I would agree with you on all counts. Good marketing, decent science and some incredible performances from Nike athletes wearing the shoes in the past year all led me to spend the extra money. There were a ton of people running New York Marathon in them. Word there was that most of the major shoe companies will have something comparable in the coming year with a carbon fiber plate(spring) plus better foam. Might take a while to trickle down to consumers. I don't love Nike but I do love the shoes. They are super light and very cushioned. The placebo effect probably helped but I ran first marathon PB in years this year wearing them.

The shoe might be 4% more efficient, but the shoes are a tiny part of the equation. A 4% more efficient shoe does not make you 4% faster. Although that is what clever marketing makes you believe.

  

1) The research article was published about a year ago :
A Comparison of the Energetic Cost of Running in Marathon Racing Shoes
by Hookgamer, Kipp, ...
https://link.springer.com/...07/s40279-017-0811-2


2) I own the VaporFly 4% for nearly a year also, and yes it is efficient, especially for heel striker (the study show it bring more than 4% to heel striker, and less to others), but it is also very unstable at heel. Too unstable for me.
So, for me, and for many others, this shoes does not deliver the 4% improvement.

For me, it probably deliver 2% for 10km (because I mid foot strike), but is useless for semi and longer.

I agree the heal feels slightly unstable compared to shoes I have come from but that being said I guess it us due to how soft the ride is. Between the vaporfly for racing and the turbo for training they are shoes I enjoy running in more than others so I'd say at least 4% more enjoyment...

I've mentioned this in other threads. I have the 4% & raced SLOWER every duathlon or triathlon this year with them, than when I used my Speed Rival 6. Both are within grams of each other. The 4% issue is a lack of heel support. They are supposed to help propel you forward, but in a multisport race when your legs are already tire post-bike, you don't have the leg lift you would on a regular foot race. I find myself landing on my heels and lose the 4% built in spring effect. The side to side wobble from fatigue really throws off the running gait too. Personally, I am not a fan of the 4% in triathlon or duathlon--while I did recently give them one last try at US LD Nats last week. My run was incredibly slow (again, only using the 4%) for me. Even on the same courses, within weeks, same everything...the Speed Rival 6 was faster for me.

Would I use the 4% on a road race? Heck yeah, they are faster for me there...just not in a tri/du. Again, the hype & marketing...how many fell for it? I did.

The 4% efficiency gain (if you heel strike and have no issues from heel unstable) is not coming from spring effect of the foam.

As hinted in the research article, it comes from greater leg stiffness due to the fact the knee bend less, due to high level of cushion. Midsole compression is measured in the article, twice than the 2 other shoes studied (race flat, little cushion).

You will have same effect with any other max cushion shoes, apart weight and response can be different.

Now mid-foot strike, and not fast, I'm pretty sure I could have nearly same efficiency with Clifton 5, Ride 7, NB Beacon, Razor 3, ...

Yeah I've switched from the Hoka Clifton for training to the Peg turbo and really like it. I've also just picked up the Vaporflys. They're an odd shoe to run in. They feel strange, like there is something broken the way the heel seems to give way. But they're a comfortable and quick shoe. I think it will just take me a while to get used to.

If your legs are toast at the beginning of the run, perhaps you are overbiking?

OR, do you think the 4% benefit degrades throughout any endurance running race? I could imagine a situation where you get the 4% benefit for the first 15 miles of a marathon and it peters out as you fatigue. Since the run leg of a tri is kind of proportional in time to the last 10 miles of a marathon, maybe that is the point?

I think you should also note if I read correctly from the other threads you race sprint distance where you can wear a racing flat and not longer races as the shoe is more designed?

The "we don't know" part of the article was kind of funny. I'm sure the designers knew what was up.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Nike claims 4% increase in running economy, not speed. There's a huge difference.

I find holding a fast pace to be significantly easier in the 4% than any other shoes including my Turbo. I don't heel strike nor do any of the top athletes who race in them. The carbon plate helps on pushoff.

Honestly I'm not surprised many don't feel the difference because it really changes depending on pace and probably form. Compared to the Turbo, I don't much of a difference at 8 min/mi, feel a noticeable difference at 7:15-7:30 pace (IM marathon pace), and below 7 they really start to feel easy to run fast in.

And if it's all placebo, that ok too as long as the PRs are real :)

Nike claims 4% increase in running economy, not speed. There's a huge difference.


Thank you. I agree.

Please note the in the title I said "Faster" with quotation marks around the word!

What I found most intriguing about the findings is that the 4% was "faster" (again note quotes) than track spikes - but they don't say for what distances or at what speed. What does this mean - you are better to wear the 4% in track races of a certain distance vs traditional track spikes?

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I think Nike is doing a great job. I recently got a pair of Pegasus Turbo and feel more connected with the shoes and pavement than 7 pairs of Hokas I own. I also have Altras and Newtons, but none of them are like Pegasus Turbo. They were recommended by a friend of mine who runs all the time. I can see why Nike shoe count has increased a lot lately and I'm curious to see the number next year.

So I understand the shoe is 4% "more efficient" or has 4% "more running economy".
I understand the claim is not 4% faster, although the title of the thread suggests this.

What does this mean though? If I would consider buying I would expect an increase in speed. What is the relation between efficiency and speed?
Maybe increase of speed = x times increase in efficiency with x < 1?
(which means if x=0,5 the increase of speed is 2%)

The only reason I would buy is if I would be convinced to become faster. But a mere increase in "efficiency" (from which I do not know how it is measured or defined) makes me hesitate.

Whereby it is clear that many triatletes including me are prepared to pay money for 5 minutes in the marathon.

4% faster than what? Other Nike shoes? All other shoes? Faster can mean a lot of things.

https://link.springer.com/...07/s40279-017-0811-2

The research article, link above, is clear :
it bring more if you heel strike, gains quantified by type of strike
most people using it heel strike, as the shoes is pushing to this : it is shown and discussed in the article : most peoples using it reduce their cadence for same speed, they increase stride length, so do more heel strike. Because it is easier to go fast heel striking with heavy cushion at the heel. You can't do that with racing flat.

Also clear on the non dependance on speed, between 14 and 18km/h in the study

Personnally, I get the efficiency impact tested (not precisely 4%, but significant) at 10 and 12km/h also.

And in fact, MOST peoples feel the positive impact. Especially when using heel strike.
But what many peoples also feel is the heel unstable, creating injuries.

If you do not heel strike, you have only a part of the efficiency gain (shown by the research article), but you take less injury risk (heel unstable related at least).
This is what I'm doing now. Still feeling efficiency. Less injury risk.

Compared to adizero adios and Nike's top marathon shoe at the time of development (forgot the name)

Resistance increases with speed. Think bike wattage and top speed car horsepower. If you save 4% at a pace then you can exert the same amount and go faster but not by 4%. I don't know whether Nike quantified that during their testing and it's dependent on your pace anyway. A 4% speed increase at 10min/mile wouldn't require much additional energy compared to that speed increase at 5 minute miles.

full research article with all details :https://link.springer.com/...07/s40279-017-0811-2

4% gain in efficiency (O2 consumption) compared to the 2 racing flats. At different speed, other several athletes.

Disclaimer : not for pronators ;-) except if you take care to not heel strike...

In my experience you can't make any generalization about max cushion shoes at all, especially about speed. The very early Hokas I tried didn't seem slower than the Brooks Adrenaline I had been using. But the last Hokas I have are the Clifton 3 and Bondi 4. With that generation they added additional cushioning and weight and the shoes clearly got slower for me. I now have the NB Beacon which are reasonably cushioned but nowhere near as cushioned as any of those Hokas, and I'm consistently about 15 seconds a mile faster than with the Clifton 3s. Yes, the Beacon is a little lighter than the Clifton 3 but not enough to account for the difference, there's just too much cushion to be fast. Previously I was running a Kinvara and that shoe was also significantly faster. Not sure what the difference is to the Bondi 4s as I gave up on them after about 50 miles because they were so slow and tedious. And I haven't bought a Hoka since.

It seems that a shoe with a good amount of cushion can still be fast but if you overdo it or don't do it right they can definitely get quite slow.

I looked around a bit here in the internet in Germany but the shoe seems unavailable

Yes, I understand what you say.

Not saying all cushioned shoes are equal for everybody.

Just saying the VF is efficient because of cushion, vs low cushion racing flat, as shown in research article.
Essentially heel cushion, targeting essentialy heel strikers.
For me, mid foot striker, I can find other shoes, with lower drop (5 mm instead of 10), also well cushioned in mid foot, giving a "similar" advantage for me.

I noticed that for my strike and speed, Clifton5 works same as VF. Much better than flats.
Apparently for some other mid foot striker (faster than me) the Razor 3 do it also. Better than flats.
May be for you it is Beacon and Kinvara.

Really not overbiking. I have good days & bad days at both bike & run, but all the runs have been *bad* IMO with the 4%. Just did US LC Nationals & while the run really is what won it for me, the swim & bike were sort of just "go through the motions" and cruise (not a *crush it effort*) by any means. With a what I'd call a sub-par run, it allowed me to win the AG by 10 min. So I didn't "over-do" anything, especially the bike. I would agree with some that the thickness of the shoe heel, like any shoe such as a HOKA (which I've raced in also), offers great cushion-- but really loses the feel of my normal run landing and push off. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy not getting beat up by the ground the following day when I should be more sore...but the runs really feel "off" and show it in my times anytime I use the 4% in a multisport race only. I've got 30 Ironmans in me so not like I don't have cycling endurance. Enough bike-run bricks to make a firehouse...it's not a lack of that. Spent a lot of time on strengthening the iliopsoas this year also.

I will use them on road races though, they seem to be fast. Anything with a bike--regardless if it is a super slow bike, just screws it all up. It's my belief that the heel is just too thick & there isn't enough support, which interferes in my specific run economy--regardless of the marketing hype and articles saying it improves run economy (I don't think their study was with triathletes biking prior to runs). After all, I should know more about it specific to me, than they do--I'm the one actually in the shoes & that is my determination. Nike has more to gain than lose by pumping their studies. Others have run studies just using running as well. As a triathlete, I'm saying this is not the case always.

Nope. I do it all. Short to Ultra. Sprint to Ironman. However, I just started racing tris again after 2 years due to massive injury at US Duathlon Nationals in St Paul a few years ago.

I was just going by your last post using the vaporfly for a 5k race and then trying to say it is a slower shoe. I would be more likely to use a racing flat even for Olympic but will definitely be using the vf for halves to IM distance where the plush ride will repay itself later in the run.

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/If_you_run_in_Kinvara%2C_what_else_works_for_you%3F_P6254891-3/

Yeah, that didn't work out so well sadly. The "5K" bit was actually the first leg of a duathlon. There was a 10KM after that. But the 5K at the start was slower & the 10K was just...sad. But that 5K was attributed to it being on gravel. No traction.

Hello

how is your gait on a multisport race ?
Compared to a run-only event ?

Asking the question as, as shown in the research article (not marketing only), VF4% gain its efficiency from cushioning, mostly at heel. Compared to flats.
Mid foot strikers and Front foot striker have less gain (shown in study)
Using now the VF mid-foot striking, they feel good, but at my speed I see no gain compared to Clifton 5 for example. But I see gains compared to much less cushioned forefoot shoes.

May be (just may be) when running from bike, your gait is more mid-foot / front-foot, so VF heel cushion gain is lost, and VF high heel + plate just make the thing clunky, compared to other shoes.

I heard it use some modern engineering design that help to push to its 4% it might be true or marketing purpose but I'm sure there's a lot of science / testing behind that.

Hello

Did you read the nov 2017 research article, establishing the 4% gain based on a proto ?

https://link.springer.com/...07/s40279-017-0811-2

The "modern engineering design" is essentially : lot of cushion

More precisely a lot of HEEL cushion, with reasonably springy foam.

This heel cushion, when used, authorize the runner to less bend the knee, gaining leg stiffness for free. Leg stiffness for free bringing physio efficiency.

The VF are also light, but the article explain it bring very little.
Foam is springy, but that is not the main point. Look at absorption figures.
They have a carbon plate.... well... bringing a little stability to the blob of foam... and some snap.... but doubt it bring much (OK, can't prove it). And the guys writing the article also doubt.

New WR this weekend with the 4%: 15km, 41min 5sec. Joshua Cheptegei. 2min44sec/km

Without the Vaporfly he was a good but not an exceptional runner, with he broke easily the record...

Did he run in them last year as well. I think so? He almost broke the record last year (3 secs short), so this year he was 11 secs faster than last year (= 8 sec faster than old record).

Next to the shoes, the circumstances were pretty good this year, a lot of PB were run :)

I've been running hoka for a few years now. With the NYT article I jumped on the nike bandwagon. I came from a cold start this year as I had a bike crash that sidelined me for 8 weeks over the summer. I am also 53, an age where we start slowing down. I tried the flyknits in mid October. Dont know if it was the placebo effect, a week of cooler weather, or a reduced biking week, but my run speed popped right below 8mm right away.
Thinking it was all of the above, I started my winter training season nov 1 and speed held up.. yesterday in laced on the 4% to do an ez 6 mile run and feel them out b4 using in a Turkey trot today and my "feels like" 8:30nrun was an 8:05 run... there is something to them IMO

I'm 52, and felt the same when using them at first.

When I found the research article, end 2017, I worked to buy a pair. I experienced also easy and fast run. So very much understand your feeling. Got the same, pretty much.

But then, my back foot pronation combined with their lack of heel stability bring some injuries to posterior tibialis and medial part of the knee.

Now using them with mid foot strike. Less gain, but no injury.

So, be careful with this heel :-)

A few general points:
1. Nike research from decades ago concluded that increased cushion decreased oxygen cost.
2. Rodger Kram Lab at CU Boulder determined that the increase economy of minimalist shoes was the weight.

To do this they did a few things.
2a. Did a test of barefoot running on a normal treadmill and then repeated with the treadmill covered in shoe foam - The shoe foam treadmill was more economical
2b. Matched the weights of minimalist and other shoes by adding weight. When weight was even, the more cushioned shoes were more economical.
2c. As has been said previously, this is primarily due to the leg muscles exerting less activity to cushion your body. IE a stiffer structure. Less muscle activity = less oxygen use.

3. We are talking about economy and not efficiency - Economy is the amount of oxygen is required to complete a task.
3a. The effect of footwear on economy has 3 major factors: 1. Weight 2. Cushioning 3. Energy Return.
3b. A heavy shoe with great cushion and energy return may be as efficient as a light shoe with good cushioning and poor energy return.
3c. The perfect situation is Light, cushioned with High return. Vaporfly is the best to date (that we know of...)

4. (Specific to your post): Consider that lower drop shoes will cause an increase ankle moment and thus be less economical as they require more muscular control. The increase gastroc activation can be significantly detrimental.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

Hello

agree with the general points (from my limited knowledge)

Point 4 : possibly "mid foot / front foot strike + less drop shoes" can be less efficient than "heel strike on a high drop shoe". But being old and not fast, I feel better with this mid foot strike choice.
Again, this is personal "choice"
I found the VF wonderfull.... but my back foot pronation (right foot) cannot be controlled with VF and heel strike. Creating injuries.

So either :
1- I heel strike with more controlled shoes. Was relatively happy with Ghost 10 / Ravenna 9, but not enough heel cushion, knee hurts.
Pegasus Turbo : more cushion, but the stability issue come back.
Did not find a "stable version" of VF4%.
I realized progressively that in order to save my knees I was slowly going mid-foot strike. And found that it was better if I increased amount of mid-foot cushion, and reduce drop (avoid heel "scratch")

2- I go mid foot strike. I realize I lose a bit of energy (less efficient) probably because partly cushioning with my calves ? But my foot is more stable. No more posterior tibialis issues. No more knee issues on medial side.
And the more cushion I have mid-foot, the less energy I loss trying to protect my knees.

So, understand VF4% is very efficient with heel strike. 100% clear.
But cannot use them like that. Well... I can, but will pay the price.

sez who?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I run with the vaporfly and other max light cushion shoes. I love /hate the vaporfly. I'm ocnsistantly slightly faster with it BUT i can run pretty with other shoes (good running form, straight legs and all) but with the vaporfly i horribly pronate. Other shoes i use : Clifton2, UltraBoost ST, some minimalists shoes from time to time like adizero.

From that NYT article analyzing strava data and concluding that the VF may be really 4% faster, in second place appears the Nike streak.

I'm considering trying the streak, as I'm a midfoot striker, but I don't see much love for them. Does anyone have experience with it?

Generally Industry News:

1. Heather Jackson ran her fastest marathon off the bike in Arizona wearing the new Hoka One One shoe with the carbon plate.
2. There were a handful of athletes wearing that Hoka One One shoe in NYC Marathon
3. There were two athletes wearing the new Brooks shoe with a carbon plate in NYC.


Running shoes are my life, they are the topic of conversation in every conversation I have unless I’m talking to family. The Nike 4% has taken over most of those conversations. I’m not sure where it will end up when I’m done with the NYC Marathon work. It was definitely heavy in the front 3rd of the event but there are 53,000 runners in the race and as you get back past 4:30 as expected the 4% is not as neumorous.

The Nike affect. This is Nike doing what they do best. They have the resources to change the industry. They recognized what everyone in running shoes recongized. Running shoes got blamed for everything over the last decade. They were causing the injuries. For all of their promises runners were getting injured at the same or a faster rate. Barefoot or as close to barefoot was where you needed to be. Then of course Hoka One One came around and really changed running for a subset of athletes.

Since the Vapor Fly 4% came out the conversation has completely changed.
1. Midsole offset is a rare conversation today.
2. Running faster is the conversation today.

The industry is now trying to catch up. This is a much harder prospect. Catching up to minimalism was fairly easy. Taking a shoe from 10mm offset to 4mm offset was a math problem. The Vapor Fly 4% is not a math equation. It’s a complete shoe and those of you who have run in all three shoes that make up the 4% understand it. The Zoom Fly feels really good, but it doesn’t feel as alive as the Vapor Fly. The Pegasus Turbo feels really alive but it doesn’t have the snap the Vapor Fly has. In general I think that’s what you’ll find from the other brands. There won’t be a shoe that feels like the Vapor Fly. There will however be some things I think are “better”.

Those of you finding the heel to be too unstable - You will have shoes from different brands to choose from. You’ll find a shoe that fits your foot and running form better. You’ll probably feel faster in a shoe that fits you better.

Never Nike - You’ll feel better running in a Brooks or Hoka. You won’t be forced into a Nike and the other shoes will be good enough.

As someon who has been in running shoes for as long as I have this has been the best innovation in many years. Mimimalism was not an innovation and although it was really good for running and running shoes it was rather painful in running and running coversations. . The Vapor Fly 4% and the Breaking 2 project has changed the topic. Running faster is always a better topic.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

I ran my 1st race in Vaporflys this Thursday. I went about 4 seconds faster per mile in a 5k compared to my time at the same 5k from 2016 (to 5:57 min/mile). I did 2 test runs on the track before, primarily to figure out the right tightness of lacing. One thing of note was that my avg HR ended up being almost 10 bpm higher and I clocked a new max HR record (189, almost 2bpm higher than the previous record).

Most worryingly though, the ankles ended up getting pretty tight after the race and I am now stretching them vigorously since this can turn into yet another bout of plantar fasciatis. Dunno if it has to do from me going from Claytons to VP 4%. I'll try them again in 2 weeks for a half marathon.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

Personally I think "running better for a long time" is a better "subject" than "running faster".

Especially when the "running faster" bring me back to bad habits (overstriding) and injuries.

The VF 4% is an interesting shoe, bringing back cushion hype, instead of "racing flats".
But hey.... cushion has been brought back before... by Hoka.

VaporFly, combining cushion with lightness with carbon plate, is an innovation.
It proves fast.
But is it a good innovation for most ?

You bring the debate to "it is faster". This is the Nike marketing direction. Of course. The shoes is fast, let`s concentrate the debate, the question, the problem on this.

Let's forget the issues...

I do not care being fast for one race, if this "fast shoes" destroy me for 3 month.
For me "be faster" is not the most important debate.

What I want is a shoe who help me be fast, without too much damages. "Running better for a long time".
And i think I'm not alone here.
Reason for Hoka success ?
Skecher growing success ?

VaporFly is a fast shoe. May be the faster shoe now. May be the best shoe if you want to win a marathon.
Is it a good shoe for most of us : no, IMO

Is it a good innovation for most of us : no, IMO

Working professionally in innovation, I do not consider the VF as a good innovation.
It is a very interesting shoes, technology wise, opening possibilities for the industry.
Very good for a limited number of runners.
But lack the usability for most runners.

So, not a real innovation.

Try to push it to most runner because "fast" is just a dull marketing attempt.

There is nothing to solve in this debate.

Running for longevity: My research says this. Running is fairly good until you reach 50 years of age. At 50 years of age the total number of runners and the speed of the runners begins to drop off. At 55 it drops off dramatically. The Hoka functional design innovation ended up being an answer for many who were really feeling the affects of long term running. That was not the original intended design of the shoes. The great thing is the runners like Slowman found them on their own.

My point about minimalism is there was no innovation. Nike Free was the only innovation and that was an innovation in shoe making. They literally broke the mold when they developed Nike Free. Everything after that was brands chasing a trend a trend every brand knew would end.

The Vapor Fly 4% is an innovation - It was never developed for every runner. It was developed for the best marathoner we’ve ever seen. Nike marketing knew they were sitting on gold. Build the fastest shoe for the best runner and they will come. It’s a formula that has worked really well for the brand. We need to look no further than Jordan. Jordan was a shoe build around the best player. Now Jordan is the second largest basketball brand behind Nike.

Longevity in running is an individual goal. There isn’t any one single answer to longevity. In general we know good mechanics, a balanced body and maintaining weight are absolutely key to longevity. Stretching works for some, Hoka works for some, strength work works for some, and there are lists and lists of tricks. At 54 years old I spend a great deal of time on all of this because I want to run the rest of my life.

Back to running fast - just over 2 years ago I was doing my work at the Rome marathon. That evevning I sat down with a guy who had run the race. I don’t remember his exact time but it 4 hours and something. The Nike Vapor Fly 4% had just launched. This guy instantly wanted to buy the shoe because he thought it would help him get a BQ (run faster) I smiled and said this: There are probably things in your running form that will give you more speed than this shoe does. Once you maximize that then adding the shoe might be the final kicker. It’s not want you want to hear. You want a magic shoe. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news. The Vapor Fly 4% is probably not going to be your only answer.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

which Hokas and Brooks have a carbon plate?

Hoka One One Evo Carbon Rocket - Available in January/February at Running Warehouse first.

Brooks - No idea on the name - Still in Development mode - The shoes I saw in NYC did not look production quality. Imagin a trimmed down launch with a carbon plate.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

 
Apparently we agree on :

the VF was built for pure performance
but will not fit everybody
even if nearly every body will feel the speed in it... before most will be injured by its massive instability

Nike try to push marketing advantage

but it is not our best interest to listen the marketing music "it is fast.... you will be fast...", as usual. Here it is not only a money issue, but mainly a running health issue.



Frankly, I was expecting Nike to capitalize on the techno success of the VF to propose some other performance shoes, more stable. Still waiting.
Am I alone thinking Skecher with the Razor 3, Reebok with Run Fast, or NB with the Beacon making a better job providing more stable cushioned shoes for fast training and racing ?

Correct it’s not in our best interest to listen the Marketing Hype but gosh darn is it fun. Remember the integral part of injury prevention is between the ears. The VF 4% isn’t the best shoe for someone who strides out and lands on their heel. I see people doing it and it seems like a foolish $250 but I see people on $12,000 bikes going 15MPH too!

The Reebok Floatride Go fast is an amazing feeling shoe. New Balance put a great blend of shoe together with the Beacon. Kind of cross between the original Clifton and Kinvara wrapped in one shoe. I would throw in the adidas Boston into that mix. There isn’t a better shoe on the market than the Boston if it fits your foot. That’s the great thing about right now in running shoes. There is a great deal of really good product to choose from.

The Vapor Fly 4% is simply a beautifully engineered product. That is a really hard shoe to make and their production quality is simply astounding.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

Dave or anyone else, what should be the break-in protocol for the 4%? I got a pair back in October and would like to run in them in a half marathon in two weeks. I have been running in Hokas for years - Clifton's (up to the 3rd version) and Tracers recently. Would one or two shorter runs be enough before the race? Not that it matters much, but I'm hoping to run in the 1:21-1:22 range for the race.

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

It’s always a safe bet to run a couple miles in a shoe before you race in it. I think this shoe is so different than any other shoe on the market you’ll want to simply get a feel for it. The nice thing is you are familiar with rolling over the forefoot in a Hoka. You’ll do the same thing in the 4%. There is no flex in that Carbon Plate.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

Thanks for the insight!

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

This is one of the things I think gets missed a lot with Nike. When we talk about innovation in this shoe, it’s beyond just the one-off tech that they’ve engineered. Fly knit was a real revolution in how uppers could be constructed. To not only design it, but figure out how to do it in production. Same with the carbon plate and new foam construction. I obviously don’t have the particulars about this particular new foam, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they had to re-engineer the foam form process due to the unique nature. At any rate, to be able to reinvent how shoes are made is more than just the fancy performance pieces. Can you do it over thousands or millions of shoes? That’s easier said than done. Especially on your flagship products that can’t afford mass quality issues.

Very well said. It’s really easy to make one of anything. It’s really difficult to commercialize any product but especially on that comes in multiple sizes. The size 9 and the size 13 have completely different sized pieces yet when put together they have to look the exact same.

As far as the Pbax. I have some deep knowledge on the other brand that uses it.

1. It took years to develop - It’s only been used as a hard plastic so trying to figure out how to put it into the form you can run on is what made the process so long.
2. Generally speaking an aluminum midsole mold is roughly the size of a large cooler. The mold used for pbax is about the size of a VW Bug with injection ports sticking out all over it.
3. Early production of the midsole was not exacting. They had to throw away a large percentage as compared to molded EVA. I’m not sure if that has gotten better or not.
4. It’s a really expensive process. A standard mold for a singe size of shoe is in the $10,000 range. This mold is much more expensive.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

https://www.nytimes.com/...fly-shoe-strava.html


All other shoes apparently

This research seems decisive although I’m sure people will poke small holes in it

Look at the charts.

Just inboxed my vaporfly Flyknit. They feel like nothing I’ve ever worn.

Was wearing ASICS I bus before which are sub par it seems

Source?

https://link.springer.com/...07/s40279-017-0811-2

Original research article show 4% gain over :
Nike Zoom Streak 6
Adidas Adios Boost 2

Basically, 2 racing flats.

It is a serious study made from a real athlete cohort, with many precautions to ensure results are reliable.

Article mentioned above (NYTimes) is not a serious study.

It is not serious in the method used. These statistical models have no real value to do what they do with them.
And results are not in line with the serious study for these 3 shoes.

For me, this NYT "study" is pure bullshit.
By chance, they get the VF in front.

Bullshit proof : in the 4th "view", Vaporfly is beaten by Streak, while in the serious study, VF is 4% more efficient than Streak.
Such a bullshit study, the result is opposite to the very serious study.

We don't need bullshit studies to show the VF is fast. We know that from a real scientific study. Fast compared to 2 racing flats.

BUT if anybody want to rank other shoes, (others than the 2 racing flat mentioned), please do that properly. Comparing to others cushioned shoes for example, like Ride 7, Razor 3, Beacon, Clifton, ...

What would be very interesting also would be a study of the INJURY RATES of peoples using the VF. Versus other more stable shoes.

This will be REALLY interesting.

Yep, I've not run in mine yet, but the small shoe shop joggle they felt really interesting. It's like a sock mounted to a spring.

I'm sure it has, as they're now making a shoe with a pebax midsole that is as mainstream as it gets and available in huge numbers everywhere.

They're now also making a mainstream shoe with a carbon plate in the new Zoom Fly Flyknit. I remember hearing the carbon plate excuse for lack of availability of the Vapour Fly.

Set my 5k PR in these, using them as race only shoes over some Hoka Machs.

Probably correct on the Pbax as both Nike and Reebok are putting many shoes into the market.

The Carbon Plate story doesn’t add up. Although the Vapor Fly 4% plate is a molded plate it can’t be that difficult to obtain. Many of the Carbon Fiber suppliers are in the same vicinity of their massive Shoe Town factory. We visited Shoe Town every time we went to the Carbon suppliers. They had a mold shop and midsole supplier on the factory premises that was not exclusive to Nike. We used both from time to time.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

Of course it was always BS - BS, in this case, to distract people from the obvious fact that Nike decided to use (erm, manipulate) availability of this shoe for marketing purposes - nothing else.

The term is Pull Marketing - Nike has used it often. Kids lined up in front of a Foot Locker to buy Jordans. The entire purpose of Pull Maraketing is to leave high demand on the table.
Another place where they work this Stragey to near perfection is in the Sneaker World.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

Also the fact with limited supply everyone (including myself) are happy to pay what you would normally see as an outrageous price for a shoe when they become available for a few days and they all get snapped up. I tried to not want to buy them based on their manipulation but was too intrigued and when I finally ran in them I was a convert and love them. As much as I hate to admit it, their marketing strategy has been ingenious on extorting money out of me and many others quite happily that you are getting a pair...

Is it a unique shoe in that it's light, cushioned and fast? Most shoes I've run in tick 1 or 2 of those boxes but not all. i.e I train in Hoka Cliftons, light, cushioned, but not fast. I used to race in Asics Hyperspeeds, light, fast, but not cushioned. I'm not sure what the controversy is, seems like it's an excellent shoe that can be used for 5k - marathon. Who knows about the 4%, I don't think it really matters. Perhaps my Hyperspeeds are as quick, but I wouldn't be able to run a marathon in them.

In a nutshell :
Some peoples think it is excellent (because fast, mostly for heel strikers)
some others think it is not (because unstable, mostly for heel striker)

Fact is it is fast AND unstable. So it is usable or not for any distance depending your stride and the way you use it.

Personally :
using it heel striking : it destroyed my posterior tibialis and medial side of the knee
using it mid-foot strike : it is OK, but drop is too high. I prefer 5mm drop high cushion shoes

So, excellent for some (at least at the beginning), not that good for others.

Yeah I'm a little bit undecided. The more I run in it, the more I like it. I'm a forefoot striker. The heel does feel weird and unstable, but the shoe is fast and comfortable. It's an excellent shoe, overhyped possibly. Is it revolutionary? Are there other shoes out there than are light, fast and cushioned? That's not rhetorical, curious to see if there are? I did get some Hoka Tracers (1st model) which could be considered a rival shoe (?) but they're horrible to run in and have now been designated to gardening duties.

Try the Hoka Cavu. Still a favoured shoe of mine. My most liked Hoka shoe, a little firmer forefoot than a Clayton that I came from but still good for marathon distance. I raced a 70.3 in them on the weekend and enjoyed racing in them again. Outside the VF and Pegasus Turbos these are my third favourite shoe closely followed by Saucony Kinvara 8. All light, fast and cushioned.

https://www.runningshoesguru.com/2018/05/hoka-one-one-cavu-review/

Light, fast and cushioned, for a forefoot striker ?

VF ok in this case (low injury risk), as FlyKnit and Turbo (if you like high drop - around 10mm)

Reebok Run Fast (8mm drop I think)

If you prefer moderate drop (around 5mm) :

Skechers Razor 3
Skechers Ride 7
NB Beacon
Saucony Kinvara 10 (come soon, serious reviews already available such as RTR)

Me ;)

I can't recall a specific source, more of a amalgamation of various thoughts related to altered mechanicals with barefoot, minimalist, zero drop and "traditional" shoes.

As drop and cushioning decrease, the ankle absorbs more force and increases its range of motion.
This is why they're beneficial for individuals with knee issues; they shift where the force is absorbed.
(You still have your same body being pulled at the same earth by the same gravity... that impact has to go somewhere).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268003314000333



https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-014-3072-x

Quote:

Can't post table: Decreased ankle ROM: 28 / 21.5 / 18.4 / 17.9 degrees for BareFoot / 0 / 4 / 8 mm drops respectively

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com[/quote]

[/quote]
yes. well. i don't mind you holding your view, but citing a study on barefoot running? and drawing your conclusion from that?

let me counter with this: in track and field, every shoe, in every event, always, and forever, is a low-drop or no-drop (or negative-drop) shoe, if you're wearing a track spike. if it was better to isolate, and remove from use, the calf muscles, then this would have been accomplished long ago in shoe design.

furthermore, if there really were a high incidence of pathology associated with shoes with lesser drop, then we'd have also found out that running up hills are likewise a cause of injury.

i rather like the idea of using my calf muscles. i specifically don't like the idea of shoes that, by their design, make it impossible to use my calf muscles throughout their historic or typical range.

i don't mind you holding your view. but to me it's simply an opinion, not a fact backed by any data whatsoever that i've heard of; and i don't even think it's a particularly intuitive view. since when is truncating the range of motion in an activity automatically a good thing?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

[/quote]
So, it might not apply to what you answer initially on my post, as I was talking about low drop / high cushion, and not low drop / low cushion ?

My N=1:

I've done the same Turkey Trot for 5 years, exact same course. I have helped mark the course. We start at the exact same places. I am sure. And my garmin has read 6.15 +/- .01 all 4 years. For the last 4 years I have started my marathon prep coming in early October, and run 30-35 miles through out the summer. More or less everything has been the same. I am just older, turning 43 in 6 months.

My training has been consistent with other years. Nothing stood out, no training breakthroughs that I can imagine.

I guess what I am saying: as best I can tell everything was the same except the shoes.

38:35 in 2015
39:03 in 2016 (HOT out)
38:30 in 2017
38:08 this year

And it felt better. There is a U-turn in mile 4, so throwing that out all my mile splits were between 6:10-6:15 and I picked it up at the end and ran 5:40 pace for the last quarter mile. I run one 10k a year, and I am a triathlete/swimmer not a runner so I didn't exactly expect to nail the pacing.

What this reminded me of was the first time I wore a full body LZR speed suit in 2009 (the one Phelps wore in the '08 Olympics). I had a mediocre start but went my fast 50 freestyle in 9 years.

These shoes - maybe - should be illegal. But since Nike has the "it" shoe no noise will be made about it. When someone comes out with a shoe that is better and cheaper the legality of the shoes will start to be questioned (When Speedo wasn't making the fastest suit they were soon outlawed).

Hi Steve! I wore them in Kona this year, they were just a couple of days old but I rarely have issues jumping shoes, and I loved them - light and comfortable. Can't comment on the performance, as I had walking pneumonia and ran my slowest marathon ever, but maybe without that 4% I would have seen a first 4h+ marathon ;) Hi and happy holidays to you and P!

Here is my anecdotal unedjucatex opinion after two runs

First run was outside. The shoes feel weird but I have never worn a cushioned shoe or a lightweight racing shoe (gel nimbus the last few years)

The shoes feel like they are forcing you into the mid foot which I like. They also felt like they were slightly pushing my arches which was concerning.

Once I started running however I was midfoot striking and not feeling any arch contact

They feel light as a feather. I ran at near my race pace and felt like it was easier. In my head? Who knows

Second run on a treadmill and if anything they felt even better at speed

Key positive after both runs was even though I ran at speed for me I felt like I hadn’t run at all. They definitely help with soreness and fatigue

When I took my shoe bag out of my suitcase for second run I felt like the bag was empty they were so light and I wondered if I’d forgotton to pack them

I have no view on whether they are the best shoe but I can confidently say they are totally different and better than the gel nimbus. They feel like I’m wearing cement shoes now

I have a race this weekend that includes a half marathon. I’ll come back with times to see if I go faster

Also:
- xtrpickels is going from an unsubstantiated "low drop" claim to another unsubstantiated claim about "drop and cushioning decreasing" i.e. moving the goal posts and ignoring the fact that there are plenty low drop shoes that are simultaneously in the maximal cushioning category;
- no regard as to a difference for heel, midfoot or forefoot striking as obviously possible confounders;
- no consideration for adaptation to low drop as a confounder;
- no actual relationship established by any source cited (actually nothing was quoted at all for this matter) between low drop and anything else from the initial claim which, lest we forget, was:



*shrug*

This! Love it. Great post.

Any ideas on shoe model numbers for Hoka and Brooks that you mention?

Edit: Found your answer... Hoka One One Evo Carbon Rocket 2019 release / Brooks prototype pre-production

---

https://www.strava.com/athletes/nbrowne1

  
Hoka One One Carbon Rocket + :

https://www.runningwarehouse.com/...e-carbon-rocket.html

Sound much less cushionned than VF, Razor 3, NB Beacon... to be tested.

Also Hoka Evo Rehi :

http://iranshao.com/...e-one-evo-rehi-unbox
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di1jn1bOeiQ

Lighter, a bit softer, but no carbon plate.

Most probably none is for me : I want cushion (mostly forefoot, and globally stable) !

I'd always choose NB beacon over Carbon Rocket +

Nike Vaporfly? Wouldn't even consider it.

How many miles do you get on your Beacons?

I got a pair last week, so here's my review on Vaporfly 4%. I'm not an expert, so I will just say what I feel about these shoes.

I heard people buy one size up for the old version, but new ones fit perfectly true to the size. If you have wider feet, you might feel these are too tight for you.
They are really light although they have thick cushions.
I brought Hoka Clifton 3 with me and ran with both on the treadmill at a local Nike store for comparison.
I didn't see a huge difference but decided to buy them anyway because they are not easy to find.
Ran total 12 miles so far and OMG!! They are incredible. I run about 3 times a week with a HR monitor and I can tell I run the same distance with less effort.
With Hokas, top of my socks get wet, but not with these. Ventilation is better.
I also own a pair of Pegasus Turbo and there's no comparison. Pegasus Turbo is a good training shoes though.
I highly recommend these shoes. I've gone through a lot of running shoes such as Brooks, Hoka, Newton, Nike, Inov8 and hands down these are the best.
I'm doing half marathon on Sunday, so we will see how I do.

Hey - I’m also doing a HM on Sunday and it will be my 2nd time wearing the 4%.

I did one track workout last week - 4 miles tempo - and at the same HR as past workouts I was around 10” faster per mile. Hope that can translate to the race this Sunday.

In terms of feel, they reminded me of the 1st or second version of the Bondi in terms of cushion, but quite a bit more rebound than any shoe I’ve worn before.

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

I haven't tried Bondi, but they feel very close to Clifton 3 that I've been using forever.
Rebound is the best in my opinion and that's what makes running more fun and enjoyable.
These are sold out everywhere and now I know why.

Rob Gray wore the Vaporfly 4% in Ultraman for the 52.4-mile run. They seemed to hold up really well.

I tried mine out when I first got them by doing a solo 5K tempo run in the neighborhood, and I got the fastest 5K I've run in the last couple of years (I'm 56, so not exactly getting faster each year) - even faster than my occasional 5K race.

Based on that experience, I used them in last Sunday's California International Marathon. While I was severely undertrained (11 mpw average since June, though a lot of cycling), I managed a 3:09:57 with no foot issues whatsoever. Impressively, it seemed as though about 1 in 5 runners around me were also wearing the shoe - it was kind of an orange horde!

Ian

All the interest this thread has created for me, in this shoe, was quickly squashed when I saw theses things are $330Cdn for a pair! Lol. That's craziness....it's a freak'n running shoe.

3:09 on 11 miles per week???? I hate you! LOL.

LOL. Definitely not the BarryP plan. I've always been a low-mileage guy - probably why I've only had one stress fracture in almost 40 years of running (and that was when I was experimenting with higher mileage). That being said, I was never that good (2:52 PR from when I was 31), but on the other hand I haven't declined as much as I've gotten older as many of my peers have.

(No, this isn't h2ofun.)

Ian

Totally anecdotal data here, but I have to say that I ran 2 races (a 5k and a 13.1) in Vaporfly 4% and PR'ed in both of them. The 5k gain was very small (~3 seconds) but the 13.1 gain was about 30 seconds - my first sub 1:25 13.1. I think that Nike might have something legit here.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

Did a half marathon yesterday (1:22) in the VF 4% - while I was about two minutes off my all time PR I probably ran a bit quicker than I otherwise would have given my current fitness. They guy I ended up running about 95% of the race with also wore the shoes and he had a 2+ minute PR.

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

PSA: New color (blue) with almost all sizes avaiable!

Thanks for that (even if I'm not looking to buy myself).

I can fathom the gains here, coming from the TT bike world of watts/minutes for a change.

It's just crazy to think with running I could slap these shoes on and go from a 25min 5k to 24min with nothing else.

Then again, I run in Adidas Supernovas.....so something like this is probably possible given how slow/cushioned those are.

I have recently been tossing the idea up, but I saw a video recently that made me think a little more about the claims. I like to wear Hoka's Tracer 2. To me it has a firm mid foot and I like the roll of the shoe - it feels to me that I run faster wearing them. The internal debate for me is whether I should get some 4% as I am on a cusp goal of trying to BQ, but having wore nikes a long time ago, I never liked how they felt. So could I deal with the potential for the shoe to feel like shit if I could cut time for "free" or stick with a shoe I already know I like and respond well too. The video is here:




After thinking about his points a little more, I think its placebo and am sticking with the Tracer 2s

---

Use this link to save $5 off your USAT membership renewal:
https://membership.usatriathlon.org/...A2-BAD7-6137B629D9B7

Now that this shoe has been out for a bit, what are people's opinions? Run is my weakest leg and while I don't like paying for speed, are people finding it's worth the $250 price tag for the gains? I do sprint/oly/half distances paced mid-6/hi-6/mid-7. I'm probably a midfoot striker shading towards the heel. Also, as not to burn through a $250 pair of shoes, what would you suggest training in if you want to save the 4% for races? Pegasus? Any other neutral shoe with similar drop? I've been wearing Asics for 5 years after switching from the old Nike Air Zoom.

Runs gains can be significant time especially if efficiency is better. Thanks for any advice.

Once again : read the paper for Colorado university, referenced several times here. Not the bullshit studies (not talking about your video).

In short : yes there is around 4% physiological gain (more for heel striker, less for mid foot and front foot strikers) .... IF the shoe is wearable for you.....

The shoe is massively unstable at heel, on the inside. If you are an overpronator, forget it. It will destroy your posterior tibialis in a few runs.

If you can handle this, great.

Being overpronator (right heel mostly) and running now midfoot, little gain and some risks compared to my Clifton 5. I use them only for short distances quick sessions. Not worth the money :-(

Just a PSA for anyone interested, the new colors are out and the nike website has most sizes available.

About to be 5%

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

I have some update. Got a pair in orange in December, did half marathon and 5Ks and yes they are absolutely faster. I won my age group and stuff. I just got a pair in blue a couple of days ago too. Here's the problem. They wear out REALLY REALLY fast, so I'm using them only for the race.

The number 4% basically refers to economy gained, not net improvement.

The Zoom Fly Flyknit would be that shoe (the one with carbon plate and react foam midsole). Do try it first though. To me the unstable+narrow heel and narrow toebox are enough to dissuade me. The 10mm drop I could probably live with but only at speed.

I got a pair a couple of days ago and used them this Sunday for a half marathon. They did feel faster and at times I was surprised by the mismatch between my perceived and realized pace. How fast do you reckon they wear out? I also intend to use them only for races, and with IM Hamburg being my A-race this year I just might need another pair for that race.

Do you see the black rubber at the bottom of the sole? That rubber is wearing out in the corner after about 30 miles of run on the pavement.
It happened to my female friend and she's about 97lb.
Mine has about 16 miles on the pavement on the 6 miles on the treadmill.
I've heard serious runners stocking up these shoes, so if you are a serious runner, get an extra pair for sure.

Does the size of the Vaporfly 4% correspond to the Turbo sizing? I have a pair of Turbos and am tempted to try the 4% but trying to figure out the size. I also have a pair of Zoom Fly Flyknit, and I found for those I had to go a half size down from the Turbos.

This is why I decided to go with the ZoomFly Flyknit! Seems to be built to last longer than 4%, too.

Would recommend anyone on the fence due to the issues mentioned above try it out.

I have the current generation Vaporfly 4% (coral/orange) and the Zoom Flyknit. I find the 4% to be about 1/4 size smaller than the Zoom Flyknit. I have a minimalist orthotic (Icebug slim) that I wear in the Flyknit, but it won't quite fit in the same size Vaporfly 4%.

In the Zoom Flyknit I'm a 9.5, and in the Vaporfly 4% I can wear 9.5 or 10, with the 9.5 being pretty snug (5k or 10k shoe) and the 10 allowing a slightly thicker sock for cold days or a minimalist orthotic for a longer race. First race in them (13.1) will be Sunday.

---

<The Dew Abides>

Try Shoe Goo

Its a hell of a lot cheaper than a new pair of Vaporflys

This about sums it up. I have worn them in three races, won two of them.

The only thing I will add is these are very squishy when cornering hard; I assume this is a big part of the carbon plate, it is needed for stability because the foam is so soft.

All that being said, these are really expensive, you probably don't want them. Do you really really want to be that guy, in those shoes, winning the race;)

I absolutely love my Vaporfly's. Was a bit scared to buy them because of their price tag vs expected shoe life.
Glad I got mine, first day out of the box I ran and PRd a 10k. I did start training a bit more but basically all my races in them were PRs.

When they got to about 500 miles and all the rear black contacts where still intact, decided to run in them until i lost a contact patch.
Well yesterday I finally lost the rear contact patch on my left shoe, crazy thing is that I think I could of gotten more out of them but I hit a root which seperated the center rear contact patch from the foam.
This happened during my second 110+ mile trail ultra in the last 3 weeks. They felt incredible on both my trail 100 milers.

Total mileage on my vaporfly 4% is 1253 miles (and bought them slightly used on eBay). Best shoe ever

Did a 20,1 km race in 1:23:51 yesterday: extrapolated that‘s 1:28 on a HM. I am definately not capable on other shoes to do a sub 1.30 HM: last year on a fast course I did 1.31 with which I was very happy. Yesterday the course was not slow but not really fast either: 8 small climbs on bridges.

So 3 minutes faster: I’m sorry but that‘s 4%.

I am a heel runner, so I think the shoe is particularly generous to me.

Crazy, feel 35 years younger, was racing with people I normally see only at the start.

Nice- ordered some, thanks!

it looks like the women podium in SA was 3/3 vaporfly 4%, while the men's podium was 2/3 today.
placebo or not, the pro's believe there is something to get from using it and even prepared to forfeit sponsorship $ to run in the vaporfly.

I actually run slower in the Vaporfly 4%. Faster in the Speed Rival 6 (some consider a mid-level race shoe). I feel way better in the SR 6 as well. Last year I've won multiple races overall in the Speed Rival 6 & not so with the VF 4%. Totally counters what the hype is all about. I'm not seeing it...or experiencing it for that matter. It's bally-hoo.

I doubt they're forfeiting sponsor money.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

I only got a glance as Hoffman put on his shoes but the colour made me think it was the Pegasus Turbo? Looked like these but I could be wrong.

https://www.misterrunning.com/en/nike-zoom-pegasus-turbo-mens-running-shoes-black-fluo-green-aj4114-004.html

Yeah 6:30 pace for me just running around training in 4% feels like the same effort I put into my Brooks Ghost 10s at 7:30 pace ... I find a very large advantage in them, even in training. I did 2mi of speed testing in them the other day in intervals at 4:47 pace average. They seemed to hold up well at that speed for me as well. I haven't run a race in them yet.

---

https://www.strava.com/...tes/zachary_mckinney

ok 1 person, NYT already showed it works using large amounts of strava data. However, I am happy for you that you can save like $180 on shoes.

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

[/quote]
The jury's out with me. I did an Ironman in Dec and they were OK. I'll race a 70.3 in them in 4 weeks, but TBH I'm not feeling the love. The last few seasons I raced in Asics Hyperspeeds and they felt much faster, the 4% feel a bit odd, the way the heel collapses. I would imagine they are just as quick as my Hyperspeeds, but they just don't feel quick, perhaps because of the additional cushioning. They are also the first shoe I've run in that I've got blisters. I normally run without socks and no problems, I wore socks with the 4%s and got heel blisters, luckily only in the last few kms of Ironman. I'll persist with them, but it's not been a shoe I've loved to run in, irrespective of how fast it is.

I don't feel the collapsing unless I'm walking or heel striking. Could it be because you heel strike? The front of the shoe feels relatively firm because the carbon plate spreads out the foam compression

I ran a half marathon in them two weeks ago and was 3 sec/mile slower (6:08 vs 6:05) off a PR I set six years ago when I was definitely in better shape. Fitness is decent now, but I think I can probably attribute a bit of time to the shoes. I look forward to using them for a tri races in a couple of months.

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

I used them for a 5k a couple weeks ago, when I was sick and felt like crap. Definitely felt like I ran faster than I should have. About the only time I felt kinda good was on a couple short hills, but it definitely feels different on the hills. It feels like your foot is rebounding and pushing you up faster.

just used them for a 10 miler - am in good shape and was expecting to PR, but crushed all of my previous records. crushed them. Insane shoe.

How many miles would you recommend putting on them before a big race (IM/70.3)? I bought a pair of the Flyknit's to see if I like them and after only 1 long run I'm convinced I want to get the 4%'s for my first IM this summer. As a 175 lb runner having read a lot about the short useful life of these shoes, I'm wondering what others have done before the shoe starts feeling flat.

I did a 2 mile jog in them a few days before the race. Will only race in them going forward. Compared to my Altras, I feel like I put a turbo-kit in the ole' engine.

I am 191lbs currently and am also concerned about the pounds per square inch of pressure I am putting on the shoes versus their standard wear life.

I've heard it is only a couple hundred miles, but have seen some athletes pushing the shoes to high triple digits or four digits in mileage.

The shoes cost me $290 or so to buy on StockX in an 11.5. They were very hard for me to get. I only plan on having them as race shoes for a 70.3 on Sunday then Boulder 140.6 this summer. I'm not baller enough to train in a pair and have a race pair.

I also don't train that much in them as I am mainly saving them for racing. I tried them on and seemed to 'click' with the shoes pretty quick to understand the biomechanics of the shoe, so looking forward to racing in them as they seem to be quite fun/fast in training. I really don't run that much though with only 28.4mi this year total. 6.2mi on the 4%s.

I might try to cut from 191 to 181 or so this week to maybe get some good run splits in the race. PR pace is at 8:XX, but would like low 7:XX or high 6:XX this 70.3 on 4/14/19. I'm fairly lean already (six pack), but want to be competitive this race and try to podium, which seems damn near pro in my age group (M35-39). Planning on going from a 5:59 70.3 last fall to 4:50 or 4:40 or lower..... who knows.

I think my last bike avg was 19.X and looking to get 22.X - 23.X+ this time. So coming to the run, I could bonk it or put out for a good time for me.

I have put in a lot of hours on the bike, so the 4%'s seem like the perfect ending to the race. I wore flyknits in my last couple of races, but flyknit Mariahs.

---

https://www.strava.com/...tes/zachary_mckinney

I just tested them once in a training before doing a 20 km race. I would say you do not need to get accustomed to them because I did not notice them during the race. The only thing I noticed was an incredible increase in speed (I was 3 minutes faster than I would normally have been).

I saw Jocelyn McCauley and Lucy Charles-Barclay wearing them in the races. A month ago, I went to a 5K event where 1200+ runners showed up and ended up placing 41st. I would have placed about 60-70 without these shoes. You have to try them to understand how good they are.

I did a 6.5 mile training run in the 4%'s before running 13.1 miles in them this weekend, in a training run PR (it wasn't quite a race)... the shoes felt great and I'm less sore than I would usually be after a long run on concrete. I'll definitely be wearing them in all my races this year, including Ironman Hawaii, but won't train very much in them, if at all.

That's the real secret.. train in something slower, less responsive, then put on the 4% for your race, and really fly!