puma.
Please explain stride length, cadence, foot strike. Which well known runner does your form most closely resemble.
…actually, prediction for me is to go down to 4.5% to 5.5%. The Nike 4% was basically designed for my stride length, cadence, foot strike…. I would lose some of that with the Puma.
Please explain stride length, cadence, foot strike. Which well known runner does your form most closely resemble.
I saw an expected lifespan from Puma in one review of 200 miles. Not sure I'm ready to pay $1.50 per mile even if they are the greatest thing since EPO
If you are wearing them for a marathon, would you be willing to pay $39 for a multi-minute PR? A lot of people would be.
If you're running the 2 mile, your PR only cost you $3.
I struggle to believe some of the numbers in the article. It's claimed that the improvement in running economy offered by these shoes would translate to a 2.0% improvement in marathon time for a 2 hour runner. That means for Rory Linkletter, a Puma athlete, he could run 2:05-low in these shoes. Mahamed Mahamed, a British Puma athlete, has a 2:07 PB, which means he could run 2:04-low just because of the improvement in his shoes. I just don't buy it. Mahamed is running London next weekend so I guess we'll see. It's a fast course with a good field so it's setup well for him
I saw an expected lifespan from Puma in one review of 200 miles. Not sure I'm ready to pay $1.50 per mile even if they are the greatest thing since EPO
With most of the supershoes, the racing lifespan is 100-200 miles but they're still excellent training shoes for another 300 miles. I've only just thrown out my Alphafly 1 after more than 700 miles.
I saw an expected lifespan from Puma in one review of 200 miles. Not sure I'm ready to pay $1.50 per mile even if they are the greatest thing since EPO
If you are wearing them for a marathon, would you be willing to pay $39 for a multi-minute PR? A lot of people would be.
If you're running the 2 mile, your PR only cost you $3.
Gee whiz, darth ...Speaking of math. It's not $300 additional. If a Nike cost $200, it's $100 additional which is 50¢/mile .