I’m performing a little informal experiment, where I am the lab rat.
I’ve been running on Brooks Adrenaline GTS 5’s or 6’s for the past couple years, but I kinda feel like they wear out too quickly, so I picked up a pair of Brooks Beasts the other day, in addition to a new pair of GTS6’s.
Just for giggles, I weighed each shoe - the Beast is about 100 grams heavier than the Adrenaline, at 477 grams.
So my question is - will I notice this? Is there some way to quantify the extra effort I’ll be exerting over, say, 10K?
I can sure notice a 100g difference in shoes - but it is probably more the shoe design (I prefer the feel of a lightweight trainer). The Beast is just that - a beast with a huge, outflared rearsole, etc. Much like 1 pound on a bike, there is a measurable difference (like when going up hill), but that diff is not very large.
I believe the number thrown around is 1 second per mile per ounce of shoe weight. Something like that. Of course if you run in flats for a marathon, the beating you’ll take will probably slow you down by 1 minute per mile.
Personally I prefer a lighter shoe, and run in Mizuno Mavericks (295g/10.4oz), and am transitioning to a 270g Mizuno Elixir (9.5oz). Why Mizuno decided to disco the Maverick is beyond me. If I see one second per mile faster I’d be shocked…way within the tolerance of my running speed.
Woody
triguy42 speaks the truth, shoe weight makes a big difference. The one second per ounce per mile rule applies just for one shoe, not both, and is based on the average size runner. I’ve read a couple of times that shoe weight is 5 times as important as body weight. Thus, assuming bodyweight has a close-to linear-effect on running speed (an approximation) then a 170 lb runner running 6:00 pace who loses a pound of bodyweight would run 2.1 secs/ml faster (in practice a little less due too several factors). A pound of shoe weight, at 5 times the importance, would thus gain approx 8 secs/ml, which is one second per mile per ounce of one shoe, which is consistent with triguy42’s rule.
Of course, you’ll get beat up faster in the lightweight shoe, and your mechanics might not be as good.
People get all flustered about bike weight. The golden rule about buying bike gear for 99% of triathlons is, compared to aerodynamics, “Weight don’t matter shit”. However for your sneakers, it’s clearly very important.
I bought a pair of New Balance 992s this season. They are so much heavier than my Asics gt20 whatevers. I can feel a huge difference betweeen the two shoes. I totally spanked my bro in the sprints this year. I attribute part of this to training in my NBs and racing in my Asics. When your wearing size 13s shoes can get heavy!
No wonder I am such a slow runner!!! It’s the shoes!!! I figure by the time you take into consideration my orthotics and the several lbs. of water that my shoes fill up with it’s got to be worth, what, 2 min per mile?
Seriously though i think each shoe weighs in at 2.5 lbs at the end of each race.
triathletes agree, running shoe weight is important.
runners agree, running shoe weight is negligible… there’s no harm in having a lighter shoe (unless of course it doesn’t suit your biomechanics) but it’s unlikely to have any measurable speed effects at triathlon paces.
Tests have shown that wearing shoes does decrease running economy, versus going barefoot. However it’s not at all clear that the extra weight in the shoes is the culprit. Since it’s not possible to race barefoot on the roads, some shoe is required: I’d prefer the shoe with adequate cushion and support, over a lightweight one. Luckily it’s hardly necessary anymore, since there are lightweight trainers that are good enough for nearly everyone, at just an ounce or two more than racing flats.
Of course here it’s de rigueur to point out that Abebe Bikila ran 2:15 in Rome barefoot, but 2:12 in Tokyo with shoes - didn’t seem to affect his economy much…
Attempts to quantify the extra effort of lifting one ounce per foot over 10k fail for the same reason that analysis of bike weight alone fails: these measure the wrong thing. Calculated as a percentage of rider+bike weight, the extra 100gm of an aluminum stem really doesn’t matter. Similarly the extra ounce at the end of a leg weighing many pounds cannot add significantly to the effort of moving that leg…
Train heavy, race light, is what I usually do. I suspect the psychological effects of light shoes are more important than the weight itself.
Wear the lightest shoe you can get away with without injuring yourself. I started out with the Brooks GTS 5 a couple years ago when I first started running and am now down to the ASICS Speedstar (8.9 oz.) for training and racing and even the DS-Racer (6.9 oz.) for races up to 10 miles. Lighter shoes feel so much better and I think make a huge difference over time. Also go sockless or wear ultrathin racing socks.
Wow. The Beasts are almost 17 ounces each… so here’s the next question - is there a reason to not train in heavier shoes? (aside from risk of injury - of course)
Yes, for the same reason that everyone says to NOT use ankle weights. These tend to cause the same sorts of injuries to knees/hips/etc that a super-heavy shoe would. Now of course if you are wearing a size 18 your foot is already really heavy, so proportionally a 17oz shoe wouldn’t be a big penalty. But if you are comparing a size 10 Elixir at 9.5oz and a size 10 Beast at 17oz, well that’s a different story.
Here’s another issue. The upper in some shoes is really heavy. The cushioning of a fairly new pair of Elixirs vs the ~150 miles of wear on my Mavericks feels like almost identical cushioning. Yet the upper on the Elixir is a LOT thinner and likely takes up the ~1oz difference in weight between the two pairs. So I am essentially running on the same shoe with less uppers…a net bonus for me is that the toe box material is really soft and should be a lot more comfy on long runs. It’s possible that the uppers in the Beast are adding a few extra useless ounces…?
Every PR that I have for every running distance I have ever done has been set with race shoes. Curretly Mizuno Wave Aero’s vs Wave Rider 8’s used for normal running. I only wear the race shoes for less than HM distance and shorter. I can certainly feel the difference the faster I go (1 mi or 2 mi race). As you get to more of a shuffle run (marathons), the weight of the shoe makes less and less difference, as you are not moving your legs as fast. I can always tell a big difference in any race under a 10k. I also have a pair of Mizuno Wave Creations, which are a heavier, more stable, training type shoe that I use on some of the longer runs and/or on gravel (stability). When going back down to the Rider’s, I can tell. And yes, I am a Mizuno fan! - Their shoes work for me like no other.
I used to work in a running store and had access to about 50 different shoe models. We also had a treadmill in the store and were encouraged to run in different shoes to see how they felt. I second what others have already said, the faster you run the more of a difference it makes. Conversely if you are a slow runner it doesn’t make as big a difference.
If weight were of no concern shoe manufacturers wouldn’t publish the weights of all their track spikes (which they all do in their dealer literature). Also, as someone said, the Beast is a motion control shoe whereas the GTS is a stability trainer and, weight aside, that makes a tremendous difference as running in a different category of shoe will impact your form which will make you faster or slower. Look at racing flats and track spikes. They are all uniformly light, (mostly) devoid of stability devices, and almost always low to the ground.
There are studies out there somewhere. You may be able to google a ACSM article about it. In grossly oversimplified terms: Runners will cover 1 mile in approximately 800 steps. 1 oz of shoe saved per step = 12.5 cumululative lbs. that one does not have to lift per lap when a mile is run on the track. Less weight = less energy expended = faster turnover = faster times. That was Coach Bowerman’s (Nike founder/Oregon & USA Olympic track coach) logic when he used his wife’s waffle iron to create lighter weight distance running shoes for his athletes.
Why is it that racing flats don’t make slow runners fast, disc wheels don’t make slow cyclists fast, but a wetsuit can help a slow swimmer to a respectable swim split?
I think of running shoes as analogous to bike shoes and pedals/cleats. Every step your leg has to lift the weight and while the difference may only be 1oz per shoe, consider the cumulative impact of lifting that extra 1oz 10,000 times over a 13.1 mile run.
The difference with pedals / cycling shoes is that they are attached to each other via the crankset. at a constant cadence, there is no net effect of increasing the mass of the pedal or shoe.
Attach a 5lb weight to each foot on your bike, and see if you feel fast. Logically you are right, but there is measurable acceleration on each pedal stroke, so there is some small difference even when pedaling at a constant rpm. I have a feeling the difference is on the order of insignificance though. Edit: of course, thinking you are fast goes a long way towards actually being fast.
I noticed that doug edited out the statement that triatheletes never run at a pace where shoe weight matters. This is incorrect, as shoe weight is actually more important the slower you go…similar to why aerodynamics is actually more important to a slower rider in terms of total time saved. At a constant power output and constant stride rate, an 8:00 pace runner will take about 1440 strides per mile. A 5:00 pace runner takes only 900 strides per mile. Since a majority of energy with regard to shoe weight is involved in lifting the shoe, the rest being accelerating it forward (with the help of gravity) and moving it back. This means that the total energy involved in shoe weight is mostly proportional to the number of strides taken, and not the distance covered per stride. So…a slower runner actually expends MORE energy per mile in their shoes than a faster runner, not less. How much more is debatable, but it definitely isn’t the other way around.
