another vaporfly thread... - treadmill selftest

Ugh. This isn't an experiment. Your HR varied by

less than 1%.

Amazing result.

Your HR varies by more than that for many reasons.

Your HR monitor is not accurate to less than 1%.

There are actual scientific studies.

This is silly.

How did you measure vertical oscillation and ground contact time?

155 vs 159 is more than 1%. and its heartrate, not running economy... It surprised me to get a result with such a simple setup...

David S wrote:

How did you measure vertical oscillation and ground contact time?

He used a footpod (Stryd or similar).

the garmin forerunner watch measures it when you use the heartrate strap

Session 2 today morning: Saucony Type A8 ("TA") vs. Vaporfly Next% ("VF"), Treadmill at 16kmh (3:45/km). 8 times 6min, measure mean heart rate over last 4min of each interval. Try to swap shoes at the same time (about 1min off treadmill each time). Last time Hoka ("HO") vs. VF at 15kmh or 4min/km. Again with Garmin Forerunner 630 + heartrate strap that measures parameters like vertical movement with a sensor in the strap.

While last time the heartrate plot looked like this _-_-_-_-, there was no such clearly visible difference this time.

Mean HR over last 4min of 6min interval: 161 (TA), 162 (VF), 165 (TA), 165 (VF), 169 (TA), 170 (VF), 171 (TA), 169 (VF). Mean overall 166.5 (TA) vs. 166.5 (VF)

last time it was 154 (HO), 152 (VF), 158 (HO), 154 (VF), 161 (HO), 157 (VF), 163 (HO), 160 (VF), overall 159 (HO) vs. 155,75 (VF) - a bit more of a difference but in a response of a poster above, can be other reasons for that difference..

Cadence was a bit higher in TA (176) vs. VF (171) today, vertical movement 9,8cm (TA) vs. 10,3cm (VF).

I tried to measure a difference outdoor last year between different shoes and did not get a real result. I expected a bit more difference on a treadmill where pace is really identical between the interval. Today I was not able to answer the question for myself if I'd prefer the Type A over the Vaporfly from the 'feeling' at this setup, at about 3:45 pace... I ran marathon in both of this shoes, the feeling in the Type A is a bit more painful towards the end, there is definitely an advantage in the cushioning on the longer runs. I ran 249 on less training with the TypeA (on a slower course btw - Munich, temperature was a bit higher) and 243 with more training (in Berlin) in the VF. My personal feeling is that if I would have run with the Type As this year in Berlin, I still would have managed to go sub 245. I like all this 3 shoes, I train most in the Hokas (last season Kinvaras, also very nice...), like to run shorter workouts in Type A (als for example did a 20+k race with 10k trail section in them). The Vaporflies are great for longer races on flat road. But I think for my class of runner, there are many parameters that are by far more important for success in the races than the shoe. I think having 8+ long runs with more than 35k, run progressively faster at the end are most important and this is what shaves off the minutes of the marathon PR ;-) Also the off track activities like regular stretching are more important. I felt like I can digest more workouts when doing regular stretching. Still - for a Marathon or also a Half on the road I'd chose the VF. If there are trail sections I'll race in the Type As as long as the distance is not too long. I think I'd use maybe a Kinvara for a Marathon distance race with trail sections.

dawnrunner wrote:

switched between the next% and the trainers I use most - Hoka Cliftons.

And this is the main reason for probably 95% of the Vaporfly hype posts. "Switched to Vaporflys and I took two minutes off my half marathon PR!!"

Between the Vaporfly and the Clifton, seriously? (Yes, I saw the Saucony comparison below).

In my size, the Vaporfly is 7.6oz. The Clifton 5 is 11.6oz. That alone is probably a 4% difference in efficiency.