Amy Cragg on Zoom Vapofly 4% Shoes: "I think they’re worth a lot..they kind of save your legs in training."

At that price and lack of longevity not many runners could afford to wear them in training.

3hr-marathoner wrote:

Glad she's honest about it. A runner with her sense of pace should certainly be able to feel a 4% difference.

Even Nike don't claim a 4% improvement in performance. Its 4% improved efficiency.

longjack wrote:

rojo wrote:

Jonathan Gault has a profile of Cragg up on the homepage. One of the most interesting parts for me was when he talked to her about her racing shoes.

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/08/remember-amy-cragg-with-the-olympic-trials-looming-the-world-championship-medalist-is-heading-to-chicago-her-1st-marathon-in-19-months/

in the past, shoes were pretty bad. now they're figuring out how to make it closer to natural barefoot on good ground.

of course, if it is good for your legs and you run better, some want to ban it.

and go back to bad shoes. and more injury.

just adjust the old times for 209 to a 207 if you want the conversion.

really if you want the fastest "shoe" it would be a bare foot, and spray on some extra synthetic skin with grit or small spikes, and have the track like a perfect natural surface with bounce but firm.

These shoes have a lot of foam and are not zero drop. So nothing like running barefoot or minimal shoes

Do you strained your quads racing in them. Great recommendation!

ukathleticscoach wrote:

At that price and lack of longevity not many runners could afford to wear them in training.

True. But the cost shouldn't be a consideration in terms of their legibility.

They are hybrid footwear rather than running shoes due to the additional spring element. This is the element which allows you to train easier in them and last longer in marathons. They provide an energy return outside the range of possiblities from running shoes. If you took a banned substance to make those same training / racing gains you'd be called out as a cheat.

When will the Brooks version that their Pros use come to market?

Brooks fit and feel is better with my foot than Nike so Although I love the concept I WANT THE BROOKS VERSION.

This is exactly what Cam Wurf said about running and training in these shoes! He is being helped by Nike as he transitions to triathlon. Face it BroJo, the Nike shoes hill you want to die on is not worth it. It is not a spring loaded shoe. It is simply modern technology.

Disagree but even if it is “simply” technology, doesn’t change the fact that it broke the iaaf rules at the time. Rule was “cannot have technology that gives advantage over another opponent”. Pretty clear to anyone except fanboys that these broke the rules.

I am on my second pair. I wore my first for 2 marathons plus a winter of racing miscellaneous distances. This ended up putting ~150 or so miles on that pair so I bought a new pair, and I retired the first pair to use in tempos. I would think a lot of people are doing this? I guess I can't "afford" to train in them in that I wouldn't buy a pair specifically for training, but now that I use them I finish them out to the end of their life in training.

Nike sponsors her. What is she supposed to say -- they suck?

If she has had some injuries, it's probably due more to Jerry's "survive and advance" program than the shoes. Although as you all know, some shoes just work for some and not for others. Bc you know, we're individuals.

field commander obvious wrote:

I've ran a marathon in Nike Streak LT wrote:

I've ran a marathon in Nike Streak LT, how does it compare to that?

The 4% claim has always been toward the Streaks.

The Streak is a different, heavier (by 2 oz.) shoe than the Streak LT. The LT is a more traditional racing flat, so I've wondered about the comparison there as well.

There's a study where they used the LT2 as a control, but didn't report the control's efficiency.

I don't get the whole thing with this shoe. I was given a free pair. Ran in them for the first time this morning. They just felt like shoes. A little weird feeling like all brand new shoes are, but still just shoes. I got no sensation of the "spring" inside them. And have no idea where the people are coming from who say there is nothing else remotely like them on the market. They're just shoes. Tons of hype and marketing behind them. Still just shoes. The placebo effect of spending 250 bucks must be really strong. They remind me of new york city. The people that pay the ridiculous price to live there feel they have to say it's great to save themselves from looking like fools for paying so much to live in such a miserable place.

Nike athletes get paid to say they're great. Regular joes pay 250 bucks and feel the need to vaunt them to justify the purchase. Maybe I'm the first regular joe who didn't have to buy them so can tell the truth - they're just shoes like all the others.

Nike sent them to me as well. There's a tangible difference and it's obvious. Take them off and go run a couple of miles without them, if you say there's no difference after that you're lying to yourself.

Doozyofatwosie wrote:

Nike sent them to me as well. There's a tangible difference and it's obvious. Take them off and go run a couple of miles without them, if you say there's no difference after that you're lying to yourself.

Probably this isn't what you meant, but I'm not disputing that there's a big difference between Nike 4% shoes and no shoes at all. Obviously I notice a difference if I just take them off and start running in bare or sock feet. But for me so far, I can discern no real difference in feel between this pair of brand new running shoes and any other pair of brand new running shoes I've ever run in. I'm coming to these from NB zante, these are my first ever pair of nikes. I'm siding with the placebo effect camp.

Honestly these comments make no sense. Even if you don't think the springs do anything, the high stack and the way they pitch you forward on to your toes is pretty unique. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who said they didn't feel different at all from other shoes.

Teddy dhjsjsjj wrote:

fethi wrote:

Has anyone raced the same distance (say 10k) in both Vaporfly and Zoomfly Flyknit? How did you do? In other words, how much better are Vaporfly (measured in seconds) than Zoomfly? I would rather know HOW MUCH better they are than why they are.........yeah yeah it's the foam.

Rather, give me factual evidence (times) instead of theories. Surely some of you sub 14/$250,000 guys on here have raced in both.

Thanks in advance for your insights.

I have and nothing compares to the 4%.

Post times then. Which is what I asked. Give me statistical data rather than just vague opinions.

Thanks.

Doozyofatwosie wrote:

If you haven't run in vaporflys you just have to know that it doesn't compare to anything else on the market. It's legitimately that much better than every other racing shoe. It's no contest. I raced a 5k in Zoom Fly flyknits in poor conditions and it was awful. The shoe was too heavy and didn't have the same pop that even the adios gives. It's really only good as a trainer for workouts so you get used to the feel of the plate without wearing out the vaporflys. It also gives you the added training benefit of the extra weight. The flyknit 4% for what it's worth is awful at turning at high speeds.

Post times then for each. Not just a rather vague summation. Times will tell us HOW MUCH better.

If I am paying $150 extra , how much TIME am I gaining.

Focus on the capitalized.

Sheep wrote:

Disagree but even if it is “simply” technology, doesn’t change the fact that it broke the iaaf rules at the time. Rule was “cannot have technology that gives advantage over another opponent”. Pretty clear to anyone except fanboys that these broke the rules.

So did Adidas break the rules when they came out with boost? They were significantly ahead of the curve with that.

sbeefyk2 wrote:

longjack wrote:

in the past, shoes were pretty bad. now they're figuring out how to make it closer to natural barefoot on good ground.

of course, if it is good for your legs and you run better, some want to ban it.

and go back to bad shoes. and more injury.

just adjust the old times for 209 to a 207 if you want the conversion.

really if you want the fastest "shoe" it would be a bare foot, and spray on some extra synthetic skin with grit or small spikes, and have the track like a perfect natural surface with bounce but firm.

Did you miss the Vibram movement? Vibrams are exactly what you are describing. They were terrible in every single way. Look. Use. Injury prevention. Etc.

The Vibram FF was nothing like that.