I do most of my mileage in Asics 2070s or 2080s, although I like to do interval stuff 1200 meters and shorter in spikes. I prefer feeling comfortable in my spikes to having them feel really fast when I take off the trainers and put them on before a 1500.



I'm a big fan of Asics Gel Magic racers. They're almost lighter than my track spikes(6.5 ounces) and have some damn fine cushioning.

---

I'm a runner pretending to be a Triathlete

The reason for the train heavy/race light mantra is really due to durability issues. Racing flats just won't hold up very long under daily training loads. The uppers aren't as heavily built and the midsoles break down much quicker. The POSE method recommends racing AND training in flats. That is all well and good, but the shoes are going to break down much faster. You aren't going to get 300-500 miles out of racing flats.

The shoe companies have thrown a wild card into the mix in the last 10 years or so with the lightweight trainers. These shoes are durable enough for daily training, yet lightweight, responsive, and flexible enough for racing. I think these shoes are the right choice for most runners out there. Companies have even branched their lightweight trainer options for both neutral and pronating runners, making them available to an even greater range of runners. Shoes like the Asics DS Trainer, NB 82x series, Nike Spiridon or Saucony Grid Azura are responsive and light enough to race in and yet durable enough to train in every day.

The psychological effect that so many people tout only lasts until the first blast of lactic acid hits. A couple of ounces in a pair of shoes isn't going to make a difference in your running time. Don't complicate the sport more than it already is.

are you sure on that? Not that I have any data or in debth knowledge on that topic, but think about it. The running mechanics during a marathon are repeated over and over again. Doesn't increased weight cause more resistance to rotation? So I assume that the weight of the shoe plays a role, otherwise we would all be running in ski boots.

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

Lighter shoes make increasing leg turnover a hell of a lot easier though.

---

I'm a runner pretending to be a Triathlete

Look, the functionality of the shoe has a lot to do with it. We don't run in ski boots because they are STIFF and restrict movement. Lightweight trainers give most of the functionality of flats, with most of the durability and cushioning of the heavier running shoes.

As for the marathon, the added benefit of the additional cushioning most likely negates any advantage of weight. The funniest thing is watching a 180 lb AGer running a marathon in Gel Magics and then wondering why their feet hurt for weeks afterward.

I've been running a LONG time and have run 2:54 in the marathon (same course, different years) in both flats and "lightweight trainers" (Asics Gel-Lyte). The only difference was how I felt afterward. At 165lbs, I felt shredded by the flats. The trainers left me ok for runs days afterward.

Now I am an avowed shoe fetishist. I have flats (x 2, one with yankz for tris), trainers (x 2 so I can alternate days), lightweight trainers (for fast training and racing), offroad shoes, and some x-country spikes. That's far too complicated. I could accomplish 95% of my running with just 2 pairs of lightweight trainers and suffer no loss of real world performance. The other 5% may require true offroad shoes for some of the areas I like to run, but that is stretching it.

To borrow a line from Demerly, the right pair of shoes are the ones that fit. Get a pair of shoes that fit your foot and stride and be done with it. Oh, and hope that the company doesn't change the shoe too often.

Of course it's important that the shoe adabts to the given condition and isn't as stiff as a ski boot. But my point was that weight plays a role, even if only minimal. Under constant conditions, an increase in weight (shoe, legs, etc.) also requires you to do more work. Altough that difference might be minimal, wouldn't it be possible that it becomes significant with the number of steps you take during a marathon?

To state that there isn't any difference other than how you felt afterwards is your experience and opinion, but it isn't very scientific. There are way too many variables involved to conlude that that is the only difference.

Farrell posted that "Lighter shoes make increasing leg turnover a hell of a lot easier though." Looking at it from a biomechanics standpoint it should make sense. You can increase the leg turnover because the reduced mass reduces the moment of inertia (the resistance to the angular acceleration). Yet the running form plays an even greater role. Take a look at sprinters for example, they greatly reduce the angle at the knee. Doing so they reduce the radius of gyration which also reduces the moment of inertia, and are therefore able to increase their turnover.

I understand that turnover is not as important when running a marathon, but my point was the the increased mass of the shoe increases the resistance to the angular acceleration. Therefore requiring more work. Even if its just very little work per stroke cycle, I assume that it would multiply during the length of a marathon.

But I completely agree with you that comfort and shock absorbtion are the priorities in shoes. And superlight running shoes aren't for anybody, a 180lbs person gets greater impact on the feet than a 120lbs person, assuming they have the same style of running.

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

My point is still that we are overcomplicating things here. The original poster wants a pair of shoes that can do a bit of everything. That is NOT flats, unless he's both lightweight, AND wants to replace shoes every 100-200 miles. A lightweight trainer meets the needs of most AG athletes out there and keeps it simple.

When I started in this sport I had ONE pair of shoes, ONE bike, NO aero wheels, NO aerobars (they weren't around yet), and ONE bike kit. Simple. Looking back, I probably got more enjoyment out of it then. Now I've got the "requisite" 2 bikes, aero everything, 8 pairs of running shoes, umpteen bike kits, tri clothing for days, and a shelf-full of swimming gear. All that crap just makes it harder to get out the door since I have to make decisions now. ;->

Science can't decide between the Zipp 404 and Hed H3s. What makes you think it can choose between light trainers and flats? As you said, there are too many variables. Maximize one variable and you suffer elsewhere. THAT is where experience comes in. If you REALLY think you are going to be faster with a pair of 7.5 oz size 10.5 DS Racers over a pair of 9.5 oz DS Trainers, be my guest. Spend the $$ for both.

I still say a pair of lightweight trainers would serve most athletes in all areas of their running. The only real reason to own more than one pair is to be able to alternate pairs each day and get a bit more use out of each pair.

I had a guy pass me in a marathon one time wearing Nike waffle racers. Even though I've always raced in flats, even up to the marathon, my body just hurt thinking about how he probably would feel the next day or two.

From a purely speed aspect, for me it is about 1 second per ounce per quarter mile. Once I go beyond 10k, the rule can be thrown out the window as there is relief from muscle fatigue during the event with a ride that has more cushion.....that is where the issue does get complicated, no way around it.

i train in the nike shox r4 plus, and race in the newer nz model...

its totally psychological...but they feel faster...which is why i like them

(that and the additional cushioning in the trainer)

---

---

"Anyone can work hard when they want to; Champions do it when they don't."