Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [Rocky M] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rocky M wrote:
Shambolic wrote:
I think you should also note if I read correctly from the other threads you race sprint distance where you can wear a racing flat and not longer races as the shoe is more designed?

Nope. I do it all. Short to Ultra. Sprint to Ironman. However, I just started racing tris again after 2 years due to massive injury at US Duathlon Nationals in St Paul a few years ago.

I was just going by your last post using the vaporfly for a 5k race and then trying to say it is a slower shoe. I would be more likely to use a racing flat even for Olympic but will definitely be using the vf for halves to IM distance where the plush ride will repay itself later in the run.

https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/If_you_run_in_Kinvara%2C_what_else_works_for_you%3F_P6254891-3/
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [Shambolic] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah, that didn't work out so well sadly. The "5K" bit was actually the first leg of a duathlon. There was a 10KM after that. But the 5K at the start was slower & the 10K was just...sad. But that 5K was attributed to it being on gravel. No traction.
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [Rocky M] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rocky M wrote:
dfroelich wrote:
If your legs are toast at the beginning of the run, perhaps you are overbiking?

OR, do you think the 4% benefit degrades throughout any endurance running race? I could imagine a situation where you get the 4% benefit for the first 15 miles of a marathon and it peters out as you fatigue. Since the run leg of a tri is kind of proportional in time to the last 10 miles of a marathon, maybe that is the point?


Really not overbiking. I have good days & bad days at both bike & run, but all the runs have been *bad* IMO with the 4%. Just did US LC Nationals & while the run really is what won it for me, the swim & bike were sort of just "go through the motions" and cruise (not a *crush it effort*) by any means. With a what I'd call a sub-par run, it allowed me to win the AG by 10 min. So I didn't "over-do" anything, especially the bike. I would agree with some that the thickness of the shoe heel, like any shoe such as a HOKA (which I've raced in also), offers great cushion-- but really loses the feel of my normal run landing and push off. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy not getting beat up by the ground the following day when I should be more sore...but the runs really feel "off" and show it in my times anytime I use the 4% in a multisport race only. I've got 30 Ironmans in me so not like I don't have cycling endurance. Enough bike-run bricks to make a firehouse...it's not a lack of that. Spent a lot of time on strengthening the iliopsoas this year also.

I will use them on road races though, they seem to be fast. Anything with a bike--regardless if it is a super slow bike, just screws it all up. It's my belief that the heel is just too thick & there isn't enough support, which interferes in my specific run economy--regardless of the marketing hype and articles saying it improves run economy (I don't think their study was with triathletes biking prior to runs). After all, I should know more about it specific to me, than they do--I'm the one actually in the shoes & that is my determination. Nike has more to gain than lose by pumping their studies. Others have run studies just using running as well. As a triathlete, I'm saying this is not the case always.

Hello

how is your gait on a multisport race ?
Compared to a run-only event ?

Asking the question as, as shown in the research article (not marketing only), VF4% gain its efficiency from cushioning, mostly at heel. Compared to flats.
Mid foot strikers and Front foot striker have less gain (shown in study)
Using now the VF mid-foot striking, they feel good, but at my speed I see no gain compared to Clifton 5 for example. But I see gains compared to much less cushioned forefoot shoes.

May be (just may be) when running from bike, your gait is more mid-foot / front-foot, so VF heel cushion gain is lost, and VF high heel + plate just make the thing clunky, compared to other shoes.
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [Pyrenean Wolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I heard it use some modern engineering design that help to push to its 4% it might be true or marketing purpose but I'm sure there's a lot of science / testing behind that.
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [knob3] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
knob3 wrote:
I heard it use some modern engineering design that help to push to its 4% it might be true or marketing purpose but I'm sure there's a lot of science / testing behind that.


Hello

Did you read the nov 2017 research article, establishing the 4% gain based on a proto ?

https://link.springer.com/...07/s40279-017-0811-2

The "modern engineering design" is essentially : lot of cushion

More precisely a lot of HEEL cushion, with reasonably springy foam.

This heel cushion, when used, authorize the runner to less bend the knee, gaining leg stiffness for free. Leg stiffness for free bringing physio efficiency.

The VF are also light, but the article explain it bring very little.
Foam is springy, but that is not the main point. Look at absorption figures.
They have a carbon plate.... well... bringing a little stability to the blob of foam... and some snap.... but doubt it bring much (OK, can't prove it). And the guys writing the article also doubt.
Last edited by: Pyrenean Wolf: Nov 22, 18 2:29
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
New WR this weekend with the 4%: 15km, 41min 5sec. Joshua Cheptegei. 2min44sec/km

Without the Vaporfly he was a good but not an exceptional runner, with he broke easily the record...
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [Testrider] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Testrider wrote:
New WR this weekend with the 4%: 15km, 41min 5sec. Joshua Cheptegei. 2min44sec/km

Without the Vaporfly he was a good but not an exceptional runner, with he broke easily the record...

Did he run in them last year as well. I think so? He almost broke the record last year (3 secs short), so this year he was 11 secs faster than last year (= 8 sec faster than old record).

Next to the shoes, the circumstances were pretty good this year, a lot of PB were run :)
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [Testrider] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I've been running hoka for a few years now. With the NYT article I jumped on the nike bandwagon. I came from a cold start this year as I had a bike crash that sidelined me for 8 weeks over the summer. I am also 53, an age where we start slowing down. I tried the flyknits in mid October. Dont know if it was the placebo effect, a week of cooler weather, or a reduced biking week, but my run speed popped right below 8mm right away.
Thinking it was all of the above, I started my winter training season nov 1 and speed held up.. yesterday in laced on the 4% to do an ez 6 mile run and feel them out b4 using in a Turkey trot today and my "feels like" 8:30nrun was an 8:05 run... there is something to them IMO
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [SDinhofer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SDinhofer wrote:
I've been running hoka for a few years now. With the NYT article I jumped on the nike bandwagon. I came from a cold start this year as I had a bike crash that sidelined me for 8 weeks over the summer. I am also 53, an age where we start slowing down. I tried the flyknits in mid October. Dont know if it was the placebo effect, a week of cooler weather, or a reduced biking week, but my run speed popped right below 8mm right away.
Thinking it was all of the above, I started my winter training season nov 1 and speed held up.. yesterday in laced on the 4% to do an ez 6 mile run and feel them out b4 using in a Turkey trot today and my "feels like" 8:30nrun was an 8:05 run... there is something to them IMO


I'm 52, and felt the same when using them at first.

When I found the research article, end 2017, I worked to buy a pair. I experienced also easy and fast run. So very much understand your feeling. Got the same, pretty much.

But then, my back foot pronation combined with their lack of heel stability bring some injuries to posterior tibialis and medial part of the knee.

Now using them with mid foot strike. Less gain, but no injury.

So, be careful with this heel :-)
Last edited by: Pyrenean Wolf: Nov 22, 18 5:03
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [Pyrenean Wolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pyrenean Wolf wrote:
tttiltheend wrote:
Pyrenean Wolf wrote:

You will have same effect with any other max cushion shoes, apart weight and response can be different.


In my experience you can't make any generalization about max cushion shoes at all, especially about speed. The very early Hokas I tried didn't seem slower than the Brooks Adrenaline I had been using. But the last Hokas I have are the Clifton 3 and Bondi 4. With that generation they added additional cushioning and weight and the shoes clearly got slower for me. I now have the NB Beacon which are reasonably cushioned but nowhere near as cushioned as any of those Hokas, and I'm consistently about 15 seconds a mile faster than with the Clifton 3s. Yes, the Beacon is a little lighter than the Clifton 3 but not enough to account for the difference, there's just too much cushion to be fast. Previously I was running a Kinvara and that shoe was also significantly faster. Not sure what the difference is to the Bondi 4s as I gave up on them after about 50 miles because they were so slow and tedious. And I haven't bought a Hoka since.

It seems that a shoe with a good amount of cushion can still be fast but if you overdo it or don't do it right they can definitely get quite slow.


Yes, I understand what you say.

Not saying all cushioned shoes are equal for everybody.

Just saying the VF is efficient because of cushion, vs low cushion racing flat, as shown in research article.
Essentially heel cushion, targeting essentialy heel strikers.
For me, mid foot striker, I can find other shoes, with lower drop (5 mm instead of 10), also well cushioned in mid foot, giving a "similar" advantage for me.

I noticed that for my strike and speed, Clifton5 works same as VF. Much better than flats.
Apparently for some other mid foot striker (faster than me) the Razor 3 do it also. Better than flats.
May be for you it is Beacon and Kinvara.

A few general points:
1. Nike research from decades ago concluded that increased cushion decreased oxygen cost.
2. Rodger Kram Lab at CU Boulder determined that the increase economy of minimalist shoes was the weight.

To do this they did a few things.
2a. Did a test of barefoot running on a normal treadmill and then repeated with the treadmill covered in shoe foam - The shoe foam treadmill was more economical
2b. Matched the weights of minimalist and other shoes by adding weight. When weight was even, the more cushioned shoes were more economical.
2c. As has been said previously, this is primarily due to the leg muscles exerting less activity to cushion your body. IE a stiffer structure. Less muscle activity = less oxygen use.

3. We are talking about economy and not efficiency - Economy is the amount of oxygen is required to complete a task.
3a. The effect of footwear on economy has 3 major factors: 1. Weight 2. Cushioning 3. Energy Return.
3b. A heavy shoe with great cushion and energy return may be as efficient as a light shoe with good cushioning and poor energy return.
3c. The perfect situation is Light, cushioned with High return. Vaporfly is the best to date (that we know of...)

4. (Specific to your post): Consider that lower drop shoes will cause an increase ankle moment and thus be less economical as they require more muscular control. The increase gastroc activation can be significantly detrimental.

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [xtrpickels] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
xtrpickels wrote:
Pyrenean Wolf wrote:
tttiltheend wrote:
Pyrenean Wolf wrote:

You will have same effect with any other max cushion shoes, apart weight and response can be different.


In my experience you can't make any generalization about max cushion shoes at all, especially about speed. The very early Hokas I tried didn't seem slower than the Brooks Adrenaline I had been using. But the last Hokas I have are the Clifton 3 and Bondi 4. With that generation they added additional cushioning and weight and the shoes clearly got slower for me. I now have the NB Beacon which are reasonably cushioned but nowhere near as cushioned as any of those Hokas, and I'm consistently about 15 seconds a mile faster than with the Clifton 3s. Yes, the Beacon is a little lighter than the Clifton 3 but not enough to account for the difference, there's just too much cushion to be fast. Previously I was running a Kinvara and that shoe was also significantly faster. Not sure what the difference is to the Bondi 4s as I gave up on them after about 50 miles because they were so slow and tedious. And I haven't bought a Hoka since.

It seems that a shoe with a good amount of cushion can still be fast but if you overdo it or don't do it right they can definitely get quite slow.


Yes, I understand what you say.

Not saying all cushioned shoes are equal for everybody.

Just saying the VF is efficient because of cushion, vs low cushion racing flat, as shown in research article.
Essentially heel cushion, targeting essentialy heel strikers.
For me, mid foot striker, I can find other shoes, with lower drop (5 mm instead of 10), also well cushioned in mid foot, giving a "similar" advantage for me.

I noticed that for my strike and speed, Clifton5 works same as VF. Much better than flats.
Apparently for some other mid foot striker (faster than me) the Razor 3 do it also. Better than flats.
May be for you it is Beacon and Kinvara.


A few general points:
1. Nike research from decades ago concluded that increased cushion decreased oxygen cost.
2. Rodger Kram Lab at CU Boulder determined that the increase economy of minimalist shoes was the weight.

To do this they did a few things.
2a. Did a test of barefoot running on a normal treadmill and then repeated with the treadmill covered in shoe foam - The shoe foam treadmill was more economical
2b. Matched the weights of minimalist and other shoes by adding weight. When weight was even, the more cushioned shoes were more economical.
2c. As has been said previously, this is primarily due to the leg muscles exerting less activity to cushion your body. IE a stiffer structure. Less muscle activity = less oxygen use.

3. We are talking about economy and not efficiency - Economy is the amount of oxygen is required to complete a task.
3a. The effect of footwear on economy has 3 major factors: 1. Weight 2. Cushioning 3. Energy Return.
3b. A heavy shoe with great cushion and energy return may be as efficient as a light shoe with good cushioning and poor energy return.
3c. The perfect situation is Light, cushioned with High return. Vaporfly is the best to date (that we know of...)

4. (Specific to your post): Consider that lower drop shoes will cause an increase ankle moment and thus be less economical as they require more muscular control. The increase gastroc activation can be significantly detrimental.

Hello

agree with the general points (from my limited knowledge)

Point 4 : possibly "mid foot / front foot strike + less drop shoes" can be less efficient than "heel strike on a high drop shoe". But being old and not fast, I feel better with this mid foot strike choice.
Again, this is personal "choice"
I found the VF wonderfull.... but my back foot pronation (right foot) cannot be controlled with VF and heel strike. Creating injuries.

So either :
1- I heel strike with more controlled shoes. Was relatively happy with Ghost 10 / Ravenna 9, but not enough heel cushion, knee hurts.
Pegasus Turbo : more cushion, but the stability issue come back.
Did not find a "stable version" of VF4%.
I realized progressively that in order to save my knees I was slowly going mid-foot strike. And found that it was better if I increased amount of mid-foot cushion, and reduce drop (avoid heel "scratch")

2- I go mid foot strike. I realize I lose a bit of energy (less efficient) probably because partly cushioning with my calves ? But my foot is more stable. No more posterior tibialis issues. No more knee issues on medial side.
And the more cushion I have mid-foot, the less energy I loss trying to protect my knees.

So, understand VF4% is very efficient with heel strike. 100% clear.
But cannot use them like that. Well... I can, but will pay the price.
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [xtrpickels] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
xtrpickels wrote:
4. (Specific to your post): Consider that lower drop shoes will cause an increase ankle moment and thus be less economical as they require more muscular control. The increase gastroc activation can be significantly detrimental.

sez who?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I run with the vaporfly and other max light cushion shoes. I love /hate the vaporfly. I'm ocnsistantly slightly faster with it BUT i can run pretty with other shoes (good running form, straight legs and all) but with the vaporfly i horribly pronate. Other shoes i use : Clifton2, UltraBoost ST, some minimalists shoes from time to time like adizero.
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [Ajaj191] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
From that NYT article analyzing strava data and concluding that the VF may be really 4% faster, in second place appears the Nike streak.

I'm considering trying the streak, as I'm a midfoot striker, but I don't see much love for them. Does anyone have experience with it?
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Generally Industry News:

1. Heather Jackson ran her fastest marathon off the bike in Arizona wearing the new Hoka One One shoe with the carbon plate.
2. There were a handful of athletes wearing that Hoka One One shoe in NYC Marathon
3. There were two athletes wearing the new Brooks shoe with a carbon plate in NYC.


Running shoes are my life, they are the topic of conversation in every conversation I have unless I’m talking to family. The Nike 4% has taken over most of those conversations. I’m not sure where it will end up when I’m done with the NYC Marathon work. It was definitely heavy in the front 3rd of the event but there are 53,000 runners in the race and as you get back past 4:30 as expected the 4% is not as neumorous.

The Nike affect. This is Nike doing what they do best. They have the resources to change the industry. They recognized what everyone in running shoes recongized. Running shoes got blamed for everything over the last decade. They were causing the injuries. For all of their promises runners were getting injured at the same or a faster rate. Barefoot or as close to barefoot was where you needed to be. Then of course Hoka One One came around and really changed running for a subset of athletes.

Since the Vapor Fly 4% came out the conversation has completely changed.
1. Midsole offset is a rare conversation today.
2. Running faster is the conversation today.

The industry is now trying to catch up. This is a much harder prospect. Catching up to minimalism was fairly easy. Taking a shoe from 10mm offset to 4mm offset was a math problem. The Vapor Fly 4% is not a math equation. It’s a complete shoe and those of you who have run in all three shoes that make up the 4% understand it. The Zoom Fly feels really good, but it doesn’t feel as alive as the Vapor Fly. The Pegasus Turbo feels really alive but it doesn’t have the snap the Vapor Fly has. In general I think that’s what you’ll find from the other brands. There won’t be a shoe that feels like the Vapor Fly. There will however be some things I think are “better”.

Those of you finding the heel to be too unstable - You will have shoes from different brands to choose from. You’ll find a shoe that fits your foot and running form better. You’ll probably feel faster in a shoe that fits you better.

Never Nike - You’ll feel better running in a Brooks or Hoka. You won’t be forced into a Nike and the other shoes will be good enough.

As someon who has been in running shoes for as long as I have this has been the best innovation in many years. Mimimalism was not an innovation and although it was really good for running and running shoes it was rather painful in running and running coversations. . The Vapor Fly 4% and the Breaking 2 project has changed the topic. Running faster is always a better topic.

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [Shambolic] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I ran my 1st race in Vaporflys this Thursday. I went about 4 seconds faster per mile in a 5k compared to my time at the same 5k from 2016 (to 5:57 min/mile). I did 2 test runs on the track before, primarily to figure out the right tightness of lacing. One thing of note was that my avg HR ended up being almost 10 bpm higher and I clocked a new max HR record (189, almost 2bpm higher than the previous record).

Most worryingly though, the ankles ended up getting pretty tight after the race and I am now stretching them vigorously since this can turn into yet another bout of plantar fasciatis. Dunno if it has to do from me going from Claytons to VP 4%. I'll try them again in 2 weeks for a half marathon.

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [SDJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SDJ wrote:
Generally Industry News:

1. Heather Jackson ran her fastest marathon off the bike in Arizona wearing the new Hoka One One shoe with the carbon plate.
2. There were a handful of athletes wearing that Hoka One One shoe in NYC Marathon
3. There were two athletes wearing the new Brooks shoe with a carbon plate in NYC.


Running shoes are my life, they are the topic of conversation in every conversation I have unless I’m talking to family. The Nike 4% has taken over most of those conversations. I’m not sure where it will end up when I’m done with the NYC Marathon work. It was definitely heavy in the front 3rd of the event but there are 53,000 runners in the race and as you get back past 4:30 as expected the 4% is not as neumorous.

The Nike affect. This is Nike doing what they do best. They have the resources to change the industry. They recognized what everyone in running shoes recongized. Running shoes got blamed for everything over the last decade. They were causing the injuries. For all of their promises runners were getting injured at the same or a faster rate. Barefoot or as close to barefoot was where you needed to be. Then of course Hoka One One came around and really changed running for a subset of athletes.

Since the Vapor Fly 4% came out the conversation has completely changed.
1. Midsole offset is a rare conversation today.
2. Running faster is the conversation today.

The industry is now trying to catch up. This is a much harder prospect. Catching up to minimalism was fairly easy. Taking a shoe from 10mm offset to 4mm offset was a math problem. The Vapor Fly 4% is not a math equation. It’s a complete shoe and those of you who have run in all three shoes that make up the 4% understand it. The Zoom Fly feels really good, but it doesn’t feel as alive as the Vapor Fly. The Pegasus Turbo feels really alive but it doesn’t have the snap the Vapor Fly has. In general I think that’s what you’ll find from the other brands. There won’t be a shoe that feels like the Vapor Fly. There will however be some things I think are “better”.

Those of you finding the heel to be too unstable - You will have shoes from different brands to choose from. You’ll find a shoe that fits your foot and running form better. You’ll probably feel faster in a shoe that fits you better.

Never Nike - You’ll feel better running in a Brooks or Hoka. You won’t be forced into a Nike and the other shoes will be good enough.

As someon who has been in running shoes for as long as I have this has been the best innovation in many years. Mimimalism was not an innovation and although it was really good for running and running shoes it was rather painful in running and running coversations. . The Vapor Fly 4% and the Breaking 2 project has changed the topic. Running faster is always a better topic.

Personally I think "running better for a long time" is a better "subject" than "running faster".

Especially when the "running faster" bring me back to bad habits (overstriding) and injuries.

The VF 4% is an interesting shoe, bringing back cushion hype, instead of "racing flats".
But hey.... cushion has been brought back before... by Hoka.

VaporFly, combining cushion with lightness with carbon plate, is an innovation.
It proves fast.
But is it a good innovation for most ?

You bring the debate to "it is faster". This is the Nike marketing direction. Of course. The shoes is fast, let`s concentrate the debate, the question, the problem on this.

Let's forget the issues...

I do not care being fast for one race, if this "fast shoes" destroy me for 3 month.
For me "be faster" is not the most important debate.

What I want is a shoe who help me be fast, without too much damages. "Running better for a long time".
And i think I'm not alone here.
Reason for Hoka success ?
Skecher growing success ?

VaporFly is a fast shoe. May be the faster shoe now. May be the best shoe if you want to win a marathon.
Is it a good shoe for most of us : no, IMO

Is it a good innovation for most of us : no, IMO

Working professionally in innovation, I do not consider the VF as a good innovation.
It is a very interesting shoes, technology wise, opening possibilities for the industry.
Very good for a limited number of runners.
But lack the usability for most runners.

So, not a real innovation.

Try to push it to most runner because "fast" is just a dull marketing attempt.
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [Pyrenean Wolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There is nothing to solve in this debate.

Running for longevity: My research says this. Running is fairly good until you reach 50 years of age. At 50 years of age the total number of runners and the speed of the runners begins to drop off. At 55 it drops off dramatically. The Hoka functional design innovation ended up being an answer for many who were really feeling the affects of long term running. That was not the original intended design of the shoes. The great thing is the runners like Slowman found them on their own.

My point about minimalism is there was no innovation. Nike Free was the only innovation and that was an innovation in shoe making. They literally broke the mold when they developed Nike Free. Everything after that was brands chasing a trend a trend every brand knew would end.

The Vapor Fly 4% is an innovation - It was never developed for every runner. It was developed for the best marathoner we’ve ever seen. Nike marketing knew they were sitting on gold. Build the fastest shoe for the best runner and they will come. It’s a formula that has worked really well for the brand. We need to look no further than Jordan. Jordan was a shoe build around the best player. Now Jordan is the second largest basketball brand behind Nike.

Longevity in running is an individual goal. There isn’t any one single answer to longevity. In general we know good mechanics, a balanced body and maintaining weight are absolutely key to longevity. Stretching works for some, Hoka works for some, strength work works for some, and there are lists and lists of tricks. At 54 years old I spend a great deal of time on all of this because I want to run the rest of my life.

Back to running fast - just over 2 years ago I was doing my work at the Rome marathon. That evevning I sat down with a guy who had run the race. I don’t remember his exact time but it 4 hours and something. The Nike Vapor Fly 4% had just launched. This guy instantly wanted to buy the shoe because he thought it would help him get a BQ (run faster) I smiled and said this: There are probably things in your running form that will give you more speed than this shoe does. Once you maximize that then adding the shoe might be the final kicker. It’s not want you want to hear. You want a magic shoe. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news. The Vapor Fly 4% is probably not going to be your only answer.

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [SDJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
which Hokas and Brooks have a carbon plate?
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [BigBoyND] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hoka One One Evo Carbon Rocket - Available in January/February at Running Warehouse first.

Brooks - No idea on the name - Still in Development mode - The shoes I saw in NYC did not look production quality. Imagin a trimmed down launch with a carbon plate.

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [SDJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
Apparently we agree on :

the VF was built for pure performance
but will not fit everybody
even if nearly every body will feel the speed in it... before most will be injured by its massive instability

Nike try to push marketing advantage

but it is not our best interest to listen the marketing music "it is fast.... you will be fast...", as usual. Here it is not only a money issue, but mainly a running health issue.



Frankly, I was expecting Nike to capitalize on the techno success of the VF to propose some other performance shoes, more stable. Still waiting.
Am I alone thinking Skecher with the Razor 3, Reebok with Run Fast, or NB with the Beacon making a better job providing more stable cushioned shoes for fast training and racing ?
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [Pyrenean Wolf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Correct it’s not in our best interest to listen the Marketing Hype but gosh darn is it fun. Remember the integral part of injury prevention is between the ears. The VF 4% isn’t the best shoe for someone who strides out and lands on their heel. I see people doing it and it seems like a foolish $250 but I see people on $12,000 bikes going 15MPH too!

The Reebok Floatride Go fast is an amazing feeling shoe. New Balance put a great blend of shoe together with the Beacon. Kind of cross between the original Clifton and Kinvara wrapped in one shoe. I would throw in the adidas Boston into that mix. There isn’t a better shoe on the market than the Boston if it fits your foot. That’s the great thing about right now in running shoes. There is a great deal of really good product to choose from.

The Vapor Fly 4% is simply a beautifully engineered product. That is a really hard shoe to make and their production quality is simply astounding.

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [SDJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dave or anyone else, what should be the break-in protocol for the 4%? I got a pair back in October and would like to run in them in a half marathon in two weeks. I have been running in Hokas for years - Clifton's (up to the 3rd version) and Tracers recently. Would one or two shorter runs be enough before the race? Not that it matters much, but I'm hoping to run in the 1:21-1:22 range for the race.

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023
Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [natethomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It’s always a safe bet to run a couple miles in a shoe before you race in it. I think this shoe is so different than any other shoe on the market you’ll want to simply get a feel for it. The nice thing is you are familiar with rolling over the forefoot in a Hoka. You’ll do the same thing in the 4%. There is no flex in that Carbon Plate.

Dave Jewell
Free Run Speed

Quote Reply
Re: The Nike Vaporfly 4% Really Is 4% "Faster"! [SDJ] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for the insight!

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

Prev Next