Hi all, just got a question regarding racing shoes.
I am a 45 minute 10k runner but wear asics 1140 shoes (344 grams), if I was to buy some brooks T7 racing shoes (184 grams) what would the difference in performance equate to?
Is there some kind of formula that can be taken into account?
How much do you weigh ?
I was reading that losing 5kilos of weight saves something like 15 mins on a marathon.
So 5kg should give you 3.6 mins better time at a 10k.
You're talking of 160 grammes. Thats 1/31 of 5kilos - so you only get 1/31 of the 3.6 minutes
I think that would give you almost 7 seconds improvement. Assuming you dont get injured.
(I hold no responsibility for the accuracy of this back of a fag packet calculation)
But yeah - less weight should make you faster. Enjoy your 7 seconds !
In answer to the direct question......no.
See cougie's calcluation - however that relates to weight on the person I suspect?
hang on though...those shoes are about half the weight, so surely you would go twice as fast???
get some heelys....enter a quiet rural undulating race....roll down the hills......
you will be a bit like that 'stalking cat' video on youtube
Surely weight on feet is worse than body weight?
Each foot is actually being lifted higher than your body when you run. So an extra 160 gms on each foot uses more energy and tyres your legs more than an extra 320 grams on your body.
Also your feet are having to move forward after each stride. The pendlium energy cost of an extra 160 gms on each foot again requires more energy than 160 gms fixed onto the body.
However I am not a scentist and all this could be complete bo11ocks!
Racing shoes make about 5-10s a mile difference.
I'm at the higher end of that scale - it saves me a minute or so over 10k. Well worth it imo.
Weight on the end of a lever...small changes = big difference, plus the improved efficency in your form
Keir wrote (see)
Surely weight on feet is worse than body weight? Each foot is actually being lifted higher than your body when you run. So an extra 160 gms on each foot uses more energy and tyres your legs more than an extra 320 grams on your body. Also your feet are having to move forward after each stride. The pendlium energy cost of an extra 160 gms on each foot again requires more energy than 160 gms fixed onto the body. However I am not a scentist and all this could be complete bo11ocks!
yeah levers and all that as with what Curly says.
Its the same as putting lightweight alloy wheels on a car.
There will be a beenfit to an individual, but the extent of it will be difficult to measure....and vary - lots of other factors....weight of the person, fitness, what they had for breakfast.
Basically - light shoes wont make you quicker...they will simply slow you down less.
Curly45 wrote (see)
Racing shoes make about 5-10s a mile difference. I'm at the higher end of that scale - it saves me a minute or so over 10k. Well worth it imo. Weight on the end of a lever...small changes = big difference, plus the improved efficency in your form
I have just got some Bostons. I was told they are not a true racing flat but a good light shoe for longer distances or someone who still needs a bit of padding. Might be new shoe syndrome but i do think they are lighter on my feet.
New sunglasses help me tremendously.
As you say - I'm sure lighter shoes will be faster - but impossible to say how much.
Moraghan wrote (see)
Curly - not in times. But you want p. 57 - 8 in Noakes where the addition of 80g to each foot was found to increase the energy cost of running by 1.4%. I also find racing flats encourage a more dynamic use of the foot which probably wouldn't be accounted for in that study.
I think you also need to take into consideration that lighter shoes have less padding. It's like riding a bike with a rigid front fork or with suspension, the suspension will absorb some of the power you put into the whells, particularly up hill, whereas the rigid fork won't. Maks the suspension ride more comfortable but less efficient.
Similar with shoes, more padding will offer a comfy ride but some of the power you use to push off the floor will be absorbed by the padding.Combine this with the fact that racing shoes are usually around half the weight of normal shoes and it'll all add up in the end. Of course your legs will need to take the added stress that less padding results in...
you also have to change the laces.....I have some go faster tartan ones in my fast shoes.
I reckon that equates to a couple of seconds somewhere.
After doing some research I have discovered that Curly was the most correct on this thread.
The people that are counting the weight of the shoes along with over all weight are missing a trick. If you you view your feet as the base of a pendulum but consider that the pendulum must be driven forward manually and forced to change direction against the flow of travel it makes sense.
Stick 150 grams on your gut and its nothing but on your feet each gram is 6 times more restrictive than on the upper body.
I am aware of the weight calculation formula for getting faster and I am working on that too but am grateful that I found an old copy of RW that said that the benefits are around 30 seconds for a 10k but the faster the race greater the difference in potential time between ordinary runners and racing shoes.
I think I may have helped you people rather than the other way round, if you all want to knock a minute off your 10k go get some racing shoes
Oh yes and patterson good point, the energy that is not absorbed buy the shoes due to lack of cushion will make the running stride more efficient than with a cushioned shoe.
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Limited. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |