4% - Your Experiences

Ran a marathon PR in them. The biggest difference for me was that my feet never ached in the later stages of the race like they have every other time. That was a big plus.

Have a pair of the zoom fly that do hurt my feet when I wear them so I definitely don't find the two to be the same.

adsgdfasdf wrote:

How many of these posts are by Nike shills?

Ha ha, that’s what I was wondering too, lol.

800 dude wrote:

I wouldn't race in the ZF either, but I wouldn't consider 8.75 oz to be way too heavy for a marathon shoe. It's pretty similar to the Adios Boost.

Well I do, so what's your point?

Also, I'm surprised you find the ZF squishier than the VF. Both are soft, but I'm certain that the VF is much softer.

Certain based on what?

As for the carbon plate, I'm very skeptical that it has any effect other than helping to stabilize what would otherwise be a marshmallow of a shoe. It's certainly lighter than the nylon plate in the ZF, it's probably not doing much to propel you. At least that's what the researchers who validated the 4% claims thought, and others have suggested that a plate could only provide energy return if it were precisely tuned for the exact athlete.

The researchers stated that the increased mechanical energy return of the 4% was likely due to the greater compliance, not resilience of the shoe (See W. Hoogkamer et al pp. 7-8.). In fact compliance and resilience are both features of the foam (See W. Hoogkamer et al p. 2.). The researches associate the plate with longitudinal bending stiffness but as far as I can tell they don't address the impact of the stiffness.

I do agree though that from the marketing materials Nike has produced, such as the Breaking 2 film, the carbon plate would need to be tuned to an athletes specific stride. Even if the plate actually improved my running economy, there's not guarantee it would have the same impact on someone else's running. For reference I'm a midfoot/forefoot striker with sizable amount of supination/under-pronation.

Either way none of this matters, because I was responding to the question of a previous poster and comparing my experiences between the Zoom Fly and 4% . I found the Zoom Fly to be "meh" so meh that I haven't used them in months. I don't exactly know which aspects of the shoe cause me to not like it, maybe its the foam difference, maybe its the plate difference. I was hypothesizing. You seem to suggest that it's the foam, which still wouldn't invalidate my perception that the Zoom Fly is inferior as the two shoes have different foams.

I'll go for a run in Zoom Fly today though for the sake of science.

King Nike IV wrote:

So. Are you faster or not?

Big PR in these at Chicago (by more than 5 mins). But I'm not sure if it was weeks of higher mileage and proper training. Training the same way again for Boston with higher mileage and more threshold work. Aiming for sub 2:40 and running in the same shoe. They do give me a a confidence boost so I'll run in them. Sort of trusting a Luxury car on the road vs a Kia.

FightFor15 wrote:

Ran a marathon PR in them. The biggest difference for me was that my feet never ached in the later stages of the race like they have every other time. That was a big plus.

Have a pair of the zoom fly that do hurt my feet when I wear them so I definitely don't find the two to be the same.

This is my assessment was well. There is a ton of hype surrounding the VF 4% and the fact that they cost so much has people quick to throw shade at them. But I can attest that after racing a half marathon and full marathon in them, and countless long runs in them, my legs simply feel better towards the end of a race or long run and I'm not as sore afterwards. They aren't miraculously going to make you faster, but they make you feel less beat up than racing flats. I can absolutely, positively 100% conclude that. I've run 383 miles in my VF 4%.

I will say that if you're used to low/no drop shoes, the 4% and even zoom fly will definitely feel strange. Even going from something like Nike Pegasus feels different. I've transitioned from NB zante which basically have zero drop to Pegasus, and the Pegasus at first felt like clogs. It's a step up from Pegasus to ZF and VF, so going from something like the NB zante straight to ZF or VF would definitely be an extreme jump.

LoneStarXC wrote:

adsgdfasdf wrote:

How many of these posts are by Nike shills?

Ha ha, that’s what I was wondering too, lol.

Including the OP.

Not saying these are all paid posts... but if i were in marketing for Nike and checking out message board chatter about our shoes, this is the type of thread that i would be posting to.

darthyoda wrote:

I'm clearly in the minority, but I've been having pretty noticeable Achilles, calf, and ankle tightness and/or soreness after wearing the 4%'s, as described in Fellrnr's review

http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Nike_Vaporfly_4%25

I read his review, and he says that the springiness of the carbon plate is only apparent if you are a heel striker; if you forefoot strike, you don't notice it at all. He suggests looking elsewhere if you are a midfoot/forefoot striker (which I am). This seems hard to believe - I know some elites are heel strikers, but they are likely the minority. Can anyone confirm/deny what this guys is saying?

You must have two pairs of these shoes. Fly for training and Vaporfly for competitions. Vaporfly4% are created for fast running, faster than 4 minutes per km.

Actually no. A slight majority of elite road runners (not track athletes) are heel strikers.

The Nike Zoom Vapor Fly 4% does not guarantee that you will run faster. It is not a short cut to dropping your time in any event. The 4% is intended to make your running form 4% more efficient by promoting a more aggressive toe-off and adding propulsion to your stride. This should allow you to conserve energy. Again, this shoe was built specifically for the sub 2:00 athletes, and for them to be 4 % more efficient. Results of efficiency may vary based on form, foot strike, gait cycle, training, and racing experience. If you are the athlete who is able to focus on maintaining their bio-mechanics when racing gets tough, this shoe may definitely assist you in the latter stages of the competition.

I’ve found that in my experience with the 4% it’s that it really depends on how your foot works. I normally land more midfoot/forefoot and when you’re on the black grippy front you feel the comfort but it feels almost like a track spike where it’s stiff. However the toe off is incredible, there’s almost a flinging feeling foreword. Additionally if I run mid foot and land on the fatty white cushioning, I think that is the sweet spot of these shoes since they direct your foot forward onto the black grippy front and then fling you foreword. I wear he shoes for fast distance workouts, no real speed work due to size. But for the comfort, weight, and responsiveness, these shoes are pushing the boundaries of footwear. I enjoy them for their purpose.

The shoes are constantly sold out. Nike doesn't need to waste time marketing to a bunch of cheap letsrun posters.

That's capitalism.

No need to produce shoes for the working class.

not enough profit in it.

The well-to-do get their needs met.

We'd love for you all to give formal reviews of the 4%, the Zoom Fly, or any running shoe at the link below. The LRC running shoe review site is about to relaunch. We haven't announced this yet on homepage but to get a critical mass of reviews we're going to give away 10 pairs of shoes (max $150 value) amongst our first 1000 new reviews.

And we check cookies, IPs, etc to try and prevent shills from posting reviews on the shoe site:

https://www.letsrun.com/shoes/reviews/add

I went from a 2:50 thon to a 1:55 thon after breaking them in for a week. Love 'em!

On undulating course with decent climbing the shoes felt great, responsive and felt more efficient. On flat tempo they felt awkward. On the track they have felt squishy, unresponsive and cumbersome.

wejo wrote:

We'd love for you all to give formal reviews of the 4%, the Zoom Fly, or any running shoe at the link below. The LRC running shoe review site is about to relaunch. We haven't announced this yet on homepage but to get a critical mass of reviews we're going to give away 10 pairs of shoes (max $150 value) amongst our first 1000 new reviews.

And we check cookies, IPs, etc to try and prevent shills from posting reviews on the shoe site:

https://www.letsrun.com/shoes/reviews/add

Done

I got a pair before Houston. I tried them out on a 12 mile run a couple of weeks before and, in identical conditions on the same route, average about 9 seconds a mile faster than a had the previous week. I ended up having my best race ever in them in Houston. It wasn't all the shoes as I trained properly for the first time, but I lowered my time from 2:47 to 2:30. I also set a pr in the half marathon during the race. Came through in 1:14:07 and felt like I was jogging. I did most of my marathon pace training at like 5:49 pace and was able to lower that to 5:44 on race day. Hard to know how much came from the taper and how much from the shoes, but they definitely felt great both times I ran in them.

adsgdfasdf wrote:

How many of these posts are by Nike shills?

Reading this thread, somewhere around 100% by the look of it