I don't feel like this is anything we didn't already know, but it is interesting to have a 3rd party confirm the engineering that Nike worked so hard to do.
Discus.
I don’t know how much this shoe helped me (vs my training) but I did PR by 17 minutes at Chicago Marathon with a 2:52 and then PR’d by 6 1/2 minutes for a 1:18 at a half marathon in these shoes. I was wearing Nike Zoom Vomero for my prior races.
so for someone around 20:00 in a 5k/heelstriker this will make you approx :24s faster or thereabouts? [4% improvement in efficiency == 2% faster in ET??]
to put it another way:
20:25 5K-ing hobbyjoggers of the world might want to pick this shoe up for their next 5K perfect weather/flat course PR attempt?
kevin hart 4:05:06 wrote:
so for someone around 20:00 in a 5k/heelstriker this will make you approx :24s faster or thereabouts? [4% improvement in efficiency == 2% faster in ET??]
Why 2%? In theory your running economy is the same at all speeds below VO2 max so a 4% improvement in running economy means you can run 4% faster with the same oxygen consumption. But there's a lot of assumptions related to VO2max/running economy that don't appear to be true in the real world.
This study found a direct relationship between running economy and 3k performance.
What is the difference between the vaporfly 4% ($250) and the zoomfly ($150)? They both have the carbon fiber plate.
So what's the % of improvement of the Adidas Adizero Adios? Considering the 2 fastest marathon times have been run in them, and probably the most sub-2:04' performances.
Tongue in cheek, but also true.
irunfastXC wrote:
I don't feel like this is anything we didn't already know, but it is interesting to have a 3rd party confirm the engineering that Nike worked so hard to do.
Discus.
Nike-paid troll? Nike apparently is downvoting reddit (
reddit.com/r/nba) posts about their bad quality NBA jerseys using bots. This doesn't look like a bot, but maybe he is paid by Nike? Posted the same article on a running subreddit.
Someone should do a real study that is not funded by Nike and get back to us.
another runner wrote:
Someone should do a real study that is not funded by Nike and get back to us.
I don't think the most recent study corroborating the initial 4% efficiency claim was paid for by Nike.
From the article:
"And yes, this was a Nike-funded study. But these are rigorous results from a respected laboratory."
Bruin1996 wrote:
I don’t know how much this shoe helped me (vs my training) but I did PR by 17 minutes at Chicago Marathon with a 2:52 and then PR’d by 6 1/2 minutes for a 1:18 at a half marathon in these shoes. I was wearing Nike Zoom Vomero for my prior races.
Why/how did this shoe help you? Sounds like you don't know why, only that it did help you.
Please try to verbalize HOW this shoe helped you. And don't just reference times. Did your mechanics change? Did it feel like this shoe was propelling you forward?
Give us something relevant and meaty, brother.
doubious wrote:
but maybe he is paid by Nike?
Are you kidding me?
I think the Zoom Fly SP is a better shoe than the 4% Vfly. I’m a forefoot striker than trains and races in low drop shoes, and resisted trying the Nike because of its steep geometry. But using the SP now for a month, I’m totally sold on them.
I’ve run in most the fav racing shoes. Back in high school I raced in the tan Mariah’s. Anyway, no other shoe I’ve run in gives you the pop of the Nike. The faster you run, the more pop you get. I also like the cushioning, which does help reduce the pounding on the legs.
Downhill running is incredible— basically as fast as you can turnover is the only limit. Anyway, try some.
Shoe I try the 4% or Enko? I really want to set a huge PR.
another runner wrote:
From the article:
"And yes, this was a Nike-funded study. But these are rigorous results from a respected laboratory."
I stand corrected.
I am not a running shoe expert but when I first wore these shoes.. they felt strange and a little unstable to walk around in. However, as you start running, it feels like there is a spring to (inside) the shoe that makes helps to propel you forward as you are running. The shoe is also very light (especially compared to the max cushioning Vomeros) but also has adequate cushioning up to the entire marathon distance. I had a little calf fatigue at the end of the Chicago Marathon so could not increase my pace for the last 10K but just maintained my pace. I felt no fatigue at all during my half marathon (I probably could have gone a little faster except I had a mild cold and did not want to push it further). Maybe improved running economy so less fatigue later in the race?
looking for all the advantages wrote:
Shoe I try the 4% or Enko? I really want to set a huge PR.
https://en.enko-running-shoes.com/enko-running?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-4rxiNnE1wIVyrbACh3mtQbVEAQYASABEgKNF_D_BwE
Go go, Gadget.
On a sidenote, whether the 4% shoes are real or not, there should be 0% controversy about this.
Every shoe offers an improvement over some shoe of the past, whether 5, 10, 20 years ago.
I do all of my quality workouts (track intervals at VO2Max/sub-LT, LT tempo runs, long runs at MP) using my Zoom Fly (is the SP structurally different or just a different colorway). I love these shoes but I use the Zoom Vaporfly 4% for races because they are supposedly faster. I have not tried doing any races in my Zoom Fly. Maybe I should try them out for a tuneup race to see how they perform.