Following the new world records at Berlin and Chicago, the partial credit of these new times and all the other recent world records to super-shoes was expected and now, the debate over their merits and downsides has experienced some persistence in the media. Some of the discussion is still around whether they offer too much of an advantage. However, two other interesting items have surfaced in the past several weeks. It’s possible these points have been circulating for a long time in some circles but I don’t recall seeing them in more popular media.
It’s not known how the shoes affect individual people—some may benefit more than others and some not at all—but now the question has been raised on how it affects biomechanics. While having better return may allow runners to recover more quickly from a fast mid or long distance run and thus be better prepared to launch into their next workout, the question here is about long-term impact. Given that these shoes are relatively new to the market, it may be that we won’t have an answer to this for some time.
The second item that has gained traction is the shoes’ longevity. General rule of thumb for a well-made running shoe (one that you would find in the $140-160 price range at a running store) is that they will last 400-500 miles. I had assumed the carbon-plated shoes would have a similar lifespan. And, given that they’re not designed for everyday running but for speed and racing, you could stretch them out for quite some time if they’re supplementing your regular shoes.
Apparently this may not be true. Speculation now runs that the Nike Vapor or Alphafly may last 250 miles and that the Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 1 could be closer to 50-100. This means that your standard model shoe is about 30 cents per mile, the Nikes at $225 would be around 90 cents per mile, and the Adidas at $500 could be $5-10 per mile. That’s a lot of extra money per mile.
This isn’t a unique thing in sports. NASCAR drivers may go through 12 sets of tires in a single race. Major league hitters will break multiple bats in a season, sometimes in a single game. These are not inexpensive. In other words, while equipment isn’t considered more expendable at that level, with the pressure that athletes put on it and their need to perform at a high level, extra cost that most people would find exorbitant is part of the game. On top of this, the professional runners aren’t buying their own shoes so the cost is somewhat irrelevant for them. Still, there’s a lot more at stake in terms of livelihood at some of these levels of competition.
What does it mean for the average runner? Unless money is no object, the shoes are a big investment. Right before this new wave of discussion started coming out, I was tempted to get a pair of carbon-plated shoes. Now, with the unknown biomechanical impacts and the absurdly short lifespans, I don’t think so. Don’t get me wrong, knocking 4% off of my 5K time is tempting. Yet, I still wouldn’t be close to my all-time best and so going any faster is sheerly for ego. I can only speculate about decision points for other runners. If you were a 2:22 male marathon runner in standard shoes and had a lifetime goal of making the Olympic trials, wearing carbon plated shoes would drop you to somewhere between 2:16 and 2:17, or roughly 60-90 seconds off the qualifying standard. Maybe $225-$500 is worth that dream.
In the meantime, while all of the newest iterations of these shoes conform to the rules and these records will stand, the debate and discussion continues.
Running anecdotes, running food reviews, some race coverage, and more