Cyclist chiming in: clip-in shoes with a carbon-fiber filled hard plastic soles provide about 30% improvement vs. rubber soled shoes on open pedals. Clip-ins allow you to lift the pedals and drive them forward without the danger of your foot falling off the pedal. These shoes are permitted by the UCI, no questions.
It’s the logical evolution. The Nike waffle trainer was like running in heaven compared to the old Tiger Jayhawks. I applaud Nike for its R&D. These shoes are available to the general public, so talk of a ban is ridiculous. (In my opinion) It’s the other companies that basically repackage the same shoe year after have yet to produce similar breakthrough technology.
2
I am an older runner and I actually think it was useful to mention that for older slower runners, more training and weight loss is more beneficial than a $250 pair of running shoe that would last for just one marathon training.
These expensive shoes would make a worthwhile difference only for highly competitive professional athletes, as evidenced in Kipchoge's Berlin victory and new world record.
3
@Merlin Not only for "older, slower, runners"! Similar comment, that Ms. Reynolds "buried the lead" with Dr. Kram's quote regarding "more training and maybe a little weight loss". Perhaps more broadly applicable, but not nearly as sexy as lacing up some good-looking and expensive shoes that look fast standing still. For exactly those same reasons I've passed on purchasing the 4%s. I'd look like a poseur.
Did an article about running shoes really need to conclude by reminding people to lose weight? And did it need to single out older, slower, inexperienced, or (read between the lines) fatter runners, and tell them these shoes are not for them?
The article states that there is "little evidence" the shoes can help these runners. It doesn't state if this is because experiments have been inconclusive, or if it's because no one has even bothered to experiment with this population.
Running is a rewarding, yet difficult, form of exercise. We should be trying to make the hobby more accessible, not knocking people before they even try.
I swear by these shoes; they make me feel like I am flying and they helped me PR in my second marathon by 14 minutes. They simply make running easier, and for someone new to the sport, I would think that they could help to ease the initial discomfort and pain. Despite the thousands of miles I have logged, the hardest by far were the first 100. I commend anyone who is new to the sport, and I wish articles like these wouldn't serve to further shame them. We were all inexperienced at one time!
21
@Lauren you said it perfectly
@Lauren maybe because it's easier to run faster if one weighs less? Just a guess.
I tried the cheaper model, the one without the highest-tech materials but the same, otherwise. What I found was, there is a narrow band of performance I could hit if I focused on having near perfect running form. But unlike any other running shoes I've ever tried, they made my knees hurt... I believe it's because I pronate a little bit (not a lot!), and that tall, stiff wedge worked like a lever against my knees. After a couple of weeks, I swapped them for something else, and running became fun, again. [Disclaimer: I run between 20 - 30 miles per week].
1
I want to believe that these shoes, combined with enough water and sugar along the way and a flat course might have enabled me to run the marathon at or under 5:30 mile pace. According to charts of equivalent performances I should have been able to do it. But then again, that was 30 pounds and years ago.
2
As a short stout Indian who has been fighting genetics every step of the way trying to run for 20 years, I would pay that amount if it lets me break from my 10 min mile.
14
Anecdote of course:
I think they make a major difference. First marathon in a 3:49, many half’s around 1:53-1:55. Got the shoes and also ramped up training in an attempt to qualify for Boston. During training ran a 1:48 half, no taper. 8 weeks later put them back on and ran a 3:30 marathon.
Yes, I was better trained but it was a marginal difference. Yes, the placebo effect was at work. But I truly felt noticeably faster in these shoes and a 19 minute marathon PR is substantial.
For the price, for an amateur marathoner with goals, I would say they are worth it!
11
@Lola C I had the same experience as you. I just ran a half marathon 7 minute PR without much effort. I normaly run a 3:49 marathon as well in normal "mortal shoes" and trying to qualify for Boston so your 3:30 is very exciting to hear, although I am conflicted - doesn't feel like it really "counts". Thoughts?
I suppose this would appeal to serious competitors or folks who have the means and have to have the next best thing. As an average runner with a typical pace of 5 minutes/kilometer or 8 minutes/mile, I have relied on comparatively basic footwear that works for me. When I had designs on being more competitive, I tried several different and expensive types of more advanced running shoes, but inevitably returned to light, basic shoes that provide enough support and cushion due to a heel injury.
To each his or her own, use what works best, but remember just because it's more expensive, doesn't mean that it's better for everyone.
6
When I was a child a TV commercial for PF Flyer sneakers promised that I will "Run Faster and Jump Higher". I had to have them and when I wore them I was sure that I was running faster and jumping higher.
The next pair of shoes to bestow power to me were Buster Browns which promised to be indestructible. I happily waded into smoldering piles of leaves until the soles melted but had great fun doing it.
15
The article suggests that the shoe will likely not lead to a 4% improvement in a non-elite runner, but do we have any evidence. Indeed for cyclists expensive aero equipment has been demonstrated to bring the biggest percentage gains to the slower riders. I hope this shoes does not usher in an equipment arms race in running similar to what we've seen in club cycling over the past couple of decades.
6
I have arthritis in my big toe. My superb foot and ankle surgeon suggested a carbon mesh plate with a Morton toe extender. I bought one but had to return it. Definitely a lever and carbon fiber mesh. Bet many runners have been using the same technology for many years. But for arthritis. And you get to keep the carbon fiber plate when your $170 Asics wear out. Like mine. But I did it to myself. Ran 8 too many marathons.
3
Hefty marketing for a hefty 250.00 shoe to to shave a few minutes off running time--if you're a marathoner. That's nice. Makes some runners happy, and Nike happy, too.
What's the next topic, Gretchen Reynolds?
1
Each year I run the NYC marathon having just completed my 13th consecutive this year. Though I run from 30-50 miles per week, depending on the time of the year, I am merely an average paced runner, with my typical training pace at a 9 minute mile.
For the past several years I completed the NY marathon around a 4:25 time.
After hearing about the Nike breaking 2 project I became very interested in the Vaporfly 4% and managed o secure a pair for my 2018 training.
I noticed the first time I wore it that I was scorchingly faster with no extra effort. I saved the shoe for a few choice tempo runs and laced it up for the 2018 marathon.
My time was 4:09 and I felt better than I do at the usual 4:25.
So I can say for this average 50 year old male runner, the Vaporfly 4% improved my running speed by 6.6%.
19
@Dr. Lyle, not to diminish your accomplishment at all, but the other consideration that is not addressed in the article is the potential for the placebo effect. You were made aware of the claim of 4% improvement by the massive Breaking 2 ad campaign, and presumably the runners in the studies could not be blinded against knowing which shoes they were testing at a given time. Maybe part of the 4% (or 6.6% in your case) improvement can be attributed to the placebo effect?
10
@A. Sanchez Placebo effect refers to subjective reported improvement. My findings are an objective improvement in running time
4
@Dr. Lyle No, the placebo effect does produce objective, measurable effects.https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect
3
The rule about springs being banned from competition shoes was repealed because the scientists understood that there is no meaningful difference between a spring made out of metal coils and a spring made out of foam (which is what all running shoes are). The new rule simply says: "Athletes may compete barefoot or with footwear on one or both feet. The purpose of shoes for competition is to give protection and stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground. Such shoes, however, must not be constructed so as to give an athlete any unfair additional assistance, including by the incorporation of any technology which will give the wearer any unfair advantage. A shoe strap over the instep is permitted. All types of competition shoes must be approved by IAAF." So basically the IAAF is saying that it reserves the right to ban particular shoes if it determines that they're "unfair," based on as-yet unknown criteria.
2
In Lord Coe we trust.
1