Honest personal feedback: how much faster are the best vaporfy/alphafly for you,personally?

And let's say for distances from 5k to marathon, if you need the info.

Equal to MetaSpeed Sky from Asics. Prefer the latter, however - they "sit" much better and more comfortable on my particular feet.

And both are some 7 sec per mile faster than (slow) regular trainers (now use Saucony Triumph 18 and 19).

They give me the promised 3-4% improvement, which for the slower runner that I am is at least 20s/mile over 5K to 10k distances.

Dragonfly helped me by about 4 seconds per mile from 1600 and up. They're probably only ~0.5-1 seconds faster for the 800 compared to normal distance spikes, but the positive is that they don't annihilate your calves. I tended to run in Saucony's "standard" track spike for the 4x800 and Dragonflies for 1600 and 3200.

- sub 9:10 guy

They have never promised 3-4% improvement in time, only in running economy. Not the same.

I have gone from slow to less slow.

Hard to quantify it because I don't exactly do the same workouts in both types of shoes. But it's less hard to work hard.

For instance I will run up to just around 4:50 pace in say a pair of Rebel 2s for short (up to a min intervals). But I'd rather do them in alphas. Why not?

I have a pair of speed 2s that (more people say are fast) but I was running 13M of 5:40-6:20 average and it felt like a bit of work. Granted I'm a bit beat up from racing recently so there's that.

PR in the mile is in old spikes. 3k, 5k and half marathon are all in the Takumi Sen. 10k and marathon PRs are in Vaporflies. I think the Vaporfly helps significantly reduce muscle damage, and I wear them for hard workouts now. I don't think they help me in the 10k and under. It's tough to quantify in seconds/mile, but I expect they help me maintain speed in the later stages of a longer race....maybe 5 seconds/mile at most.

during marathon pace workouts I would say it's 10-15 seconds per mile. taking 6 minute pace work and knocking it down to 5:45-5:50. it's a significant difference. don't have recent races to compare it to but I'd guess the benefit is at least as large during a race. it's going to be a smaller difference in shorter faster races like 5k

I'm old and slow not, consistent enough at the half and full marathon to point to the shoe one way or the other. What I do strongly believe is less damage and quicker recovery on long runs. Anything over 8-10 miles distance I think they help.

I love reading these responses. I'm 63 and haven't raced much in the last 3-4 years. I plan on getting back into serious Age Group racing. If I could break 20:00 for 5K I'll be happy.

Most of my running friends are telling me I should try a pair of the super shoes.

I have the money to spend but not to waste if they don't work for me.

My local running store lets you try them by running outside on the street where the store is. That'll tell me if I like the feel but not if they work.

Around 5-7 seconds per mile from 5k to 1/2M (I don't do marathons) on the roads.

Sure, but if fuel supply (blood O2 pump rate) and other physiological parameters are fixed, running economy does proportionally translate to threshold speed gains, or that is my understanding.

In my case, the 20s number was empirical observation (not just a calculated expectation), as in I’d find myself running about that much faster at roughly the same average HR, so they actually happened to be over a 3% pace improvement for me. YMMV, literally!

I saw this on the "No shade: Emily Sisson’s record w/ super shoes vs Deena Kastor’s?" thread

"
Look at post #62
You see gigantic leaps in times among the masses in runners who have started racing in supershoes.
I see this in training partners, in runners I coach and in local road races.
An example: a 38 year old guy I've trained with for years. His training has been the same for the last 7 years.
Previous 10k PR of 34:00, which he ran in 2019. Since then he has run almost 10 times under 35:00.
In early June he bought a pair of Vaporflies Next% 2 and later that month ran 2 10k races on consecutive days. His times?
33:23, 33:12
On consecutive days.
And this is just one of many examples I know personally."

Ran a HM at 5:51 pace December 2021.
Ran a HM at 5:36 pace March 2022.
So 15 seconds per mile.

Nearly identical training.

Thanks all for the responses. Now, for those of you who have tried other brands, would you say the latest generations of carbon plates (racing flats or whatever you call them) are roughly equivalent in performance (secs/miles gained) or is Nike's technology still ahead?

Thanks again.

regular old flats in 2015: 1:09:44 and 2:29:41. Vaporfly 4% flyknit in 2018 and 2019: 1:09:14 and 2:28:56. I'd estimate same fitness. They definitely help but is it a miracle difference that the BroJos make it out to be? No.

I personally find Tempo Next%, Nike’s trainer companion to the supershoes (not actually carbon) and ASICS Metaracer (carbon) comparable in economy gains, but I use the former only on road and the latter only on track as Metaracer is indeed a bit more like a racer flat. I’ve also used Adidas’ Adizero Pro, a discontinued carbon shoe, and would say Nike seemed to give me somewhat better improvements on road, but the difference could also be psychological.

I've run in the Vaporfly Next %, and the NB Fuel Cell RC Elite v2 ( a friend is an NB rep). The Nike is a little faster/more efficient, but the NB is a more comfortable shoe for me. I use my Nikes for 5ks, and the NBs for 10k to 1/2M.