Here's a very good article from The Guardian about the rise of supershoes.
I remember it well: it was published on the morning of this year's Paris marathon - which I was running in - and it made me feel inadequate for not having supershoes of my own.
Golf is facing a similar crisis with distance gains caused by driver technology. Many of the world’s famous golf courses can’t hold the best players.
Two of golf’s governing body, the USGA (the United States Golf Association) and the R&A (the Royal and Ancient) have recommended a rollback of the golf ball, which has caused significant debate in golf circles.
Swimming dealt with it in 2009 after complaints that suits like the LZR Racer provided too much buoyancy and records were being broken at an unusual rate:
While the advancement to carbon fiber in running shoes is similar, the exploitation in swimming was far more extreme. This was an unintended side effect of the suit when shifting from skimpy Teflon Speedos ("Fast Skin") to full-body polyethylene LZR suits. The key issue was layering multiple suits. Wearing two suits would trap a huge air bubble between the layers, pushing your body above the surface and reducing your drag substantially.
The multiple suits issue is generally downplayed because it doesn't promote Speedo's new technology and casts swimmers as cheaters. Imagine showing up to a race with your new carbon fiber running shoes, only to see your opponent wearing "Moon Shoes" strapped over their high-tech shoes. It looks ridiculous, but there was no rule against it at the time.
Another way that, a bit sadly, running is becoming more like triathlon or F1. In those, there are a lot of rules about what technology you can use. Annoying, but it will have to happen with running - consider that these "supershoes" in part work like prosthetic running blades do, and those are more efficient than human feet (as they are springs).
I see it the opposite way. Triathlon (and cycling time trialing) becomes very expensive if you want to be competitive because there is too little regulation.
You can buy a lot of performance on a time trial or triathlon bike and I don't think it's good for those sports long term.
To me this notion that shoes like this have a spring action that are actually useful seems dubious. Prosthetic blades have a spring constant that’s clearly calibrated to match the cadence of your running step. I really don’t think the little springs on these shoes could possibly have the necessary correct spring constant to be beneficial in that way.
Yes they might cushion your knees and joints from the blows associated with your foot landing on pavement but that’s a different effect that saying the spring action is actually helping you run more efficiently (like prosthetic blades do).
If we are going to limit tech I think they should reduce the improved precision of chronometers. Lots of records fall simply because of this. It isn't fair that previous record holders lose their record simply due to better measuring technology.
If a more recent record is accurately measured, then that's entirely fair isn't it? It seems like you're implying that an old record was inaccurately measured to be slower than it really was, and then beaten by a more accurately measured modern record?
Inaccuracy goes both ways, less accuracy could just as easily lead to a better time than a worse one.
What you should truly remember in Olympic sports like this is that really only the top 1% should care about this and even then those people probably not.
The engine matters so much more and running. Yeah, 1 to 2% of advantage at the high end. It makes a huge difference for a metals.
But if you're in any sort of participatory level don't bother
If you run for fun, and you have the cash, go ahead and buy the shoes and see if it makes you any faster.
Why not? You only live once. Might as well try all the things you can try and do all the things you can do. Who knows? Maybe the psychological impact of having supershoes will make you a faster, better runner.
The benefits aren't just in speed. There is pretty strong anecdotal evidence from many elite distance runners that training in supershoes reduces leg strain and speeds up recovery. Thus they can come back and do a hard workout again the next day and achieve bigger training gains.
Just the editorial is independent (no influence from university on topics/content published).
> MIT Technology Review is a bimonthly magazine wholly owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and editorially independent of the university.
> Technology Review billed itself as "MIT's Magazine of Innovation". Since 2001, it has been published by Technology Review Inc., a nonprofit independent media company owned by MIT.
I run to get fit but it is also freeing to know your body can cover distance without much effort. If the coffee shop is a mile away but you are a decent runner you can go there and back in ~20 minutes without getting tired/sweaty. No car, no bike or other equipment, just step out the door and go. If a pair of shoes could extend my range I am all for it.
it's even worse with cycling. You could get fit cycling a heavy bike around the neighborhood instead you spend thousands to go 100kms. And accidents always happen at the point most distant from home. And you get more flats the further you go
I took my (cheap and heavy) bicycle to the shop. The guy was going to oil the chain, but I told him not to, as my commute is fixed and I want it to be good exercise.
I guess that, when you're racing, you want to win, not necessarily to expend max effort. For a commute where I use a bicycle instead of motorcycle specifically for the exercise, I want the opposite.
I was going to say the same thing. A poorly maintained chain wears and “stretches,” and in turn wears gears faster. There’s no need to intentionally wear out components for better exercise - just ride a longer route faster, throw rocks in a backpack, etc. A poorly lubed chain only adds maybe 5-10 Watts, which is not much in terms of fitness improvements. And a worn chain and drivetrain is more prone to slipping or breaking, which is a good way to get injured.
Edit: I just realized nsteel said pretty much the same thing below.
Yeah, definitely. I expect I'll have to pay something to keep fit, and the chain and gears are probably cheaper than a gym subscription. They're also not very good components, which puts them in the bottom end of the price range, so that's good too.
Please do be careful and monitor the condition of your chain if you're going to deliberately let it degrade. You can cause yourself quite a nasty accident when your chain snaps, or even slips on the teeth at an unfortunate moment. I'd personally find a different way to increase the effort e.g. carry more mass
Not to mention that a broken chain means an inoperable bike, and replacing a chain on the go is a messy job. And if the chainrings are worn due to a poorly maintained chain, a replacement new chain may not even fit correctly.
So, even without injury, a broken chain even two miles away from town and a bike shop is no fun.
But you could just ride harder with a smoother chain, or like, carry a pack of gum with you? If you carried an extra water bottle, it'd be orders of magnitude harder for you than the difference the dirty chain makes. This is hands down one of the silliest things I've ever seen discussed in my decades of being a cyclist and working at bike shops, etc. If you want to exercise there's a million better options than purposefully neglecting your bike.
I took up running again, primarily to become fitter.
There's muscular adaptation.
There's cardio vascular adaptation.
I don't know how much skeletal / ligament adaptation there is, especially at my age.
I recently purchased a nice pair of running shoes after doing some research - fortunately, they were on sale and not much more expensive than my relatively entry level pair that I needed to replace.
There was zero breaking in - they fit perfectly, felt amazing right away. They cushion better. My running distance hasn't gone up, but I'm recovering faster and able to run more often.
Running on pavement isn't kind to the body. If shoes can help reduce injury, then some people will use that to push harder while others will be glad that they're getting fit without getting hurt.
Start running to get fit, expending X calories per mile.
If you lose weight due to all the running/exercise, well, then, you've made it easier for your body to cover the same distance since you weigh less now.
But your weight loss will decrease if you keep your running distance constant since your lighter body requires fewer calories to cover the same distance.
This makes me wonder if when the 4 minute mile was broken, and thereafter broken by several more people in short order, was this due to improved shoes?
The example is frequently cited as a "mental shift" causing improved performance, but was it just better shoes?
The shoes Roger Bannister broke the 4 minute mile in are NOTHING like modern running shoes, which were invented in the 1960s and only popularized in the 70s.
"... physical attributes more common in this group that are conducive to an energy-efficient gait, including... a high ratio of leg length to torso." I wonder how much the added height of the shoes mimics (or exaggerates) having long legs?
I'm contemplating a switch from the minimalist shoes I adopted not long after Born to Run was released.
Although I don't run as regularly or consistently as I used to, I suspect there are gains to be had from wearing a squishy carbon-plate 8-10mm drop shoe.
I'm on a stint of running at the moment, and wonder whether it's better to persist with my minimalist shoes until I (once again) reach a plateauing of gains, or do I switch now and benefit immediately?
You should switch immediately. The underrated piece is how much friendlier squishy shoes are on your joints and muscles. I have pretty good form and modern shoes still decrease my recovery time by like 1/3 compared to minimal ones.
The next day, after the first marathon I'd run in Vaporflys, I said to my wife, "I don't think I ran hard enough." Oh, I ran hard enough, but super shoes really save the legs, such that you won't feel as beat up the next day.
And they do make me faster as an added benefit. :-)
Your minimalist shoes aren't going to be faster in a race, but they are still good for you. I think the way to go is to run in many pairs of shoes. Super shoes for some fast workouts and races, normal shoes for long runs and tempo work, minimalist shoes good to keep your feet strong, Achilles long, etc. Some of the fastest runners I know run in zero drop shoes, but they also run in carbon shoes. There's no value in limiting yourself.
There are so many other reliably low-hanging fruit for most runners that jumping to supershoes is unlikely to make nearly as much of a difference.
Like you'll see much larger gains adding 10+ miles per week to your training volume.
The supershoes mainly benefit those who've maxed out their training volume and ability to recover, and are training for professional competition instead of health or recreation.
And strength training is still severely underutilized by most endurance-focused athletes. It also improves running economy while having a host of other benefits.
this is categorically untrue, it would've been true ten/fifteen years ago perhaps, supershoes absolutely make a difference to both performance and recovery, moreso if you're used to the relatively demanding minimalist shoes.
>Like you'll see much larger gains adding 10+ miles per week to your training volume.
I'm not familiar enough with rowing volume to comment on that. And I'm not sure how running shoe selection impacts rowing . . . .
The overwhelming majority of runners are running less than 30 miles per week. Competitive amateurs might be doing 40-60. Most would see better than 4% improvements adding 10+ miles to their training volume.
This is definitely true. Distance/time running is the most effective lever you can pull to increase performance assuming your form isn’t completely messed up.
I used to run competitively in my teens. Now nearly 40 and getting back into it. Recently upped distance to 50 miles a week (mostly slow) from 20 and I’m suddenly doing sub 17min 5ks. Couldn’t get below 19 mins before upping mileage.
if you want to run faster run further - yes, but the conditioning this implies includes aerobic, psychological, technical, etc as being holistically improved.
if I add ten miles to my running it is purely mechanical conditioning, I'll see zero improvement in my physical strength, respiration, mental resilience...so I would expect very little added benefit...at least less than I'd probably see with more forgiving shoes.
Adding volume directly improves your cardiovascular physiology in ways that causally improve your performance and has been the bedrock of endurance training for decades across sports.
It's the most reliable way of improving performance to the point that increasing Zone 2 volume alone can drive huge performance improvements at sub-elite paces, much more than the 4% we're seeing from these shoes.
Adding ten miles will absolutely increase respiration and mental resilience, because every minute added taxes those faculties, and time on feet is a huge part of conditioning your lower legs to handle the volumes of really long distances. You can be cardiovascularly advanced but have trouble with longer distances without specific training, but training for marathons often improves your performance at every shorter aerobic distance.
If you want to improve physical strength, do strength training. Shoes won't do it for you.
Switch now, use them for your hard workouts (intervals, tempo, and the like), and racing. Don't use them for your plodding recovery runs, as they won't really work and you're wasting expensive shoes. Yes, you'll be faster, but as sibling says the real benefit is your legs don't get as trashed on hard runs.
They will last longer than advertised. yeah, I probably wouldn't race marathons in them much past 200 miles or so, but I've got some Vaporflys that I only use for workouts now, and they are approaching 400 mile, IIRC. I've done back-to-back comparisons with the worn pair and a practically new pair, and yes, they lose a fair bit of bounce after 200 miles. But they can still be used for workouts, and they still preserve the legs.
That’s a solid question, but AFAIK it’s the cushion and energy return from that pricey foam that is the leg-saver. Training benefit remains the same for practical purposes.
My read on it is that it reduces the amount of engagement required by various muscles and particularly feet. It makes running a lower impact exercise, closer to cycling. This is great for training VO2 max but we mustn’t forget that one of great things about running is that it trains all sorts of small support muscles, particularly in feet and lower legs.
...doubt these shoes would benefit me in a meaningful way at this point.
You would probably be surprised. Can you race at 8:00/mile? Do you not heel strike like you're pounding fence posts? Then they'll probably work for you. I've run 50 mile races averaging around 9:00/mile in Vaporflys, and I still benefited greatly, if only because my legs weren't as trashed as they might have been in other shoes.
I watched a video recently where a reasonably good runner switched from minimalist to vaporflys and it was transformative, I think you're underestimating just how significant the advances in performance shoes have been (as the article points out).
I can assure you that many super shoes will make you noticeably faster. Try them on in the store, you'll know right away. That being said, some of them (Nike's especially) are really hard to run in. Almost zero heel support, and so you do have to be quite fast to make some of them work.
I have run in Endorphin Pro 3's and they are super super stable. I've work them for very slow ultras as well as fast workouts: excellent shoes all around.
It's all about running technique, not the shoes. If you switch to minimalist shoes, but continue with the same (wrong) technique then you'll have problems.
Big, padded shoes are for a specific (wrong) technique. "Barefoot" running technique doesn't need fancy shoes.
Nike, et al., spent millions of dollars demonstrating that this statement is untrue.
Big, padded shoes are for a specific (wrong) technique.
Demonstrably untrue, as TFA discusses at length. TFA isn’t talking about the Hokas that your grandmother wears to the grocery, these are race shoes. You going to go tell Kipchoge that his “technique” is all wrong, and he needs to switch to Vibram Five Fingers?
I learned from a book called "Chi Running", there's similar book if you search for "barefoot running".
The book "Born to Run" is also educational about the natural running gait for humans, as we didn't wear special "performance" shoes for running until the 1960s.
Better running shoes are like recumbent bicycles getting banned from bicycle races or turbochargers from formula 1. I read Nike had in the 80-90 figured out some thicker bouncy sole that was so good they banned it. Now we have faster shoes only in theory. lol
This was the first hit in google (I'm that lazy) it illustrates nicely how all the rules are designed for a competitive sport on equal footing (pun mine)
> Athletes may not use any appliance, either inside or outside the shoe, which will have the effect of increasing the thickness of the sole above the permitted maximum, or which can give the wearer any advantage which they would not obtain from the type of shoe described in the previous paragraphs
It is kind of sad for real innovation if everything that works gets banned.
It's sports so the whole thing is contrived to have a fun set of rules (if you're just trying to go fast, get a car, etc.). So innovation is ultimateld really only impressive if it helps reduce injury or improve comfort. Making it more expensive to participate is not super impressive.
I too had flat fleet, and wore arch supports for many years, but after training in barefoot running for a year I "fixed" the issue. I even ran a marathon in barefoot shoes! It sounds like an advertisement, but it was life-changing for me. (I'm also a big guy at 240lbs)
The book I used is "Chi Running" but there's many similar books.
Yeah, not quite the same but my arches stabilised by moving to a more forward strike - mid to forefoot. We've been careful with my son who is now 6 to have flexible soled shoes and he naturally runs like this (may not be related, but interesting to note).
Glad you asked here. I was taking down notes during the article to inquire about if this would help me get into running. I have very flat arches as well, but I've never been a runner and my knees are already pretty bad.
I remember it well: it was published on the morning of this year's Paris marathon - which I was running in - and it made me feel inadequate for not having supershoes of my own.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/apr/07/carbon-fibre-s...