Just curious to know how wearing a shoes with little to no cushion translates to faster times. Is there truly data that supports this or is it a “feeling” even though there is nothing scientific to prove it? Does wearing this:
http://www.runningwarehouse.com/descpageMRS-APSP4M1.html
automatically make you run faster as opposed to:
http://www.runningwarehouse.com/descpageMRS-HOOM2.html
(this is assuming that you have the biomechanics to run in the fist pair without injury)
That’s a pretty big trade in shoe mass (hoka to piranha), so there will be some small benefit in terms of turnover and speed with the flat. However, the greatest impact of a flat versus a trainer is the ground feel and the propulsive mechanics. The shoe simply transmits energy between your foot and the ground. The greater the mass underfoot, the greater the opportunity for energy to go unutilized.
It’s not the reduced padding that’s the promary goal. Its’ reduced weight with a secondary goal of greater flexibility and road feel. Both come at the cost of less cushioning and far less durability.
To be more efficient, you want the weight below your knee to be as light as possible since it takes energy that you do not fully recover to make it change direction with every stride. I suppose in theory, running barefoot with be the most efficient, but you’d probably have issues with foot protection in most cases and little room for error in terms of energy if you not biomechanically perfect.
Personally, I race up to 70.3 in Brooks T7’s and may switch to Sauconcy A6’s for up ot 70.3 and Kinvaras for IM now that my trianing shoes are a pair of 4mm offset Cortanas. I was previously led to believe that I need a posted shoe. I now no longer believe that to be true and have had no issues in my Cortanas over the first 60 miles or so I’ve run in them so far including 2 of my longest training runs of the year.
This all of course may start the argument of more vs. less cushioning.
Shoes are cheap in comparison to bikes. Might as well just use lightweight race flats all the time. Maybe only switch to a heavier shoe in winter or bad weather conditions.
This all of course may start the argument of more vs. less cushioning.
Doesn’t matter. Comfort trumps weight and cushioning across the board.
Even for lightweight flats (where weight differences are negligible), the amount of cushioning a runner needs is more a function of comfort than it is the exact depth or composition of the sole.
I’ll add that while my racing flats are not nessesarily equally comfortable, they lack of comfort is not noticeable during the run leg. I’m not limited by comfort when running in a triathlon. I’m limited specifically by leg fatigue. However, that’s jsut for a 90 minute run and why I’d use a more substanial by nearly as light Kinvara for IM marathon.
I also find shoe comfort matters to me more at slower paces so long as the fit is good and I’m not getting blisters, I jsut don;t need much shoe. Especially when I’m redlined in a 5k leg of a sprint.
However, I may try using my IM race shoe or my training shoes in a couple of my 70.3 later in the season (closer to my IM) and see how my times compare and my legs feel.
FWIM - I’m also become a believer that most leg and joint soreness following a run is a matter of being undertrained, not the shoe itself.
Shoes are cheap in comparison to bikes. Might as well just use lightweight race flats all the time. Maybe only switch to a heavier shoe in winter or bad weather conditions.
But it doesnt just work like that, racing flats also have a lot less cushioning, so to train yo need to use training shoes, that have more cushioning (More weight) and also you can have a more stable run, all of this to prevent injuries
Shoes are cheap in comparison to bikes. Might as well just use lightweight race flats all the time. Maybe only switch to a heavier shoe in winter or bad weather conditions.
But it doesnt just work like that, racing flats also have a lot less cushioning, so to train yo need to use training shoes, that have more cushioning (More weight) and also you can have a more stable run, all of this to prevent injuries
+1. Don’t run in racing flats all the time. It’s just asking for trouble.
I rotate Saucony triumphs as my day-to-day training shoe, and Kinvaras for a more racing flat kinda feel. That’s kept me largely injury free. I race everything below marathon in Kinvaras.
A wise guy once told me to “train heavy - race light”.
I also believe that racing is about stepping out of your comfort zone. As long as it doesn’t come at the price of injury*.
*If you’re willing to risk injury - make sure you’re either getting paid or KQ doing so…
FWIM - I’m also become a believer that most leg and joint soreness following a run is a matter of being undertrained, not the shoe itself.
It has never been about the shoes. It has always been about proper training.
Unfortunately, the “train better” philosophy generates roughly 1/100000th the revenue of the “buy new shoes” philosophy.
Absolute pish posh! There is absolutely nothing wrong about putting all miles in a minimal shoe.
Tell that to the barefoot running crowd. Sure you have to work up to the distances when using lightweight shoes. But honestly, there is a lot of evidence that using less supportive shoes will eventually prevent injuries.
The reduced wight of a flat is worth ~5sec./mile over a training shoe (11oz. trainer to 6oz flat). This was the general rule of thumb when I ran track, and tests have been run to confirm it. You tolerate the reduced cushioning to get the speed.
http://runsmartproject.com/coaching/2012/02/06/how-much-does-shoe-weight-affect-performance/
The reduced wight of a flat is worth ~5sec./mile over a training shoe (11oz. trainer to 6oz flat). This was the general rule of thumb when I ran track, and tests have been run to confirm it. You tolerate the reduced cushioning to get the speed.
http://runsmartproject.com/coaching/2012/02/06/how-much-does-shoe-weight-affect-performance/
Yet it’s also about finding a balance. Cushioning does indeed take some of the impact dissipation way from the muscles. However if you have too much cushioning the shoe’s weight increases. Yet if you decrease the weight too much, you decrease the cushioning, which increases the metabolic cost of running. Again, comfort is king.
Shoes are cheap in comparison to bikes. Might as well just use lightweight race flats all the time. Maybe only switch to a heavier shoe in winter or bad weather conditions.
But it doesnt just work like that, racing flats also have a lot less cushioning, so to train yo need to use training shoes, that have more cushioning (More weight) and also you can have a more stable run, all of this to prevent injuries
+1. Don’t run in racing flats all the time. It’s just asking for trouble.
I rotate Saucony triumphs as my day-to-day training shoe, and Kinvaras for a more racing flat kinda feel. That’s kept me largely injury free. I race everything below marathon in Kinvaras.
I’ve ran over 10,000 miles in low profile shoes, much like racing flats. It’s about comfort, as said above. My feet are completely adapted to low drop flexible shoes. I’d probably get injured if I ran in cushioned trainers.
There is other physics playing into this besides simply weight of shoes. A shoe with less cushioning will be more efficient in returning the energy of each stride. All of the nice comfy padding in a trainer is a very imperfect spring: you only get fraction of the energy back that you impart into it with each step. Adidas (I believe) has a nice commercial for their newest mid-sole material that demos this nicely…there have been a lot of “miracle mid-soles” that have purported to improve on EVA/SPEVA over the years, of course. But having only enough rubber under your feet to protect you from tearing on the pavement is the easiest way to bring the energy in > energy out equation as close to equal as possible. This may already be added into that about 5s/mile gain that someone else already mentioned, but most races 10km and under are won by a lot less than that!
There is other physics playing into this besides simply weight of shoes. A shoe with less cushioning will be more efficient in returning the energy of each stride. All of the nice comfy padding in a trainer is a very imperfect spring: you only get fraction of the energy back that you impart into it with each step. Adidas (I believe) has a nice commercial for their newest mid-sole material that demos this nicely…there have been a lot of “miracle mid-soles” that have purported to improve on EVA/SPEVA over the years, of course. But having only enough rubber under your feet to protect you from tearing on the pavement is the easiest way to bring the energy in > energy out equation as close to equal as possible. This may already be added into that about 5s/mile gain that someone else already mentioned, but most races 10km and under are won by a lot less than that!
So much misinformation in this post.
I think it depends on a couple of things:
What shoe are you training in? If it’s a high-heeled, super cushy trainer a shoe like the Piranha is probably not a good match. A DS-Trainer might be a better choice. If it’s a low-heeled, firmer shoe it could be a good match.What distance is the race? I do my races up to Olympic in a racing flat like the Piranha, 70.3 races in Lunar Racers and would use a Gel-Lyte or equivalent for anything longer. I’m 170 lbs, for reference.Ultimately, though, it does come down to fitness and training. If your muscles are ready for the abuse, you’ll probably run faster regardless of shoe selection.
All else equal a lighter shoe is faster. Nike Mayflys are like 20 bucks, pretty easy way to run a little faster in shorter events. It actually SAVES you money. =)
FWIM - I’m also become a believer that most leg and joint soreness following a run is a matter of being undertrained, not the shoe itself.
It has never been about the shoes. It has always been about proper training.
Unfortunately, the “train better” philosophy generates roughly 1/100000th the revenue of the “buy new shoes” philosophy.
All else equal a lighter shoe is faster.
That’s true but pretty much never happens in reality. Reducing the weight implies that you are removing cushioning and/or forefoot stifness.
If we are talking about the fastest shoes for road racing, those shoes weigh about 7.5-9.5oz.
To put it into perspective, if you optimize the cushioning aspect alone in a shoe, it could weigh over 13oz and still be more metabolically efficient than a 5oz vibram.
There is other physics playing into this besides simply weight of shoes. A shoe with less cushioning will be more efficient in returning the energy of each stride. All of the nice comfy padding in a trainer is a very imperfect spring: you only get fraction of the energy back that you impart into it with each step. Adidas (I believe) has a nice commercial for their newest mid-sole material that demos this nicely…there have been a lot of “miracle mid-soles” that have purported to improve on EVA/SPEVA over the years, of course. But having only enough rubber under your feet to protect you from tearing on the pavement is the easiest way to bring the energy in > energy out equation as close to equal as possible. This may already be added into that about 5s/mile gain that someone else already mentioned, but most races 10km and under are won by a lot less than that!
So much misinformation in this post.
Oh, please tell me where! Does someone actually make a non-Newtonian mid-sole?! That’s got to cost a pretty penny…