Flame method, protocol, comparison winner away.
I’m still running a pair of the first Pebax Endorphin Pro (the all white ones), have also the Rocket x2 and MetaSpeed and MetaSpeed Sky. And I completely agree. The Endorphin is still the better shoe out of all of them. The new Pro 4 and Elite versions worry me a little as they’ve changed so much since the V1.
I think if I were testing for 70.3 / 13.1, I may have come away with a different answer as I probably would have weighted the plate efficiency higher – and as much as I don’t love the ride of the Asics, that probably would have won. If it were just an open 26.2, it might have been the Rocket X2 due to, again, speed and good enough comfort.
But it’s not. And this run course also has, you know, two brick walls of hills that are likely to be walked or run slowly. So I put a fair amount of emphasis on performance there.
And those new Endorphins – Saucony went after more of an AlphaFly styled shoe. And I think that was a mistake.
I tried the Cielo on in a store and just felt unstable in them (I have some balance issues in my left leg). You mentiond the metaspeed sky felt more stable the faster you go, but what about at slower speeds between 8-10.5 min per mile (that’s about my range these days in half Ironmans depending on what part of the race I am in and if there is an uphill involved)
As ground contact time increases, the narrowness under the midfoot becomes more apparent and any kind of navicular drop becomes more pronounced.
Probably would need to avoid it, Dev.
https://www.slowtwitch.com/...ake_Placid_8989.html
Flame method, protocol, comparison winner away.
This was a really good review, real world, real world conditions and use for Ironman. Thank you!
good review, thank you…
I’m still in the old Saucony Endorphin Speed for races as well.
Bought new shoes for my son to run Grandmas’ Marathon in, was willing to spring for Alphaflys but he also preferred the Saucony Pro for much the same reasons as you - a bit more comfort and stability. He and I are both 185lbs (different weight distribution tho 
and I think that is outside the weight limit for Alphaflys…
In my tests the Alphafly doesn’t give me any speed improvements anyway.
(1) I appreciate your efforts and your share. It’s not scientifically significant, as you readily acknowledge. Nevertheless, I think these kinds of posts/articles are overall very helpful (and generous).
(2) I wonder whether your lean towards the Saucony for Ironman is because they are (a) familiar, and (b) broken in? Maybe report back to us on the MetaSpeeds once you have accumulated some more miles. Personally, I find them quite stable at slow speeds.
(3) I, too, am a shoe hog/nerd. In fact, I’m a hog of anything that touches my anatomy: socks, underwear, bibs, saddles, bar tape, etc.
(4) Acknowledging your $ outlay caveat, and another poster’s comment, I will say a quick word about Nike. I bought the original Alphaflys. I immediately returned them. I’ve purchased numerous Vaporflys. I like them, but agree that they would not be kind on the tibialis posterior. However, I recently purchased the Alphafly 3 and love them. They are much more stable than the Vapors and much more kind to MY feet (vs Vapors and previous Alphas). They might be worth a reconsideration for anyone who has written off Nikes for lack of faith in them for the inevitable Ironman shuffle.
(5) Again acknowledging your $ outlay caveat, people who specifically have a fear of tibialis posterior overload - but also have no issue with lateral ankle sprains - might consider the Adidas Adios Pro 3. It’s a generally unstable shoe BUT it must be built with a varus cant or the rods somehow push MY foot into a varus position (or something else?) such that they work well to prevent excessive pronation.
(6) Anyone who might be racing - or regularly trains - off road, consider Speedland. High stack, Pebax, optional carbon plate, very stable. I dig em. But I also don’t mind the lugs on mixed asphalt/dirt.
(7) I agree with you about On shoes. They are a fashion brand (at least in the U.S.) and/or for those who are very light of foot. I liken them to baseball card bubblegum: great for 30 seconds and then your jaw muscles are aching.
The Endorphin Pros have maybe 15 more miles on them than the MetaSpeeds. It might be familiarity, although if that were the case, I’d have thought HOKA might win out as almost all of my non-carbon mileage has been in either Cliftons or OG Carbon Xs.
I would have loved to have an Adidas in the mix, just based on our trends of what shoes are most likely to be on people’s feet. Noted for the future.
I just hope I can glue together a decent enough result to not have to do another full IM. 70.3 is my jam.
My OG Saucony Endorphin Pros have a really nice snappy field to them. I worried if they’d be too narrow as they look so much smaller than so many of the newer super shoes, but never had any stability issues and often come back to them on some fast training runs.
Endorphon Pro 3, I ran my fastest marathon and fastest stand alone half in them, but they really beat me up. A year later I used these again in a marathon (with a lot of descents) and they beat me up so bad I don’t think I want to use them outside of shorter speed sessions.
My Cielo Hoka shoes I felt like a clown when I first put them on. You feel like you’re just bouncing everywhere. I was going to return them, but had to travel for work and missed the return window. Doh. So I include them in the rotation of speed workouts and on lazier days when I want to go faster and I do feel these shoes bounce my way forward more than any other shoe.
Rocket X2 felt firm and fast. Probably a better version than the Metapseed Sky pre-Paris models, and maybe about equal with the Paris in terms of speed, but I feel the Paris is a little softer.
I feel the new Metaspeed Sky Paris shoe is more of the same, in a good way, and a little better than the original Metaspeed Sky and Sky+. I’m happy with it and ran a decent half marathon in them recently, but I did feel a little more beat up by them than my Nikes.
Alphafly1 - I’ve done ok in these. Some great training runs, some of which were very long and fast. I did feel like they weren’t as stable around the ankles, but I haven’t had any issues. Just a worry in the back of my mind.
Vaporfly 3 I’ve run my fastest half marathon’s (in 70.3s) in them and felt fantastic in them during the race and after. They have a little stability mushy feeling that again, like the Alphafly I’ve wondered if it’s going to cause an issue if I use them all the time, but I have only raced 3 70.3s and a couple training runs in them. I was planning to replace these with my Metaspeed Sky Paris shoes, but I wish those were just a little bit softer foam.
The Alphafly 3 I finally was able to get a pair of these and plan to race Ironman Florida in them. Haven’t done a training run in them yet. They feel more stable and less mushy than previous Nike’s but feel like they’d be just as cushiony to keep me from feeling so beat up.
It’s always hard for me to tell which shoe is “faster” as usually the difference for me when I put a pair on is just how I’m feeling that day for other reasons. There’s been times when I feel slow, then look at my watch and I’m cruising along at nearly PR pace. Other times when I have my “fast” shoes on that day and no matter what I feel like there’s no chance I’ll ever run faster than 5/min ks…
I think for me, I’ve decided all the super shoes can be pretty fast (for me at least) given my health on the day, and the biggest issue is how much am I going to get beat up by the shoe. So I tend to lean more towards the Nikes lately.
As fate would have it I have two tests that obviously are hard to draw conclusions from.
10 minute warm up 3x4min @5k feel race pace.
I’m my Cielos I had just done a 60 minute very easy pace on the bike trainer 40 minutes earlier. I felt very warmed up in a good way and the first interval came pretty easy on the Cielos
3:55/km
3:50/km
3:52/km
3:49/km
It was 90F degrees outside and in the morning.
Then today, it was 108F degrees, and I prefaced my workout with a hamburger, broccoli and watermelon 40 minutes earlier. Heh. Not exactly scientific comparison.
Same workout only I was wearing the Alpha fly 3 for the first time.
Wow, I really like these. My first interval I looked at my watch and felt I might be working harder here from the recent food and the heat… But then suddenly it was smooth sailing and here were my splits on the Alpha fly 3.
3:52/km
3:44/km
3:46/km
3:39/km
Each interval in both shoes I did two 180 degree turns U turns.
The conditions outside and in my body felt worse, but not miserable. In between intervals in the Cielos I happened to have my wife and the jogging stroller next to me with a ice cold water bottle and with the Nikes I didn’t have any water.
Definitely not scientific enough to be a real comparison but it was interesting nonetheless as I just happened to do these same workouts on back to back days in different shoes.
I would say the Alpha fly 3 handles really well. Felt grippy, comfy, fast. I’m not really sure where I can fault it*. Much more stable (to me at least) than the vaporflys or previous alphaflys.
*Other than Nike’s ridiculous production and sales strategy…
That AlphaFly 3 looks a lot more stable than prior generations.
Granted, I’m also not inclined to drop nearly $300 for them.
Perhaps for another test cycle…and after we get back on some media samples distribution again.
The Alpha 3 is more stable than previous and alternate Nikes (Vapor), and I love it, BUT it is more “wiggly” than the MetaSpeeds (can’t speak to the latest Endorphins) and will thus necessitate more work from the long muscles of the lower leg, including your muscle of concern. Just FYI. But if you can grab a media sample, grab with vigor and enjoy!
That AlphaFly 3 looks a lot more stable than prior generations.
Granted, I’m also not inclined to drop nearly $300 for them.
I just tell my wife shoes are cheaper than surgery. It’s worked so far!