Super Shoes Non-Responder or is the Test Flawed?

You do realize the term super shoe came about after Nike made a shoe giving 4% energy return over 26 MILES going at 4:40 mile pace not 2 minutes at 6:00 pace on the treadmill right? I’m not saying you’re paces are bad I’m just saying the shoes were not made for what you are expecting

Yes, that's true, but wouldn't a 4% or so increased efficiency translate to measurably lower heartrate over any steady state effort, even 5 minutes?

I thought others had done similar (short term, slower speed) tests in the lab, measuring oxygen consumption directly, and found a difference?

Also, if super shoes only give an advantage at elite speeds, are the thousands of non-elite runners who buy these shoes fooling themselves? Or do they benefit some?

I don’t know how to measure, but reduced leg fatigue is a big piece of the super shoe puzzle.

For what it's worth, that appears to me to be what Renato Canova says in the thread "The nonsense of the rule regarding racing shoes not allowed on track" (page 4). He speaks of two effects: the reduced fatigue/damage in the later stages of a longer race, but also an increased efficiency for non-elite runners (3:30/km or about 5:40/mile pace):

"Of course, athletes running 10 km at 3'30" pace have very slow frequency, and in this case they can find advantage because there is more stride length, at the same frequency. So, can be common for athletes of 38' to run under 37' in 10 km. All the researches were carried out with this kind of athletes,"

It might be hard to measure the reduced fatigue effect, but the decreased work (oxygen consumption) should be easy to measure.

The recent surge in record breaking is probably because of a recent surge in steroid usage because of less testing during Covid, not the shoes...

lke_4:25 wrote:

You do realize the term super shoe came about after Nike made a shoe giving 4% energy return over 26 MILES going at 4:40 mile pace not 2 minutes at 6:00 pace on the treadmill right? I’m not saying you’re paces are bad I’m just saying the shoes were not made for what you are expecting

Wrong!

The original prototypes for the 4% were found on average to give a 4% savings in metabolic cost over speeds of 14/16/18 kilometers per hour.

After all these years, how can someone still be so ignorant about energy return versus metabolic savings in a controlled test in a lab? And the paces prescribed in the original study too!

Thanks for the link.

The study concluded, "Compared with the established racing shoes, the new shoes reduced the energetic cost of running in all 18 subjects tested."

However, they also said, "Among the 18 subjects, the mean difference in energetic cost over the three velocities between the NP and NS shoes ranged from - 1.59 to - 6.26% and from - 1.97 to -6.08% for NP versus AB, indicating considerable inter-individual variation in the amount of energetic saving the NP shoes provided"

But even the lowest benefit, 1.6%, probably would have shown up as a heart rate difference in my little experiement. Is there such a thing as a non-responder?

Interesting results. However, I believe the super shoe development is ruining track. Companies might as well put springs in their shoes. Times will level off until nike comes up with another shoe development and the records will drop again. By the time this year is done the world of world-class competitive track will be a completely different sport. Super shoes have changed the sport overnight and there’s no going back.

bcun g wrote:

Interesting results. However, I believe the super shoe development is ruining track. Companies might as well put springs in their shoes. Times will level off until nike comes up with another shoe development and the records will drop again. By the time this year is done the world of world-class competitive track will be a completely different sport. Super shoes have changed the sport overnight and there’s no going back.

What are you taking about? Road shoes and track are different, all track spikes even the bargain based models are super shoes, they are just adding more stack now for the long distance events, they already have insane efficiency, spikes and spike plate, some even have a full length plate.

Road shoes have lightweight, cushioned and higher energy return foam which required a plate to stables, the efficiency of the plate is far less than the foam, there seems to be a weird view we need a carbon plate makes it super.

But back to the the OP, what distance are you training for?

The type of tests I like to do is warm up for 20-30mins then run race pace for the event in the test shoe, running 1min for each race km. So for 5k for 5mins, 10km for 10mins, half marathon for 20mins and marathon for 40mins. Fully recovery between test and then the average heart rate for the last 10-20% to determine which shoe is efficiency and does not beat your legs up.

This should give a good indicator of which shoes are best

First of all, a standard treadmill is not the best place to test because the treadmill deck is more forgiving than a road so it's like extra cushioning, negating some of the "supershoe" advantage. The lab tests use industrial grade treadmills made to be less forgiving.

Second of all, 141 to 144 to 147 is a pretty big difference. A 2-4% difference in heart rate is like a 4-8% difference in VO2 (because stroke volume increases along with heart rate and VO2 is a product of both).

Third of all, just let your cadence be what it is, the metronome is a bit silly and may have caused you to run at a suboptimal cadence at some portions of the test.

Finally, there's not much evidence that "non-responders" exist, the variance in response in test subjects could easily just be error that you always see in measured samples.

I'm training for the marathon.

Thanks for the tip - I'll try the 40 minute per shoe type with full recovery test and see if that helps sort things out.

So what would be a better test protocol?

Not sure there is a better way. You could do 800s on the track, if you can pace it evenly enough.

That's not a bad idea, except our track is all-weather (cushioned), I might find a paved bike path and just mark out the distance, but even then, keeping to within 2% of the same pace each time will be challenging.

HobbyJogger2000 wrote:

Yes, that's true, but wouldn't a 4% or so increased efficiency translate to measurably lower heartrate over any steady state effort, even 5 minutes?

I thought others had done similar (short term, slower speed) tests in the lab, measuring oxygen consumption directly, and found a difference?

Heart rate is not that dialed in. The studies done in labs use oxygen consumption. A 4% improvement in economy is likely about a 1% improvement in performance. Your heart rate is not going to be able to reflect that small of a change.

HobbyJogger2000 wrote:

Thanks for the link.

The study concluded, "Compared with the established racing shoes, the new shoes reduced the energetic cost of running in all 18 subjects tested."

However, they also said, "Among the 18 subjects, the mean difference in energetic cost over the three velocities between the NP and NS shoes ranged from - 1.59 to - 6.26% and from - 1.97 to -6.08% for NP versus AB, indicating considerable inter-individual variation in the amount of energetic saving the NP shoes provided"

But even the lowest benefit, 1.6%, probably would have shown up as a heart rate difference in my little experiement. Is there such a thing as a non-responder?

No, your heart is not that responsive. Heart rate is not a great metric.

Have a friend on a bike or better yet with e-scooter pace you.

E-scooters can have adjustable top limit speed and will be very consistent not going over it even over slightly hilly route.

HobbyJogger2000 wrote:

Is there something wrong with this testing method?

I don't think HR is precise enough to measure such a small performance increase.

In my case, at 7min/mile, a single beat up or down is about 5 seconds/mile difference in pace.

A few years back, I did an efficiency test at Vanderbilt to test how running efficiency changed with various combinations of a soft, medium, and hard heel cushioning and soft, medium, and hard forefoot cushioning. I was wired up for HR and wore a mask to measure oxygen consumption.

My personal results showed no significant difference in efficiency regardless of the combination. However, I'm a forefoot striker so heel differences would have no effect on my performance.

I did notice that my form changed noticeably to adapt to the changes in forefoot cushioning.