Yeah I plan to get the Next % or AlphaFly for my A race next year - I’m really excited about Nike’s products recently. I fell in love with the Flyknits. I think a lot of the FK models are great.

---

https://www.strava.com/...tes/zachary_mckinney

"the 4% gave more improvement to heel striker"

Yeah I'd read that on a few sites, which I found odd. Maybe they weren't landing on the heel too hard?

Yeah they must not be striking their heel too much. When I'm just walking around heel first in these shoes, it feels like squishy moon shoes to me on the heel.

---

https://www.strava.com/...tes/zachary_mckinney

Yup!

How do you find being a vege - has it affected your training at all?

Not him, but as always, ymmv. I'm vegetarian and got up to 230lbs lifting weights (at 6'3"). Since starting triathlon, I've dropped down to 190-195 and I can do pretty decent volume (TR mid volume plan) and have some satisfactory race results: 9:45 IM, 3:12 IM marathons. How do you expect training to be different? You can get the same nutrients either way. I started at a young age and have done well academically, grew to be the tallest in a meat-eating family, have done well athletically, etc. Others will claim they tried and felt worse, so it depends more on other factors than just meat vs no meat. If I started eating meat, I dont see how my training would change, though.

I went vegan for 8 months in 2013 when I created this handle, but now currently eat everything.

It was a good exposure for me to rely on only plant based and mainly non-processed products as I like vegetables and fruits a lot more now and have integrated them into my diet a lot more than before.

Within the past year though, I’ve had certain high activity phases in which I rely on junk and processed food and like the calories. My current diet is a mix of all of these things.

---

https://www.strava.com/...tes/zachary_mckinney

perhaps the material is such that the harder you hit it, the firmer it feels and better the energy return

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

No, it is just a soft foam with good return. It is not "adaptative", like the "DNA something" in the Brooks Ravenna 9.

Feels like it pops at faster paces

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

[quote plant_basedI fell in love with the Flyknits. I think a lot of the FK models are great.[/quote]
The flyknits are terrible when they get wet. They are pretty good when they are dry. The zoom fly and Next % uppers are awesome wet or dry

It all comes down to pace I have found especially with the 4%. I ran a 4'km average 1:25 at a 70.3 and they were amazing soft in the heal and the energy response was amazing. I did my next 70.3 a lot later in the year in heat and was running close to a minute per km slower and they just become a soft shoe with low support and no energy return. The lighter you are they may respond better at slower speeds but for me around 82kg or 180lbs they don't perform. The Next% seems to give more response at slower speeds.

Shambolic, did you have a similar experience with the Tubro? Interested in your feedback if you did. I’m concerned that during Ironman my pace will be to slow to benefit from the 4%. Probably around 5 min km.

I have been training and only train in the turbo for some time now and don't find the deadness at slower speeds like the 4% come to think. Maybe I am just expecting more on race day? My sweet spot running when training is around 4'45" to 4'50"/km, I have long legs and I weight 180lbs so I am sure they will respond differently for everyone.

The 4% I have only done three 70.3 races in the first where I ran a 1:31. The shoe felt ok and unstable on steeper downhills and I learnt I needed to crank the laces more as the heel has little support. The next race was flatter, I cranked the laces more and as I say the shoe was amazing at 4'km pace and a 1:25. The last 70.3 was in Asia, hot and I wasn't in as greater form but around 5'km for me the shoe is just a soft shoe. In patches where I ran a higher pace they start coming alive. I raced my next 70.3 and Kona in the Next% and I honestly believe they have more energy return at slower speed or at least they feel more lively and I will continue as my go to IM shoe.

Thanks man! - Exactly the information I was looking for. So the Next% is better at slower speeds (i.e. 5min/km) and the Turbo is good at all speeds as well. I'm trying to decide if I should just stick with the Turbo, or upgrade to the Next%.

Personally if you don't balk at spending the $$$ I'd probably go with the Next% but in all honestly I'd be surprised if your getting much in return at that speed. That said I will run 70.3's and shorter tri's generally in my 4% until they die and Next% for IM so I should get a descent life span out of them or until the next+1% comes out and Nike forces my hand. The Turbo I really enjoy running in as a training shoe.