I've heard of plenty of people reporting big PRs in the half, 10K, and even 5K wearing vaporflies. It's just to an average (non runner) person, what sounds more impressive, someone dropping 8 minutes off their marathon PR, or 50 seconds off their 5K PR? In absolute time difference, even if it's an equivalent or bigger PR fitness/VDOT-wise to drop that from the 5K, the marathon is just larger in number of minutes.
Close wrote:
I ran in a pair of 4% at last year's Boston Marathon, in the rain, cold and wind. Going in, based on my workouts and past performances, I was in 2:55 shape for good conditions. The conditions at Boston should have easily added 5 minutes to my time, probably closer to 10. I ran 2:57.
A lot of asteriks with the weather. I do train outside throughout the winter in the northeast, so I wasn't personally bothered by the conditions. I'm used to running in wind, snow, ice, cold rain, etc. Still, with that constant headwind at Boston last year, and soaked head to toe the entire time, I was really surprised by running sub three.
Having gone through a pair of 4%, I think another thing to consider is your running form. It seems to me that you need to be a heel striker to capture the full return of the 4%. When you look at the geometry of the plate, if you are a forefoot striker you aren't going to get as much energy return.
Huh that's interesting. Brad Hudson suggested that Allie Kieffer got extra energy return from those shoes BECAUSE she was a forefoot striker. I have no clue what the right answer is, but I personally am very midfoot/forefoot dominant with a quick cadence and shorter stride (in that sense kind of like Allie Kieffer), and I seem to get an advantage at a broader range of paces than some of my (especially male) friends who are faster, but with more dramatic biomechanical shifts between easy and race pace.
I was a skeptic, but then I tried them on in my local running store just for fun, jogged several strides across the store, and was amazed by the energy return and how effortless that felt. Maybe it’s a placebo event but I felt so confident wearing them which no other shoe alone has made me feel.
I ended up ordering two sizes to try out a week later (will return the pair that doesn’t fit). I do have questions/concerns regarding the shoe (Flynit specifically): I’ve read and experienced the concerns around “heal slippage”. I feel it just walking around the house but maybe I’m being too sensitive to it. It’s not a sizing thing because my toe is ready to burst through the smaller pair, and I still notice it when wearing those shoes.
Is my foot just not the right shape to wear these? Does it stop after a few miles (I have read reviews that say that)? Is there a special way to tie them that might help?
I’ve only worn them on the treadmill and walking around the house. I am waiting for better weather to try them outside.
Out of Beaverton. Mixed feelings:
Is it genius that they generate constant buzz without paying for ad space?
Or
Is it embarrassing that they feel they need to?
My guess it will take 2 to 3 at least. Maybe a little more depending on the person's running style/gate. Also, the cushioning on it is really really good. Your legs won't get beat up.
Bob Schul Country wrote:
Hourunner wrote:
I do feel they are faster than any other shoe I’ve worn on long races (hm and full) and my times back this up. But more than that I like the 4% due to the fatigue or lack there of on my legs. When I run in the 4% I feel fresher longer and less beat up afterwards. I feel they are worth the $$.
Interesting concept with these......can you run your current pace with less effort. Do they delay fatigue just as much as they make you go forward faster?
Yes. In my normal training shoe the zoom fly flyknit, if I wear them in long training runs I start feeling fairly fatigued in the 12-14 mile range whereas in the 4% I don’t get that same perceived fatigue until closer to 18-20 miles running at same and even faster paces. So I average about 6 extra miles before I feel the same fatigue. Of course this is subjective but I attribute it to the much softer foam of the 4%.
I think it’s the point with the vapourfly, it does not punish poor running form as much as other shoes so you fatigued later despite the same fitness levels. I’m sure some of us are also running in too minimal cushioned shoes for the distance/pace/our weight than are idea too
This year, I had a 7 minute PR in the half on virtually equivalent training, weather conditions, and course elevation (super flat). The only variable that was different was wearing 4% instead of Pureboost (a lighter shoe with Boost foam). I don’t know enough about the tech to say why it happened. Could be a placebo effect for all I know. I do know that I was running about 30 seconds per mile faster throughout the race, but with the same big negative split in both races, so I don’t think the 4% worked by keeping my legs feeling fresher. I think it was primarily the carbon plate that just helped me run faster. I can really feel the spring-like effect. I now use the ZF Flyknit for speed work and, again, I’m running about 30 seconds per mile faster than I did in my previous shoes. Since I’m incredibly slow compared to your average LRC poster, I probably got a much bigger improvement than faster people would, but I was surprised the shoes actually worked for people like me since I had been led to believe you have to be really fast for the shoes to offer any real benefit. I’m not a Nike employee but am a surprised Adidas guy who really didn’t like all the other Nike shoes I’ve previously tried.
Do you mind me asking, what was your MR PR?
I want to see if 7 minute PR is within statistical error given your time range
it's simple wrote:
Do you mind me asking, what was your MR PR?
I want to see if 7 minute PR is within statistical error given your time range
Improvement was @ 6%. Just curious - what would be the statistical error?
HouHJ wrote:
Improvement was @ 6%. Just curious - what would be the statistical error?
I guess there's a difference between someone who went from 2:27 to 2:20 in their fourth half marathon ever, to someone who has been running competitively for 12 years and went from 1:17 to 1:10.
What was your beginning time?
I'm not convinced they really make you faster, maybe marginally like one second per mile in a really long race compared to other racing flats. The difference is how comfortable they are, you are less likely to get injured in these shoes. They feel so comfortable, the first time I wore them I felt like I was sinking into a pillow and was concerned I wouldn't be able to run fast, yet I still ran fast. So maybe their benefit is that your legs feel a little fresher late in a race and you're not as beat up?
It’s not that other shoes make you 0% more efficient for example streak 6s are 3.1% more efficient it’s just that these increase it by the largest percent so no chance 5-10s/mile
No injuries to report
MONTANA.S wrote:
I'm waiting for the injury reports to pile in. These shoes can't be healthy for the body
Why are you posting this as if the VF4% just entered the market? It's 2019, the VF4% is old news.
Matbar wrote:
I think it’s the point with the vapourfly, it does not punish poor running form as much as other shoes so you fatigued later despite the same fitness levels. I’m sure some of us are also running in too minimal cushioned shoes for the distance/pace/our weight than are idea too
This ^^^ definitely!!! I feel a lot fresher after a long race in VFs than any other racers.
I view them as easily worth the price. Typically gear is more expensive if it is 1) extremely light or 2) extremely cushioned. This show is a progression in technology in that it is both.
I don’t know if it makes me faster, but I am certain beyond doubt that I am much less sore after a tough workout than I am in less cushioned shoes. For the elite that is able to wear them for every hard workout, I imagine they are able to string together much higher quality blocks because of this reduced stress on the body. The composite effect of the faster recovery theoretically will yield better fitness.
I regularly run a hilly loop as a weekly run and use a hard effort on it as a gauge of fitness. Last year in adizero adios 3s it took me a week and a half to feel good again after. This year I ran it in the VF and was not even sore the next day. It allowed me to maintain a fast pace downhill seemingly with no pounding on my legs or feet and almost felt like they were getting rested for the next uphill effort.
Just Another Thread... wrote:
Out of Beaverton. Mixed feelings:
Is it genius that they generate constant buzz without paying for ad space?
Or
Is it embarrassing that they feel they need to?
Spotted the guy in denial or who hasn't tried them. Look, they are the best shoe on the market and warrant discussion.
Don’t kid yourself, it’s all ablut fitness baby
(Or drugs)
Subway Surfers wrote:
A guy in adidas won the half in Dubai recently (Stephen Kiprop) beating the guys in Vaporflys.
Are you talking about the guy that re-painted them with what looked like a magic marker paint job? That wasn't the half, it was the full. There was a thread dedicated to that.
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these