Some things: 1. Both Mark and Sam come across as really wholesome, nice guys. Somehow, this makes for an oddly relaxing video to watch. 2. This kind of video calls for a blind trial, where the runner doesn't know which shoe is being worn. I'm not entirely sure how to manage such a feat, but I'm pretty sure it would be entertaining with Mark and Sam figuring out how to do such a trial.
I feel like this title is biased... It already implies a cheap shoe cannot be a "super" shoe. It also makes it feel like your sponsor ON didn't want you to call their shoes "expensive"
But they arent expensive for what they are, the level of engineering they take to make allows them the price. Super comfortable and even after running 14 miles my feet didnt hurt. Edit: the most i had run before buying the ons was about 1.5 miles and id feel like i had to stop, with my ons on i didnt want to stop running. Buy the best that you can afford.
@@akonnerth89 I completely agree on the concept. There is a good reason you pay that price (of course there are margins, and premium but it’s a commercial product). I think Sharon was just making the point that they were already going into that subject with an inherent bias.
@@jamesthorogood1479 yeah i just dont want them being called expensive when they really arent lol Also the shoes they pit them against id rather go buy hi-techs
The test sounds flawed from the start, you would see a big difference between those crappy cheap shoes and a decent pair. I think a way better test would be between an entry-level ON shoes (just to keep the same brand) and the carbon ones...
Looking forward to some more scientific testing...one suggestion though, how about including the budget shoe AND a midpriced or expensive shoe (with no carbon plate), alongside the super shoe with a carbon plate. Regardless of how much better a super shoe might turn out to be, the cost is going to make many people choose and or stick with the tried and true midrange/upper range model that they have been wearing for years.
Why not compare with a runner that an intermediate athlete would use? A much fairer comparison than this one. Would a comparison between a carbon fibre bike and a Brompton be a fair bike comparison?
Years ago I was driving up to run the Great North Run with a mate. We got to Newcastle when I had a very clear vision of my trainers sitting by the kitchen door with the socks in them. I looked at my mate and swore. It was 9:30 on a Saturday night so even 24 hour supermarkets were closing soon. We found the nearest Tesco and I grabbed the only trainers they had, Tesco Basics and the same level socks. I wasn't a dedicated runner like I am now, so there may have been some small differences, but by the end, my feet felt fine and I don't think they affected my performance any. I donated them to charity next day so I didn't run in them again to see if they lasted. I still worry about forgetting my shoes going to every race.
Odd choice to go for a 'cheap' shoe that does not advertise itself specifically as a running shoe - you could have gone to Lidl and tried their Crivit range, which they claim as a specialist running brand and who's shoes start at around £15.
It is the equivalent of a karrimor running shoe. It is a cheap running shoe. We just joked about their description that states it can be used for so much more!
Exactly, and why not compare a "normal" high end shoe, i.e. without a carbon plate, with a budget shoe? Otherwise it's really comparing apples to oranges. The 4% Nike claimed were proven in scientific studies so it's not really news anymore that it does work...
Back in my racing days I loved Ascics' great shoes for training -- extra weight and GREAT support for putting all the miles in, on those conditioning runs. And Nike had amazing, light racing shoes :) Things have changed SO much. And they're SO much more expensive now. In the 90s I used to buy a great quality racing or training shoe for $50-$60.
LOL may be could do with a high end non carbon shoe compared to super shoe with carbon plate? May be even closer ? After all if racing some people will look at say high end $130 as opposed to super shoe $200+ can't do pounds so dollar sign!
I would say, I ran in high end shoes for years, but I recently got a super shoe and noticed an instant difference. Roughly 15-20 seconds per mile faster overnight. The problem I have now is that the shoes want to go faster than my pace... If I was running sub 6:30/mi consistently on longer runs, I think the shoes would be perfect for me. But, I keep slowly accelerating without noticing it until I'm four miles in and gassed. However, they're honestly more shoe than I need.
Yay Sam! Love to see you presenting! Hope you guys sprayed those shoes before trading LOL! Would love to see a more 'real' comparison between expensive carbon shoe vs. mid-level running shoe most of us out here are wearing ~$100 - Hoka/Brooks/Asics/New Balance etc
Agree with rest of comments should of gone with actually mid level running shoe, had years racing tri in the Adidas adios boost, have the ons and the next percent. on more stable but still don’t think others match the nikes for speed yet !
Fun video. Let's face it not everyone runs a 3:30min/km pace. Stick them on someone running a 4:30min/km pace or 5:00min/km pace and do the super shoes still work?
@@alanshrimpton6787 That's the more important point here. @Ryan Hustler in the comments here calling Mark and Sam "shills" is a load of B.S. They could literally have picked Nike, On, Hoka One One, whatever and the results would be the same. They picked their sponsor but the results are still the same. I managed to get a pair of super shoes on sale through my local shop (the same shoe as here... but I'm not sure how the shop pulled off selling them discounted when they were brand new...) and I noticed an instant difference. However, I'm still a mediocre runner at best, and even though I'm running 15-20 seconds per mile faster, literally no one cares. But, I notice that the shoes want to go faster... I actually have a hard time keeping my tempo down on longer runs just like Mark was saying he was.
It's actually surprising. There is so much junk gear in Triathlon and Cycling that is very expensive with dubious value (e.g. hundreds of dollars per alleged watt savings) that it's nice to find gear with legitimate value for the performance gain.
@@magnemmar4869 well no shit a shoe that is $300 is better than one that is less then $50. If you want to see actual improvement to your times just train or mix up your training
Must admit i bought a pair of ASICS Metaracers and cannot believe how they make me go faster. It actually feel weird that they really do feel like they expect you to go quicker. I am interested in how the longevity turns out, i have tried to use them less often since the price is that much more. Having said that these are very small $$$ compared to what I spend on my bike.
Sam is a really great addition to this channel! This was a fun video. Probably would have preferred a comparison within the same brand, e.g. Nike Vaporfly v. Pegasus (or non carbon flat like Zoom Streak) as the difference might not have been as stark. Definitely agree based on personal experience that carbon plated shoes offer a significant advantage that didn’t exist before. I would have preferred that the technology was disallowed from competition at the start (e.g. around the time of the 4%) but you can’t put it back in the box now. I do think that world records, etc. (and even personal bests) need to be restarted or considered in a different category as the difference is that significant. I think of super shoes v. Non carbon plate as Kind of like a wetsuit v. Non wetsuit swim. A wetsuit makes almost everyone faster but it also varies from person to person how much faster.
It is like comparing a 4x4 to a sports car... why not do the test with an entry level running shoe or even a non-carbon plated running shoe. Carbon plate shoes are 2x as expensive.. Does the benefit justify the price difference? The title is biased..
I actually own and train in SOLLOMENSI. I've had them since may and I've found them to be very comfortable and for the first several months that I had them they did give good spring to my running. However over the last month or so I feel like they've lost the spring and I end up with rather sore feet after doing a short 2 mile run. Hopefully getting some better trainers after christmas
Cheap shoes ... not a markdown priced shoes. A mark down shoes is still a super shoes but may be older model. But I agreed, disregard the brand as all brand have the range desired. As a 50 yo plus runner, I just make sure that I am running in a correct shoes, to avoid any injury. For normal jogger (under 5km) not much different, but when you do beyond that ... a decent and breathable shoes is a must. If it is interval/speed/tempo or any short distance a bulky shoes may injured you as much as the lightweight shoes does for a long distance running. Yes there are shoes that fit both type of running.
Intersting test, but to better understand the differences between the shoes I would like more statistics please: - stride length - steps per minute - vertical movement for the 4x400 and the 2.000m
Thanks Christian. We had fun with this one, but said from the outset that we’d like to delve deeper in to this one. Even looking at efficiency in the lab. They’re good points, and I’ll definitely take them into the next one
Would like to see a comparison of the performance between a running shoe (perhaps another “cheap” shoe) and the results of the same shoe with an after market carbon fiber insert.
This comparison would have been more honest if the Cloudboom was compared to the Nike Vaporfly. If you dudes want to do a commercial for Cloudboom, go ahead, but don't insult our intelligence. Lame.
First off, carbon fiber plates are nothing new. They were in the 1st Brooks Hydroflow shoe in 1991, but a much better example is the Reebok Instapump Fury from 1994.I had several of those, they were great. Asics Gel Noosa tri 10 & 11 have a plate going from inside instep to almost the front of the shoe. When you do a test like this, you need to take something like Brooks Hyperion Elite and test it against Brooks Ravenna ..something in the same lineup and not a $30 shoe from Amazon. Oddly enough, maybe because of the PANDEMIC, and outdoor running ..most of these $300-360 shoes are sold out here in Canada..maybe because people just want to try something new...which isn't actually new, but a clever marketing spin-off by the Running Shoe Companies. Even more puzzling, since there are no ACTUAL RACES, why are they buying them?
hi john, i bought a pair of nike next% and they made a massive difference. Like you, i put myself in the 5:30-6min/km bracket. And since owning these shoes i have beaten both my 5 and 10k PB as well as being able to put much more miles on the clock without feeling shattered at the end of the week. The most noticeable thing is how my heart-rate is much lower now on all runs compared to my previous shoes. Sounds crazy but you actually have to be mindful of running too quick. The only thing i have to say negative about my nikes is that i had to send them back after 2 months (200km) as the sole developed a huge crack on the left foot. hoping it was a one off and haven't noticed any issues with the new pair. hope this helps.
If you run 10k once a week, then maybe not that much (higher heart rate and fatigue most likely), but more than that I would say an injury after few weeks is expected.
I would like to see how the cheap shoes compare to other shoes like the cloudflow. I would actually like to see them compared the clifton 7. But obv on is the sponsor
The comparison needs to start with a shoe like a Skechers Razor 6.9oz and Nike Vaporfly 6.9oz. The weight needs to be equal when we're comparing these shoes in the lab. They did a good job, but testing needs to remove this variable from the equation.
This video was very informative. Can y’all do an On CloudMonster (or whichever is supposed to be the best On Cloud super runner now) VS Alphafly? I’m trying to decide which shoe, I’m probably gonna definitely go with the Alphaflies, when I can afford them, I’m just curious to the actual comparison, By legit runners
Bottom line if someone came to you and said they wanted to start running and do C25K could they do any damage to themselves if they wore the Solemenzie as all for getting people into running without them spending a fortune to begin with?
You can always injure yourself but the shoe isn't the problem in 95% of the cases. However, you should invest in a pair from a running brand. They all have decent shoes for
No, they'd probably be perfectly fine. You can run in any shoe, really, provided you give your body time to adapt to the stresses. Less support and less cushion = slower adaptation and a more conservative approach, while something with more cushion is more forgiving. Just because something has heaps of cushion doesn't mean one can't get injured running in it, just as something with no cushion won't necessarily result in injury is someone is careful. I personally wouldn't get something like the Solemenzie's though given that I doubt the durability will be any good for the price. Much higher-end shoes from the big brands that are a season or two old can be had on sale for 50-70GBP, and those will typically have higher build quality and better materials (e.g. better cushion for the same amount of midsole due to fancier foams, more comfortable, lighter, grippier, etc.), so I don't think there's any reason to buy knock-offs like this off Amazon. It's far better for a beginner to shop around at physical stores, talk to experienced runners about what they're looking for, and to try a bunch of stuff on.
If you start running you should get a shoe with less cushioning anyways - i learned the hard way. Look out for shops that run sales on a regular, i own 3 pairs of running shoes with a listing price of 150 [western money] each, i never paid more than 90 for any of them. Yes they are not the newest top model but who cares? If you dont go competitive there is no reason to throw money on the latest model that just left the running lab. Careful with the "cushion is more forgiving" part please. Your underdeveloped foot tissue and your knees are usally not as a starter.
You both ran at pace. I'd be more interested to see how they compared over a 10 mile run at base pace. Also, just how long do these "super shoes" last ?
Mine lasted 6 months. I ran everyday, walked miles, done HIIT 3 times a week, climbed goatfell twice, walked around the isle of Arran and the other reason they gave up is because i ripped a hole down the side but even that was 2 months ago i could tickle my feet from the side by they still held my feet firm. Just bought another pair and i wore the wrong socks got a hole in my heel but as soon as i put on the right socks i dont even feel it can still run and walk like normal without hurting. If you are looking for a winter runner then they come in waterproof. My partners pair are still in perfect condition and we bought at the same time. I must point out that a pair of under armour trainers lasted me 3 months before they became unbearable.
Well, a race shoe in 2020 is kind of useless if there's no race. You don't need to train in these expensive shoes with short lifespan. But haters gonna hate they are indeed faster and the most noticeable way they are is that they help maintaining an ideal running form for longer, which is particularly helpful towards the end of a race, I have yet to run a marathon in these but for a half marathon the gain is significant.
Big fan of the channel but.... You're sponsored by ON.... it's hardly an impartial review. Q: "How did you find the ON shoes Mark?" M: "Awful mate...the cheap ones are much better than the shit our sponsors provided"
Fair comment - we were aiming to do a simple comparison and were both surprised at the contrast in shoes (regardless of show sponsor). We were lucky enough that On provided us with their version of a “super shoe” as show sponsors.
@@kerensacareandsupport9489 I understand, bit I feel it would've been more palatable to just make a review for the Cloud Boom....not compare it. I understand sponsors are important to the channel but on the down side....we don't get to see Mark & Heather reviewing a wider selection of shoes and gear. Keep up the good work though, big fan👍🚴🏃🏊
That's what you should do. Daily trainers are cheaper, heavier and more durable so that you don't have to spend as much money on training and get more benefits when racing.
The test would actually be legitimate if it was blind and the shoes were labeled “A and B”. Too much bias from the start. There’s so much brand marketing with GTN anymore it makes me sick. The meaningful content has been replaced by promotion BS.
In reality : A kid get a good running shoes from his father just for fooling around.. An amateur have to keep his old rotten budget shoes until its broken down before buying another budget shoes..
Next time you should try wearing the cheap one on the left foot and the expensive one of the right foot and see which side finishes first.
😭😭😂😂
🤣 🤣 🤣
I did that test on a bicycle with an aero wheel vs a low profile lightweight climbing wheel. The low profile front wheel won every time.
Wouldn't he end up running in circles?
Some things:
1. Both Mark and Sam come across as really wholesome, nice guys. Somehow, this makes for an oddly relaxing video to watch.
2. This kind of video calls for a blind trial, where the runner doesn't know which shoe is being worn. I'm not entirely sure how to manage such a feat, but I'm pretty sure it would be entertaining with Mark and Sam figuring out how to do such a trial.
Be interesting to see how the super shoes compare with the type of shoe most 'general' amateur runners would use. something like the Brooks Ghost say.
Maybe they tried to do that- and the comparison did not end in favor of the super shoe ;)
I feel like this title is biased... It already implies a cheap shoe cannot be a "super" shoe. It also makes it feel like your sponsor ON didn't want you to call their shoes "expensive"
Think you hit the nail on the head there
But they arent expensive for what they are, the level of engineering they take to make allows them the price. Super comfortable and even after running 14 miles my feet didnt hurt.
Edit: the most i had run before buying the ons was about 1.5 miles and id feel like i had to stop, with my ons on i didnt want to stop running. Buy the best that you can afford.
@@akonnerth89 I completely agree on the concept. There is a good reason you pay that price (of course there are margins, and premium but it’s a commercial product). I think Sharon was just making the point that they were already going into that subject with an inherent bias.
@@jamesthorogood1479 yeah i just dont want them being called expensive when they really arent lol
Also the shoes they pit them against id rather go buy hi-techs
@@akonnerth89 Its just a plug for the sponsor
You can begin to equate a cost per second saved. I'm still in the zone where training gives me more bang for my bucks.
With these numbers, not having a big breakfast means I can run faster, save on shoes and save on breakfast.
I wanna be as fast as the camera man.
I think they're on bikes....
The test sounds flawed from the start, you would see a big difference between those crappy cheap shoes and a decent pair. I think a way better test would be between an entry-level ON shoes (just to keep the same brand) and the carbon ones...
Yea
Missed the “paid promotion” banner?
Looking forward to some more scientific testing...one suggestion though, how about including the budget shoe AND a midpriced or expensive shoe (with no carbon plate), alongside the super shoe with a carbon plate. Regardless of how much better a super shoe might turn out to be, the cost is going to make many people choose and or stick with the tried and true midrange/upper range model that they have been wearing for years.
Why not compare with a runner that an intermediate athlete would use? A much fairer comparison than this one. Would a comparison between a carbon fibre bike and a Brompton be a fair bike comparison?
Years ago I was driving up to run the Great North Run with a mate. We got to Newcastle when I had a very clear vision of my trainers sitting by the kitchen door with the socks in them. I looked at my mate and swore. It was 9:30 on a Saturday night so even 24 hour supermarkets were closing soon. We found the nearest Tesco and I grabbed the only trainers they had, Tesco Basics and the same level socks.
I wasn't a dedicated runner like I am now, so there may have been some small differences, but by the end, my feet felt fine and I don't think they affected my performance any. I donated them to charity next day so I didn't run in them again to see if they lasted.
I still worry about forgetting my shoes going to every race.
Odd choice to go for a 'cheap' shoe that does not advertise itself specifically as a running shoe - you could have gone to Lidl and tried their Crivit range, which they claim as a specialist running brand and who's shoes start at around £15.
It is the equivalent of a karrimor running shoe. It is a cheap running shoe. We just joked about their description that states it can be used for so much more!
@Ryan Hustler So with a carbon plate through it, is it a mid range shoe then?!
@Ryan Hustler Put a Sock in it! 😂
Hmm not suggesting anything but sponsers most expensive trainer against cheap "running" trainer... Wonder what you'll say. 😏
Exactly, and why not compare a "normal" high end shoe, i.e. without a carbon plate, with a budget shoe? Otherwise it's really comparing apples to oranges. The 4% Nike claimed were proven in scientific studies so it's not really news anymore that it does work...
Back in my racing days I loved Ascics' great shoes for training -- extra weight and GREAT support for putting all the miles in, on those conditioning runs. And Nike had amazing, light racing shoes :) Things have changed SO much. And they're SO much more expensive now. In the 90s I used to buy a great quality racing or training shoe for $50-$60.
LOL may be could do with a high end non carbon shoe compared to super shoe with carbon plate? May be even closer ? After all if racing some people will look at say high end $130 as opposed to super shoe $200+ can't do pounds so dollar sign!
One for the future for sure
I would say, I ran in high end shoes for years, but I recently got a super shoe and noticed an instant difference. Roughly 15-20 seconds per mile faster overnight. The problem I have now is that the shoes want to go faster than my pace... If I was running sub 6:30/mi consistently on longer runs, I think the shoes would be perfect for me. But, I keep slowly accelerating without noticing it until I'm four miles in and gassed. However, they're honestly more shoe than I need.
Yay Sam! Love to see you presenting! Hope you guys sprayed those shoes before trading LOL! Would love to see a more 'real' comparison between expensive carbon shoe vs. mid-level running shoe most of us out here are wearing ~$100 - Hoka/Brooks/Asics/New Balance etc
Nice to have you back Sam! Was wondering if you were going to be in more videos
Agree with rest of comments should of gone with actually mid level running shoe, had years racing tri in the Adidas adios boost, have the ons and the next percent. on more stable but still don’t think others match the nikes for speed yet !
Beaten a few club runners in mi not so expensive ASICS. (Must be that training I’ve put in)
But if you had a super shoe you’d have beaten a few more
@@bradleygrieve5112 looooooool
@@bradleygrieve5112 or trained like I did when I was doing sub8 min miles in mi Nike Pegasus
Fun video. Let's face it not everyone runs a 3:30min/km pace. Stick them on someone running a 4:30min/km pace or 5:00min/km pace and do the super shoes still work?
@@alanshrimpton6787 That's the more important point here. @Ryan Hustler in the comments here calling Mark and Sam "shills" is a load of B.S. They could literally have picked Nike, On, Hoka One One, whatever and the results would be the same. They picked their sponsor but the results are still the same. I managed to get a pair of super shoes on sale through my local shop (the same shoe as here... but I'm not sure how the shop pulled off selling them discounted when they were brand new...) and I noticed an instant difference. However, I'm still a mediocre runner at best, and even though I'm running 15-20 seconds per mile faster, literally no one cares. But, I notice that the shoes want to go faster... I actually have a hard time keeping my tempo down on longer runs just like Mark was saying he was.
Sponsor's expensive race shoe better than the cheap one. Well blow me down, flabber my gast. I'd never have guessed...;
It's actually surprising. There is so much junk gear in Triathlon and Cycling that is very expensive with dubious value (e.g. hundreds of dollars per alleged watt savings) that it's nice to find gear with legitimate value for the performance gain.
@@magnemmar4869 well no shit a shoe that is $300 is better than one that is less then $50. If you want to see actual improvement to your times just train or mix up your training
Must admit i bought a pair of ASICS Metaracers and cannot believe how they make me go faster. It actually feel weird that they really do feel like they expect you to go quicker. I am interested in how the longevity turns out, i have tried to use them less often since the price is that much more. Having said that these are very small $$$ compared to what I spend on my bike.
Why not use a fixed heart rate and or running power to compare the shoe
That's a great idea!
Sam is a really great addition to this channel! This was a fun video. Probably would have preferred a comparison within the same brand, e.g. Nike Vaporfly v. Pegasus (or non carbon flat like Zoom Streak) as the difference might not have been as stark. Definitely agree based on personal experience that carbon plated shoes offer a significant advantage that didn’t exist before. I would have preferred that the technology was disallowed from competition at the start (e.g. around the time of the 4%) but you can’t put it back in the box now. I do think that world records, etc. (and even personal bests) need to be restarted or considered in a different category as the difference is that significant. I think of super shoes v. Non carbon plate as Kind of like a wetsuit v. Non wetsuit swim. A wetsuit makes almost everyone faster but it also varies from person to person how much faster.
It is like comparing a 4x4 to a sports car... why not do the test with an entry level running shoe or even a non-carbon plated running shoe. Carbon plate shoes are 2x as expensive.. Does the benefit justify the price difference? The title is biased..
Good effort making this comparison; however, i don't see material differences between the two unless you are a short distance runner.
It would be nice to see a comp between a high level shoe and carbon shoe not just between a carbon shoe and cheap shoe
Double blind tests would do better to compare the 2 shoes.
I actually own and train in SOLLOMENSI. I've had them since may and I've found them to be very comfortable and for the first several months that I had them they did give good spring to my running. However over the last month or so I feel like they've lost the spring and I end up with rather sore feet after doing a short 2 mile run. Hopefully getting some better trainers after christmas
That’s really interesting to hear! I found them very comfortable, but felt if I did a lot of miles in them then they could cause injury
Cheap shoes ... not a markdown priced shoes. A mark down shoes is still a super shoes but may be older model. But I agreed, disregard the brand as all brand have the range desired. As a 50 yo plus runner, I just make sure that I am running in a correct shoes, to avoid any injury. For normal jogger (under 5km) not much different, but when you do beyond that ... a decent and breathable shoes is a must. If it is interval/speed/tempo or any short distance a bulky shoes may injured you as much as the lightweight shoes does for a long distance running. Yes there are shoes that fit both type of running.
Intersting test, but to better understand the differences between the shoes I would like more statistics please:
- stride length
- steps per minute
- vertical movement
for the 4x400 and the 2.000m
Thanks Christian. We had fun with this one, but said from the outset that we’d like to delve deeper in to this one. Even looking at efficiency in the lab. They’re good points, and I’ll definitely take them into the next one
Not a lot of support in the upper of that On... it was folding in on itself at around the 7 min mark.
Would like to see a comparison of the performance between a running shoe (perhaps another “cheap” shoe) and the results of the same shoe with an after market carbon fiber insert.
The scientific way is to use STRYD. In a given amount of time and for the same power. Now it is only an advertising gimmick.
On a bike that would work but measuring power while running isn't easy AFAIK
@@nicolasgutierrez5512 true not easy ,but get the same presenter to do both test runs at the same “power” for want of a better word.
This comparison would have been more honest if the Cloudboom was compared to the Nike Vaporfly. If you dudes want to do a commercial for Cloudboom, go ahead, but don't insult our intelligence. Lame.
First off, carbon fiber plates are nothing new. They were in the 1st Brooks Hydroflow shoe in 1991, but a much better example is the Reebok Instapump Fury from 1994.I had several of those, they were great. Asics Gel Noosa tri 10 & 11 have a plate going from inside instep to almost the front of the shoe. When you do a test like this, you need to take something like Brooks Hyperion Elite and test it against Brooks Ravenna ..something in the same lineup and not a $30 shoe from Amazon. Oddly enough, maybe because of the PANDEMIC, and outdoor running ..most of these $300-360 shoes are sold out here in Canada..maybe because people just want to try something new...which isn't actually new, but a clever marketing spin-off by the Running Shoe Companies. Even more puzzling, since there are no ACTUAL RACES, why are they buying them?
It would have been interesting to see a comparison between the cloud flow and the cloud boom. I bet there would be little to no difference there.
Wondering how far up the shoe ladder you could go before the rules of diminishing returns effect performance Vs cost.
What difference would they make for a more average runner, say 5:30-6 min per K ?
hi john, i bought a pair of nike next% and they made a massive difference. Like you, i put myself in the 5:30-6min/km bracket. And since owning these shoes i have beaten both my 5 and 10k PB as well as being able to put much more miles on the clock without feeling shattered at the end of the week. The most noticeable thing is how my heart-rate is much lower now on all runs compared to my previous shoes. Sounds crazy but you actually have to be mindful of running too quick. The only thing i have to say negative about my nikes is that i had to send them back after 2 months (200km) as the sole developed a huge crack on the left foot. hoping it was a one off and haven't noticed any issues with the new pair. hope this helps.
If you run 10k once a week, then maybe not that much (higher heart rate and fatigue most likely), but more than that I would say an injury after few weeks is expected.
I noticed there are carbon insoles for running. How would the super shoe stack up to the sollomensis with those?
I would like to see how the cheap shoes compare to other shoes like the cloudflow. I would actually like to see them compared the clifton 7. But obv on is the sponsor
The comparison needs to start with a shoe like a Skechers Razor 6.9oz and Nike Vaporfly 6.9oz. The weight needs to be equal when we're comparing these shoes in the lab. They did a good job, but testing needs to remove this variable from the equation.
This video was very informative.
Can y’all do an On CloudMonster (or whichever is supposed to be the best On Cloud super runner now) VS Alphafly?
I’m trying to decide which shoe, I’m probably gonna definitely go with the Alphaflies, when I can afford them,
I’m just curious to the actual comparison,
By legit runners
Bottom line if someone came to you and said they wanted to start running and do C25K could they do any damage to themselves if they wore the Solemenzie as all for getting people into running without them spending a fortune to begin with?
You can always injure yourself but the shoe isn't the problem in 95% of the cases. However, you should invest in a pair from a running brand. They all have decent shoes for
No, they'd probably be perfectly fine. You can run in any shoe, really, provided you give your body time to adapt to the stresses. Less support and less cushion = slower adaptation and a more conservative approach, while something with more cushion is more forgiving. Just because something has heaps of cushion doesn't mean one can't get injured running in it, just as something with no cushion won't necessarily result in injury is someone is careful.
I personally wouldn't get something like the Solemenzie's though given that I doubt the durability will be any good for the price. Much higher-end shoes from the big brands that are a season or two old can be had on sale for 50-70GBP, and those will typically have higher build quality and better materials (e.g. better cushion for the same amount of midsole due to fancier foams, more comfortable, lighter, grippier, etc.), so I don't think there's any reason to buy knock-offs like this off Amazon. It's far better for a beginner to shop around at physical stores, talk to experienced runners about what they're looking for, and to try a bunch of stuff on.
If you start running you should get a shoe with less cushioning anyways - i learned the hard way.
Look out for shops that run sales on a regular, i own 3 pairs of running shoes with a listing price of 150 [western money] each, i never paid more than 90 for any of them. Yes they are not the newest top model but who cares?
If you dont go competitive there is no reason to throw money on the latest model that just left the running lab.
Careful with the "cushion is more forgiving" part please.
Your underdeveloped foot tissue and your knees are usally not as a starter.
Are they only rated for say 100km like many similar others?
You both ran at pace. I'd be more interested to see how they compared over a 10 mile run at base pace. Also, just how long do these "super shoes" last ?
I've done 700km+ in my ONs and they are still kicking.
Mine lasted 6 months. I ran everyday, walked miles, done HIIT 3 times a week, climbed goatfell twice, walked around the isle of Arran and the other reason they gave up is because i ripped a hole down the side but even that was 2 months ago i could tickle my feet from the side by they still held my feet firm. Just bought another pair and i wore the wrong socks got a hole in my heel but as soon as i put on the right socks i dont even feel it can still run and walk like normal without hurting.
If you are looking for a winter runner then they come in waterproof.
My partners pair are still in perfect condition and we bought at the same time. I must point out that a pair of under armour trainers lasted me 3 months before they became unbearable.
Well, a race shoe in 2020 is kind of useless if there's no race. You don't need to train in these expensive shoes with short lifespan. But haters gonna hate they are indeed faster and the most noticeable way they are is that they help maintaining an ideal running form for longer, which is particularly helpful towards the end of a race, I have yet to run a marathon in these but for a half marathon the gain is significant.
Understand that the channel is sponsored by ON, but let’s be honest, no one is going to buy them if they want a pair of race shoes.
They have the heaviest plated shoe 😂
whats the name of the salomon shoe?model?
I didn’t notice till my 6 year old daughter pointed out we’re did ther sleeves go few frames they had sleeves
Gtn/ gcn becoming our sponsor vs channel... Content used to be good but gone downhill a lot recently.
Thats why I stopped watching them regularly.
Big fan of the channel but....
You're sponsored by ON.... it's hardly an impartial review.
Q: "How did you find the ON shoes Mark?"
M: "Awful mate...the cheap ones are much better than the shit our sponsors provided"
Fair comment - we were aiming to do a simple comparison and were both surprised at the contrast in shoes (regardless of show sponsor). We were lucky enough that On provided us with their version of a “super shoe” as show sponsors.
@@kerensacareandsupport9489 I understand, bit I feel it would've been more palatable to just make a review for the Cloud Boom....not compare it.
I understand sponsors are important to the channel but on the down side....we don't get to see Mark & Heather reviewing a wider selection of shoes and gear.
Keep up the good work though, big fan👍🚴🏃🏊
Idea for follow up tests; super shoe on one foot, budget shoe on the other :d
😂 maybe we’ll end up going around in circles
Is it better to train in a more difficult, cheap shoe and then have better performance with a "super shoe" during races?
That's what you should do. Daily trainers are cheaper, heavier and more durable so that you don't have to spend as much money on training and get more benefits when racing.
Apart from the fact maybe that ON are not really super shoes ;)
I stopped caring when people stopped calling them "daps".
The test would actually be legitimate if it was blind and the shoes were labeled “A and B”. Too much bias from the start. There’s so much brand marketing with GTN anymore it makes me sick. The meaningful content has been replaced by promotion BS.
Where are the numbers? This pair of fools are just wasting our time for nothing!
We talk through the numbers as we go quite genuinely as we finish each rep. Were you after a table?
We should let shoe technology thrive. We have with bicycles, why not shoes
You were lucky you weren't caught by the pushchair ladies - they were cracking on!
Who is the new guy?
How much of this is psychological?
Where are the numbers?
Of course OnCloud shoes are horrible, but it isn't cheap.
Urm Yes
I have the blue ones in red :)
Great Video!
#BringbackFraser
New Presenter?
In reality : A kid get a good running shoes from his father just for fooling around..
An amateur have to keep his old rotten budget shoes until its broken down before buying another budget shoes..