Midpacker buys pair of Nike's $250 Vaporfly 4% and thinks they may actually improve him by 4%

The 4% is from this study/data:

http://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#

!/4196/presentation/10832

That didn't work sorry, but there's another link to it here that should work:

http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/the-data-behind-nikes-4-shoe

I think that the Vaporfly is 90% marketing hype and 10% placebo.

This Nike "strike plate" nonsense about biomechanics and the Hoka puffery about their moon-boot soles - it's disingenuous, thinly veiled blather.

The foot is biomechanically sound. Run barefoot or in Vibrams if you want to improve your times.

I ran the Des News 10k the last few years and it's a pretty significant drop. The first two miles are really downhill. If you're not used to bombing it downhill, it's a shock to your muscles and chances are your quads will blow out around mile 4 when it starts to level out. From an aerobic standpoint, running 4:40's downhill isn't hard, it's always the quads that get people the last mile or two.

Last year I went out with Lynch and another kid through two miles. We hit 4:19, 9:02, I PR'd in the 5k and then they pulled away. My quads were completely blown out and I struggled to run 5:20's the last 5k. It's a fun race and some people do PR significantly, but personally I've run faster 10k's on the track/flat roads.

$250 Vaporfly, Hoka's, Vibrams, barefoot, etc, etc, etc, it's all bullshit.

The vast majority of people just need to buy a pair of mid price shoes that feel comfortable when you're running, and a similar style lighter one if you want a racing shoe, end of.

They work great. I'm 73 years old. Today I ran a 10km in 36:43, which bested my best time over that past 2 years by 1 minute 7 seconds. And faster than I ran this year at Mt. Sac!

I'm anxious to give them a try next month in a half and expect to run 1:18 or faster. These shoes rock!!!

WR for 10k >70 years old is Ed Whitlock 38:04 so your 36:43 is bogus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_masters_athletics#10000_metres

Sam the Mid Packer chiming in here. Loyal reader of Letsrun.com

Used to be decent in my youth ran D! XC at Dartmouth and went to NCAA as a team in 1976. in my early 20's 31:55 10K PR road, 2:28 marathon, many strong mountain running finishes when I lived in Switzerland in the early 80's. At 60 while I won my AG in the UT race I am not that competitive in New England where old folks are really fast!

Yes the Deseret 10K is downhill and especially the first mile or so. As another poster said it can blow your quads out and has mine. No such issues for me this time but the VF with the silly pointed heel were unstable on the very steep first mile. I walked away from the race with zero soreness, not the usual for the course where I have run both the 10K and half more than once and actually went for a nice hike in Park City with my wife after the race.

My Garmin data is here

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1873387965#.WX0SLrLQLPo.email

Someone asked about HR. It averaged 165. Fairly typical for me for halves which I run between 1:38 and 1:41 most of the time. Of course this was a different kind of course and shoe...

I do write nearly full time. For Competitor on wearable tech and now for Motiv Running as well, but write mainly for my own site

www.roadtrailrun.com

. where I focus on run shoes and apparel/gear. I receive many, many shoes at no charge. I bought the VF at a discount. The first shoe I have bought in over 2 years.

I have not been a big fan of Nike shoes and am certainly not a Nike fan boy (long story). Any brand's effective innovation lights me up as did Nike's in the 70's when I wear tested many of their original greats. I find for example that the Zoom Streak 6 was very firm and harsh, 10K limit for me in them. The VF takes Nike in a completely different direction in racing shoes,

More data has come in from a reader of my site where I also posted my own article with many pictures and details on the construction

http://www.roadtrailrun.com/2017/07/nike-zoom-vaporfly-4-detailed-breakdown.html

The reader, not an elite runner and a recent one uses, a Garmin Running Dynamics Pod and feels his stride is longer with less vertical oscillation on his standard course.

I wore Run Scribe Pro for the race and the most significant metric seemed to be that I improved my flight ratio by about 5% when compared to a flatter half run in 7:26 pace in the adios Boost 3. Different races, different terrain but may be significant. Flight ratio per RunScribe is defined as "the ratio of a runner’s "Flight" time in the air (non ground contact phase) and overall step time. Step time is defined as flight time plus ground contact time. Flight time and contact time have both correlated well with running economy and Flight Ratio combines these two into a single composite metric. Basically, it is the percentage of your stride spent in the air."

When I am back in NH I plan on racing them as soon as possible at sea level more or less and flatter courses, Deseret 10K having a start above 5100 feet.

I have run the Zoom Fly and didn't care for them. Much heavier, awkward in transition for me at anything resembling my tempo pace but many are raving about them including one of my contributors who raced them to a 2:41 PR. Yes cushioned and with a plastic composite plate but without the ZoomX and light weight a completely different and far less pleasant or dynamic experience.

The 6.9 oz of the Vapor Fly, the superb cushion combined with the plate makes this shoe truly unique in my opinion and a game changer for elite marathoning and road racing in general. There is way more than some placebo effect going on. I don't think it is an "intervals" shoe it is more a tempo to up tempo longer race shoe.

Us mid packers may use it a special race shoe much the way folks buy fancy bikes and ski equipment. Essentially it is a highly cushioned spike with the 10mm drop helping one get forward but... as the plate is just above the outsole up front with almost 20mm of cushion without shock on take off, if a bit slower responding. The plate is just below the foot in the back so us heel strikers don't sink very far into the 30mm of foam out back before moving forward. I do not see it as a spring but am not at bio mechanist or rules expert that is for sure.

Welcome questions and discussions.

None of that TRT stuff for me that's for sure. Caffeine before and Beer after.

I lied about my time...in addition to using incorrect grammar.

I was just trying to be one of the guys and fit in with 99% of the people that post on this site.

Sam the Midpacker wrote:

Us mid packers may use it a special race shoe much the way folks buy fancy bikes and ski equipment. Essentially it is a highly cushioned spike with the 10mm drop helping one get forward but... as the plate is just above the outsole up front with almost 20mm of cushion without shock on take off, if a bit slower responding. The plate is just below the foot in the back so us heel strikers don't sink very far into the 30mm of foam out back before moving forward. I do not see it as a spring but am not at bio mechanist or rules expert that is for sure.

Welcome questions and discussions.

I've got the money and my old pair of shoes are getting pretty worn, so I'm interested. I'm under no illusions that it will shave 4% off a marathon for me, but it would be nice to feel like I'm running with boat anchors like Brooks come mile 20.I'm leaning towards getting them, pending a few more positive reviews.

...the power of marketing!

Bo Gus wrote:

WR for 10k >70 years old is Ed Whitlock 38:04 so your 36:43 is bogus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_masters_athletics#10000_metres

Haha, there's always one idiot who bites.

Logically even among elite runners there are midpackers, they can't all come first or last.

Sam- Thanks for providing additional info.

LetsRun.com wrote:

"I received a pair of the Nike Zoom Vaporfly 4% the day after release and tested them at my faster tempo paces at 8:11 for 4 miles on a hot day at 6,800 feet. My effort on the tempo run and comparisons to other runs on the same roads indicates that, at least for me, the claim of a potential 4 percent improvement in running economy may be in the ballpark. Three days later, and a bit tired, I raced them in a downhill 10K race in Salt Lake City at 4,800 feet. I averaged 7:07 per mile and won my 60-64 age group in almost the same time as my finish five years ago and only a minute slower than eight years before when I was in superb shape and ran two 1:35 half marathons."

http://running.competitor.com/2017/07/shoes-and-gear/mid-packer-runs-nike-fastest-race-shoe_166470

The only proper way to do this type of testing would be a blind test.

Lab claims of 4% are one thing, actual on the road are another.

I would think most of the so called "faster"claims are the same thing you might get with any new pair of shoes with a fresh midsole and the excitement of running faster.

Several runners are asked to run time trials some with the 4% other with non 4% configuration. Other runners with another brands new shoes. A blood lactate test could help determine a physiological difference.

Hey bro the barefoot and vibram is over. You need to burn that book and get rid of the chia seeds.

It's all about cushion and beet juice this year.

You're still a midpacker standing on the podium/#1 in AG?

I appreciate Sam's feedback. I think there could be something here.

I've heard good things from front of the pack runners too.

We've also only seen these shoes used in very warm marathons. One of the benefits of Boost is performance at low temperatures where traditional foam performs worse.

What's the temperature performance of these shoes?

Unfortunately, we have to wait because these shoes were bought up by scalpers, and people who want to wear them "casually". Seriously, check the you tube videos. People actually bought this shoe as a fashion statement.