Get ready to push your limits - this one was built to break barriers. The Endorphin Elite is the turbocharged racing shoe you’ve been waiting for. So remarka...
I really enjoy the speed 2 for faster training runs, haven't tried any versions of the pro series. I use next %2 for half marathon and under, aplhas for the thon, but if reviews are good I might give these a shot. Yes I know super shoes are making a mockery of the sport blah blah
I really enjoy the speed 2 for faster training runs, haven't tried any versions of the pro series. I use next %2 for half marathon and under, aplhas for the thon, but if reviews are good I might give these a shot. Yes I know super shoes are making a mockery of the sport blah blah
I find the pro 2 to be similar to the speed 2, just a little more cushiony and bouncy. I rotate between the two.
I tried on the endorphin 3's in the store and felt they were too bouncy for my tastes.
I really enjoy the speed 2 for faster training runs, haven't tried any versions of the pro series. I use next %2 for half marathon and under, aplhas for the thon, but if reviews are good I might give these a shot. Yes I know super shoes are making a mockery of the sport blah blah
I find the pro 2 to be similar to the speed 2, just a little more cushiony and bouncy. I rotate between the two.
I tried on the endorphin 3's in the store and felt they were too bouncy for my tastes.
LOL, a Joggers World review of a super shoe. I hope the reviewer was a slightly overweight gender fluid POC who runs the NYC marathon on 20 urban miles of jogging a week.
this interesting. to many, the pro was already the next best shoe to Nike. Are these gonna be just as good?
A friend was given a pair of Nike next % (5%) I can't keep them straight and bought a pair of Pro's. He said they're comparable in training. He hasn't worn the Nike in a race yet.
this interesting. to many, the pro was already the next best shoe to Nike.
No, it wasn't. Not even close. Asics was next best according to lab testing, and the only one that was in the ballpark. Adidas hasn't been tested (publicly), but it may also be competitive:
The comparison in your image is the Endorphin Pro 1 against current-version Flys. From personal experience, I can tell you that the difference from version 1 through 2 and then 3 is dramatic. I wouldn't rely on those data without a big grain of salt.
this interesting. to many, the pro was already the next best shoe to Nike.
No, it wasn't. Not even close. Asics was next best according to lab testing, and the only one that was in the ballpark. Adidas hasn't been tested (publicly), but it may also be competitive:
No, it wasn't. Not even close. Asics was next best according to lab testing, and the only one that was in the ballpark. Adidas hasn't been tested (publicly), but it may also be competitive:
I like the Endorphin Pro, but it isn't remotely as cushioned as Asics, Nike, and Adidas.
"Lab testing" = 1 dude
Exactly. Not a big-time pro runner, but a big Nike fan. Read the response to the OP here (2nd post). Let me see a bunch of studies by a bunch of labs testing a bunch of people.
There is a LR poster who did a study of a number of super shoes a year or so ago. It generally showed the Alphafly to best most efficient, followed closely by the VF2 and Metaspeed Sky. However in the last few WMM, it seems m...
1. New age foams are better than older foams. Pebax is light and has a lot of energy return. You can load up on a lot more Pebax and still keep the weight light, hence huge stack heights.
2. A plate of some sort aides in the compression of this foam and the energy return.
Am I wrong?
Reebok has had Pebax based foam for a LONG TIME but not the results. Those shoes also do not have the great stack heights as current meta shoes.
LOL, a Joggers World review of a super shoe. I hope the reviewer was a slightly overweight gender fluid POC who runs the NYC marathon on 20 urban miles of jogging a week.
Not even close. She's run sub-3 marathon, runs Boston every year since 2013. And in the article she says Trevor Conde was one of their testers. He ran 2:21 last fall.
Saucony are saying the energy return is 95% with the new midsole. On Nike's website it says zoomx is 85%. Both are based off peba/pebax foam, but Saucony has changed up theirs and the shape of the plate. That sounds like a big difference to me, however not sure how that translates on the road and actual pace difference.
Also showing Feb 21st for order date on some sites.
No, it wasn't. Not even close. Asics was next best according to lab testing, and the only one that was in the ballpark. Adidas hasn't been tested (publicly), but it may also be competitive:
Background: Advancements in running shoe technology, particularly in the Nike Vaporfly, have been shown to improve running economy. Other brands have now also developed new, advanced shoes with a carbon-fiber plate and thicke...
In any event, sample size matters a lot for studies on training interventions because there are so many uncontrolled variables involved in trying to eke out better performance over a period of weeks or months. But with equipment testing, when you have an athlete wear shoe X, then change into shoe Y, then shoe Z, and there are major differences in economy, sample size isn't nearly as important because there are almost no uncontrolled variables. It's not that different from putting a cyclist on several different bikes in a wind tunnel. You get reliable answers immediately.
To the person who said the Endorphin Pro 2 is better than the 1, that's not what Saucony said. The differences were exclusively in the upper.
I'm not trying to hate on Saucony. I really liked the Pro 2. It's fun to wear and was reasonably priced.
Its crazy that the chart above plots the Invincible ahead of the Streakfly! The Invincible is a max cushioned heavy shoe, but performs better than the super lightweight Streakfly!?! No wonder you never see pros running in the streakfly, even for track workouts. What a dud by Nike.
