Low Drop Lightweight Trainers vs Carbon Plated Shoes

Firstly there is a difference between training and racing. In terms of the training I wouldn't train in the Carbon Plated

For the racing it does depend from person to person but I have found that the Carbon is definitely faster over almost any distance but the sweet spot seems to be the Half and Full marathon where relatively they seem to give the most advantage

Rockz wrote:

Firstly there is a difference between training and racing. In terms of the training I wouldn't train in the Carbon Plated

For the racing it does depend from person to person but I have found that the Carbon is definitely faster over almost any distance but the sweet spot seems to be the Half and Full marathon where relatively they seem to give the most advantage

Why wouldn't you train in them? There is no reason not to train in them. I do many of my workouts in next%. And as far as running faster or not, you might run a second or two per mile, but you're not going to suddenly go from running workouts at 5:40 pace in Kinvara to 5:25 pace in a Next%, more like 5:40 pace down to 5:38 pace. It's laughable that people think they make you soooo much faster. It's still just a shoe. We're talking a few seconds per mile that separate any decent running shoe as long as they're comparable weights. Obviously a 5oz shoe is going to be faster than a 14oz shoe and that'll still be faster than steel toe boots.

You might be slightly faster wrote:

Rockz wrote:

Firstly there is a difference between training and racing. In terms of the training I wouldn't train in the Carbon Plated

For the racing it does depend from person to person but I have found that the Carbon is definitely faster over almost any distance but the sweet spot seems to be the Half and Full marathon where relatively they seem to give the most advantage

Why wouldn't you train in them? There is no reason not to train in them. I do many of my workouts in next%.

Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people believe that training in carbon plated shoes will weaken your feet and lower legs over time. Those people will save the plated shoes for race day.

A carbon shoe will feel and run faster due to the plate and better foam combo.

A BIG advantage to using them for workouts is the legs absolutely feel better during and after a workout or race.

The carbon shoes force a good toe-off, that's how I would describe it. Having run in Next Percents and Adios Pro 2's, I can tell you that the light/high-rebound foam is almost as much of a new experience as having carbon pieces.

I would really only use them for race-pace-specific workouts and races, mostly because they are pricey.

The Adios Pro 2's are my all-time favorite shoe to run in, but they are too soft to race a 5k in or do any track work, and the outsole is thin to save weight.

I can tell you for a fact that the carbon rod/foam combo majorly saves my legs from a beating in the last couple 10k's I have run.

I also train in Kinvaras and find them much more versatile as a fast trainer where you might want to run a variety of faster paces in the same run.

In the recent study at Stephen F. Austin comparing all of the different “supershoes” those that ran with a cadence in the low-mid 180’s and a vertical oscillation rate (eg. how high you bounce) under 8cm were all low or nonresponders in all 7 tested supershoes (Vaporfly, Alphafly, Endo Pro, Rocket X, RC Elite v1, Metaspeed Sky, Hyperion Elite v2).

So the better your running form is (which is completely unrelated to footstrike), the less they matter or make a difference.

Some runners, like Molly Huddle, have found them downright injurious and ditched them for traditional flats in the Olympic trials.

The only way to know is to try them and compare half or full marathon times. The authors were also careful to point out in the study that preferred shoe was not correlated to improved running economy. Many study subjects’ preferred shoes of the 7 WEREN’T the ones they had the best running economy in.

Where does this leave someone? Just train smartly, lift heavy weights, do plyometrics, try different shoes, buy what you want, and stop worrying. FWIW, I’ve found the RC Elite v1’s to be of no “help”. I only have 59 miles on my pair and they won’t see any more action. My shoe of choice for my upcoming marathon? Escalante Racer. Two long run workouts in them (in addition to most of my speedwork) and felt fine the next day after both long run workouts.

I specialize in dumb comments. wrote:

You might be slightly faster wrote:

Why wouldn't you train in them? There is no reason not to train in them. I do many of my workouts in next%.

Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people believe that training in carbon plated shoes will weaken your feet and lower legs over time. Those people will save the plated shoes for race day.

You are not using them for every training run, just quality workouts.

I used to exclusively train in the Kinvara for faster days but found they gave my calves a beating doing long runs and tempos in them. I got a pair of the Endorphin speeds which is a training shoe with a nylon plate. The best training shoes I've ever had. They are 8 mm vs. 4 mm in the Kinvara and really help me get after it on those long workouts without being as springy feeling as the Endorphin Pro or Vaporfly. They remind me of the old school Adidas adios and a vaporfly 4% mixed into one, with the responsiveness of the adios and the pop of the Vaporfly. I'm never going back but I do use the Kinvara for short interval/speed days sometimes and do all my easy running in non-plated shoes (Triumph)

well,, wrote:

You are not using them for every training run, just quality workouts.

Well, companies are now throwing plates into daily trainers, so that's no longer true. I'm not sure why they're doing this given that the plate isn't especially important, so maybe it's just a gimmick.

I haven't seen much data out there, but messing around with your natural biomechanics without a good reason (e.g. speed days or injury) sounds dangerous IMO.

? So who did respond to the shoes?

fhdhfghdfhg wrote:

I used to exclusively train in the Kinvara for faster days but found they gave my calves a beating doing long runs and tempos in them. I got a pair of the Endorphin speeds which is a training shoe with a nylon plate. The best training shoes I've ever had. They are 8 mm vs. 4 mm in the Kinvara and really help me get after it on those long workouts without being as springy feeling as the Endorphin Pro or Vaporfly. They remind me of the old school Adidas adios and a vaporfly 4% mixed into one, with the responsiveness of the adios and the pop of the Vaporfly. I'm never going back but I do use the Kinvara for short interval/speed days sometimes and do all my easy running in non-plated shoes (Triumph)

The Endorphin Speed is a great compromise. It's cheaper than the super shoes. It doesn't have a carbon fiber plate. It does have a higher stack and a nylon plate. The original Endorphin Speed has a lower stack. It is a great training shoe.

The new Streakfly or Takumi Sen 8 may solve this problem. Lower stack than the super shoes but a bit higher than the traditional flat.

Many of the pros train in super shoes. There is the question about injuries with them but one could argue that they prevent injuries and allow athletes to stack more training.

jazzytherunner wrote:

I currently do my fast running(non easy days) in the Sacaony Kinvara, a low drop, lightweight trainer. I have never before run in carbon plated shoes. I was wondering if and how different running in carbon plated shoes feels. Are carbon plated shoes faster than low drop, non plated shoes of a similar weight?I also heard that individual running mechanics plays a significant factor in the advantage gained from carbon plated shoes. I am a heel-striker. Would I gain an advantage running in these types of shoes vs the Kinvara?

Carbon does give an economy edge, so it’s not all hype. The edge is small but is statistically significant. I find that Nike Tempo Next% does give me 3-4% lower minutes per mile compared to my other shoes. So does Adidas Adizero Pro that has carbon rods though I’m not quite sure how much the improvement is with it.

The economy edge means that it will either make your PBs faster or make slower runs feel less effortful. The Next% seems to have diminishing returns with reduced speed, i.e., they feel like they push you run faster and you need to run like they push you to get the economy benefit.

Heel striking doesn’t change much. Look at Shura Kitata winning London’20. You are still eventually forcing the entire foot downward to store into and get back some of that stored energy from the carbon plate.

Heel to toe drop, low or high, is not very relevant in this context. Weight matters but the relative overhead of a few extra ounces in bodies of 140+ lbs is more than offset by the value provided by the bulkier carbon shoes.

Ho Hum wrote:

well,, wrote:

You are not using them for every training run, just quality workouts.

Well, companies are now throwing plates into daily trainers, so that's no longer true. I'm not sure why they're doing this given that the plate isn't especially important, so maybe it's just a gimmick.

I haven't seen much data out there, but messing around with your natural biomechanics without a good reason (e.g. speed days or injury) sounds dangerous IMO.

The plate isn't especially important??? How can you say this? Sure, some people only zone in on the carbon plate, when it is in fact the combination of the following three elements:

1. Carbon plate

2. High stack height

3. Ultra light, high energy return foam

But you can't say that the plate isn't especially important. If that is the case, why aren't people just racing in thicc pebax shoes with no plate? I don't think one even exists on the market. Brands have made budget performance shoes where they take out one or two of these features and keep the others. Some examples:

Saucony Endorphin Speed/Nike Tempo Next: high stack, some bouncy foam, but a cheaper plate (endo speed is def the better one for the record)

Hoka Bondi X/Nike Zoom Fly/Asics Magicspeed: high stack, carbon fiber plate, no ultra responsive foam.

Saucony Freedom/Brooks Hyperion Tempo/Nike Peg Turbo: bouncy foam, no high stack, no plate.

Adidas Boston 10 half asses all three of the features.

But I cannot think of a shoe on the market that is BOTH high stack height and pebax AND has no plate of any sort. Stack height and rocker serve to be tall enough to fit a curved plate inside, and also to turn off the function of the first MTP joint (big toe) because there is energy lost in that part of toe off. Ultralight foam allows for the shoe to be protective but light so that running economy is not sacrificed. The plate gives rigidity and pushes you forward by extending the lever of your foot. Without the plate, you just have an unnecessarily chunky and squishy shoe that you sink into. However making a shoe with plate minus one of the other two features still makes for an enjoyable ride with performance benefits. So the plate is not the only thing, but it is especially important.

I agree with you in that I would not personally choose to do any training in a plated shoe because of how it would negatively change my biomechanics in the LONG term.

Nike Invincible Run is a 36mm stack slab of Zoom X with no plate.

Raggedman wrote:

Nike Invincible Run is a 36mm stack slab of Zoom X with no plate.

How did Seb Coe let this shoe slide? Far more of a cheater shoes than the spring shoes banned some years ago.

I stand corrected! Thanks for the info, I had no idea that a shoe like this existed. However, based on Nike's info and accounts I have just read about the ZoomX invincible run, I think my original point still stands- this shoe with ZoomX and high stack but no plate does not seem to go fast at all and people don't seem to use it for that purpose. Looks like it has the heel clip and hourglass shape of the infinity run, which is anything but fast. Whereas other shoes that have a plate but are missing other super shoe elements can still be used to go fast in training. Therefore, the plate aspect is especially important in this category of shoes.

Everyone who didn’t have both a cadence above 180 and vertical oscillation rate below 8cm.

And the crux of this study, much as I hate to admit, was that if you do respond to the shoes and you’re not buying an Alphafly, Vaporfly, or Metaspeed Sky, you’re wasting your money. Even the Endorphin Pro was middle of the pack, which surprised me.

Much to be studied in the future, I’m sure this isn’t the be all end all study.

A nice light non-plated shoe for training is the Skechers Razor Excess. Good pop and enough cushion for longer runs. I think lowish drop of 4-5 mm.

Reviving this discussion out of curiosity… we have seen a good amount of Pros have achilles problems and even surgery lately (e.g, BTC and Jake Riley). I could be wrong but I speculate this could have something to do with training in carbon plated shoes. What do you think?

Also to address the “responder” debate. I fall into the category of high cadence and low vertical oscillation BUT I think the shear amount of cushion helps hold paces for longer. Maybe I don’t get as big of an economy benefit but I am definitely less beat up on the back half of longer races.

After a few training cycles trying several shoes, I think it’s best to train in traditional shoes and bring out the “super shoe” for races and 1-2 key workouts.