So I ran some 100% unbiased tests comparing the Alphafly with the Newest Hoka and brooks hyperion elite and found that the results show that the Alphafly is significantly better. My oxygen uptake was the same in the Hoka and brooks at Marathon pace as the Nike at 10K pace (which for me is 5:22 and 4:50 per mile)
Honestly I did expect the Nike to be the best but by this margin seems crazy. Question is, I am more of a runner these days and doing less triathlon, in the running world the vaporfly and presumably the alphafly is prolific on the start line of races. In many events it seems like at least half the people are wearing some version of this. My understanding is that his is not as much of the case in triathlon and Hoka, Saucony, Brooks, Asics etc… all have a bigger market share.
Will this change and more unsponsored triathletes drift towards Nike? and will any of the other brands catch up? It is cool now almost every brand has a vaporfly like shoe but they seem to be comparable to the 4% or Next percent and Nike is still a step ahead with the alphafly.
Also, if you are still racing in another brand or maybe even an old school shoe, what is your rational for this decision?
That’s a pretty good effort, thanks for posting. It is interesting to see that the Brooks, despite being lightest, didn’t even outperform the Pegasus. Were these the Hyperion Elite or Elite 2? Personally, wish you could have included the Saucony shoe because I rather like that one and also compared the AlphaFly to the Next%.
Brooks was the 1 not the 2. Yeah I was kinda disappointed with that one but I will say it feels fast when you put it on. Hopefully they made serious changes in the Hyperion Elite 2. I wanted to do Saucony too unfortunately it was impossible to find a pair in Switzerland when I organized the test.
The next% I did not do because i just figured Nike wouldn´t launch a new race shoe that was not better than the previous iteration and i had seen some other data supporting this assumption.
I wanted to see how Pros do with Alphafly in the race, but I guess we have to wait until next year. A lot of female Pros use Nike shoes, but surprisingly, not many males do. For example, Frodeno, Joe Skipper & O’Donnell with Hoka, Sanders with Sketchers, Tim Don with On…etc. Cameron Wurf is the one using Nikes. Think about what those top athletes can do with Alphafly.
Thanks for posting, makes me feel really good about fighting to get my pair in the latest release. More than that, while I thought the video and tests were done well, I couldn’t help but be jealous that your marathon pace is 3 seconds faster than my fastest ever recorded single kilometer. People at work call me fast but they really have no idea what fast really is!
Thanks for posting, makes me feel really good about fighting to get my pair in the latest release. More than that, while I thought the video and tests were done well, I couldn’t help but be jealous that your marathon pace is 3 seconds faster than my fastest ever recorded single kilometer. People at work call me fast but they really have no idea what fast really is!
So I ran some 100% unbiased tests comparing the Alphafly with the Newest Hoka and brooks hyperion elite and found that the results show that the Alphafly is significantly better. My oxygen uptake was the same in the Hoka and brooks at Marathon pace as the Nike at 10K pace (which for me is 5:22 and 4:50 per mile)
Honestly I did expect the Nike to be the best but by this margin seems crazy. Question is, I am more of a runner these days and doing less triathlon, in the running world the vaporfly and presumably the alphafly is prolific on the start line of races. In many events it seems like at least half the people are wearing some version of this. My understanding is that his is not as much of the case in triathlon and Hoka, Saucony, Brooks, Asics etc… all have a bigger market share.
Will this change and more unsponsored triathletes drift towards Nike? and will any of the other brands catch up? It is cool now almost every brand has a vaporfly like shoe but they seem to be comparable to the 4% or Next percent and Nike is still a step ahead with the alphafly.
Also, if you are still racing in another brand or maybe even an old school shoe, what is your rational for this decision?
You can find all the details and results of my tests in this blog/video I posted: https://blog.runningcoach.me/…-racing-shoe-battle/
This experiment has zero scientific value as you know which shoes you are running with, your test protocol is worthless and you were the only test subject.
I can easily setup a similar experiment and demonstrate that for example the Adidas James Harden Vol. 4 basketball shoe outperforms all running shoes as running efficiency is easily to influence by playing with cadence, stride length, vertical oscillation etc.
Also your heart rate values (and oxygen uptake) are completely useless: the last interval obviously records the highest heart rate, irrespective of the shoe.
For this to be a little bit credible you need more test persons, go through a sequence of intervals with one pair of shoes and repeat it several times and do the same with all the shoes and make sure the test subject can’t see which shoe its wearing.
Nike has good marketing but their shoes are not magically fast.
Sam
Dude chill out. I don’t see anywhere he said this was a scientific study that needs to be peer reviewed in order to prove its worth. He did a test, varied up the shoe rotation to try to take away some of the issues with the numbers so they do not seem as biased. If you don’t like his protocols don’t read it and ignore it. No need to be a jerk about it.
I am curious about these results, not because I am an elite runner, in fact quite the opposite.
I am a lousy runner and old to boot.
Would those same gains from lower oxygen use and slower HR not apply to slower runners who have to work just as hard to reach their personal maximums. So if there is a 4% gain (convenient number ) by a runner who takes 130 minutes for a half, rather than the 70 minutes of the elite runners (in a HIM), the gain is way more than any equipment upgrade costs for wheels, helmets,aero suits, new tires/tubes, brakes housings, …etc etc.
I know the argument that slower runners don’t realize the same gains because the shoes magically don’t work below “x” kph. But my logic (unproven of course) says that a heavier runner at a slower speed hits the ground just as hard and gains the same mechanical response as a lighter runner hitting the ground at a higher speed.
I question that convention in the same way that people (often on here) keep repeating a disc/aero wheel only gives a benefit above 40kph, despite lots of evidence to the contrary that slower riders actually gain more in time savings because they’re out there longer.
No shoe company is going to voluntarily disclose any information that hurts the bottom line. So reality is only people like you are ever going to do this sort of research, so do us a favour and do it with some old fat guy (who thinks he’s fit) because if I can gain 5 minutes in a half it’s cheap compared to all the other gear costs…:0)
Dude chill out. I don’t see anywhere he said this was a scientific study that needs to be peer reviewed in order to prove its worth. He did a test, varied up the shoe rotation to try to take away some of the issues with the numbers so they do not seem as biased. If you don’t like his protocols don’t read it and ignore it. No need to be a jerk about it.
I am quite chill and just write down my opinion. That’s the purpose of internet fora
The selective criticism on ST is always funny to observe
Have a great evening little boy
Sam
No your “criticism” assumed that his test was meant to be a scientific experiment that proves his results. It wasn’t nor did he say so. You are also showing some good sexism by telling me “have a great evening little girl”. So kudos to you on not only being a little bit of an dick but also sexist. Keep up the good work!
No your “criticism” assumed that his test was meant to be a scientific experiment that proves his results. It wasn’t nor did he say so. You are also showing some good sexism by telling me “have a great evening little girl”. So kudos to you on not only being a little bit of an dick but also sexist. Keep up the good work!
Error of mine. Not meant to be sexist. Corrected it instantly.
Sam
No your “criticism” assumed that his test was meant to be a scientific experiment that proves his results. It wasn’t nor did he say so. You are also showing some good sexism by telling me “have a great evening little girl”. So kudos to you on not only being a little bit of an dick but also sexist. Keep up the good work!
OP wrote: “So I ran some 100% unbiased tests comparing the Alphafly with the Newest Hoka and brooks hyperion elite and found that the results show that the Alphafly is significantly better.” / “test to get some hard data and real answers” /
So yes, I expect such a claim to be backed by a sound protocol as I have other experiences. I think calling me a jerk because of questioning a faulty statement is a bit over the top.
Sam
No your “criticism” assumed that his test was meant to be a scientific experiment that proves his results. It wasn’t nor did he say so. You are also showing some good sexism by telling me “have a great evening little girl”. So kudos to you on not only being a little bit of an dick but also sexist. Keep up the good work!
OP wrote: “So I ran some 100% unbiased tests comparing the Alphafly with the Newest Hoka and brooks hyperion elite and found that the results show that the Alphafly is significantly better.” / “test to get some hard data and real answers” /
So yes, I expect such a claim to be backed by a sound protocol as I have other experiences. I think calling me a jerk because of questioning a faulty statement is a bit over the top.
Sam
To each their own. I appreciate some real world non-scientific test data. No different than someone doing a roll down test with different wheels, etc. Besides, even a lot of the so called ‘scientific’ data around tri gear is usually subject to lots of errors/variables. I have about 300km on a pair of vaporfly next’s and love them. They are faster and leave my legs noticeably fresher. And I have zero scientific data to back that.
No your “criticism” assumed that his test was meant to be a scientific experiment that proves his results. It wasn’t nor did he say so. You are also showing some good sexism by telling me “have a great evening little girl”. So kudos to you on not only being a little bit of an dick but also sexist. Keep up the good work!
OP wrote: “So I ran some 100% unbiased tests comparing the Alphafly with the Newest Hoka and brooks hyperion elite and found that the results show that the Alphafly is significantly better.” / “test to get some hard data and real answers” /
So yes, I expect such a claim to be backed by a sound protocol as I have other experiences. I think calling me a jerk because of questioning a faulty statement is a bit over the top.
Sam
Jerk wasn’t meant because you disagreed, meant the way you did it seemed “jerky” or obnoxious. But I can take back the dick comment since you deleted that part. No hard feelings at all. Hungry, tired, and cranky is not the time to post on ST!
I think his tests can be unbiased while also not being scientifically sound. Now too bad there isn’t a way to run a shoe test like Jonnyo ran his blind bike test since there are too many differences so I think the bias in his “test” would happen in any test in a shoe vs. shoe comparison like that.
No your “criticism” assumed that his test was meant to be a scientific experiment that proves his results. It wasn’t nor did he say so. You are also showing some good sexism by telling me “have a great evening little girl”. So kudos to you on not only being a little bit of an dick but also sexist. Keep up the good work!
OP wrote: “So I ran some 100% unbiased tests comparing the Alphafly with the Newest Hoka and brooks hyperion elite and found that the results show that the Alphafly is significantly better.” / “test to get some hard data and real answers” /
So yes, I expect such a claim to be backed by a sound protocol as I have other experiences. I think calling me a jerk because of questioning a faulty statement is a bit over the top.
Sam
Jerk wasn’t meant because you disagreed, meant the way you did it seemed “jerky” or obnoxious. But I can take back the dick comment since you deleted that part. No hard feelings at all. Hungry, tired, and cranky is not the time to post on ST!
I think his tests can be unbiased while also not being scientifically sound. Now too bad there isn’t a way to run a shoe test like Jonnyo ran his blind bike test since there are too many differences so I think the bias in his “test” would happen in any test in a shoe vs. shoe comparison like that.
Definitely no hard feelings! This is ST after all
Sam
The scientific issue is OP changed two things at once (speed and order of shoes) so any differences in VO2 between shoes cannot be confidently attributed to the shoes, data could be affected by difference in order. It would have been better IMHO to keep the speed at 3:20 (they are “marathon racing shoes” after all) and vary just the order.
