happy to see that you had an open mind and wanted to try the Nike Vaporfly 4% for yourself.
your reward for doing this : a smashing PR.
happy to see that you had an open mind and wanted to try the Nike Vaporfly 4% for yourself.
your reward for doing this : a smashing PR.
What is SP short for?
Why would someone want to run a bogus PR wearing cheater shoes? I don't get it.
The very same people who condemn others for trying to artificially improve their results by use of EPO, steroids, and other PEDs are the ones who most want to artificially improve their PRs by wearing shoes with a springy carbon plate that catapults a runner along the road.
It disappoints me so much to know that people take anything this guy has to say seriously. Fellrnr beliefs: - Tempo runs are useless - Easy running is useless - Running 3 or 4 days per week is the best for performance - Run SMART (Runner's World) training plans are the best thing in the world - Kinvara is a "maximalist" shoe
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
These have the same type plate that Mizuno uses!!! Add that with the cushion on a Hoka Clifton and bam!!!! Super fast and cushioned marathon shoe. Suck it up buttercup.
HMArunner wrote:
These have the same type plate that Mizuno uses!!! Add that with the cushion on a Hoka Clifton and bam!!!! Super fast and cushioned marathon shoe. Suck it up buttercup.
I thought that the Mizuno wave plate was in the heel whereas in the Nikes it is in the forefoot. Were any studies done on the Adidas proplate shoes, it seemed to be the same principle - and why did Adidas stop making them after just a year or two?
Ran in the ZF today. 800 runner dude was right. This older pair of ZF is definitely firmer than a new pair of 4% and probably a slightly used pair too. I missed the relative squishiness of 4% the first time around because its all in the heel. I don't heel strike so I hadn't noticed.
I'm almost 53 now and have worn nearly every "great" shoe since 1982. I am no Nike shill and haven't worn a Nike shoe for 8 years prior to trying the ZF SP. I don't give a damn about Nike and frankly, my aversion to Nike as a company still makes me reconsider running in the SP. But I can't deny that I run faster in this shoe than any I've worn. I wish it were made by another brand.
I don't believe the plate is cheating. As has been pointed out numerous times, a plate has been put several shoes years before Nike did. All Nike has done is test it a lot, refine it, and package it nicely. They may not work for everyone -- YMMV. But to say wearing these are the same is cheating, like using EPO, is just stupid.
I agree with that!!!! Yeah my previous PR of 2:51 was in the Boston Boost 5....After mile 20 you can really start feeling the road. The cushion of the Boost 5 was great up until that point. But with the Vaporfly 4% miles 20-26.2 are still hard but the extra forefoot and midfoot cushion aborbs the shock so much better. The plate after mile 20 is great but it's the cushion that really helps. 2:47 in the Vapors and looking to knock 2:45 in Boston.
sounds as if somebody is trying to convince himself that he is above cheating to gain artificial advantage over his fellow runners on the road.
Every time you wear a pair of spikes you're also cheating compared to the poor kids in across the world who can't afford spikes
the pegasus has a bigger drop than both the VF and ZF
Dril wrote:
Ran in the ZF today. 800 runner dude was right. This older pair of ZF is definitely firmer than a new pair of 4% and probably a slightly used pair too. I missed the relative squishiness of 4% the first time around because its all in the heel. I don't heel strike so I hadn't noticed.
800 runner dude is right. ZF is much worse than the VF. I tried both. ZF cushion is very hard and the shoe has no flex. It's like running in stability shoes. VF, on the other hand, is the best shoe ever.
I'm not a Swoosh shill. If I were, I'd probably say the ZF was terrific for training. It isn't.
About 80-90% of the positive experiences are coming directly from Nike
So below are my results from wearing the 4% versus my normal race shoes. I did six 5 mile tempo runs over a period of six weeks on the same exact course. The weather conditions were very similar for all six runs. Three were with Nike 4% and three were with normal racers. Also focused on running at the same pace on all six tempo runs (all were within 10 secs per mile of each other). Total distance run with warm-up and cool down was 13 miles on all runs.
Tempo Run Average Metrics:
Stride Length Ground Contact Time Vertical Oscillation Heart Rate
Normal Racers = 1.27m 210ms 6.5cm 162bpm
Nike 4% = 1.34m 197ms 6.3cm 152bpm
% Difference = +5.2% -6.2% -3.1% -6.2%
So from above metrics it clearly helped improve my stride length, lower my ground contact time, decrease my vertical oscillation, and lower my heart rate at the same pace on the same course. Additionally, with the 4% on the pace felt much easier and afterwards my legs felt way better. The day after doing the tempos in the 4% my legs felt like I didn't even run a tempo the day before.
Based on increased stride length alone at the above pace the following would apply:
5000m Run = 206 less strides
Marathon = 1,736 less strides
Clearly the above indicates that the Nike 4% does give one an advantage.
I posted this perspective as a coach on an earlier thread. Couple edits to this one.
"All I have is results for three of my marathoners. Now up front I am not a Nike guy, I'm not a Nike fan, I haven't worn Nikes for years, and I have been known to steer my athletes clear of Nike when choosing shoes. I'm a Brooks guy, have been since 1994 when I was one of the people on their Athlete Development Program which has morphed a few times with different names and stipend/equipment levels, I'm currently one the folks on the Brooks ID Program. My top female is sponsored by Skechers, and I have a small training group here in San Antonio that is provided gear by Skechers. Again, I'm not a Nike guy.
Here are my fall/winter marathon results from the three runners who wore the VaporFly 4%
Runner #1 - 35 y/o male that I've coached for a couple years now, in 2016 he ran the Chicago Marathon and finished in 3:04:20. At the time it was pretty big PR for him. He reloaded and trained for the 2017 NYC Marathon, his training wasn't a lot different from what he did for Chicago, he had progressed to where he could run faster training paces and the goal was to run a sub 3. He wore the 4% and ran 2:55:33. Off the top of my head I think he ran a few seconds slower the 2nd half of NYC
Runner #2 - 34 y/o female that I've coached for 4 years. (she's runner #1's training partner) In 2015 she ran a 3:00:04 at Grandmas, reloaded and ran a 2:59:36 at The Byron College Station Marathon. in Dec of 2015. She decided to take a short break from running as her husband and her adopted a child and she needed to focus on that. By the end of 2016 she was back to training full time and she too focused on NYC. Her training wasn't much different than her 2:59. She too wore the 4% and with a goal of 2:55. She ran 2:53:02 and I believe ran a 2 min negative split
Runner #3 - 33 y/o female that I've coached for 7 years. She has alway trained/raced in Saucony and adidas boost. She had broken 3:00 in 2012 and then in 2015 at The Grandma's Marathon she ran 2:48:17. She tried to run the B standard at the 2015 CIM but had a horrible race, came back a few weeks later and ran 2:51 at the 2016 Houston Marathon. She and her husband started there family shortly there after and most of 2016 was pregnancy. In March of this year she started training full time and we decided to run Houston. After runners 1 and 2 (they all know each other) had the results with the 4% she decided to try them out. She ran a 1/2 in December with a result that was not really impressive. However she still purchased a pair and wore them for Houston, the goal was 2:45 and she ran 2:44:21. She slowed down the last 7k but that was more due to stomach/Gastro issues and less about leg/bonk
All three said their legs felt much less fatigued and less beat up than in any of their previous marathons.
Now I also had a runner run Chicago in October. She didn't wear the 4% as she is one of my Skechers sponsored runners. She has a 2:42:03 marathon PR from CIM 2015 and ran 2:44:16 at the 2016 trials. She suffered a stress reaction in Dec 2017 and didn't want to wear racing flats for Chicago so she wore the Skechers Ultra Road 2 training shoes. Very light weight (6:4 oz and 4mm drop) She ran 2:44:04. She too said her legs felt much less fatigued and less beat up.
I mention the Skechers because I think the extra cushion has a large part to play in how people are running better over longer distances in the 4%. I know the first 3 runners are convinced the shoes helped them maintain their effort over the entire marathon. Obviously you have to do the training and can't rely on a pair of $250 shoes to make you run fast."
Nike In Disguise wrote:
About 80-90% of the positive experiences are coming directly from Nike
I returned to Nike after years wearing adidas. The 4% work as advertised.
I have a 10k coming up. VP or streak LT?
From what I've been reading, this is for real and I believe it. I am hoping to find a pair to wear it at a 1/2 marathon in May. This is probably borderline cheating but if Rupp, Shalene, Jordan, and all the Africans wore them to victory, I guess I should also.