Saucony's Jared Ward publishes scientific paper showing that Nike's 4% shoes really do work

Did they compare competitor versions of the 4%? If so, which one was the closest?

BergLaufer wrote:

Did they compare competitor versions of the 4%? If so, which one was the closest?

i get it. using the internet is hard.

"Nineteen subjects performed two 5-minute trials at 4.44m/s wearing the Adidas Adios Boost (AB), Nike Zoom Streak (ZS), and Nike Vaporfly 4% (VP) in random order"

Those aren't competitor's versions of the 4%...

Berg is referring to the Hoka Carbon X, Skechers GoRun Razor Elite, the Saucony Prototype Ward wore at Boston, and the new Adidas Prototype that has been floating around.

To answer the original question, those models weren't tested by the study.

Better info here:

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-faster.html

And maybe this was noted previously, but former CU Boulder star Shalaya Kipp also contributed to research on the effects of the Vaporfly 4% - here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321100306_A_Comparison_of_the_Energetic_Cost_of_Running_in_Marathon_Racing_Shoes

This morning I ordered a pair of the new Zoom Fly 3 that became available at about 10am. Will see if they're worth $160. I have no need for the Next%. Glad to see Nike lowered the drop to 8mm.

Not the Question wrote:

Those aren't competitor's versions of the 4%...

Berg is referring to the Hoka Carbon X, Skechers GoRun Razor Elite, the Saucony Prototype Ward wore at Boston, and the new Adidas Prototype that has been floating around.

No sh!t. Dril was answering the question (which for some reason you decided to answer again).

I wonder what the lower end of the distance spectrum is for improvement? 2.7% improvement for marathon/half/...10k??? That would equate to like 52 seconds for a 32 minute 10k runner. That’s huge.

Not the Question wrote:

Those aren't competitor's versions of the 4%...

Berg is referring to the Hoka Carbon X, Skechers GoRun Razor Elite, the Saucony Prototype Ward wore at Boston, and the new Adidas Prototype that has been floating around.

To answer the original question, those models weren't tested by the study.

Also the Brooks shoes the Desi and Ritz have been wearing.

2.7% 10k? wrote:

I wonder what the lower end of the distance spectrum is for improvement? 2.7% improvement for marathon/half/...10k??? That would equate to like 52 seconds for a 32 minute 10k runner. That’s huge.

The study said 2.7% more energy efficient, not faster though. Anyone know how that translates to time in a distance race? I have to imagine it's a smaller % boost.

I think this new footwear arms race is terrible for the sport. I know shoe technology has always progressed but like what happened in swimming there needs to be a line in the sand where certain shoes are not allowed. There's a big difference between making shoes lighter and adding a spring that returns energy to the runner. I really hope the IAFF draws a clear line and also stops the use of prototypes by elites.

If not I'll be getting myself a pair of 4% or another companies equivalent for Atlanta. I'm not going knowingly let myself be at a disadvantage over everyone else while the shoes are legal and I think there is enough evidence at this point that they do provide a benefit.

Quoting from their paper:

So they think it's actually close to 2.7%?

Interesting choices, they only took guys who could run sub-32 and who hadn't been injured recently. They measured both oxygen uptake and kinetics like ground time.

It looks like there really is a range of results from 0 to 6% -- if this isn't noise (maybe one guy has a bad day and another has a good day) then the benefit of the shoe might vary wildly from person to person. But it's worth noting that only one person did worse (only slightly worse) in the 4% than the other shoes, so there really is a big effect overall.

Is it possible that in addition to finding the fastest runners, top level coaches are going to need to start looking for top level shoe-responders? If you're a member of the 0% club are you always going to be slower than the 6% club?

Let's see if the image shows here:

Letsrun should interview Jared :)

David S wrote:

Letsrun should interview Jared :)

+1

Make it happen Brojos!

I could have told you this a year ago.

Not the Question wrote:

Those aren't competitor's versions of the 4%...

Berg is referring to the Hoka Carbon X, Skechers GoRun Razor Elite, the Saucony Prototype Ward wore at Boston, and the new Adidas Prototype that has been floating around.

To answer the original question, those models weren't tested by the study.

They just proved what all the other tests have shown it works. Combination of the plate and midsole foam create a more reactive shoe.

My guess is that they are trying to get a baseline for the Saucony product to compete with the 4% to say its better.

Different labs will give different results due to equipment variables and testing parameters.

What needs to happen is to gather all the flex plate shoes in one lab with all with consistent variables and see what shoe performs best.

Added to this study needs to be the variable of elite efficient athletes vs average runner and its benefit to athlete differences.

Reality is more important. It all sounds like junk.

Heard a rumor that Saucony is ditching ISO/Everrun as well.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

I think this new footwear arms race is terrible for the sport. I know shoe technology has always progressed but like what happened in swimming there needs to be a line in the sand where certain shoes are not allowed. There's a big difference between making shoes lighter and adding a spring that returns energy to the runner. I really hope the IAFF draws a clear line and also stops the use of prototypes by elites.

If not I'll be getting myself a pair of 4% or another companies equivalent for Atlanta. I'm not going knowingly let myself be at a disadvantage over everyone else while the shoes are legal and I think there is enough evidence at this point that they do provide a benefit.

IAAF had no issue banning the Spira Spring shoe manufactured by that mega conglomerate Spira.

*stipe wrote:

Not the Question wrote:

Those aren't competitor's versions of the 4%...

Berg is referring to the Hoka Carbon X, Skechers GoRun Razor Elite, the Saucony Prototype Ward wore at Boston, and the new Adidas Prototype that has been floating around.

To answer the original question, those models weren't tested by the study.

Also the Brooks shoes the Desi and Ritz have been wearing.

Which is speculation at this point..

Skechers GoRun Razor Elite - What is that? No such shoe exists as far as I know. You probably mean that zebra shoe that is supposed to go on sale this summer.

Adidas Prototype - Do you work for adidas and know anything about it? Please tell me I'm wrong and provide some detailed info on it, other than the few pics from Boston/London and Gold Coast, which reveal almost nothing.

Saucony Prototype - Um, this was the basis of the study

Brooks shoe from Boston - Still know very little about this one as well.

None of these above are on sale currently, so it's hard to A. test one, and B. get a final production version if they aren't even in production yet.

You could say that a "Vaporfly competitor" is any shoe that was worn in a competition in which the Vaporfly was also worn.. so, the Zoom Streak, adidas Adios, adidas Sub2, Carbon Rocket and a list of others. Right?