The speed has a plastic heel counter that goes down into the sole which stabilizes the heel really nicely, and there's a bit of firmer outsole on the inside edge. For me, it gives a really helps to prevent pronation with out it feeling in anyway restrictive.

I'm a big fan. I'd love it if they did a much more racy version. I also have the speeds, but find them a bit wobbly unless really going at a pace.

I completely agree. When I found the Epic React, I stopped looking for other shoes. It was nearly perfect. Nothing in their current lineup comes close. Especially not at the price point since you could buy last years version for half price. I'm pretty opposed to paying over $100 for a pair of running shoes so I am forever buying last years version of whatever I'm running in.

---

----------------------------
Jason
None of the secrets of success will work unless you do.

Honestly this is one reason why I went with the Speed and Pro in the first place. Both seem to have a great secondhand market where I can find lightly used to new shoes at a great price. This allowed me to try both shoes out without feeling like I'm risking too much money. Nike %'s seem to have no secondhand market. I was lucky to find 1 pair at a reasonable price (but still expensive) in order the try them out. I still am buying my Endorphin's on ebay and have been really happy with both the price and condition of the shoes I've received.

Since I'm going to keep my running down under 25 miles per week and I'm on the treadmill I'm using the Speed as an everyday trainer.

Yeah I thought the original React Infinity was OK but now they've changed that too. For me the best part of both the Epic React and the React Infinity was the Flyknit upper - it is hands down the most comfortable upper I've ever run in. I was tempted to try to the Zoom Fly 4 but the reviews have been all over the place and it seems like more of a tempo-specific shoe than a daily trainer.

Are these training or racing shoes?

Yes.

3 models in the Endorphin line: Shift, Speed, Pro. Technically 6 shoes if you count v1 and v2 of each model. Early post in the thread outlined the key differences between Speed and Pro. Pro is race, Shift is everyday trainer, Speed has nylon plate instead of Pro's carbon plate.

I’ve ran in them all except the meta speed. I was planning on the Vaporfly next for my last marathon, but they really rub my upper heal/Achilles. In trying different shoes out, I found the endorphin pros just too hard and firm and I do my hard runs in endorphin speeds and nothing bad to say about them. One of the only
Other pair available at that same level was the adios adizero pro 2 so I gave them a shot and found them to be almost perfect and I feel like they may be the fastest shoe out there. Right in between the squishyness of the endorphin pro and the Vaporfly. My only negatives were they are a bit tough to get the laces just right, and you can somewhat feel where the carbon rods start and stop, but neither were an issue when running. I’ve also found with the squishyness of the Vaporfly, if you aren’t leaning into it and staying off your heels that softness can be a detriment as far as speed is concerned.

So I have a pair of the Endorphin Pro’s, which I picked up on an online sale. They certainly feel springy when I wear them, but the problem is that I get a little soreness on my MTP joints when I run in them. I am a forefoot runner, and it feels I’m not really benefiting from the majority of the foam, based on how I run. Is there a technique to running in plated shoes? I don’t want to get an injury, since for the first time in years, I’m not working through something. I generally run in Kinvaras or Saucony trail shoes. Should I try the Speeds in the hope that the nylon plate is a little more friendly to my foot, or just forgo the fancy stuff and keep with what I’ve got.

The Endorphin Pro has a much firmer ride than the Speed. Like you I literally found the Pro too harsh but the Speed is much more forgiving and soft. Most people really love the Speed.
Also the Pro has lab tested inferior performance wise to the Nike and ASICS super shoes.

I bought the Pros last year to be my race shoes, and I like them a lot. They are the first carbon-plated shoe I ever tried, so I don't have any first-foot comparison to any of the others, but they are definitely faster than what I was racing in.

I was able to pick up a pair of Speed 2s this weekend (lightly used, for super cheap), and ran in them for the first time yesterday. They definitely have the same roll-you-forward motion as the Pros, although they are not as firm. I don't mind the firmness of the Pros, but the Speeds are definitely softer. I hardly ever run in my Pros because I tend to save them for races, so I'm stoked to be able to train in the Speeds. I can see them becoming my go-to training shoe.

I asked a question earlier about the shift being supportive and got some great answers. I had previously run in Guides to help with stability but ended up with some arch pain. I decided to take the Pro’s out for a long run after a great feeling track session earlier in the week. To my surprise, I had a great run without any pain (no Achilles or arch pain). My question is: could a carbon plate provide some stability? Not any kind of medial post or anything, just maybe allowing the foot to work more naturally. Not sure if that makes sense or not...

---

Team Zoot

 

The Endorphin Pro with its PBAX based foam and carbon plate is not more supportive but it does encourage you pick up the pace/cadence. There is also the super shoe phenomenon of limiting doms. In a standard foam shoe your body is part of the shock dispersion equation. We have all heard the stories and read it on this forum, athletes racing a marathon or an Ironman in a super shoe and running the next day pain free.

So your question may be. If it worked on the track will it work every day. We simply don’t have enough information on the subject. As I have said many times here, I have a friend that only runs in the Next % and Alpha Fly Next %. It is important that I state he only ran in traditional racing flats before this. The one thing he says he can do now is run more weekly miles (90 at 54) consistently.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

You are exactly right about cadence. I went from 158 as a heel striker the 168-170 as a mid. As mentioned, I had quite a bit of Achilles pain and with the increase in cadence, the soreness (not pain) is in my muscles (calves and soleus specifically) which tells me the are the shock absorbers. Your last paragraph has me excited, yet cringing. I want to run more but don’t want to pay the price for buying those shoes but I do have some Alphafly’s which I’m going to give a shot this week. Appreciate the info Dave!

---

Team Zoot

While I have been working on cadence for many months I have noticed that without using a metronome my cadence is higher than I would expect (using Endorphin Speed)

I have normally been 178ish for years, I've been training at 182 with the metronome. When I turn it off I go to 186ish; Other than working on cadence to bring it up a little bit I can't say exactly why I've all of a sudden gone even higher. Some times now I turn it on at 182 to slow down a little.

Endorphin Speed
PBAX based foam
TPU Plate
Speed Roll


Maybe that is why your cadence is up. I would look at the other metrics to determine if this is a good thing or not. The two metrics that come to mind are Pace and HR. If you have a Stryd pod you could put Power in there too. At 186, is your pace higher too? I can tell you I once watched my cadence and realized very quickly that I should just stick to where I am. (168). When I roll it out to 180 by HR goes sky high too. Makes no sense to me to do that so I just run at my natural cadence. Naturally when I pick up the pace my cadence increases ever so slightly.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

I like the rocker of the shoe, it feels natural to me and I think that's most of it. The construction of the shoe is probably a lot of it as well.

I stopped trying to use my Stryd/Garmin with this shoe, the calibration is all over the place on the treadmill. It works on just about every other shoe but I have to bring the calibration factor down to ~94-97 with the Speed and it's inconsistent. When I used it outside the numbers were close to what I'd expect to see but I really don't pay attention to it, just look at it afterwards (sometimes). My Garmin Footpod is a solid 94 with this shoe and very reliable. Most of the time both pods are 99 to 101 on other shoes.

Pace is about the same at the higher cadence but I think that's a factor of me purposely practicing to raise it. When I run on my Asics Novablast I'm in the 180-182 range for the same speed.

HR is consistent with HR from the past for the same speed.

That story of the Nova Blast simply tells you the Speed Roll, and TPU Plate are the drivers of your cadence. The foam in the Nova Blast is similar enough to the Saucony foam.

All good stuff. I ran in the Saucony Kinvara 13 (not out yet but soon). I have always loved the simplicity of the Kinvara. My cadence at 8:00 pace was 160. My cadence at 6:20 pace was 169.

---

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

What a complete nonsense!
Some may run better in the Nike’s, some in the Asics and others in the Saucony’s (or New Balance’s 361’s, etc.)
I have literally have about all of them so can compare for multiple runs over a lot of the same courses over a long period of time.
The Nike’s or Asics or no faster for me than the Pro’s.
I prefer the upper of the Saucony’s over that of the Nike’s and the Asics, but that’s also pure personal.

But stating that one or the other is inferior is a bunch of crap

Jeroen

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

Look “PRO” Dude,
There was a scientific published that tested the super shoes last fall.
It concluded that the ASICS MS and Nike VF/AF were better than the rest. Also concurs with most experiences of runners on Letsrun.com. Not too many pros running in the Endorphin Pro anymore.

https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/...;context=kinesiology

Although interesting, a study over just 12 runners capable of running at a speed that not a lot of AG triathletes run at is not a great comparison. It is just ‘proofing’ that at that speed these 2 might be better shoes. But there are so many different factors which have impact on AG athletes like form, speed, fatigue, fit of the shoe etc that come into play that could easily make one of the other shoes better or faster for that specific athlete.
As an example, if you don’t have the right running form the AF will not work for you, for that reason only Bekela chose not to use it after having done some testing.
Having most of the models I can run even at lower speeds in the End. Pro, not so with the FV or AMS for me these only work at higher speeds. Same for New Balance Fuelcell Elite 2, at lower speeds very nice comfy shoe, for me, I know someone else who dig it at high speeds, but not for me, to squeezy/musshy.

What I was trying to say is being the fastest is depended on so much more impacted very specific individual stuff and a test performed on just 12 runners is at least a little bit thin when we talk about the running part in an LD triathlon.

Jeroen

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands