Can’t believe you didn’t mention price as well. They’ve gone up as high as the sole stack heights!

$275 for a pair of running (racing) shoes! Multiple offerings in the $200-$250 price range. It’s nauseating.

If you want another option for your lower stack height shoe, check out the Adidas SL20. It’d be a good counterpart for your pegs. It’s a light, snappy shoe. Found my pair at a discount store for $36.

When the Air Max came out at a $100 price point I thought that was the tipping point.

In what year was that? Might be the same inflation-adjusted price

To be fair to actual science, born to run has sorta always belonged in the trash. It perhaps the best piece of bro science ever written though and plowed millions of $ into the physical therapy industry.

I think you're over reacting a bit, there are plenty of traditional running shoes available from nearly every single brand. There hasn't been a huge change in the past 3 years, the biggest change would be that most brands have a max cushioned shoe (Hoka-like but not as extreme as some Hokas) and have stopped with the minimalist shoes (but that happened 5+ years ago). Maybe more knitted uppers with layovers vs. a stitched upper.

Thank you, that's the one - to quote, from 2013,
" It’s my chance to someday say, “You read about it here first,” and then to produce the evidence in the form of this article. This shoe is going to change the industry. The only reason it’s not going to do so quicker is because these $700 and $900 million companies are so weary of chasing around minimalism and barefootism that they are likely to say, “We’re done chasing for awhile.” "

The final nail in the coffin for minimalist shoes, is the maxi ones like the Vaporfly are now much faster than minimalist shoes.

Track spikes used to be flat soled with no heel or forefoot cushion. The latest regulations are for a maximum 25mm height. Scuttlebutt I'm hearing is that the new track spikes with the maxi soles (Nike Dragonfly, oddly enough stack height is exactly 25mm) are going to rewrite the track record books just as the Vaporfly has done on the roads..
OTOH the high-heeled spikes didn't seem to help Gwen Jorgenson much, 32:24

https://www.instagram.com/p/BkS3yE4A6xB/

I got the Shift a few weeks ago. I like the shoe, but I don't feel any energy return at all. It does not feel overbuilt, but is well built. Doesn't even feel like a high stack shoe.
I tried the Nike Tempo, I am surprised people like this shoe. Fit seemed very weird with the asymmetric lacing, and has a little too much flexibility. Nike Zoom Fly is still the best for a trainer, but I am not a big fan of the upper on the 3 or the heel cup fit.

It's funny b/c I still have a HARD $100 ceiling. I adore the Peg Turbo 2...on my 4th pair. All under $100.

But that Endorphin Speed really has me tempted to "inflation adjust!" :)

I joined the maximalist shoe scene but within a few weeks, I had knee and hip pain. I remembered reading about transfering of impact forces from the foot and ankle to the knees and hips. I went back to my Kinvarnas and the pain vanished

Yup, this is exactly why I experienced.

Less shoe, or NO shoe puts a lot of impact absorption lower down - foot bones, achilles tendon, ankle joint.

More shoe redistributes that impact absorption to knee/hip.

As well, I'm fairly certain (without scientific journals to cite) that the maxi shoes flatten out the max force spikes on each footstrike at a cost of speed. Similary to you can imagine running across waterbeds - almost no big force spike with each footstroke, but no way you'll run max speed compared to hard ground. For those with arthritis like me, its those max force spikes I found are the killer - if I can stay below that threshold of pounding, I can still run really far without much problem. If however I'm running fast with less padded shoes, even short workouts of intervals can leave me hobbling the next day.

I'm thus in the weird sounding but strangely logical situation of using the most maximalist shoes I have for the fastest/hardest interval workouts. Most running gurus on youtube etc. always talk about breaking out your 'fast' shoes for interval day, but I'm the opposite. I've found the hard way that going to my faster but less padded shoes at my age really leave me hobbling sometimes the next day, and with much greater risk of shearing my already thinned cartilage.

Running 6min/mile intervals in Hoka Bondi6s sucks!

Clif notes:

2016: Vaporfly 4%
2017: Its all hype
2018: Its not hype, there is science to back it up
2019: wah wah wah, other companies can't keep up, ban the vaporfly!
2020: other companies make vaporfly equivalents while Nike is on the third evolution (alphafly)
2021: Kick back, relax, shoes do the running for you

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

I seem to remember it was a New Balance shoe that broke the $100 barrier.

Whatever you do, do not look at the price of cycling shoes.

I’m right there with you! Peg turbo 2 and zoom fly flyknits for $75 each.

Those Saucony Endorphin Speed are making waves though! If they are good for 500+ miles, maybe they’re worth it.

I have....I guess I’m used to cycling being an overpriced sport so it wasn’t as big of a shock. I was able to get some LG carbon soled triathlon shoes for under $100 though.

That was way more in there than just the con that was Born To Run

#shouldbeitsownthread

---

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

But in fairness, how long do a pair of cycling shoes last? I have pairs that are 20 years old I still use and realistically should never need to buy another pair in my lifetime.

That said, its funny when people who ride $5000 bikes and spend $500 or $1000 a year to access a pool cry foul about a $250 pair of racing shoes. I got a pair of 4% back in 2018, as soon as they were available, didn't even think about the price, thought about how I was dropping 15 seconds off my 5K using my credit card.

And as far as maximalist running. I'm 45 and haven't done a run longer than 9 miles since Boston in 2018 and almost no speed work either. Had been averaging just over 20 miles a week for a few months and decided I wanted a double digit (10 mile run) in the books for this year and what the heck, I would try to run it hard. Went out yesterday and ran a 1:04:30 (6:27 pace) in my 4%s which isn't that impressive, but what is impressive is my legs feel pretty damn good today and I was able to jog an easy 3 miles this morning. Even 10 years ago, if i did a hard 10 mile race (granted I was running quite a bit faster) in racing shoes I'd be hobbling around for a couple of days. So this result 10 years later, its all the shoes.

Haha. I had to pull it up on the tube and watch. Great stuff.