Afraid I can't provide exact amounts for all shoes at tempo pace, but here goes; (all from a base shoe of hoka rincon)


Carbon X- little to no discernable difference for me, until I did a half marathon and kept going at a pace off road I was struggling to hit in my intervals on road leading up to it, talking 3:51km from 4-4:05/km. However, weather was better (cooler), I was properly hyped for it, my nutrition was nailed and I managed to get a lot out of me in that run that I may not have been able to in training on the mental side.

Alphafly- first run in them had a 'fast finish' 10 mins at the end, normally manage circa 4:40/km for this was doing 4:20/km, however HR circa 2-3bpm higher and first run hype may have impacted, but I felt incredible. I then did a speed session in them setting a new 10k PR as part of it. the session was 3x4 mins, 3x3 mins, 3x2 mins, 3x1 mins, with 1 min between reps and 2 mins between sets. My pace for the reps went from circa 3:35/km in comparable sessions before and after to 3:30/km, but the biggest difference was the recoveries where I was recovering the same amount I would normally at 5-6:00/km pace at 4:30/km, with similar HR recovery. Also interestingly, post session my HR got down to Z1 in my cool down far quicker than usual at a very similar pace.

Apologies for the lack of clear data but answering the essence of your question; I am running quicker for the same effort in Alphaflys for all durations at seemingly all efforts that correspond to a non-supershoe pace of 5:00/km. I am running quicker for the same effort in Carbon X's for longer durations at circa threshold pace, but not to the same extent.

In 2016 I ran my first sub-3 marathon on Newton Gravity shoes in 2h59m49s. To validate this performance and check if this was not a one-off lucky hit I followed the same training path in 2019 and ran a 2h55m13s marathon on Nike Vaporfly's. The latter marathon felt slightly easier and looking back I feel I left 2-3 minutes on the table. My weight was the same as were the circumstances. In my eyes the time difference was mainly caused by the Vaporfly's so the performance benefits are in the 5-10 seconds/kilometer region.

To be fair, how long have you been running, etc? And what did you do in 2017 and 2018? Think would have to consider more variables... benefits of training over that time, etc to factor into 4 minute improvement, not just Vaporflys?

My n = 1 is 2 diffferent run sets. The 1st time I had an athlete do the 4% (the first generation of Nike super shoes).

10/29/19

Training shoes =

2 x 800 on 5:00:
3:31; HR = 146 avg
3:17; HR = 146 avg

2 x 1mi on 10:00 (out and back section):
6:30; HR = 159 avg
6:14; HR = 164 avg

Put on the Nike 4% (or whatever they are called...the lime bright green shoes from 2 years ago)
I wanted to do 2 x 1mi repeats as there was a distinct slope
*at the mile mark, he decided to keep going and do 2mi effort

2mi in Nike shoes = 12:01; HR = 163 avg

We simply looked at each other and said "game changer".

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

The only "super shoe" I have is the Evo Carbon Rocket+, and although they feel fast. I've never used them in training and never over a 10k in a race. So no idea...but they're not a shoe to use when Out of Shape IMO. Which doesn't seem to be the case with Nikes it seems.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

In November 2020, I ran a 1:19 high HM with vaporflys. In my build, during a couple of key workouts, I struggled to hold 6x1 mi at 6:05 pace with 2 min rbi and could not hold 3x2mi at 6:05 pace. I did these key workouts in new balance 1080s.

On race day, with a short taper, held ~6:00 for 13.1 in vaporflys. So probably worth 10-15 sec per mile for me.

The shoes really come into their own at or above threshold pace for me, and when i make a conscious effort to maintain a quicker turnover. i'm a heavier guy (170 lbs) and a heel striker. The shoes are absolutely brilliant for me-- they just seem to clean to up my form and I seem to respond super well to them.

My time is definitely improved but I'm not going to get into the detail. All I want to say is. they made running more fun and enjoyable. I hate running race, but I'm perfectly fine now. They give me confidence and that's one of the main reasons I like them.

I set my marathon PR off swim/run training at the age of 43. But the more interesting part is how it happened.

I was planning on running a 3:10. SO about 7:15 per mile. I was clicking off 7:08s or so for 22 miles, banking a little time on pace for a 3:08. I kept waiting for the piano to drop and fully prepare to end the day with a 3:09:59 and super happy. At some point though it finally occurred to me it might not happen. My PR was 3:07:55 so a little calculous said I could get it. It was basically out of nowhere. At mile 25 the PR was in the bag, I felt great, and ran the last 1.25 miles under 6:30 pace and ended up with a 3:06.50 I am sure I could have run 6:50s the last 6 miles and been a 3:04.

It shouldn't have happened. I think "synthetic" is an ugly person who needs to spend less time on this forum and more time on himself, but I don't think he is completely full of shit. Some calibration about what this all means is in order. But that doesn't take away how damn fun it was to fly by people the last mile of a marathon!

Since I didn't answer your question: 10 seconds per mile is my guess.

look i have plenty of data (used to be part of usatf) that is why im irked by this shoe trend, too much praise is given to time and not place.

buddy I run with weekly on sat 5k TT's. hoping to take him out one day while wearing his shoes and me wearing the same.

normal shoe (him and me) = 19:20
nike next % (him) = 18:30
alphafly (him) = 17:59

what keeps me going in the tri world is the bike portion. i love beating people who use superbikes when I come on the run. but now its too much I cannot keep up in this arms race. good thing there is no super shoe for trail running that works...

---------- quick edit add---------

what I did notice from super shoe usage (just the nikes) is amount of achilles injuries people have... so has anyone else here had issues too?

As a 87kg guy, I get pretty beat up on long runs. Previously, I’ve had the best results with minimal shoes with very little drop and support like NB minimus. I tried more cushioned adizeros, hokas, and kinvaras but the minimus shoes felt best other than my feet and legs would be sore at about mile 8.

On training runs, I’d often stop around mile 8 or 10 to avoid strain that would keep me from running or cycling the next day.

I then tried endorphin speed, and PR’d a 13 mile run from 2:02 to 1:48 with a moderate heart rate after two shorter 10k test runs. I think I should be able to get below 1:40 on my next attempt, mainly from knowing my legs won’t feel as overworked. They don’t bother me as some other cushioned shoes have, and they’ve made long runs easier on my legs.

I am a 3:10 marathoner. Last year I was undertrained for the LA marathon because I got injured early on - resulting in a 10 week build with roughly 32mpw. Ran very conservatively in Vaporflys and end up getting a 3:15, which could have easily been a 3:14 since I out of caution did not jam the last 3 miles that are downhill. But I also ran a couple of IMs in the same shoes in 2019 and they made no real difference.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

0% faster in both races and training. Though I used to race and train in LunarRacers, which were super light and pretty cush. I do notice if I wear vaporfly for a long run that I'm significantly less beat, but I'm not sure if that matters for getting faster? Maybe. They'd probably be better in the full marathon if I did an open marathon because they would delay or eliminate the final 10k collapse that I commonly experienced. But I'm running 2-3 min slower for open HM than my best times set ~7yrs ago with a running focus (age ~33 vs 40).

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

I'm no runner compared to most here and weigh c. 95kg at 6ft 3.5, but went from a 18.26 5km to a 18.05 on new Hoka Rocket X. So c.2% improvement. Next stop the 17's.

too many variables here

1) your 3:10 marathon done on LA marathon course? cause LA is not easy
2) you got a 3:15 undertrained do to injury - perhaps the shoes helped you recover to skirt in a decent 3:15, which could have been a 3:25?

True. My best in LA is a 3:12 in 2016. My PR is a 3:08 but in Chicago - though I blew up there due to my own stupidness.
I think that you're likely right - it should have been a 3:20+ run, but I suppose that I got 5 mins out of Vaporflys. Though it could have been just a fast day since a buddy of mine who's a low 3-ish marathoner got a 2:55.
Funny that we both thought that these would get us BQs - little did we know about how the rest of 2020 would shape up.....

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment