Metabolic Cost Comparison: Altra Vanish-R vs. NB 1500v6

The test procedure was to run a 1k in each shoe at roughly 6:50/mile pace, and then compare the Heart Rate metrics and the final average pace, and cadence info.

After a 15min warmup, three 1000m intervals were run. The first two were in the NB 1500v6, and the final was in the Altra Vanish R.

RESULTS:

Interval 2 in the NB 1500 v6

Average Pace: 6:51/mile

Average Cadence: 186spm

Average Heart Rate: 157bpm

Max Heart Rate: 166bpm

Interval 3 in the Ultra Vanish R

Average Pace: 6:38/mile

Average Cadence: 189spm

Average Heart Rate: 157bpm

Max Heart Rate: 174bpm(?)

Edit: *Altra

THE WINNER

The winner of this comparison exercise, based on consideration of only the posted Results (without consideration of any other extenuating circumstances), by Unanimous Decision:

The Altra Vanish R!

(winner, winner, chicken-dinner!)

Additional notes:

The Altra Vanish-R were recently purchased on-sale from an online supplier for ~$56 (including tax and shipping).

The New Balance 1500v6 were recently purchased on-sale from an online supplier for ~$61 (including tax and shipping).

Interesting. Would make much more sense to swap shoes every time, to control for the effect of the warmup. Still a fun study of one!

It would be interesting to see something like the Hoka Bondi or other heavyweight trainer added into the mix.

How did you measure your heart rate? Wrist or chest strap?

Darby wrote:

Interesting. Would make much more sense to swap shoes every time, to control for the effect of the warmup. Still a fun study of one!

Yes, this was just a first crack, out of my normal routine, and trying to fit it in around weird weather.

I have been doing a 4x4min (3min rest) workout twice a week on the treadmill. However, the treadmill alters my gait cycle from that when running on flat ground. Possibly I could incorporate these type of 'metabolic cost comparison' studies, going forward, into some of my 4x4 workouts, but logistically, going to the track is not as convenient.

If I were to incorporate them into a 4x4 workout, then the likely plan would be to perform reps 1&3 in shoe A and reps 2&4 in shoe B.

Thanks for the feedback!

But to be clear from my previous post, I think it makes sense, at least initially, to perform these comparison's on the track rather than the treadmill, until it is better understood how the metabolic costs differ (and possibly why) between the treadmill and flat ground.

bondi for the mile wrote:

It would be interesting to see something like the Hoka Bondi or other heavyweight trainer added into the mix.

I have a pair of Kinvara 11's and NB 1080v10's. I can almost guarantee the latter is going to metabolically cost more. :-).

Joe Jackson wrote:

How did you measure your heart rate? Wrist or chest strap?

Wrist/optical, and I've had good success up to this time doing so, but I thought my maxHR was only 168 (maybe 170), yet I hit 174 in rep 4, which was very surprising.

I have a chest strap on order.

Scientifically and statistically, the conclusions presented here based on the data presented here are meaningless. I would say that it is even misleading to present any conclusions based on this data.

Garbage in, garbage out.

it is, what it is wrote:

But to be clear from my previous post, I think it makes sense, at least initially, to perform these comparison's on the track rather than the treadmill, until it is better understood how the metabolic costs differ (and possibly why) between the treadmill and flat ground.

It's pretty well understood. You should use a treadmill because your pacing will be inconsistent on the track. But the treadmill has to be research-grade, i.e., as hard as concrete. Gym treadmills are incredibly cushioned, which makes shoe cushioning redundant and will give results that favor the lighter, more minimal shoe. The (bad) studies suggesting that running barefoot was more efficient than running with shoes were done on commercial treadmills rather than research treadmills.

It's a first crack. If he continues to do the same workouts with the same shoes, the results will become more and more meaningful. I have the same Altras and similar NB shoes. Kind of makes me want to try the same thing (and is why this topic interests me).

it is, what it is wrote:

RESULTS:

Interval 2 in the NB 1500 v6

Average Pace: 6:51/mile

Average Cadence: 186spm

Average Heart Rate: 157bpm

Max Heart Rate: 166bpm

Interval 3 in the Ultra Vanish R

Average Pace: 6:38/mile

Average Cadence: 189spm

Average Heart Rate: 157bpm

Max Heart Rate: 174bpm(?)

Here is a plot of the data from this test comparison:

Comments:

I was somewhat stunned, when looking at the results post-test, as to how much faster I actually ran in the Altra Vanish-R compared to the NB 1500v6 in these two 1k reps on the track. I think that, as much as anything, prompted me to post up the results.

Another crazy thing about the results is that my Average Heart Rate (as computed by the Garmin Forerunner) was exactly the same between the two reps.

Mounty Pylon wrote:

Scientifically and statistically, the conclusions presented here based on the data presented here are meaningless. I would say that it is even misleading to present any conclusions based on this data.

Garbage in, garbage out.

+1