WSJ: The newest marathon super shoes are here and seem AMAZING. One weighs less than 4 ounces, one doesn't have laces.

Next frontier shattering shoe is the On Naked, inspired by the emperor’s new clothes.

How big of a deal is weight? At what weight are you able to run your fastest, your current weight or that when you were 24?

Also rotational weight (eg feet) has a much larger impact than the same non-rotational weight (torso)

Speed and efficiency are the key things, which are made up of weight but also energy return, fit, shaping and mechanics. All things being equal a lighter shoe will be more efficient than a heavier one but at below 170g or so you’ll be giving something up to reach that weight I think (e.g completely unstructured upper that allows the foot to move around).

The only slight caveat is that people seem to become faster and more efficient in shoes they train in a lot (can’t find the link now but a runner tested more efficient in AF1, so trained in AF3 then became more efficient in the AF3 than the AF1 when next texted). So a shoe with limited life like the Pro Evo might not get the best out of athletes if they can’t train in it.

It's the equivalent of lifting another 2 tonnes through the marathon with your feet.

Do you remember if this was a study or just an anecdotal observation? That’s very interesting to consider. And expensive.

It was Conner Mantz, I dont have a link to him saying it, but they brought it up on a recent Doctors of Running Podcast.

Good reminder! Their post about it is here. Just a single athlete rather than a full study but interesting nonetheless

That IG post is fabricated. For starters, who is Connor? Secondly, if it's Conner Mantz, he wasn't even in college for the Rio Olympics.

Don't believe everything you read kiddos.

Rio looks like a typo/misspeak that’s been carried through. Everything else would line up though (8th at the Olympics etc).

Sloppy instagram post, but anyone who listens to the interview with Iain Hunter knows the discussion was real. Iain is not only a biomechanics professor at BYU but he can be seen training with the BYU athletes and pros coached by Eyestone and the REP group all the time on numerous youtube videos.

Plus they make short guys look taller

These sound like 5k/10k shoes. There was a 3.4 oz racing flat in the past - the mizuno wave universe - it didn't get a lot of use in the west. I am skeptical of these shoes.

As for the one without laces? Why not, people have run like a 107 half in crocs. I doubt it will work well for many, but whatever.

Shoe experts, how big of a deal is weight?

Biggly, of course at some point there are diminishing returns. If the shoe gets lighter than the socks, maybe it's easy to run without socks.
The most important part is the person who is in these shoes.

At the end they will sell a ton of them to people who have more money than running ability.

Call it the Bikila, sell shoeboxes full of tissue paper for $250 a pop.

Yes, by approximately 8x. So every 1 oz of shoe is equivalent to 1 lb of bodyweight (1 oz/shoe * 2 shoes * 8).

Comparing the weight of a shoe to a newborn kitten is bizarre. How many people have held a newborn kitten? Most kittens aren't adopted or purchased until 8-12 weeks, when they should weigh about 2 pounds. 2 large eggs or a bar of soap would be a more approachable comparison

Is the lightness of the shoe offset by the weight of socks, a watch and sunglasses?

But it clearly can't be everything.

I mean the adidas shoe weighs 4.3 ounces. The Nike shoe is 6.2 ounces so its 44,2% heavier but what does that mean for race performance? Which shoe returns more energy? Which shoes protects your legs better, etc ? Ultimately we want to know which shoe is faster/better? ut that answer may vary for various people right as people respond differently to differnt shoes differently.

I remember running my last marathon in the lightest shoe I could possibly find and thinking, "Never again am I wearing the lightest shoe. I need more cushioning."