Very interesting! I had been wondered how you could test this. I had thought of putting my shoes in a bucket of water, getting rid of the excess water but even though would be "heavy" would not be adding as much as you did and would be "losing" weight as they dried out. That said the weights looked like they made your foot somewhat wider and "higher" although it looked like you got your Vaporflys on OK. Did you have to loosen the laces to allow the weighted foot in? So did I hear correctly average HR only went down 2 bpm when took off the 600g weights? I guess with heart rate drift, you might expect a 2nd run to be about 2 bpm higher anyway so maybe an effective 4 bpm difference. Even so that isn't that much. Have seen my HR going up that much just talking to my GoPro. I never found Stryd could really detect difference between a light race shoe and a heavier daily trainer but the weight differences there much less of course.
Tim, the trick with this test and why it took so long to do was figuring out how to get the weights and actually attach them. The trick was really in the socks. A pair of Sayskys that are not compression socks, but not far off. Once I slid them on the kept a lot of the weight from shifting. Yes the VF3 was taller on top but not at the sides, particularly. The HR only went down a small amount. I put this down to the testing, testing conditions. Usually I do the Treadmill sessions and then the Track sessions. This time I had to do the weighted Track and Treadmill sessions first and then the non weighted, so that I didn't have to go detaching and attaching the weights at the sports centre. On the second non weightes treadmill session as I was looking out I could see the Track filling up, and I think I may have started a little sooner than I would have liked and the HR and adrenaline might have been a bit higher than idea. But honestly, it was a huge amount of fun to do this.
Thank you for another intriguing video. I'm impressed that you were able to run with all of those sharp pieces of metal wrapped around your feet! I look forward to your next video. Keep up the great work.
Thanks! It was funny. The first time I put the metal on a few of them dug in. Then come in strips of different small pieces and have sticky tape so I just tore a few off and moved them on each foot. The socks really helped bind them and prevent slipping. They were surprisingly comfortable.
I couldn't weight for this video 😉 I thought your design of experiment was well conceived and executed as it minimised other variances like different shoe dynamics. The results weren't quite of the magnitude of the study you reference - 3% slower for you versus 6% in the study. For me, that's the bit that captures my attention. Is there anything in the study that says what the limits of the 1% rule are, e.g. speed of runner distance run, range of mass of shoe?
The thing is, there is too little data. My study data is well, a bit lightweight. (You deserved that!) There are so many factors that detailed conclusions are hard to make, but broad brush ones I can stand over. Even in the three studies in the linked articles in the description have limitations of data sets. This one goes through some of the things that you mention: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7538857/ What I need is to run a marathon as light a weight as possible and have the guy beside me run with an added 10kg weight at the same time distance and pace (allowing for toilet breaks) and see how he gets on... If only I knew someone...
Just found this channel - loving the academic approach. Not experienced enough for this to really matter to me (at my speed I need improvements by minutes, not seconds) but thought I'd comment anyway to encourage the algorithm. :-) Have subscribed to hear more experiments!
As we are long distance runners in think next test should be to add 100 - 125 gr and do a comparison 10K...this will show the dif between a recovery shoe and a racing shoe?
Keep it lighter, keep it tighter... unique content as usual, Barry 👏👏👏 So the lighter the shoes the better the running performance = Evos are worth it... provided we are on an adidas running contract 😂 Running form coaches go on about lifting the knee / foot, and light on feet vertical motion. Which is surely easier to lighter the shoe. So glad you didn’t damage your feet for our benefit!
I really enjoyed this test. There are so many variables to consider. You can make the shoe so light that in reality you are trending towards no shoe, and then all the factors of cushioning, distance, athlete weight...The real conclusion after three of these tests as far as I can stand over is the idea of keeping it lighter and keeping it tighter. 100g on my torso will have a negligible affect. I tell myself this as I am strapping on a chest camera for a night race later...
@OldManRunner by the looks of it (strava) you enjoyed the Saysky event 🫶 I wish I could run in minimal (therefore super light) shoes but my body breaks just thinking about it 😞
It's always that balance between lightness and load...I don't often run in my lightest Streakfly shoes, even though I love them. Was Vaporflying last night...and still buzzing after the event...
Tried this week to run on a treadmill in: 1) Superblast 1 2) Puma Magmax nitro Same speed, same time, but in Magmax my average heartrate was 7 BPM higher. So, yeah...
I wouldn't add too much weight and would go for at least 20 km. Basing on my personal experience adding orthotics weighing 47 grams to a shoe definitely made a difference in effort perception and performance.
I have some "stock" ones with more arch support and heel height that also add about 50g that has helped with some Achilles issues of late. Find them "better" for walking than running however. When running feels "different" and makes any shoe very firm and a bit uncomfortable if I go for too long Achilles issues or not. So yeah whilst that 50g makes me "slower" I feel it is more the actual insole itself. If I can I prefer to just run "as is" in a shoe.
I love these experiments. I think I also had pointed out that your previous experiment with different shoes with different characteristics was not a good comparison but I think you did a great job in this one. I am curious about a couple of your Stryd Metrics. 1) Running Effectiveness (RE): Running Effectiveness is a power metric (similar to running efficiency and running economy) and is how effectively you convert power to speed. It is calculated as follows: RE = Speed / (Avg Power / Stryd Weight) where speed is in m/s, Avg Power in Watts, Stryd Weight in kg (from Stryd Config. not your current weight) You would need an online calculator to convert pace to speed (can be done by hand but easier) I would like to see how your RE has changed with and without weights. 2) Leg Spring Stiffness (LSS) (kN/m) 3) Form Power Ratio (FPR) Finally, did you compare your foot path with and without the weights? How did it change?
Tolunay Apologies. Have been away. Here is the raw detail: www.stryd.com/powercenter/runs/6518761507684352 www.stryd.com/powercenter/runs/5972755502235648 www.stryd.com/powercenter/runs/6645244804890624 www.stryd.com/powercenter/runs/6215238383468544 Not sure if you can see the footpath analysis on the links above.. I didn't delve into the Footpath analysis in this video. I kind of pick just enough of the data to make the point as best I can. I am going another session in a few weeks comparing the AF3 and ZoomFly 5 which has arrived, and which I have yet to run in. I will go into more footpath analysis there. Now to finish editing the Saysky Sub Rosa video...
Interesting video, it would've been helpful if you had put some text on the screen to display all the numbers you were saying. A big thing with weight on the foot isn't just that it's far from the CG, it's that you are moving back and forth relative to your CG. Every step, you have to accelerate your foot from stopped (at the front of the front stroke) to your running speed, then it stops again at the back of the backstroke and you have to accelerate to a speed faster than your running speed to get your foot in front of you again. Since the force to accelerate something is Force = Mass * Acceleration Rate, the higher the mass the more force you have to put into your feet twice per step to get them through the stroke. Similarly you lift your foot in the backstroke, so the more weight the more force it takes to raise your foot.
No it doesn't sound right, but have a read of the scientific reports in the description...a lot will depend on the athlete, the speed at which they are running etc. But 100g swinging off the end of each foot 42,000 times or so in a marathon will have some effect...
It is not actually speed but running economy which is determined by the amount of oxygen you consume (convert to CO2). Basically your body has to work metabolically harder to maintain the same speed. They put a face mask in the lab while you are running on a treadmill and analyze the gasses as time passes.
@@TolunayOrkun And the lab says that for every 100g you add to your shoes you need 1% more effort? 1% seems like too little to me for 100g. I feel a world of difference from a shoe that's 200g and one that's 300g.
Respectfully, you're failing to understand nearly all aspects of running and your concluding statement is incorrect (keep it light, etc). Generally added weight is incurred in a shoe because of a technology or material whose benefits override the weight addition it brings to a shoe. It's that simple. For example Brooks offers many of their shoes in 2 models with the only difference being the added technology brings with it additional weight, GTS (go-to-support guide rail system). So there's the Brooks Hyperion 2 and the Hyperion 2 GTS model which is heavier (and most of there shoes come in 2 version like this, with the GTS version being heavier). Many runners need, benefit, and perform better in a stability shoe - despite it being heavier. There is actual research that's concluded mid pack runners perform worse in carbon plated shoes due to how stressful and fatiguing the additional forces produced by that carbon plate are on the body over 26.2. In summary, the much lighter carbon racing shoe 'wears down' midpack runners and the upside of the carbon is overshadowed by the additional punishment and toll they place onto the body - to the measure to where they perform better in a less stress and fatigue inducing shoe (a standard cushion shoe).
You are right in that there is productive weight, and non productive weight. By way of example the added weights I used were non productive. Some plates and foams are productive. In general and there are a lot of generalities, lighter is better, but take that to the extreme in a shoe and there won't be a shoe. It is also true that when the weight is closer to your torso and not on the extremities of your foot, it is preferable. There simply is not enough research into running shoes. You can read the academic reports and the sample sizes are small. Some are conflicting, which is not unusual. I wish the sample sizes were bigger, that there were more tests and in part I make videos hoping it will spark people to produce more detailed studies. I am a mid pack runner and have found great benefits in carbon plate shoes, both in performance and recovery time. But everyone is different, which is why I would like to see larger studies and more factual data based results from manufacturers.
@@OldManRunner It's a fact Adidas Energy Rods 2.0 technology is an answer / response to the detrimental effects of running on a carbon plate (metatarsal stress). Additionally a shoe like the Nike Alpha Fly 3 class is engineered for a runner with an 18-22 (maybe 23) BMI who can forefoot and or midsole strike 26.2. Therein lies the fallacy of much of what you're saying. Race day carbon shoes are engineered for Elite runners of a specific physical profile and mechanics....and suggesting they are equally suitable for mid pack runners with a profoundly greater BMI and different mechanics is saying physics & engineering are not relevant. My 25 BMI forefoot striking in a Hoka Cielo X1 and its 2-layer PEBA midsole produces significant lateral sway in the forefoot, and HOKA will not dispute that and say it's due to the shoe not being engineered for my mass. All I'm saying is weight of a shoe is almost irrelevant for non-elite runners and racing 26.2. Your best performance is going to come from a shoe that is the least fatiguing and stressful for you over the distance -- regardless of it's weight.
I completely agree with your last sentence. It's just that for me the lighter weight of my carbon plate shoes causes me less fatiguing over the longer distances. Much as I love my Infinity RN 4 GTX that weighs twice what my Vaporfly 3's do, I would be exhausted after a half marathon in them, and my I would not run a marathon in my much loved superlight Streakfly's because they don't have enough cushioning. After 14 marathons in carbon plate shoes I have not had any injuries or stresses but I accept that everyone is different and these are just my experiences.
The Vaporfly 3 is an excellent shoe that combines both low weight and productivity whilst giving a comfortable ride. I’m a mid pack runner and definitely perform better in these shoes over 5k and half marathon distances. Interestingly they are not preferred by elite runners who want a more aggressive shoe (such as the Vaporfly 2). The compromise with this shoe is a lack of relative durability due to it having less outsole coverage, especially at the heel.
@@RichardHitchcock-ig4lj That shoe has no rearfoot stability, was intentionally designed as such, and is not made for heel strike runners (which is the vast majority of the mid pack). Related to what you're saying this is seen in how the outer sole & ZoomX foam commonly separates & shreds (in less than 50 miles for heel strikers). This is documented by runners on lots of different forums with images and exactly what happened and is reported by Tom from the Run Testers (RUclips running shoe reviewers) and for him it happened at 35K/22 miles into the shoe and in their video he shows and tells the story of how the outer sole simply fell off and was shredding Zoomx. If you unpack what you're saying, you're critical of the shoe's engineering and design - in a context and use in which the shoe was never intended to serve or accommodate (heel striking).
![Digital Circus Episode 4 [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/abZtsmMUbJo/mqdefault.jpg)
Very interesting! I had been wondered how you could test this. I had thought of putting my shoes in a bucket of water, getting rid of the excess water but even though would be "heavy" would not be adding as much as you did and would be "losing" weight as they dried out. That said the weights looked like they made your foot somewhat wider and "higher" although it looked like you got your Vaporflys on OK. Did you have to loosen the laces to allow the weighted foot in? So did I hear correctly average HR only went down 2 bpm when took off the 600g weights? I guess with heart rate drift, you might expect a 2nd run to be about 2 bpm higher anyway so maybe an effective 4 bpm difference. Even so that isn't that much. Have seen my HR going up that much just talking to my GoPro. I never found Stryd could really detect difference between a light race shoe and a heavier daily trainer but the weight differences there much less of course.
Tim, the trick with this test and why it took so long to do was figuring out how to get the weights and actually attach them. The trick was really in the socks. A pair of Sayskys that are not compression socks, but not far off. Once I slid them on the kept a lot of the weight from shifting. Yes the VF3 was taller on top but not at the sides, particularly. The HR only went down a small amount. I put this down to the testing, testing conditions. Usually I do the Treadmill sessions and then the Track sessions. This time I had to do the weighted Track and Treadmill sessions first and then the non weighted, so that I didn't have to go detaching and attaching the weights at the sports centre. On the second non weightes treadmill session as I was looking out I could see the Track filling up, and I think I may have started a little sooner than I would have liked and the HR and adrenaline might have been a bit higher than idea. But honestly, it was a huge amount of fun to do this.
Thank you for another intriguing video. I'm impressed that you were able to run with all of those sharp pieces of metal wrapped around your feet! I look forward to your next video. Keep up the great work.
Thanks! It was funny. The first time I put the metal on a few of them dug in. Then come in strips of different small pieces and have sticky tape so I just tore a few off and moved them on each foot. The socks really helped bind them and prevent slipping. They were surprisingly comfortable.
I couldn't weight for this video 😉
I thought your design of experiment was well conceived and executed as it minimised other variances like different shoe dynamics. The results weren't quite of the magnitude of the study you reference - 3% slower for you versus 6% in the study. For me, that's the bit that captures my attention. Is there anything in the study that says what the limits of the 1% rule are, e.g. speed of runner distance run, range of mass of shoe?
The thing is, there is too little data. My study data is well, a bit lightweight. (You deserved that!) There are so many factors that detailed conclusions are hard to make, but broad brush ones I can stand over. Even in the three studies in the linked articles in the description have limitations of data sets.
This one goes through some of the things that you mention:
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7538857/
What I need is to run a marathon as light a weight as possible and have the guy beside me run with an added 10kg weight at the same time distance and pace (allowing for toilet breaks) and see how he gets on...
If only I knew someone...
Thanks, Barry, for another detailed discussion.
Glad you liked it...more to follow...
@OldManRunner nice
Just found this channel - loving the academic approach. Not experienced enough for this to really matter to me (at my speed I need improvements by minutes, not seconds) but thought I'd comment anyway to encourage the algorithm. :-)
Have subscribed to hear more experiments!
Thanks for commenting and subscribing...!
Ah Barry you're a marvel!!!
As we are long distance runners in think next test should be to add 100 - 125 gr and do a comparison 10K...this will show the dif between a recovery shoe and a racing shoe?
Oh crikey, I thought I had finally done with the weight testing videos...but this does sound interesting...have a couple of shoes in mind...
Keep it lighter, keep it tighter... unique content as usual, Barry 👏👏👏
So the lighter the shoes the better the running performance = Evos are worth it... provided we are on an adidas running contract 😂
Running form coaches go on about lifting the knee / foot, and light on feet vertical motion. Which is surely easier to lighter the shoe.
So glad you didn’t damage your feet for our benefit!
I really enjoyed this test. There are so many variables to consider. You can make the shoe so light that in reality you are trending towards no shoe, and then all the factors of cushioning, distance, athlete weight...The real conclusion after three of these tests as far as I can stand over is the idea of keeping it lighter and keeping it tighter. 100g on my torso will have a negligible affect. I tell myself this as I am strapping on a chest camera for a night race later...
@OldManRunner by the looks of it (strava) you enjoyed the Saysky event 🫶
I wish I could run in minimal (therefore super light) shoes but my body breaks just thinking about it 😞
It's always that balance between lightness and load...I don't often run in my lightest Streakfly shoes, even though I love them. Was Vaporflying last night...and still buzzing after the event...
Tried this week to run on a treadmill in:
1) Superblast 1
2) Puma Magmax nitro
Same speed, same time, but in Magmax my average heartrate was 7 BPM higher. So, yeah...
Always regretted missing out on the Superblast...
@@OldManRunner Get SuperBlast 2. It is hard to get but more available than v1.
I wouldn't add too much weight and would go for at least 20 km. Basing on my personal experience adding orthotics weighing 47 grams to a shoe definitely made a difference in effort perception and performance.
I have some "stock" ones with more arch support and heel height that also add about 50g that has helped with some Achilles issues of late. Find them "better" for walking than running however. When running feels "different" and makes any shoe very firm and a bit uncomfortable if I go for too long Achilles issues or not. So yeah whilst that 50g makes me "slower" I feel it is more the actual insole itself. If I can I prefer to just run "as is" in a shoe.
I love these experiments. I think I also had pointed out that your previous experiment with different shoes with different characteristics was not a good comparison but I think you did a great job in this one. I am curious about a couple of your Stryd Metrics.
1) Running Effectiveness (RE): Running Effectiveness is a power metric (similar to running efficiency and running economy) and is how effectively you convert power to speed. It is calculated as follows:
RE = Speed / (Avg Power / Stryd Weight) where speed is in m/s, Avg Power in Watts, Stryd Weight in kg (from Stryd Config. not your current weight)
You would need an online calculator to convert pace to speed (can be done by hand but easier)
I would like to see how your RE has changed with and without weights.
2) Leg Spring Stiffness (LSS) (kN/m)
3) Form Power Ratio (FPR)
Finally, did you compare your foot path with and without the weights? How did it change?
Tolunay
Apologies. Have been away. Here is the raw detail:
www.stryd.com/powercenter/runs/6518761507684352
www.stryd.com/powercenter/runs/5972755502235648
www.stryd.com/powercenter/runs/6645244804890624
www.stryd.com/powercenter/runs/6215238383468544
Not sure if you can see the footpath analysis on the links above.. I didn't delve into the Footpath analysis in this video. I kind of pick just enough of the data to make the point as best I can. I am going another session in a few weeks comparing the AF3 and ZoomFly 5 which has arrived, and which I have yet to run in. I will go into more footpath analysis there.
Now to finish editing the Saysky Sub Rosa video...
👍
Interesting video, it would've been helpful if you had put some text on the screen to display all the numbers you were saying.
A big thing with weight on the foot isn't just that it's far from the CG, it's that you are moving back and forth relative to your CG. Every step, you have to accelerate your foot from stopped (at the front of the front stroke) to your running speed, then it stops again at the back of the backstroke and you have to accelerate to a speed faster than your running speed to get your foot in front of you again. Since the force to accelerate something is Force = Mass * Acceleration Rate, the higher the mass the more force you have to put into your feet twice per step to get them through the stroke. Similarly you lift your foot in the backstroke, so the more weight the more force it takes to raise your foot.
Apologies. I usually try to include the numbers. Thanks for all of the interesting points.
Long ago we used to strap on weights to the heel and run.. I don't know if it actually did anything except make us run in a funny way..
The thing about this test was that the weights were relly comfortable. I noticed the weight but there was no discomfort in the running...
Oh my god 😂😂😂😂
"For every 100g of additional weight you add per shoe you lose speed by about 1%" That doesn't sound very right.
Just google it!
No it doesn't sound right, but have a read of the scientific reports in the description...a lot will depend on the athlete, the speed at which they are running etc. But 100g swinging off the end of each foot 42,000 times or so in a marathon will have some effect...
@@OldManRunnerYeah I agree, I meant that 100g is a lot to have only 1% effect.
It is not actually speed but running economy which is determined by the amount of oxygen you consume (convert to CO2). Basically your body has to work metabolically harder to maintain the same speed. They put a face mask in the lab while you are running on a treadmill and analyze the gasses as time passes.
@@TolunayOrkun And the lab says that for every 100g you add to your shoes you need 1% more effort? 1% seems like too little to me for 100g. I feel a world of difference from a shoe that's 200g and one that's 300g.
Respectfully, you're failing to understand nearly all aspects of running and your concluding statement is incorrect (keep it light, etc). Generally added weight is incurred in a shoe because of a technology or material whose benefits override the weight addition it brings to a shoe. It's that simple. For example Brooks offers many of their shoes in 2 models with the only difference being the added technology brings with it additional weight, GTS (go-to-support guide rail system). So there's the Brooks Hyperion 2 and the Hyperion 2 GTS model which is heavier (and most of there shoes come in 2 version like this, with the GTS version being heavier). Many runners need, benefit, and perform better in a stability shoe - despite it being heavier.
There is actual research that's concluded mid pack runners perform worse in carbon plated shoes due to how stressful and fatiguing the additional forces produced by that carbon plate are on the body over 26.2. In summary, the much lighter carbon racing shoe 'wears down' midpack runners and the upside of the carbon is overshadowed by the additional punishment and toll they place onto the body - to the measure to where they perform better in a less stress and fatigue inducing shoe (a standard cushion shoe).
You are right in that there is productive weight, and non productive weight. By way of example the added weights I used were non productive. Some plates and foams are productive. In general and there are a lot of generalities, lighter is better, but take that to the extreme in a shoe and there won't be a shoe. It is also true that when the weight is closer to your torso and not on the extremities of your foot, it is preferable.
There simply is not enough research into running shoes. You can read the academic reports and the sample sizes are small. Some are conflicting, which is not unusual. I wish the sample sizes were bigger, that there were more tests and in part I make videos hoping it will spark people to produce more detailed studies. I am a mid pack runner and have found great benefits in carbon plate shoes, both in performance and recovery time. But everyone is different, which is why I would like to see larger studies and more factual data based results from manufacturers.
@@OldManRunner It's a fact Adidas Energy Rods 2.0 technology is an answer / response to the detrimental effects of running on a carbon plate (metatarsal stress). Additionally a shoe like the Nike Alpha Fly 3 class is engineered for a runner with an 18-22 (maybe 23) BMI who can forefoot and or midsole strike 26.2. Therein lies the fallacy of much of what you're saying. Race day carbon shoes are engineered for Elite runners of a specific physical profile and mechanics....and suggesting they are equally suitable for mid pack runners with a profoundly greater BMI and different mechanics is saying physics & engineering are not relevant.
My 25 BMI forefoot striking in a Hoka Cielo X1 and its 2-layer PEBA midsole produces significant lateral sway in the forefoot, and HOKA will not dispute that and say it's due to the shoe not being engineered for my mass. All I'm saying is weight of a shoe is almost irrelevant for non-elite runners and racing 26.2. Your best performance is going to come from a shoe that is the least fatiguing and stressful for you over the distance -- regardless of it's weight.
I completely agree with your last sentence. It's just that for me the lighter weight of my carbon plate shoes causes me less fatiguing over the longer distances. Much as I love my Infinity RN 4 GTX that weighs twice what my Vaporfly 3's do, I would be exhausted after a half marathon in them, and my I would not run a marathon in my much loved superlight Streakfly's because they don't have enough cushioning. After 14 marathons in carbon plate shoes I have not had any injuries or stresses but I accept that everyone is different and these are just my experiences.
The Vaporfly 3 is an excellent shoe that combines both low weight and productivity whilst giving a comfortable ride. I’m a mid pack runner and definitely perform better in these shoes over 5k and half marathon distances. Interestingly they are not preferred by elite runners who want a more aggressive shoe (such as the Vaporfly 2). The compromise with this shoe is a lack of relative durability due to it having less outsole coverage, especially at the heel.
@@RichardHitchcock-ig4lj That shoe has no rearfoot stability, was intentionally designed as such, and is not made for heel strike runners (which is the vast majority of the mid pack). Related to what you're saying this is seen in how the outer sole & ZoomX foam commonly separates & shreds (in less than 50 miles for heel strikers). This is documented by runners on lots of different forums with images and exactly what happened and is reported by Tom from the Run Testers (RUclips running shoe reviewers) and for him it happened at 35K/22 miles into the shoe and in their video he shows and tells the story of how the outer sole simply fell off and was shredding Zoomx. If you unpack what you're saying, you're critical of the shoe's engineering and design - in a context and use in which the shoe was never intended to serve or accommodate (heel striking).