New “Super Shoe” Research Data

***Deleted by LRC as it was off topic and rude***

Second, it really is all about the Nike super shoes.

Interesting read. If you go beyond the charts and tables you see that the low and non-responders are those who are already more efficient runners. The person who had the highest cadence and lowest vertical oscillation had no increase in RE in the Alphafly.

This is a study about shoes but it would be nice to discount RE for basic body characteristics like leg length, weight, etc. There are probably widely available factors in sports science for this kind of stuff. I'd bet Nike has detailed profiles matching shoes with body types.

Two interesting takeaways:

1. Mass is no longer detrimental to performance in performance shoes

2. It is the foam and not the carbon plate that contributes to the improvements (see the experiment cutting the carbon plate in the VF and not seeing any performance changes)

This is a relatively simple study addresses a many of the super-shoe issues debated on this forum. I specifically like the fact that this is not an industry sponsored project. One can't help be suspicious when industry sponsors a project and lo-and-behold their product outperforms all the others. Kudos to the authors.

uu.uuu wrote:

Two interesting takeaways:

1. Mass is no longer detrimental to performance in performance shoes

2. It is the foam and not the carbon plate that contributes to the improvements (see the experiment cutting the carbon plate in the VF and not seeing any performance changes)

I've been saying this about the foam the entire time, it's not the carbon fiber plate, it's the super light yet responsive foam.

What was their baseline? They improved running efficiency based on what baseline shoe? Did they try any old shoes? I still don't think they improve performance much at all compared to the old racing shoes. Obviously they are faster than a trainer because they are lighter than a trainer. Where the foam gets the win is it beats up your legs much less so it reduces injury and recovery time from hard efforts. Fewer people are getting injured, they can get more training in, they run faster. The top people who were already running really well, they were doing that because they didn't get injured. So those people are not really running much faster if any. If it did make everyone faster than every course record should be broken, but the top ends of races hasn't really gotten much faster, it's just the depth of the races that has gotten way more competitive as more people are surviving the hard training and racing due to fewer injuries.

186 cadence has to look pretty short in regards to stride

Not surprised to see ASICS in this list. Lots of unsponsored athletes have been opting for these over Nike.

uu.uuu wrote:

Mass is no longer detrimental to performance in performance shoes

Of course it is. This has been proven conclusively.

What the super shoes demonstrate is that cushioning increases performance. So a slightly heavier shoe that has A LOT more cushioning is generally going to be higher performance. But if you could reduce the weight of the Vaporfly without reducing its cushioning, it would absolutely be faster.

Not surprised at the Rocket X and Hyperion Elite 2 being at the bottom. No super foam = very little boost.

Baseline was the Hyperspeed (I assume the new version, even though they reference Ryan Hall racing in them). I do think it would be interesting to compare with a truly lightweight flat, e.g. the Reebok Floatride Pro, on a "super foam" but barebones at 3.5 oz.

The shoe selection is definitely missing the Adidas supershoes. If you're going to talk "level playing field," 80% of the battle (maybe more like 90% on the men's side) is between Nike and Adidas. I'm a bit surprised by the Saucony results as clearly they work really well for an athlete like Molly Seidel. If you did Spikes, I'd imagine Nike and New Balance are at the top.

Overall on this topic, I feel less concerned about the uneven playing field argument on the elite side of things nowadays. Would be nice to have some data to measure it but the Adidas supershoes seem to be showing up on podiums quite a bit.

**and now Seidel is Puma, so clearly not inhibited by that shoe, either. Maybe she just transcends the shoe stuff somewhat.

Raggedman wrote:

Interesting read. If you go beyond the charts and tables you see that the low and non-responders are those who are already more efficient runners. The person who had the highest cadence and lowest vertical oscillation had no increase in RE in the Alphafly.

With N=12 I wouldn't make too much of the results re: non/responders.

SummerOfGeorge wrote:

New data coming out of Stephen F Austin University comparing some of the top new super shoes effects on running economy.

Based on 12 trst subjects that ran at 6:00/mile, the Vaporfly, Metaspeed Sky, and Next% 2 improved running economy the most. Rocket X and Hyperion Elite 2 were at the bottom. Thoughts?

Interesting, will look at the paper. Speaking from personal experience with the Next%, it does seem to improve my 5K times by something like 3-4%. It’s hard to tell what exactly it’s improving by how much, but I do feel like it improves PBs while keeping your HR from going through the roof, but if you run slower with it, it doesn’t necessarily reduce HR significantly for a given speed relative to other shoes, i.e., it improves running economy only at faster speeds.

There could be a psychological element too, but the shoe does feel and sound different from my other shoes and, unless I mentally compensate for wearing Next%, if I just try to guess my pace based on perceived effort while wearing it, I find my self underestimating my actual pace.

arunaround wrote:

SummerOfGeorge wrote:

New data coming out of Stephen F Austin University comparing some of the top new super shoes effects on running economy.

Based on 12 trst subjects that ran at 6:00/mile, the Vaporfly, Metaspeed Sky, and Next% 2 improved running economy the most. Rocket X and Hyperion Elite 2 were at the bottom. Thoughts?

There could be a psychological element too, but the shoe does feel and sound different from my other shoes and, unless I mentally compensate for wearing Next%, if I just try to guess my pace based on perceived effort while wearing it, I find my self underestimating my actual pace.

This last point is important. The new shoes dramatically reduce impact stress, allowing the athlete to relax a bit more and reducing both mental and physical tension, increasing efficiency that way, in addition to any rebound benefit.

800 dude wrote:

uu.uuu wrote:

Mass is no longer detrimental to performance in performance shoes

Of course it is. This has been proven conclusively.

What the super shoes demonstrate is that cushioning increases performance. So a slightly heavier shoe that has A LOT more cushioning is generally going to be higher performance. But if you could reduce the weight of the Vaporfly without reducing its cushioning, it would absolutely be faster.

How much of this effect is due to the lengthening of the legs that the cushoning creates??

Thanks for linking!

Of course it's the foam wrote:

uu.uuu wrote:

Two interesting takeaways:

1. Mass is no longer detrimental to performance in performance shoes

2. It is the foam and not the carbon plate that contributes to the improvements (see the experiment cutting the carbon plate in the VF and not seeing any performance changes)

I've been saying this about the foam the entire time, it's not the carbon fiber plate, it's the super light yet responsive foam.

So this is why my Decathlon Run 50s for £9.99 UK are the best racing flats I ever owned? Seriously a bunch of cheapskate Brits swear by them, no outsole at all, just a nice firm foam in a superlight comfy shoe...