I have a lot of experience going from regular flats in 2015-2017 to VF4% Flyknits in 2018-2019. I was training similarly all those years. Bottom line they do help in my opinion, but for me, not as much as some people, mostly old timers, like to say they do.
2015: 2:28 high 1:09 high and 51:50 10 miler. Saucony Kinvara and Type A5. Could not break 32 and 15:30 in 10K/5K
2018: 2:28 low, 1:09 low, and 51:50 10 miler. VF4%. I could break 32 and 15:30 in 5K.
Age and consitency and many other things could have been a factor as well. I was 29/30 in 2015 and 33/34 in 2018/2019
I run in a club with a few good runners who have jobs, mostly masters guys. Masters guys usually don't get faster, they maintain or decline. 5 of my teammates went 5-10min faster in the Marathon with super shoes than without. One went from 2:58 to 2:48 at 43 years old and has maintained that for several years. As far as I can tell, his training and mileage has not varied much over the past 10+ years. The others seem to be doing all the same workouts, but recovering better in the shoes and bouncing through their races with noticeably faster times than pre-shoes. Again, masters runners don't usually get more time and energy to train, so I mostly attribute our gains to the shoes.
I think the description of never hitting the wall is accurate. My own experience was that with super shoes my tempo runs and races got 5-10sec / mile faster without changing my heart rate and I felt fresher in the following days. This was for 5K races and up, though I never ran a Marathon in them.
Thanks for all the replies. Seems like it’s worth finally trying a pair. I feel like I should optimize training before buying a pair, but I suppose I could do both at once.
Most of the hard data came from people at lot faster than I am currently in my mid 40s (3:07 marathon, 1:27 half shape). I think bumping my mileage to 55mpw (from ~40mpw) and a pair of super shoes could get me to break 3 hours again.
I think they’re about 8-10 seconds per mile for any event. I did a workout of tempo miles on an oversized indoor track and putting them on took my tempo effort from 5:05 to 4:56 at the same heart rate. That was only 3 days later too.
Cut the crap all of you. Only one responder on here has given his PB's in both traditional and cheater. We don't want speculative tempo runs - we want actual race results with actual times in both traditional shoe and cheater.
It is really quite simple.
How none of you raced in both traditional shoe AND cheater?
2012 - First Marathon - Nike Frees (Recommended by a high schooler working at Dick's Sporting Goods - I had no idea what I was doing)
Results: 2:41:xx Full // 1:19:xx Half
2013-2016 - 2 Marathons per year - Nike Pegasus, Brooks (no memory of model, but they were traditional trainers.)
Results: 2:38:xx to 2:40:xx - Could not crack 6-flat avg for the life of me // 1:15:xx Half
2017-2018 - Joined a club. Learned a bit more about actual training - Nike Flyknit Racers and Adidas Adizero Adios.
Results: 2:33:xx Full (3 times) - Could not crack 2:30 for the life of me // 1:10:xx Half.
Sub-2:30/Sub-1:10 was the lifetime goal. Those times seemed godlike to me. If I heard you ran 2:20-2:24, I assumed you ran seriously at college, or were some kind of sponsored/semi-pro.
2019 - Nike 4% (the blue ones) - Breakthrough...
Results: 2:26: xx (2x in 3 months that Spring) + 2:23 that Fall // 1:08:xx Half
I never hit a wall. It felt like a completely different game. I was shocked at how easy things felt in the first half of the race, and I negative split the crap out of everything that year
I used to see sub-2:30/1:10 as a "shoot for the stars", lifetime goal. I can't imagine ever running over 2:30 again with these shoes. It really is a completely different game. Post-marathon recovery used to take up to a full month. Now I'm back in sometimes under a week. You can race a marathon a month if you want. It's awesome.
The way I describe it is that the "wall" is no longer a "wall". It's more of a sand pit. Pre-shoes, you'd hit mile 20, and your legs would turn to wood. Lifting your leg was a struggle, a every foot strike into the pavement sucked away more and more life from your stride. Your 5:xx/mi pace would slip to 6:xx without you noticing, and then immediately you'd fall to the 7/8s, and all the motivation in the world couldn't get you to pick it back up because your legs were just gone. That doesn't happen anymore.
I've found that as long as I don't quit on myself in those final miles, if I was running 5:20s, my blow-ups just turn into bouncing along at 5:50s-6:00s for the final 10K. The shoes provide this little bounce with each step even after your legs are gone, and that little bounce can help you keep a cadence going even when your muscles are spent. That's where I've seen the biggest difference.
The thing that really fascinates me is the guys with sub-2:20s pre-super shoes who have PR'd in many shorter distances since then, but cannot go sub-2:20 anymore. I know a few cases like that. Maybe they're trying to make too big of a jump?
In summary, I got to 2:33 / 1:10 without them - 2:18 / 1:07 with them...
Ran low 2:40s in the Gel Hyperspeeds 10-15 years ago.
Can barley run that pace for 10k now with the Next %. Motivation is still there as I'm getting close to 40, but it's just hard dealing with injury after injury.
Don't know if I would have run much faster with the "Supershoes" but I would have surely saved my legs and body from all those beatings.
I used to see sub-2:30/1:10 as a "shoot for the stars", lifetime goal. I can't imagine ever running over 2:30 again with these shoes. It really is a completely different game. Post-marathon recovery used to take up to a full month. Now I'm back in sometimes under a week. You can race a marathon a month if you want. It's awesome.
The way I describe it is that the "wall" is no longer a "wall". It's more of a sand pit. Pre-shoes, you'd hit mile 20, and your legs would turn to wood. Lifting your leg was a struggle, a every foot strike into the pavement sucked away more and more life from your stride. Your 5:xx/mi pace would slip to 6:xx without you noticing, and then immediately you'd fall to the 7/8s, and all the motivation in the world couldn't get you to pick it back up because your legs were just gone. That doesn't happen anymore.
I've found that as long as I don't quit on myself in those final miles, if I was running 5:20s, my blow-ups just turn into bouncing along at 5:50s-6:00s for the final 10K. The shoes provide this little bounce with each step even after your legs are gone, and that little bounce can help you keep a cadence going even when your muscles are spent. That's where I've seen the biggest difference.
The thing that really fascinates me is the guys with sub-2:20s pre-super shoes who have PR'd in many shorter distances since then, but cannot go sub-2:20 anymore. I know a few cases like that. Maybe they're trying to make too big of a jump?
In summary, I got to 2:33 / 1:10 without them - 2:18 / 1:07 with them...
That is an impressive improvement. How much of that would you put down to breaking the 2:30 mark for the first time and not having it hanging over you, and how much down to the shoes?
From personal experience near misses at 2:30 almost seemed like a jinx, but then when I broke it I broke it 3 times in a row under different conditions and I attributed a lot of that to not having near misses hanging over me.
I can't give direct marathon improvement times (as you'll understand when you read my history below), but based on experience I'd have to say 10s/mile seems like a reasonable estimate.
I started running Jan '07 whilst borderline obese to get fit. Ran my first marathon that September (lost weight crazily quickly!) in a pair of regular Adidas cushioned shoes in 2:55 (expected something sub-3). Got fitter and by mid 2009, in a pair of Nike Zoom Streak XC missed out on going sub-2:30 by 3s.
2010 I was injured (freak accident requiring keyhole knee surgery) and 2011 was mainly a year of trying to establish some basic fitness again. Autumn 2012 I got myself together to have another crack at 2:30, missing by 20s this time, in a pair of Brooks T7 (I felt I would be close again but that it could go either way).
2013 I ran 2:27, 2014 a 2:29 and 2:28, all in Brooks T7s, and all times were pretty much within touching distance of what I expected.
Then life stuff happened and I didn't run a serious marathon again until 2017, in either Brooks or Asics Gel Hyperspeed, where a couple of weeks beforehand I predicted a 5:41 pace, and ran exactly that.
The reason for the background is to highlight that from quite early on I've been pretty decent at judging what time I could manage for any distance, which brings me onto supershoes.
I picked up a pair of 4% but was dealing with health stuff and didn't race for a year. First outing was a 10km where I expected to run about 35:30, but clocked 34:30. A HM slightly afterwards also came in about 10s per mile quicker than expectations. More stuff got in the way since and I've not run a marathon in them under conditions where I could reasonably predict a with/without super shoes shape, but based on that 10km and HM I'd have to think 10s/mile better is in line with what I'd expect as my pace profile across distances has always been both tight, yet extremely consistent.
I think the biggest draw for me with supershoes is that they seem to allow harder training without affecting recovery, or in my case, being the wrong side of 45, with some other health issues in play, they might allow me to reproduce the training that I managed at my best if I use them for training as well as racing. Give them a go; you've got nothing to lose (except time off your pb ;) ).
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Cut the crap all of you. Only one responder on here has given his PB's in both traditional and cheater. We don't want speculative tempo runs - we want actual race results with actual times in both traditional shoe and cheater.
It is really quite simple.
How none of you raced in both traditional shoe AND cheater?
I have, but the comparison doesn't tell you that much because things are never equal.
I ran 2:53 in a pair of Brooks Launch, then I ran 30 seconds slower in a pair of Vaporfly Next% 2's. But that's comparing a very flat course with Boston; and my first marathon to my third; and a great marathon build-up to a so-so 10K-focused buildup; and being 47 to being 50 years old. Even though super shoes are great, you can't isolate what they do from a couple of race times.
I actually ran faster in non-supershoes, but also didn't take a break in the first one.
2019, Brooks Ghost 12s, 3:24:33, no wall, 1:40/1:43 and only slightly slowed
2023, Vaporfly Next 2%, 3:25:24 (but lost 2:00 for bathroom break). Even splits, 1:42:50/1:42:54, quicker recovery.
I do believe there is merit to the shoes--they are much less stressful on your feet!
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
2:42:47 (2019, age-31 in Altra Escalante racers at Milwaukee Marathon)
2:40:15 (2022, age-35 in Alpha Flys at Chicago)
- Milwaukee is a little hillier
- Slightly lower training volume at Chicago (60-65 vs 65-70 mpw, but better marathon specific workouts
- father of 1 kid at Milwaukee, father of 2 at Chicago
I think fitness was a little better in Milwaukee. Based on my training runs, I'd guess the super shoes give me a nearly 10 second/mile advantage. It's certainly noticeable.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Addition
2012 - First Marathon - Nike Frees (Recommended by a high schooler working at Dick's Sporting Goods - I had no idea what I was doing)
Results: 2:41:xx Full // 1:19:xx Half
2013-2016 - 2 Marathons per year - Nike Pegasus, Brooks (no memory of model, but they were traditional trainers.)
Results: 2:38:xx to 2:40:xx - Could not crack 6-flat avg for the life of me // 1:15:xx Half
2017-2018 - Joined a club. Learned a bit more about actual training - Nike Flyknit Racers and Adidas Adizero Adios.
Results: 2:33:xx Full (3 times) - Could not crack 2:30 for the life of me // 1:10:xx Half.
Sub-2:30/Sub-1:10 was the lifetime goal. Those times seemed godlike to me. If I heard you ran 2:20-2:24, I assumed you ran seriously at college, or were some kind of sponsored/semi-pro.
2019 - Nike 4% (the blue ones) - Breakthrough...
Results: 2:26: xx (2x in 3 months that Spring) + 2:23 that Fall // 1:08:xx Half
I never hit a wall. It felt like a completely different game. I was shocked at how easy things felt in the first half of the race, and I negative split the crap out of everything that year
I used to see sub-2:30/1:10 as a "shoot for the stars", lifetime goal. I can't imagine ever running over 2:30 again with these shoes. It really is a completely different game. Post-marathon recovery used to take up to a full month. Now I'm back in sometimes under a week. You can race a marathon a month if you want. It's awesome.
The way I describe it is that the "wall" is no longer a "wall". It's more of a sand pit. Pre-shoes, you'd hit mile 20, and your legs would turn to wood. Lifting your leg was a struggle, a every foot strike into the pavement sucked away more and more life from your stride. Your 5:xx/mi pace would slip to 6:xx without you noticing, and then immediately you'd fall to the 7/8s, and all the motivation in the world couldn't get you to pick it back up because your legs were just gone. That doesn't happen anymore.
I've found that as long as I don't quit on myself in those final miles, if I was running 5:20s, my blow-ups just turn into bouncing along at 5:50s-6:00s for the final 10K. The shoes provide this little bounce with each step even after your legs are gone, and that little bounce can help you keep a cadence going even when your muscles are spent. That's where I've seen the biggest difference.
The thing that really fascinates me is the guys with sub-2:20s pre-super shoes who have PR'd in many shorter distances since then, but cannot go sub-2:20 anymore. I know a few cases like that. Maybe they're trying to make too big of a jump?
In summary, I got to 2:33 / 1:10 without them - 2:18 / 1:07 with them...
I guess I’m going to find out how much these shoes help. I grabbed a pair of Vaporfly 3 in Tokyo yesterday. For some reason I thought they were tough to get back in the US, but I must have been thinking of a different super shoe. Anyway, with the favorable exchange rate, they only cost me $229 including tax.
I’m going to run a few miles in them today. I need to pick a late fall / early winter marathon to try to get back to sub 3.
