Got in a 90 minute run this morning in the MS Sky. One thing I noticed is there seems to be a lower RPE and corresponding HR at speeds a bit faster than 'easy pace' compared to the Endorphin Speed that is my everyday shoe. I feel that the MS Sky is a shoe I'll need to trim my toenails extra short in - I felt some pressure on the big toes, but hopefully it'll work. Leaning towards wearing them at St. George over Next% - speed seems comparable, but I like the added stability of the Asics.

---

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

I had the same reaction when I tried my normal size in the Meta…especially compared to the Endorphins. I didn’t feel like there was enough toe room. Sizing up didn’t help either as I mentioned in an earlier post.

I have found that not to be the case at all. The Metaspeeds act and sound most like a "normal" running shoe to me vs. any of the other carbon-plate offerings (have tried most now).

I wish I had bought a half-size larger in mine. I definitely have to make sure my nails are clipped when I wear them.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Ran in Nike 4% when they first came out. They were fast and comfortable, but like many, I struggled with stability issues. And like many of of us, anecdotally, I have observed a steady increase in injuries amongst friends who wear Nike Next % and Alphafly, including a friend who rolled his ankle to the point of breaking a bone.

Now the Metaspeed Sky....after a few years of fishing for a new fast shoe, I found my choice. These shoes have been completely transformative to my running. They have demonstrably increased both my pace and lowered my HR. Feel super fresh after long runs in them. (32km being the longest so far.)

In my opinion, anything slower than 5:00/km or 8:00/mile, I don't need super shoes. For those kinds of runs or anything with hills, I love Hoka Rincon 3.

But the Metaspeed feel like they tilt me forward to where running a 4:40/km pace feels super natural, smooth, and low effort. Racing IMTW this Sunday and shooting for a 4:50/km marathon pace, and I think these shoes are ideal for that. Have yet to bonk wearing them, so I'm not sure what they feel like a slower paces, but I feel so light and energetic in these shoes I'm hoping I won't find out!

Interesting. For me, the metaspeeds are significantly louder than the next%, alphafly, or any other running shoe I’ve ever ran in.

---

blog

I solved my stability problems in the Nike 4% and Next % but putting an insole in there that is slightly wider than the inside sole of the shoe and some arch. It pushes into the upper of the show but depending on the one you use it fits fine and my stability problems are gone.

Those are good tips...for me, however, buying an insole, and getting the one that works etc, and then sticking that in an already expensive shoe....my feet and running style just seem to really match well with the Asics.

for reference, i train in the Clifton 8's and love them, and last year i raced 70.3 Muskoka and IM Choo in the Rocket X.

over the last two weeks i've done a comparable bike-run brick with the run on a treadmill. Each 60 min run with interval work was the first time i ever ran in the Alphafly and the Sky.

first off - wow - both shoes are incredible. honestly did not expect anything near the amount of cushion or propelling nature in either shoe. back a couple years ago, i had done some training in the original 4% and these shoes are nothing like those IMO. These are also nothing like the Rockets - to me, the Rockets feel like good ol' fashioned racing flats and these things, crazy incredible.

comparing the A and the S - well, i think ultimately it'll come down to individual gate and foot strike.

for me, the A took a mile or two for my foot to figure out the arch but then it was smooth sailing. for the S it took me a mile or so before i realized it was forcing my left heel inward a bit which is not really a problem for me as i'm not a heel striker but it was just something i noticed as it's unusual for my foot strike. when heel striking on purpose, boy oh boy both shoes have amazing cushion.

moving forward, i'm still not sure which i prefer, but like others have posted the Sky is a bit small. i'd say a quarter size maybe which isn't a big deal but over a marathon a quarter size small or large is problematic to my feet. i'm going to give both of these shoes a couple outside 90-120 min run sessions and switch up my sock choices to see which combination fits together the best and then do a 120min tempo run in each and pick a pair for my first 70.3 of the season and see how they perform on race day. if that goes well, they'll be my choice for IM Canada in August.

FWIW, i really wanted to like the Sky better bc the sound of the Alphafly is unpleasant to my ears, but given the sizing issue in the Sky, i think i might end up racing in the Alphafly, but, training results will tell!

Did you get the same size as the next%?

Hoka Rincon 3/ Zinal (I do plenty of offroad training runs hence including the zinal)

Agree about the Metaspeeds being louder. AF are the best for me for marathon distance. A little concerned about the difficulty of putting them on in transition

You might want to consider putting on socks before putting on the shoes. They seemed to slip on fine with socks whereas without they "got caught" on my feet.

Not mentioned but something to look at if interested. I tried on a set of the Adidas Adios Pro 3 a week ago and jogged up and down in a store. Felt every bit of spring of the Nike Next% and I really liked the feel. I'll haven't gotten out in my Nikes to try and compare since but I will consider a set of these in the future. But get 1/2 a size smaller I'm 11.5 and was too big. Googling said the same thing.

https://www.believeintherun.com/adidas-adizero-adios-pro-3-first-thoughts/

I ran in both the Sky + & Edge + last week when ASICS had about 300 pair of these at a coast to coast tour stop/brewery run they sponsored locally. Anyone could run in either model so I ran in both--Edge for the run and Sky for after the 5km run. I also own a Next% (green ripstop nylon upper ones) and a "Nike by You" with mesh / tri laces...as well as the Alpha Fly. My assessment is:

1) Sky+...worst of the four. The new + series fits true to size unlike the first release. Too low of a heel for me, felt sort of dead on the feet and like I ran on my heels. Didn't like it at all.

2) Edge +...doable--a possibility (prefer 8 mm drop anyhow & fit true to size) I wouldn't mind running in it-- but the upper wasn't sockless ready for me--interior felt scratchy a bit like it could cause blisters...and there was a seam on the heel material about 2 inches forward from the heel on the interior of the shoe (I didn't notice on the Sky + but assume it was similar construction. The foam also felt firmer, could feel the road surface considerably more over the Nike shoes. The "rocker" feel on this shoe was enjoyable and it was a very, very stable shoe for me. This Edge/Sky + seems like a much more durable shoe than any of the Nike shoes so that is a consideration as well. Nike heels just shred like nothing...

3) Next % was a great shoe for me, outside of feeling a bit unstable. But they are a fast shoe for me and feet feel lighter in these. The Next% by You with the knitted upper/elastic laces I raced in them last week at Buffalo Springs 70.3 & developed a big blister under my right foot--but that was due to sloppy mechanics. It so far is my fav & the Next% or By You are my go to shoes for their liveliness and light feel. If only they had a bit more stability of the Edge +...I think for an Ironman I may choose the Edge + as fatigue sets in you want that extra stability. Some may not have issues like that but I would consider it if I still raced Ironman at this juncture.

4) Alpha Fly: My least favorite of the Nike (original AF). Noisy, clunky feeling, but better forefoot traction than the Vaporfly. This shoe always makes me feel like I'm just dragging & almost too mushy. I only race it on local triathlons because nearly every race here is on the same course--and is 98% gravel/sand with the start & finish being asphalt. The VF is not a good choice on sand/gravel IMO (slippery bottom) so I use the AF here.

Rating: #1- VF
#2: Edge +
#3: AF
#4: Sky+

I have a lot of carbon plated shoes and Alphafly is #1 in my book. I'm pretty light, so they are less noisy possibly? Next% is pretty good too, but not as fast as Alphafly. I switched Vaporfly and Next% and run 1 mile each and ran 6 miles to compare and Next% was definitely faster. I'm not that impressed by Metaspeed Sky. They are just meh and I don't feel any significant pop like Nike shoes. I rather like Saucony Endorphin Pro than Metaspeed Sky. They are extremely stable and I can feel the pop. They are so comfortable, you can wear them as daily shoes too.

Completely agree on the Endorphin Pro /2 AM high I have—it’s stable and has pop. More durable than VF and per my digital scale is 2 grams heavier only—nearly identical to the VF knit upper I have. But the VF does feel more lively on the feet—must be the foam because nothing else feels like the VF. I like the Endorphin Pro 2 better than the Sky +, but would have to test the Pro 2/VF/Edge+ side by side to make sure my initial assessment hasn’t changed. I may put the Saucony Pro 2 ahead of my Edge+ experience actually. It’s a solid shoe to train in and possibly race in.

What is your feeling of the Sky+ vs. the Edge+?

Alphafly has been by far the most comfortable of the super shoes I've tried and I've got a pair of gen 2 on the way to me. Excited to see how they feel. The only real issue I had with the first gen is how hard they were to get on and the construction of the heel tab had the potential to rub pretty hard. Looks like at least the heel tab has been improved.

---

Benjamin Deal - Professional - Instagram - TriRig - Lodi Cyclery
Deals on Wheels - Results, schedule, videos, sponsors

I am fascinated to see how these fair once they hit the market.....

https://vimazi.com/

I am not associated or affiliated in any way but the idea of the bending stiffness being "pace tuned" makes total sense bioengineering wise. A good read on the matter is Nigg et al's "Teeter-totter effect: a new mechanism to understand shoe-related improvements in long-distance running"

---

David T-D
http://www.tilburydavis.com

New Alphafly 2 are firmer. Maybe I need to break them in more but I find the original AF are squishier, maybe that's better for some people. New ones are more stable and tighter to get your foot into. I'm not 100% sold they are better than the originals, they might be better for the masses while the original were great for some but not for others.

Just a note about a side benefit. I originally bought the Alphafly for my race shoes. Since then, I've had some back / sciatica issues that get aggravated by impact from running. The Alphafly turns out to be my best shoe for keeping my back happy, if not my wallet. They seem to help me even more than other cushioned shoes like the Cliftons.

Any chance you have a link to the insole you used please?

Icebug insoles slim style. I just got a pair of the new Aphafly 2 and they have put an insole with arch in, no need for another insole and stability issues gone…

https://icebug.com/insoles

Thank you