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

Otq dreamer wrote:

As far as my quads are concerned I have noticed on a few occasions my quads get more sore in the 4% than the standard training shoe or a Zoom-fly if I run 15-20 miles.

Just as a quick follow up, do you mind saying what your weight in kg is?

LSS/kg is a good comparative measure anything over .140 is good, upwards of .150+ is very good. I've seen pretty much everyone (except a few select people) have a better LSS in 4%

I’m 64.25 kilo.

Reread the article but still have the same impression to be honest. It’s no mathematical proof you are right, but given that the data they had and the different methods used all pointed in the same direction gives the artivle still value. Next to this was also this publication

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9489005

.

But honestly, fine for me that there are many non-believers and I sure hope they are right because it would mean I somehow improved quickly after remaining status quo on my PR’s in the last 3 years ;)

Puzzled wrote:

Reread the article but still have the same impression to be honest. It’s no mathematical proof you are right, but given that the data they had and the different methods used all pointed in the same direction gives the artivle still value. Next to this was also this publication

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9489005

.

But honestly, fine for me that there are many non-believers and I sure hope they are right because it would mean I somehow improved quickly after remaining status quo on my PR’s in the last 3 years ;)

But neither you or Otq dreamer are willing to share race results. What are you afraid of?

Sure. I went from 35:40 to 35min on 10K in a road race that I ran for 4 consecutive years. None of my training efforts (ran with my normal shoes) up front indicated that I would smash my PR. I also ran a 5K going from 17:06 to 16:49 the week after. Only 3 weeks earlier I had ran a 5K in 17:18. It’s not science I know, one of my ideas is to run another race in my normal racing shoes (Brooks Ravenna) but it seems such a waste on the other hand.

Brooks Ravenna is a training shoe and NOT a racing flat.

Switching from a training shoe to ANY racing flat would cause improvement

Whenever I'm at the start line of a race I see everyone on the front row wearing Nikes that are probably these Vaporfly's. I like to think that I would be able to compete with them too if I wore the same shoes as them.

Puzzled wrote:

Sure. I went from 35:40 to 35min on 10K in a road race that I ran for 4 consecutive years. None of my training efforts (ran with my normal shoes) up front indicated that I would smash my PR. I also ran a 5K going from 17:06 to 16:49 the week after. Only 3 weeks earlier I had ran a 5K in 17:18. It’s not science I know, one of my ideas is to run another race in my normal racing shoes (Brooks Ravenna) but it seems such a waste on the other hand.

Finally some hard evidence instead of that hokey Strava crap. Thank you. Yours (race times) is better science than that crap Jared Ward serves up. Since race results are the ultimate goal.

Assume you were racing in Nike Vaporfly 4%.

Still looking for someone who has raced (shorter distances) in both Vaporfly and Zoomfly. Is Zoomfly better suited to shorter distances?

Anyone?...…...and please post actual times.

Thanks in advance.

No I was running in Nike Next%. I have never owned the 4%.