Looking at the rear heel shots and the foam, they have a slightly different profile. Plus it's obvious they have entirely changed the laces, so one is a slip on with elastic laces and the other a traditional lace. When you are testing this would also have some effect on the running economy.
There is a fair bit of science and history defining that the cost of running shoes directly correlates to injury rate. More expensive approx equals more injuries. Running in cheap/old shoes you are statistically less likely to obtain an injury. Pretty cool! Since I learned that, I haven’t bought expensive shoes and I haven’t gotten an injury 🙌🏻
Studies and critical thinking suggest that super shoes don't directly correlate to injury but in summary should be used in rotation with other non-super training shoes to help build strength around the foot/ankle. Old shoes (not cheap) do have a direct correlation with injury, the advice is that all running shoes should be replaced after 500miles/800km regardless of wear to avoid injury.
@@marcuswills6569 I’m not sure that I fully agree with that; however that’s totally fine and I know we both agree that we want to prioritize foot strength and foot health to prevent injuries👌🏻 Thanks for sharing your ideas and knowledge!
@@PedalToProgressIts because people who have old shoes tend not to run much. Most runners go through a pair inside a year and shoe age should be mileage rather than days or years.
Ran 1500km in the Hoka Carbon X3 where the definite drop-off was noticable at around 1100km. (+- 40sec/km slower) Just got the Mach X2 model and they are a breath of fresh air!
The original KD900x isn't that great. It would be interesting to see the new KD900X LD+ compared to other brands, since the price is certainly up there now.
Would love to genuinely see the test of the foam compression over time (with a 24 mile run or something above the 3 hour mark of being on your feet). I have the exact same pair of shoes (with similar mileage) and would love to know your findings. Cheers!
My plan is to buy a new pair of super shoes when my current ones hit around 250km, but then I'll move the old ones over for speed workouts, and reserve the new pair for races.
I never got more than 120 good miles out of old style racing flats. With super shoes it depends on the brand. New balance short distance super comp pacer, I got less than 30. Sauccony endorphin pro, I got past 120, wore them for a lighter trail 50k and they were done at the end of that race at 180 miles. My first pair of vaporfly 2 are still going past 120, they lost some bounce but still feel solid underfoot. I have a pair of vaporfly 3 I now work in for a races. I only race in superstores, not train (except I trained some in the endorphin because I decided I liked the vaporfly better. I get 300-400 miles generally out of a training shoe.
Maybe the old shoes need a few more kilometers to actually see and notice a difference. I'm very interested in a test with shoes that have exceeded 500 kilometers.
I am not sure if you are joking or not. They had only 1 guy running and compared only one model of shoe. Just because they throw numbers afterwards does not make it scientifically rigourous.
Of course not. It’s a topic we wanted to explore and have fun with. A rigorous test would require 30+ different people. We were genuinely intrigued, and tried to document what we found with myself. I thought that was obvious and wouldn’t require a disclaimer
With carbon insoles, I run intervals 1min/km faster than without them. Which comes down to the fact that I use the insoles for intervals and then compare those to tempo runs. Based on the single tempo run in the carbon insoles, the pace was 2s/km faster. So my take home message is, the price is not worth it. Edited for clarity. Thanks, _Tp____, for pointing it out.
@@_Tp___ Of course not. My data is from interval and tempo runs, comparing the times I ran only those intervals, not including the recoveries between them. The, for me relevant, information in my comment is the 2s/km difference in comparable kind of runs with different shoes.
@@nataliamartinkova "With carbon insoles, I run 1min/km faster than without them." My sincere apologies for reading what you said and interpreting what you said in the only way possible. If its "of course not" then delete that part of the comment because its ridiculous.
I wear through the soles by 600km.... But super shoes only come into their own if you can build up speed... I chuckle every time I see (often hear them first if in Nike ones) a slow runner shuffling by in his (usually male) carbon super (expensive) shoes, obtaining no benefit whatsoever but guaranteeing a trip to the physio.
Looking at the rear heel shots and the foam, they have a slightly different profile. Plus it's obvious they have entirely changed the laces, so one is a slip on with elastic laces and the other a traditional lace. When you are testing this would also have some effect on the running economy.
Lookin forward to the additional testing
lightstrike pro for the durability win!
yup!
There is a fair bit of science and history defining that the cost of running shoes directly correlates to injury rate. More expensive approx equals more injuries.
Running in cheap/old shoes you are statistically less likely to obtain an injury. Pretty cool!
Since I learned that, I haven’t bought expensive shoes and I haven’t gotten an injury 🙌🏻
Studies and critical thinking suggest that super shoes don't directly correlate to injury but in summary should be used in rotation with other non-super training shoes to help build strength around the foot/ankle.
Old shoes (not cheap) do have a direct correlation with injury, the advice is that all running shoes should be replaced after 500miles/800km regardless of wear to avoid injury.
@@marcuswills6569 I’m not sure that I fully agree with that; however that’s totally fine and I know we both agree that we want to prioritize foot strength and foot health to prevent injuries👌🏻
Thanks for sharing your ideas and knowledge!
@@PedalToProgressIts because people who have old shoes tend not to run much. Most runners go through a pair inside a year and shoe age should be mileage rather than days or years.
I'm sure the difference is not statistically different, and least on the numbers shown.
0:53 ask anyone who has run in an older Hoka Model and those EVA models are dead well before 200 miles! No where near the 600!
Ran 1500km in the Hoka Carbon X3 where the definite drop-off was noticable at around 1100km. (+- 40sec/km slower) Just got the Mach X2 model and they are a breath of fresh air!
Decathlon seem to have a carbon plated shoe, would be cool to see the On Clouds tested vs Decathlon's, and overall impression on the latter.
Pointless because they sponsored by cloud
Deca shoes the same performance like on
@@mettflow2648 Some reviewers have said Deca shoes are slightly worse performance, but much better durability. (Deca claims 1000km+)
The original KD900x isn't that great. It would be interesting to see the new KD900X LD+ compared to other brands, since the price is certainly up there now.
I have heard great things, and hopefully getting some soon
feels weird you guys didn't include error margins for that 1% number. How precise is that test actually?
Its fugazi fugezi, the test doesnt mean shite
Coming to the comments to pose the same question
Crazy to me that a shoe as firm as those On's has compressed _that_ much in the heel after just 200 miles
I’ve done lots of testing in On shoes at the university of Zurich. On the shoe box it’s says there good for 4 marathons
Would love to genuinely see the test of the foam compression over time (with a 24 mile run or something above the 3 hour mark of being on your feet). I have the exact same pair of shoes (with similar mileage) and would love to know your findings. Cheers!
My plan is to buy a new pair of super shoes when my current ones hit around 250km, but then I'll move the old ones over for speed workouts, and reserve the new pair for races.
I never got more than 120 good miles out of old style racing flats. With super shoes it depends on the brand. New balance short distance super comp pacer, I got less than 30. Sauccony endorphin pro, I got past 120, wore them for a lighter trail 50k and they were done at the end of that race at 180 miles. My first pair of vaporfly 2 are still going past 120, they lost some bounce but still feel solid underfoot. I have a pair of vaporfly 3 I now work in for a races. I only race in superstores, not train (except I trained some in the endorphin because I decided I liked the vaporfly better. I get 300-400 miles generally out of a training shoe.
Maybe the old shoes need a few more kilometers to actually see and notice a difference. I'm very interested in a test with shoes that have exceeded 500 kilometers.
I agree. We thought these had enough miles in, but now I want to go further with them
Hello, I'm from Thailand. Can you give me some advice about this shoe?
We can all appreciate how scientifically rigorous this is. I wouldn't be surprised to see a paper published about it
I am not sure if you are joking or not. They had only 1 guy running and compared only one model of shoe. Just because they throw numbers afterwards does not make it scientifically rigourous.
@@alexdc4386 Oh dear! You're not sure? I don't know where you're from, but in my country this is called sarcasm. Sorry if got you worried for a minute
@@MandyCaputo Well my bad then. At least we're on the same page
Of course not. It’s a topic we wanted to explore and have fun with. A rigorous test would require 30+ different people. We were genuinely intrigued, and tried to document what we found with myself. I thought that was obvious and wouldn’t require a disclaimer
I am keen to buy a pair of supershoes for my ironman. Cant wait to see the speed.
What does GTN think about the minimalist running shoe?
The test that you showed is repeatable within 1%? Color me skeptical.
I heard that after 120km usually the supermidsoles lose a lot of performance
Seems like the weight of the runner would make a difference also.
Why don't you use a super shoe?
What are you on about? They did
With carbon insoles, I run intervals 1min/km faster than without them. Which comes down to the fact that I use the insoles for intervals and then compare those to tempo runs. Based on the single tempo run in the carbon insoles, the pace was 2s/km faster. So my take home message is, the price is not worth it.
Edited for clarity. Thanks, _Tp____, for pointing it out.
1 minute per kilometre faster?? As in 5 minutes faster over 5k? Seems ridiculous
@@_Tp___ Of course not. My data is from interval and tempo runs, comparing the times I ran only those intervals, not including the recoveries between them. The, for me relevant, information in my comment is the 2s/km difference in comparable kind of runs with different shoes.
@@nataliamartinkova "With carbon insoles, I run 1min/km faster than without them." My sincere apologies for reading what you said and interpreting what you said in the only way possible. If its "of course not" then delete that part of the comment because its ridiculous.
I wear through the soles by 600km....
But super shoes only come into their own if you can build up speed...
I chuckle every time I see (often hear them first if in Nike ones) a slow runner shuffling by in his (usually male) carbon super (expensive) shoes, obtaining no benefit whatsoever but guaranteeing a trip to the physio.