New Study: "Super" Spikes Improve Running Economy by 2.1% Compared to Traditional Spikes

Bneedles · 2026-05-26T15:24:12-04:00

Hello everyone! I am excited to share the results of our recently published study: “The Running Economy and Biomechanics of Competitive Distance Runners Wearing Advanced Footwear Technology Spikes”. Link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-026-06257-y [b] Quick Methods Overview:[/b] We had 7 female and 10 male competitive distance athletes run at 6:25 and 5:40 min/mile, respectively, while wearing the Nike Dragonfly AFT spikes, On Cloudspike 10,000 m AFT spikes, Nike Vaporfly 2 AFT shoes, and Nike Victory 3 traditional spikes. Each participant ran 4, 5-minute trials in each shoe condition while we recorded their running economy (a measure of the energy produced by a runner's aerobic metabolism) and biomechanics. [b] Key Take Aways:[/b] - Running economy improved by an average of 2.1% while wearing AFT spikes and shoes compared to traditional spikes. [b]A 2.1% improvement in running economy is predicted to improve the race time of a 30 minute 10,000 m runner by 25 seconds or 1.4%. [/b]This finding lines up very well with a previous study we published where we found that average top 100 10,000 m race times for males and females improved by ~1.3% since the introduction of AFT spikes in 2020 even when considering historical improvement trends. Link: https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00610.2024 [b]- We found no difference in running economy between the AFT spikes and AFT shoes. [/b]Although AFT spikes and shoes are limited to stack heights at or under 20 mm for NCAA and World Athletics sanctioned track races, our results suggest that the Nike Vaporfly 2 shoes would provide no performance benefit relative to the Nike Dragonfly and On Cloudspike 10,000 m spikes. This finding raises the question of why AFT road shoes are banned from use during distance track races. [b] Limitations:[/b] - Since we measured each participant’s aerobic metabolism to derive running economy, we were limited to testing speeds at or slower than threshold effort. Thankfully, previous research has shown that improvements in sub-threshold running economy are directly related to improved race performance with every 1% improvement in running economy corresponding with ~0.7% improvement in race speed while running at ~3 min/km. - The benefits of AFT spikes and shoes are likely speed dependent. Our results show that running economy improved at sub-threshold speeds for competitive runners, but previous studies of race times have shown that the benefits of AFT spikes and shoes decrease as running speed increases (https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00610.2024). - The AFT shoes we used are multiple generations old. Unfortunately, academic research is slow but I believe it is a safe assumption that the current generation of AFT spikes and shoes improve performance beyond what we found in this study.

Running Shoes/Running Gear Shoes

Reply New New Thread

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 8 of 9

1 7 8 9

Next Last

1 day ago 06/07/2026 1:35pm EDT

re: vvv

vvv wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Conclusions that haven't been confirmed remain unconfirmed. That is my point.
It is still reasonable to believe these things with enough evidence, even if it is not outright definitive. You are a lot older than I am so i'm sure things were different when you went to school, but any science teacher will tell you that a hypothesis is reasonable with enough studies and evidence that all head in a similar direction even if it doesn't directly confirm anything.

A hypothesis is not proof. It's a starting point. It may be wrong. It is what requires proof. Your teacher should have told you that.

1 day ago 06/07/2026 1:37pm EDT

re: vvv

vvv wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The fastest times in every distance up to the 1500/mile, for men and women (with the exception of the women's 1500/mile), were not run in the superspikes. Including today's runners, these have all included the most talented and best trained athletes. For races longer than md I could just as easily hypothesize that it has been endurance drugs (which are still being used) that have enabled faster times, not shoes.
So you believe that all recent records were doped? Are you sticking with your claims about tuohy?

I haven't made any claims about her. She is irrelevant to this discussion.

1 day ago 06/07/2026 1:39pm EDT

re: vvv

vvv wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The fastest times in every distance up to the 1500/mile, for men and women (with the exception of the women's 1500/mile), were not run in the superspikes. Including today's runners, these have all included the most talented and best trained athletes. For races longer than md I could just as easily hypothesize that it has been endurance drugs (which are still being used) that have enabled faster times, not shoes.
Research has shown that superspikes offer greater improvements for longer distances rather than for shorter ones. Of course that hasn't been confirmed, by your definition, but there is reasonable evidence to believe it.

There is also evidence that doping is rife in the sport with doping control being "ineffective" (Howman). That's an even better explanation for faster times.

1 day ago 06/07/2026 1:43pm EDT

re: vvv

vvv wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"And NOBODY is going back to the old shoes. Wonder why? But, the genie is out of the bottle, and there’s no going back. There was the pre-Covid era and now the post. Comparisons are silly. But, it is akin to the EPO use of the 1990s & early 2000s. "
If that is so why is no one today faster than the best in the EPO era?
Shoes won't do as much for elite athletes compared to doping. Super spikes might improve times by a few or a fraction of a second, but drugs are capable of turning 3:52 guys into 3:45 guys.
Wait a minute, you said "EPO era" which indicates that EPO's were used in a certain period of time and are no longer widely used today, buy you also try to argue that most recent world records are doped. Huge contradictions. If you're gonna make an argument at least don't use evidence in different ways each time.

I referred to the "EPO era" as the period described above, which was when the drug became available and for which there was no reliable test.

That does not mean the drug or any other is no longer being used. I am not saying that. Drug use is likely as prevalent as it ever was but is done in a more sophisticated way to beat the testers. That is also the view of the former head of WADA, who refers to current antidoping measures as "ineffective".

1 day ago 06/07/2026 1:48pm EDT

re: vvv

vvv wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The difference between the shoes El G wore and spikes today is nothing like that. It shows, because El G remains faster than anyone today in their new shoes. And, yes, runners today are also doping.
I already pointed out that most evidence and studies showing that super spikes improve performance also show that elite athletes won't benefit as much as normal runners do.
And you continue to call out modern day athletes for doping without any evidence whatsoever. Ridiculous.

You simply show your naivety here - and that you are poorly informed. The evidence of widespread drug use is longstanding.

On the shoes there is nothing that confirms they work better for inferior runners.

1 day ago 06/07/2026 1:56pm EDT

re: Kickers usually win

Kickers usually win wrote:
Bneedles wrote:
I completely agree with what Guardian is saying, there are some issues with using the average improvement for the top 100 1500m athletes to predict how it would improve the performance of a 3:28 runner. That is why I have stayed away from trying to definitively predict how the spikes will effect performance on an individual or small group (runners under 3:29 for example) level. I simply stated that we have seen about a 1.5 second improvement since the introduction of super spikes in the men's 1500 and that seems reasonable to me based on the research and as a fan of the sport.
The benefit of looking at large sample sizes (100+) of race performances year to year is that we can account for some of the individual variation in response to super spikes and shoes. We have seen in multiple studies (including the one this thread is based on) that the individual response to super spikes and shoes is incredibly variable. We found that everyone improved their running economy while wearing super spikes, but the range of improvement was 0.5 to 4%.
At this point, all I can say is that the race time trends after the introduction of super spikes indicate that as the race speed increases, performance improvements decrease. To put a specific number on this would be overreaching in my opinion. We will unfortunately never have a study where the top 20 1500 m runners complete multiple time trials wearing the old and new spikes to have a definitive answer for how much the super spikes improve performance. However, I think we can use observational studies of race time and lab based research to make decent predictions.
The common explanation on LR for the 1500m WR not being broken, is that shoes don’t help a 3:28 runner. If that’s true, the benefit will increase as the distance is extended, but yet, the 5/10 WRs have only marginally been improved. You can’t have it both ways.
Can provide examples of runners that responded to the SS and others that haven’t?

The argument here has been is that the shoes work better at slower speeds - they have a "sweet spot", as it were. That doesn't only favour slower runners - journeymen - over the shorter distances. It is the ballpark speed which is employed by the fastest athletes over longer distances. It should therefore show the biggest improvements in times for the best distance athletes. But as you point out, we aren't seeing that.

This post was edited 58 seconds after it was posted.

1 day ago 06/07/2026 2:21pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

We agree with you that Tuohy has become an irrelevant runner..but why is she irrelevant to this topic? Every runner should be relevant regardless if they are fast or slow. And you continue to try to twist the discussiin about shoes into a discussion about doping. Why don't you try to use her and other runners in your explanation?

1 day ago 06/07/2026 2:54pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
vvv wrote:
It is still reasonable to believe these things with enough evidence, even if it is not outright definitive. You are a lot older than I am so i'm sure things were different when you went to school, but any science teacher will tell you that a hypothesis is reasonable with enough studies and evidence that all head in a similar direction even if it doesn't directly confirm anything.
A hypothesis is not proof. It's a starting point. It may be wrong. It is what requires proof. Your teacher should have told you that.

They did. I literally admitted that it isn't proof. But all the evidence that supports the hypothesis heads in the same direction, and there is no evidence that suggests against it, meaning there is really nothing to argue about here.

A hypothesis could be wrong if there is a lot of evidence that goes against it. This is because hypotheses can be made in different styles or considerations that do not directly reinstate what the opposite belief may use. In this situation, however, there is no evidence that suggests against it. While the studies are helpful but not exactly definitive, there needs to be studies that prove that the shoes either don't work or make athletes slower to combat it and make the hypothesis weaker, which there aren't.

1 day ago 06/07/2026 2:58pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
vvv wrote:
I already pointed out that most evidence and studies showing that super spikes improve performance also show that elite athletes won't benefit as much as normal runners do.
And you continue to call out modern day athletes for doping without any evidence whatsoever. Ridiculous.
You simply show your naivety here - and that you are poorly informed. The evidence of widespread drug use is longstanding.
On the shoes there is nothing that confirms they work better for inferior runners.

So what? You can't just automatically assume that everyone is doping. Just because drug tests are week does not mean that the athletes are doing it. There needs to be more evidence.

While it has not exactly been "confirmed" by your definition, there is a lot of evidence that supports it, and none that suggests the opposite. I can explain this more if you want me to even though I already did in the other post, because you continue to say the same things over and over again.

1 day ago 06/07/2026 3:00pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
Kickers usually win wrote:
The common explanation on LR for the 1500m WR not being broken, is that shoes don’t help a 3:28 runner. If that’s true, the benefit will increase as the distance is extended, but yet, the 5/10 WRs have only marginally been improved. You can’t have it both ways.
Can provide examples of runners that responded to the SS and others that haven’t?
The argument here has been is that the shoes work better at slower speeds - they have a "sweet spot", as it were. That doesn't only favour slower runners - journeymen - over the shorter distances. It is the ballpark speed which is employed by the fastest athletes over longer distances. It should therefore show the biggest improvements in times for the best distance athletes. But as you point out, we aren't seeing that.

They aren't speculated to work better at slower speeds. They speculated to work better at higher efforts from slower athletes.

1 day ago 06/07/2026 3:04pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
vvv wrote:
So you believe that all recent records were doped? Are you sticking with your claims about tuohy?
I haven't made any claims about her. She is irrelevant to this discussion.

Quit lying. You've said in the past that she slowed down despite switching to super spikes, indicating that the shoes did not help her performance at all, and the reason the other girls got faster was because they were doping.

1 day ago 06/07/2026 3:06pm EDT

re: Joe Joe

Joe Joe wrote:
We agree with you that Tuohy has become an irrelevant runner..but why is she irrelevant to this topic? Every runner should be relevant regardless if they are fast or slow. And you continue to try to twist the discussiin about shoes into a discussion about doping. Why don't you try to use her and other runners in your explanation?

His argument is that, because Tuohy slowed down, the super spikes could have either made her slower or not help her performance. And then he accuses the other athletes of doping because their times slightly improved when super spikes came into play.

1 day ago 06/07/2026 3:42pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
"And NOBODY is going back to the old shoes. Wonder why? But, the genie is out of the bottle, and there’s no going back. There was the pre-Covid era and now the post. Comparisons are silly. But, it is akin to the EPO use of the 1990s & early 2000s. "
If that is so why is no one today faster than the best in the EPO era?

You been paying attention? The 5000, 10,000, half marathon and marathon records are all considerably faster than the epo era. Jakob is almost as fast as El G at his peak (maybe as fast looking at the full mile) and much faster over 3000.

Also, I said “akin to” not, identical with. Epo was a helluva drug.

1 day ago 06/07/2026 7:54pm EDT

re: ShoesForThought

ShoesForThought wrote:
kwjaklj wrote:
Dang, was hoping it was more.
The "It's the shoes" crowd heavily discount the significant advances in training and nutrition.
Even outside of the shoes we race in, the shoes we train in today are so much better.
The shoes definitely matter, but runners are getting better at every aspect of the sport.

There are not significant advances in training. A lie perpetuated by the cheater shoe crowd.

Maybe cheater shoes allow you to do more quality workouts, but again, that is the cheater shoe not the training.

15 hours ago 06/08/2026 10:19am EDT

re: Joe Joe

Joe Joe wrote:
We agree with you that Tuohy has become an irrelevant runner..but why is she irrelevant to this topic? Every runner should be relevant regardless if they are fast or slow. And you continue to try to twist the discussiin about shoes into a discussion about doping. Why don't you try to use her and other runners in your explanation?

She isn't relevant to this discussion. It's only you who thinks she is.

14 hours ago 06/08/2026 10:23am EDT

re: vvv

vvv wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
A hypothesis is not proof. It's a starting point. It may be wrong. It is what requires proof. Your teacher should have told you that.
They did. I literally admitted that it isn't proof. But all the evidence that supports the hypothesis heads in the same direction, and there is no evidence that suggests against it, meaning there is really nothing to argue about here.
A hypothesis could be wrong if there is a lot of evidence that goes against it. This is because hypotheses can be made in different styles or considerations that do not directly reinstate what the opposite belief may use. In this situation, however, there is no evidence that suggests against it. While the studies are helpful but not exactly definitive, there needs to be studies that prove that the shoes either don't work or make athletes slower to combat it and make the hypothesis weaker, which there aren't.

You're starting from the wrong end of the equation. An hypothesis requires proof or it is merely a theory. It isn't made true by requiring someone to disprove it. The hypothesized effects of the shoes have yet to be proven. So they remain an hypothesis - a theory.

14 hours ago 06/08/2026 10:27am EDT

re: vvv

vvv wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The argument here has been is that the shoes work better at slower speeds - they have a "sweet spot", as it were. That doesn't only favour slower runners - journeymen - over the shorter distances. It is the ballpark speed which is employed by the fastest athletes over longer distances. It should therefore show the biggest improvements in times for the best distance athletes. But as you point out, we aren't seeing that.
They aren't speculated to work better at slower speeds. They speculated to work better at higher efforts from slower athletes.

As you say, that is only speculation.

14 hours ago 06/08/2026 10:29am EDT

re: vvv

vvv wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I haven't made any claims about her. She is irrelevant to this discussion.
Quit lying. You've said in the past that she slowed down despite switching to super spikes, indicating that the shoes did not help her performance at all, and the reason the other girls got faster was because they were doping.

I don't recall saying what you claim but if she switched to superspikes but didn't get any faster there goes your argument about the shoes.

14 hours ago 06/08/2026 10:33am EDT

re: Sub-9:00 guy

Sub-9:00 guy wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"And NOBODY is going back to the old shoes. Wonder why? But, the genie is out of the bottle, and there’s no going back. There was the pre-Covid era and now the post. Comparisons are silly. But, it is akin to the EPO use of the 1990s & early 2000s. "
If that is so why is no one today faster than the best in the EPO era?
You been paying attention? The 5000, 10,000, half marathon and marathon records are all considerably faster than the epo era. Jakob is almost as fast as El G at his peak (maybe as fast looking at the full mile) and much faster over 3000.
Also, I said “akin to” not, identical with. Epo was a helluva drug.

Not so much of a "helluva drug" if you're saying longer distance performances are faster today because of shoes and not drugs. You do know btw that drug use continues today?

Page 8 of 9

1 7 8 9

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Real Runners, Real Reviews

Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt. Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.

What shoe are you reviewing?

Rate your shoe

Overall Rating

Appearance

Comfort

Cushioning

Durability

Value

I would buy this shoe again

Yes No

Would you buy this shoe again?

One-line review. Optional. Your written review provides information to readers that numbers can't.

Email Optional. Required for t-shirt drawing.

Real runner reviews • Community-powered rankings

New Study: "Super" Spikes Improve Running Economy by 2.1% Compared to Traditional Spikes

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

New Study: "Super" Spikes Improve Running Economy by 2.1% Compared to Traditional Spikes

Jump To A Page

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow vvv

Block vvv

Follow vvv

Block vvv

Follow vvv

Block vvv

Follow vvv

Block vvv

Follow vvv

Block vvv

Follow Sub-9:00 guy

Block Sub-9:00 guy

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.

Real Runners, Real Reviews