The term is Pull Marketing - Nike has used it often. Kids lined up in front of a Foot Locker to buy Jordans. The entire purpose of Pull Maraketing is to leave high demand on the table.
Another place where they work this Stragey to near perfection is in the Sneaker World.
Also the fact with limited supply everyone (including myself) are happy to pay what you would normally see as an outrageous price for a shoe when they become available for a few days and they all get snapped up. I tried to not want to buy them based on their manipulation but was too intrigued and when I finally ran in them I was a convert and love them. As much as I hate to admit it, their marketing strategy has been ingenious on extorting money out of me and many others quite happily that you are getting a pair…
Is it a unique shoe in that it’s light, cushioned and fast? Most shoes I’ve run in tick 1 or 2 of those boxes but not all. i.e I train in Hoka Cliftons, light, cushioned, but not fast. I used to race in Asics Hyperspeeds, light, fast, but not cushioned. I’m not sure what the controversy is, seems like it’s an excellent shoe that can be used for 5k - marathon. Who knows about the 4%, I don’t think it really matters. Perhaps my Hyperspeeds are as quick, but I wouldn’t be able to run a marathon in them.
I’m not sure what the controversy is, seems like it’s an excellent shoe that can be used for 5k - marathon.
In a nutshell :
Some peoples think it is excellent (because fast, mostly for heel strikers)
some others think it is not (because unstable, mostly for heel striker)
Fact is it is fast AND unstable. So it is usable or not for any distance depending your stride and the way you use it.
Personally :
using it heel striking : it destroyed my posterior tibialis and medial side of the knee
using it mid-foot strike : it is OK, but drop is too high. I prefer 5mm drop high cushion shoes
So, excellent for some (at least at the beginning), not that good for others.
I’m not sure what the controversy is, seems like it’s an excellent shoe that can be used for 5k - marathon.
In a nutshell :
Some peoples think it is excellent (because fast, mostly for heel strikers)
some others think it is not (because unstable, mostly for heel striker)
Fact is it is fast AND unstable. So it is usable or not for any distance depending your stride and the way you use it.
Personally :
using it heel striking : it destroyed my posterior tibialis and medial side of the knee
using it mid-foot strike : it is OK, but drop is too high. I prefer 5mm drop high cushion shoes
So, excellent for some (at least at the beginning), not that good for others.
Yeah I’m a little bit undecided. The more I run in it, the more I like it. I’m a forefoot striker. The heel does feel weird and unstable, but the shoe is fast and comfortable. It’s an excellent shoe, overhyped possibly. Is it revolutionary? Are there other shoes out there than are light, fast and cushioned? That’s not rhetorical, curious to see if there are? I did get some Hoka Tracers (1st model) which could be considered a rival shoe (?) but they’re horrible to run in and have now been designated to gardening duties.
Try the Hoka Cavu. Still a favoured shoe of mine. My most liked Hoka shoe, a little firmer forefoot than a Clayton that I came from but still good for marathon distance. I raced a 70.3 in them on the weekend and enjoyed racing in them again. Outside the VF and Pegasus Turbos these are my third favourite shoe closely followed by Saucony Kinvara 8. All light, fast and cushioned.
https://www.runningshoesguru.com/2018/05/hoka-one-one-cavu-review/
Try the Hoka Cavu. Still a favoured shoe of mine. My most liked Hoka shoe, a little firmer forefoot than a Clayton that I came from but still good for marathon distance. I raced a 70.3 in them on the weekend and enjoyed racing in them again. Outside the VF and Pegasus Turbos these are my third favourite shoe closely followed by Saucony Kinvara 8. All light, fast and cushioned.
https://www.runningshoesguru.com/2018/05/hoka-one-one-cavu-review/]
cool, will check em out!
I’m not sure what the controversy is, seems like it’s an excellent shoe that can be used for 5k - marathon.
In a nutshell :
Some peoples think it is excellent (because fast, mostly for heel strikers)
some others think it is not (because unstable, mostly for heel striker)
Fact is it is fast AND unstable. So it is usable or not for any distance depending your stride and the way you use it.
Personally :
using it heel striking : it destroyed my posterior tibialis and medial side of the knee
using it mid-foot strike : it is OK, but drop is too high. I prefer 5mm drop high cushion shoes
So, excellent for some (at least at the beginning), not that good for others.
Yeah I’m a little bit undecided. The more I run in it, the more I like it. I’m a forefoot striker. The heel does feel weird and unstable, but the shoe is fast and comfortable. It’s an excellent shoe, overhyped possibly. Is it revolutionary? Are there other shoes out there than are light, fast and cushioned? That’s not rhetorical, curious to see if there are? I did get some Hoka Tracers (1st model) which could be considered a rival shoe (?) but they’re horrible to run in and have now been designated to gardening duties.
Light, fast and cushioned, for a forefoot striker ?
VF ok in this case (low injury risk), as FlyKnit and Turbo (if you like high drop - around 10mm)
Reebok Run Fast (8mm drop I think)
If you prefer moderate drop (around 5mm) :
Skechers Razor 3
Skechers Ride 7
NB Beacon
Saucony Kinvara 10 (come soon, serious reviews already available such as RTR)
- (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?
Me 
I can’t recall a specific source, more of a amalgamation of various thoughts related to altered mechanicals with barefoot, minimalist, zero drop and “traditional” shoes.
As drop and cushioning decrease, the ankle absorbs more force and increases its range of motion.
This is why they’re beneficial for individuals with knee issues; they shift where the force is absorbed.
(You still have your same body being pulled at the same earth by the same gravity… that impact has to go somewhere).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268003314000333
Effects of barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear on knee and ankle loading during running
Author links open overlay panelJonathanSinclair
Show more
https://doi.org/...nbiomech.2014.02.004Get rights and content
**Abstract **
Background
Recreational runners frequently suffer from chronic pathologies. The knee and ankle have been highlighted as common injury sites. Barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear have been cited as treatment modalities for running injuries as opposed to more conventional running shoes. This investigation examined knee and ankle loading in barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear in relation to conventional running shoes.
**Method **
Thirty recreational male runners underwent 3D running analysis at 4.0 m·s− 1. Joint moments, patellofemoral contact force and pressure and Achilles tendon forces were compared between footwear.
**Findings **
At the knee the results show that barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear were associated with significant reductions in patellofemoral kinetic parameters. The ankle kinetics indicate that barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear were associated with significant increases in Achilles tendon force compared to conventional shoes.
Interpretation
Barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear may serve to reduce the incidence of knee injuries in runners although corresponding increases in Achilles tendon loading may induce an injury risk at this tendon.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-014-3072-x
Can’t post table: Decreased ankle ROM: 28 / 21.5 / 18.4 / 17.9 degrees for BareFoot / 0 / 4 / 8 mm drops respectively
- (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?
Me
I can’t recall a specific source, more of a amalgamation of various thoughts related to altered mechanicals with barefoot, minimalist, zero drop and “traditional” shoes.
As drop and cushioning decrease, the ankle absorbs more force and increases its range of motion.
This is why they’re beneficial for individuals with knee issues; they shift where the force is absorbed.
(You still have your same body being pulled at the same earth by the same gravity… that impact has to go somewhere).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268003314000333
Effects of barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear on knee and ankle loading during running
Author links open overlay panelJonathanSinclair
Show more
https://doi.org/...nbiomech.2014.02.004Get rights and content
**Abstract **
Background
Recreational runners frequently suffer from chronic pathologies. The knee and ankle have been highlighted as common injury sites. Barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear have been cited as treatment modalities for running injuries as opposed to more conventional running shoes. This investigation examined knee and ankle loading in barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear in relation to conventional running shoes.
**Method **
Thirty recreational male runners underwent 3D running analysis at 4.0 m·s− 1. Joint moments, patellofemoral contact force and pressure and Achilles tendon forces were compared between footwear.
**Findings **
At the knee the results show that barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear were associated with significant reductions in patellofemoral kinetic parameters. The ankle kinetics indicate that barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear were associated with significant increases in Achilles tendon force compared to conventional shoes.
Interpretation
Barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear may serve to reduce the incidence of knee injuries in runners although corresponding increases in Achilles tendon loading may induce an injury risk at this tendon.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-014-3072-x
Can’t post table: Decreased ankle ROM: 28 / 21.5 / 18.4 / 17.9 degrees for BareFoot / 0 / 4 / 8 mm drops respectively
yes. well. i don’t mind you holding your view, but citing a study on barefoot running? and drawing your conclusion from that?
let me counter with this: in track and field, every shoe, in every event, always, and forever, is a low-drop or no-drop (or negative-drop) shoe, if you’re wearing a track spike. if it was better to isolate, and remove from use, the calf muscles, then this would have been accomplished long ago in shoe design.
furthermore, if there really were a high incidence of pathology associated with shoes with lesser drop, then we’d have also found out that running up hills are likewise a cause of injury.
i rather like the idea of using my calf muscles. i specifically don’t like the idea of shoes that, by their design, make it impossible to use my calf muscles throughout their historic or typical range.
i don’t mind you holding your view. but to me it’s simply an opinion, not a fact backed by any data whatsoever that i’ve heard of; and i don’t even think it’s a particularly intuitive view. since when is truncating the range of motion in an activity automatically a good thing?
- (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?
Me
I can’t recall a specific source, more of a amalgamation of various thoughts related to altered mechanicals with barefoot, minimalist, zero drop and “traditional” shoes.
As drop and cushioning decrease, the ankle absorbs more force and increases its range of motion.
This is why they’re beneficial for individuals with knee issues; they shift where the force is absorbed.
(You still have your same body being pulled at the same earth by the same gravity… that impact has to go somewhere).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268003314000333
Effects of barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear on knee and ankle loading during running
Author links open overlay panelJonathanSinclair
Show more
https://doi.org/...nbiomech.2014.02.004Get rights and content
**Abstract **
Background
Recreational runners frequently suffer from chronic pathologies. The knee and ankle have been highlighted as common injury sites. Barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear have been cited as treatment modalities for running injuries as opposed to more conventional running shoes. This investigation examined knee and ankle loading in barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear in relation to conventional running shoes.
**Method **
Thirty recreational male runners underwent 3D running analysis at 4.0 m·s− 1. Joint moments, patellofemoral contact force and pressure and Achilles tendon forces were compared between footwear.
**Findings **
At the knee the results show that barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear were associated with significant reductions in patellofemoral kinetic parameters. The ankle kinetics indicate that barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear were associated with significant increases in Achilles tendon force compared to conventional shoes.
Interpretation
Barefoot and barefoot inspired footwear may serve to reduce the incidence of knee injuries in runners although corresponding increases in Achilles tendon loading may induce an injury risk at this tendon.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-014-3072-x
Can’t post table: Decreased ankle ROM: 28 / 21.5 / 18.4 / 17.9 degrees for BareFoot / 0 / 4 / 8 mm drops respectively
So, it might not apply to what you answer initially on my post, as I was talking about low drop / high cushion, and not low drop / low cushion ?
My N=1:
I’ve done the same Turkey Trot for 5 years, exact same course. I have helped mark the course. We start at the exact same places. I am sure. And my garmin has read 6.15 +/- .01 all 4 years. For the last 4 years I have started my marathon prep coming in early October, and run 30-35 miles through out the summer. More or less everything has been the same. I am just older, turning 43 in 6 months.
My training has been consistent with other years. Nothing stood out, no training breakthroughs that I can imagine.
I guess what I am saying: as best I can tell everything was the same except the shoes.
38:35 in 2015
39:03 in 2016 (HOT out)
38:30 in 2017
38:08 this year
And it felt better. There is a U-turn in mile 4, so throwing that out all my mile splits were between 6:10-6:15 and I picked it up at the end and ran 5:40 pace for the last quarter mile. I run one 10k a year, and I am a triathlete/swimmer not a runner so I didn’t exactly expect to nail the pacing.
What this reminded me of was the first time I wore a full body LZR speed suit in 2009 (the one Phelps wore in the '08 Olympics). I had a mediocre start but went my fast 50 freestyle in 9 years.
These shoes - maybe - should be illegal. But since Nike has the “it” shoe no noise will be made about it. When someone comes out with a shoe that is better and cheaper the legality of the shoes will start to be questioned (When Speedo wasn’t making the fastest suit they were soon outlawed).
Hi Steve! I wore them in Kona this year, they were just a couple of days old but I rarely have issues jumping shoes, and I loved them - light and comfortable. Can’t comment on the performance, as I had walking pneumonia and ran my slowest marathon ever, but maybe without that 4% I would have seen a first 4h+ marathon Hi and happy holidays to you and P!
Here is my anecdotal unedjucatex opinion after two runs
First run was outside. The shoes feel weird but I have never worn a cushioned shoe or a lightweight racing shoe (gel nimbus the last few years)
The shoes feel like they are forcing you into the mid foot which I like. They also felt like they were slightly pushing my arches which was concerning.
Once I started running however I was midfoot striking and not feeling any arch contact
They feel light as a feather. I ran at near my race pace and felt like it was easier. In my head? Who knows
Second run on a treadmill and if anything they felt even better at speed
Key positive after both runs was even though I ran at speed for me I felt like I hadn’t run at all. They definitely help with soreness and fatigue
When I took my shoe bag out of my suitcase for second run I felt like the bag was empty they were so light and I wondered if I’d forgotton to pack them
I have no view on whether they are the best shoe but I can confidently say they are totally different and better than the gel nimbus. They feel like I’m wearing cement shoes now
I have a race this weekend that includes a half marathon. I’ll come back with times to see if I go faster
yes. well. i don’t mind you holding your view, but citing a study on barefoot running? and drawing your conclusion from that?
let me counter with this: in track and field, every shoe, in every event, always, and forever, is a low-drop or no-drop (or negative-drop) shoe, if you’re wearing a track spike. if it was better to isolate, and remove from use, the calf muscles, then this would have been accomplished long ago in shoe design.
furthermore, if there really were a high incidence of pathology associated with shoes with lesser drop, then we’d have also found out that running up hills are likewise a cause of injury.
i rather like the idea of using my calf muscles. i specifically don’t like the idea of shoes that, by their design, make it impossible to use my calf muscles throughout their historic or typical range.
i don’t mind you holding your view. but to me it’s simply an opinion, not a fact backed by any data whatsoever that i’ve heard of; and i don’t even think it’s a particularly intuitive view. since when is truncating the range of motion in an activity automatically a good thing?
Also:
- xtrpickels is going from an unsubstantiated “low drop” claim to another unsubstantiated claim about “drop and cushioning decreasing” i.e. moving the goal posts and ignoring the fact that there are plenty low drop shoes that are simultaneously in the maximal cushioning category;
- no regard as to a difference for heel, midfoot or forefoot striking as obviously possible confounders;
- no consideration for adaptation to low drop as a confounder;
- no actual relationship established by any source cited (actually nothing was quoted at all for this matter) between low drop and anything else from the initial claim which, lest we forget, was:
- (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.
shrug
Generally Industry News:
- Heather Jackson ran her fastest marathon off the bike in Arizona wearing the new Hoka One One shoe with the carbon plate.
- There were a handful of athletes wearing that Hoka One One shoe in NYC Marathon
- There were two athletes wearing the new Brooks shoe with a carbon plate in NYC.
…
Running faster is always a better topic.
This! Love it. Great post.
Any ideas on shoe model numbers for Hoka and Brooks that you mention?
Edit: Found your answer… Hoka One One Evo Carbon Rocket 2019 release / Brooks prototype pre-production
Hoka One One Carbon Rocket + :
https://www.runningwarehouse.com/...e-carbon-rocket.html
Sound much less cushionned than VF, Razor 3, NB Beacon… to be tested.
Also Hoka Evo Rehi :
http://iranshao.com/...e-one-evo-rehi-unbox
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di1jn1bOeiQ
Lighter, a bit softer, but no carbon plate.
Most probably none is for me : I want cushion (mostly forefoot, and globally stable) !
I’d always choose NB beacon over Carbon Rocket +
Nike Vaporfly? Wouldn’t even consider it.
How many miles do you get on your Beacons?
I got a pair last week, so here’s my review on Vaporfly 4%. I’m not an expert, so I will just say what I feel about these shoes.
I heard people buy one size up for the old version, but new ones fit perfectly true to the size. If you have wider feet, you might feel these are too tight for you.
They are really light although they have thick cushions.
I brought Hoka Clifton 3 with me and ran with both on the treadmill at a local Nike store for comparison.
I didn’t see a huge difference but decided to buy them anyway because they are not easy to find.
Ran total 12 miles so far and OMG!! They are incredible. I run about 3 times a week with a HR monitor and I can tell I run the same distance with less effort.
With Hokas, top of my socks get wet, but not with these. Ventilation is better.
I also own a pair of Pegasus Turbo and there’s no comparison. Pegasus Turbo is a good training shoes though.
I highly recommend these shoes. I’ve gone through a lot of running shoes such as Brooks, Hoka, Newton, Nike, Inov8 and hands down these are the best.
I’m doing half marathon on Sunday, so we will see how I do.