What I try and explain to people is that supershoes are merely a passive form of sports technology. i.e. they only return some level of what you put into them and are merely a engineering exercise in increased efficiency over previous tech, not some form of performance enhancement. If people want to avoid passive increases efficiency, they’ll need to run barefoot and stay off cinder running tracks.

did you mean mondo track? personally I think its better to look gains when you peak on your current tech/abilities. A 1:45 half this guy is not shooting for prize money

I'd mean any artificially prepared track surface.
As to your latter point, I'd say a persons running ability is irrelevant when determining whether a technology is appropriate or not.

It mostly comes down to the foam tech and your comfort fit. Here is an interesting and thorough guide to the foams being commonly used:

FOAMS 101: Everything you need to know and how to choose the best for you : r/RunningShoeGeeks (reddit.com)

For what it's worth, I love my endorphin pro 3's. I tried the Nike VFs but liked the EP3's felt more natural.

But the athlete will not know if they are genuinely improving or not, unless started with this tech from the start

Does that actually matter ? Lab based tests should help that and the gain of such shoes would see a decent sudden spike in performance than you’d see with typical fitness or speed changes.

question for the crowd.. I used AP2s in the CIM early December. never ran any long runs in them as I took the "race day only" aspect to heart. Did run a couple of times in them. Probably should have been able to run a sub 3:30 (late 50s age) ended up with sore quads early on and calves cramping at mile 7, first of an increasing amount of calf stretches at mile 9, ended up at 3:52.

how many people train for significant long runs in super shoes before racing in them?
given that the carbon plates are only supposed to be good for 100ish miles(assuming this is still the case as it was with the originals, do you buy 2 pairs, one to train in and one for race day?

anyone else every have a similar experience?

I didn't run marathons with Alphaflys but I learned the hard way that saving them for race day is a risky proposition, as there aren't many shoes with similar geometry and loading. I was training in Saucony Endorphin Speeds as my training speed day shoe, and even rotated my AF1 in like 5 times in the weeks before my Oly tris, and I still managed to strain my calf pretty badly twice despite being well prepared. (I did run my Oly PRs with the AFs.)

Since I'm older and actually have some money to spend on triathlon (heh heh) I relegated my AF1 to training and have been racing with an AF2 that has barely been used. No more calf strains and no more weird leg issues from the transition.

I'll also add that for me, the AF1 holds up a lot better than the '100 mile' mark that people throw around often on the internet. Mine now has 400+miles on it (I log 'em all on Strava) and it feels and goes every bit as fast as my new AF2. Still feels really poppy compared to any non-supershoe, although granted slightly less poppy than when new. I'd happily race in my 400-mile used AF1 over all my other shoes I've ever used except for my new AF2, and even there, I doubt there'd be a difference.

The only way I'll retire my AF1 is if the AF3 is as-good or better and I can actually get them.

I know the shoes "hold up," but I think the plate loses it's effectiveness. I had thought to go with a similar nike training shoe, like the tempo.. if you read up, there are many issues that come from the plated shoes in general with your achilles becoming weaker..

I've not encountered any achilles weakness whatsoever. Maybe it's just me, but I've had no ill effects from training with the AF, even when going back to regular shoes (which I do for trail and treadmill) - other than the fact they feel slow in comparison!

Lots of marathoners, including very fast ones, who do all their training in AFs.

I do all of my long runs in one of my different super shoes. I usually use a pair for a season of racing then they’re workout shoes depending on races. Before Chicago I think I put 50-60 miles on my alphaflys which was 2 long runs and my pre race fitness test. Don’t let people tell you they only last a race or two. A person who tests these shoes tested a pair of alphaflys with 400 miles on them and they were still almost as efficient as a new pair.

And for adidas I’ll go ahead and say they are the best after like 75 miles. That’s when they seemed to loosen up a bit and feel even better.

---

Twitter - Instagram

good stuff here, thank you

Gauging a shoe's maximum miles is a tricky proposition even for non-supershoes. The shoe companies giving a limit obviously have a conflict of interest

I've tried out a lot of super shoes, and my favorite would have to be the adidas ones. I really like how cushioned the Prime X's are, and I'm sure the Prime X 2's are even better, so they would have to be my recomendation. Vaporflies are also a tried and true for me, but I had more fun running in the Prime X's.

https://dumbrunner.com/...ad-runner-tells-self

https://dumbrunner.com/...unner-has-fast-shoes

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

You’re welcome! Honestly I think I’d use a shoe for races if they had 100 miles on them depending on my race. I use a few seasons old vaporflys with 150-200 miles for 10k and below but for my A race marathon/half’s I would use a shoe with less mileage just because I keep those race shoes with low miles but I don’t think they lose much after superness until around 250-300.

I also have shoes with 300+ miles that are still used for faster workouts so they’re a good investment.

---

Twitter - Instagram

https://www.outsideonline.com/...shoes-last-research/

---

Kiwami Racing Team

Now that the SEP4 have been out for a bit, I've been expecting the SEP3 to be discounted. But the 3 and 4 are the same price. Is that b/c the SEP4 have been reviewed with more criticism than the SEP3? Just trying to figure out if I should pull the trigger on SEP3 or wait (more)...

I don’t know but Endorphin series are crap to me. They are not that good compared to other super shoes.

Whereas I respond very well to the EP.

As always, YMMV.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

True, each to their own. We've had a number of Nike runners love the more stable Saucony Endorphin Pro. Durability is an order of magnitude greater as well. Far more bang for the buck but each of us respond to different things. I can't go the N brand for their social stances so no matter how good, no go for me.

---

Kiwami Racing Team

Synthetic,

I think you are judging too harshly. Of all sports that use marginal gains, why are you judging adversely in triathlon the use of efficient shoes for age group athletes?

I have found that a good pair of running shoes can reduce my heart rate for the same achievement of speed at greater comfort, which is consistent with the scientific literature—this is implicitly a meaningful benefit not only for performance but also cardiovascular health (especially middle-aged or older men as I have commented on in the past, as a cardiologist).

A key way to maintain heart health long term in endurance sports is to spend most of our time increasing efficiency at below LT1 heart rates (and raising the ceiling with VO2 efforts). In running, a well-fitting, comfortable and efficient pair of shoes can be a meaningful way of achieving this objective. I am not sure this is much different from getting a professional bike fitting, using know-how and technology to increase efficiency and power delivery to pedals at greater comfort, also generally achieving lower heart rates for the same speed.

ES2 was the best all around shoe I’ve ever worn. 3&4 major disappointments. Didn’t even try to run in them after trying them on. If anyone knows where I can get some 2’s in 10.5 I’d be much appreciative. Bought 4 pair when being discontinued. Last pair has 750 miles on them and are done.

---

Let food be thy medicine...

So you want a pair of super shoes to run at the same 1:45 pace?

The Endorphin Speed is one of my favourite training shoes, but not really a fan of the Pro. Seems OK, but like many "super shoes" feels just like a standard running shoe albeit a bit stiffer. It's like manufacturers have just stuck carbon plates in running shoes and then labelled them "super-shoes". The Metaspeed Edge is a good example. I actually love the Edge, my favourite shoe to run in, but it feels virtually no different to the Asics Hyper Speed (racing flat) I used to race in. It's like they stuck a carbon plate in the Hyperspeed. The only shoes I've ran in that felt like something very different have been the Nikes, 4%, Next% and Alphafly. I don't necessarily prefer them over other shoes, but I feel like Nike has done some proper R and D, incorporating innovative designs into their shoes whereas other companies haven't. I'm sure they have, it just doesn't feel like they have, if you know what I mean. Like a car manufacturer putting a spoiler on their standard sedan and calling it the "sports version".