At least that's one less shoe I will not feel compelled to buy because so few reviews are positive about it. It's only GTN presenters that use them because, well, they do get paid to wear them.
The one time I’ve felt sponsorship got in the way of what could have been an awesome video for the GTN team! You guys even mentioned the vapor fly and it’s impact in your video!
To be fair, they tested carbon plated running shoes, which is what the vapour fly’s are… they’re probably not as good as the vapour fly’s but still, similar technology behind both of them
Unfortunately you let sponsoring get in the way of really good content. I guess it’s obvious that your average viewers are at least ok informed what most pros run in and have success with. some might even have read the study that was recently released where they compared the top carbon shoes, e.g. nike, hoka, saucony and the like. going from there, would have been interesting to look at the shoes that were shown to have a positive impact on performance. just my opinion, but being apparently bound by sponsoring in such a way risks your credibility as the go to source for many age groupers and future athletes.
This is probably the best video GTN has put up. I've heard on multiple podcasts (don't know who said it first) that you shouldn't even care about carbon shoes until you are a sub 4'/k pace racer. But a 1-2% boost in economy over a 3-4, even 5 hour marathon at 11/kmh adds up quite a bit. Especially considering how long it might take you to make that improvement on your own. Would love to see a super shoe shoot-out between On, Saucony, Nike, Asics, etc.
Treat with care mate when someone gets payed by a specific brand and only reports on that. It’s just business 😊might even be all true, we will never know!
@@mattifreshfan9111 I totally agree on the fact that they are looking at a specific shoe from a company that invests in their channel. But compared to a lot of the subjective and "well, no duh" stuff that GTN and GCN seem to put out, it was nice to see some metrics outside of RPE and time used to measure whether something may actually be making a difference. Of course they're restrained by their cash flow/source, but it would be nice to see them use more established testing facilities and methods, like this, and not them just putting on a backpack to see how much an extra 5kg slows you down uphill.
I don't think its about the pace that decides if you want to try or own a carbon plated running shoes, even slower folks will surely enjoy their super shoes if it fits their needs / rotation. And most of time these "super" shoes will improve their experience vs their typical daily trainers...
I did lab testing of Alpha fly vs Next% earlier this year with minimal difference (within margins of error). Canadian Olympic Marathon Runner (9th place) Malindi Elmore did it with next% and Saucony endorphin pro before signing with Saucony and also no difference (within margins of error). Big thing with Alpha fly is how heavy it is compared to next %
I'd love to see a video like this comparing all the "super shoes" options, a variety of running flats and all the carbon plated racing shoes. Including two runners for data variety is great too!
Much better than the last cheap vs super shoe. Glad you included a midrange shoe! Would now be awesome for you to do a scientific test comparing 5-10 of ALL the top carbon shoes so we can all know which ones are better. Thank you!
So for 11kmh - the difference between mid range and carbon is 216.5 vs 216, which is .. 0.23%. If we convert it to the speed- that's 32 second faster for full marathon - 3:50:09 vs 3:49:37. You're welcome
Ah, shoes... Speaking of shoes, I'd love to see (or better yet, have) a shoe that was the ultimate daily driver. Something which combines - the durability and comfort of a DeLuth work shoe - the protection of a steel toe boot - the combined functionality of the Sketchers Shape-Ups and Airators - a Vaporfly-style carbon plate - pedal clips for comfortable cycling - laces that don't constantly untie themselves - good off-road traction - a combination of breathability and waterproofing - a total weight that's actually sane (light enough to not cause any injuries) - an outer appearance that isn't ugly-af - a price tag that doesn't require me to get four jobs and go without food for a month
There are so many shoe brands - I went to a running shop & after several shoe tests came away with Brooks which I now stick with as every time I try a different brand I end up injured 🤷♀️
3 роки тому+1
ON is no way a supershoe! Not even a Running shoe… but nice Sneakers
Very interesting video. The point you make is that the carbon fibre shoe is more economical than the non carbon/cheaper shoe. The argument is well made and it was great to see you doing it at two speeds It would be interesting to see you compare the On Cloudboom Echo to one of the Nike Carbon shoes, both in the lab and on road, but that’s a different video. Thanks!
nobody setting records in those shoes. Be nice to see vaporflys and alphas tested because those are the only shoes proven thus far to have a significant performance gain
It might be interesting to account for anatomy as well. If I don't use 0 drop, I get joint pain. Would I even be able to finish a marathon in the top end shoes if I know I run well in 0 drop flat shoes?
Ditto. In 20 years I'd not been able to get over 10km without my knees flaming up. Last year after just 1.5 years toe running I ran my first 1/2 marathon, and this year I tripled my training volume with quite manageable (over training) symptoms. 3 years gain after 20 years of beating my body against a wall. And yes, my primary set of training shoes are ~$10, essentially beach shoes.
I agree, think the differences in values were way to small to draw any conclusions. So to say the were definitely better is more sponsored that results driven imo.
I ran my first 5k in a 10 dollar shoe ,but I normally use a 125 dollar new balance shoe.but don't own a car ,so that justifies the cost to me.thanks for video! Ps the drop distance isn't enough on the cheaper shoe I ran in ,hence the heel strike ineffencency
If you're gonna get a cheap shoe don't compromise by getting something "mid" range---because most of those mid-range shoes are just impersonating higher end shoes with cheaper materials and construction in the same sort of pattern and you end up with a shoe that might be okay for the basketball court or a track workout, but doesn't have the same kind of versatility on the trails. Minimalist and toe shoes can be a lot less expensive without bothering to try being something that they're not.
That treadmill looked fairly bouncy compared to tarmac. I know it'd be hard to do the test otherwise but could that make the results closer than on the road?
Would be interesting to see if drop makes a difference with foot placement on landing. Recently I am finding I drag my forefoot on my left leg with higher drop shoes….ie., 8 to 10…..verses lower drop shoes…4 to 5….kind of counter intuitive. Maybe use that foot sensor to see this
People moaning about ON sponsorship of GTN, yet all those setting records in other supershoes are doing so because of sponsorship! Kipchoge still would have run a sub 2hr marathon in another branded carbon plated trainer.
So much potential with this topic and so little useful information. We know you gotta pay the bills but don’t let sponsorships get in the way of content.
From what I saw in the video mark looks like more of a heel striker whilst James was more of a mid to forefoot. A video on the pros, cons, of the different styles would be interesting.
Starts off with saying the supershoe was faster showing the ON carbonplated shoe which is NOT a supershoe. Actually I dont think you can find one review on youtube where this shoe gets some positive review. Stop being a commercial please, it’s too often and too obvious. These videos loose all credibility like this. There are pretty much 4 supershoes now, vapourfly, alphafly, adios pro, metaspeed and then you could argue about a few others not including the ON Running shoe though.
I really like the content of your videos and this one was no exception. I have been running for 2 years and my first pair of shoes were the Nike vaporly. Now I use Saucony fast twitch as my daily trainer which is not a carbon plated shoe but it is a lightweight shoe for speed which I like. A month ago I decided to switch up and get a pair of the NB 1080 fresh foam. It was the worse thing, my feet and legs felt very heavy running in them. It was difficult to run in them and I was exhausted afterwards. It also add 30 seconds into my pace time. Never again will I buy a shoe like that again. I will go back to carbon plated shoes for my daily runs.
I wouldn't call the 0.2% improvement of the carbon plated shoe over the mid priced one significant. That is easily within the margin of error. There was a recent study that compared different carbon plated shoes to racing flats and found that significant differences. Only the Nike Alphafly, Vaporfly and Aspics Metaspeed sky had a statistically significant advantage over standard racing flats. ON Cloudboom Echos weren't in that study though. ON claims that an external institute conducted a study but I couldn't find it anywhere, which doesn't inspire confidence. The big methodological weakness of all these studies as well as the experiment you conducted is the short time. All these shoes are designed for distances where worsening running form as a result of fatigue is a significant problem.
To sum up this video, if u are slow you are poor and if u wanna get faster u need to spend alot, but since u are poor u cannot, so u continue being slow😂.
Sponsored by On? .....at all?......somewhat?....... a bit?......for the previous 2 to 3 years?......possibly? Numbers on screen might help. n=2 not enough for a statistical argument. Run length very short. A postgraduate study with more subjects, more shoe options, longer more relevant runs, training long term in super-shoes.
I’d love to see if replacing the soles of the two non carbon plate md shoes with carbon fiber insoles would eliminate the difference. Can an average runner on a tight budget improve average running shoes with carbon fiber insoles in their budget shoes?
Most of the benefit of supershoes is actually in the midsole foam compund and stack height. Not the carbonplate. So no carbon plate insoles would not be beneficial.
GTN....you really are going to destroy any credibility you once had with stunts like this. Do you really think ANYONE, including the guys in the video, thinks that ON shoes are demonstrably faster than other shoes? No one thinks this. We want to know Nike versus Asics metaspeed. You can throw the ON shoes into this comparison just to demonstrate how slow they are; this would be useful content for your viewers. This is a waste of time. Where is your integrity?
They'll have to work with what they're provided with. If OC wanted to support the channel and provide the shoes for these types of videos and Nike or Adidas didn't, then I doubt they have much choice in the matter
@@gregspeakie4635 this video is stupid and misleading, I know OC promote the channel but not one pair shoes from alpha or X or ASIC evan hoka have much better trainer then OC
@@Greenphil111 Right, but you can just extrapolate what they've done in this video and probably assume the gains will be even better with those shoes. Its a 15 minute youtube video dipping into the subject and not a full scientific thesis.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
It is nice that ON is sponsoring GTN.
However, I wish they would also make decent running shoes.
At least that's one less shoe I will not feel compelled to buy because so few reviews are positive about it. It's only GTN presenters that use them because, well, they do get paid to wear them.
The one time I’ve felt sponsorship got in the way of what could have been an awesome video for the GTN team! You guys even mentioned the vapor fly and it’s impact in your video!
On isn’t a bad brand but I would’ve liked to seen Nike Adidas ASICS or even new balance super shoes
It’s public that the Vapor changed the game. What’s it’s interesting it’s oxygen technic lactate not just only speed
To be fair, they tested carbon plated running shoes, which is what the vapour fly’s are… they’re probably not as good as the vapour fly’s but still, similar technology behind both of them
How can you do a “super shoe” test and not include the industry leading super shoe?!?!
ON sponsorship ...
Oh man, how can you have not only one, but two professionals bringing us this great content-for free-and still complain?
Unfortunately you let sponsoring get in the way of really good content. I guess it’s obvious that your average viewers are at least ok informed what most pros run in and have success with. some might even have read the study that was recently released where they compared the top carbon shoes, e.g. nike, hoka, saucony and the like. going from there, would have been interesting to look at the shoes that were shown to have a positive impact on performance. just my opinion, but being apparently bound by sponsoring in such a way risks your credibility as the go to source for many age groupers and future athletes.
Really appreciate seeing the test at 11km/h, much more relevant to me
Thank you for running at "our" normal running pace and testing it out
This is probably the best video GTN has put up. I've heard on multiple podcasts (don't know who said it first) that you shouldn't even care about carbon shoes until you are a sub 4'/k pace racer. But a 1-2% boost in economy over a 3-4, even 5 hour marathon at 11/kmh adds up quite a bit. Especially considering how long it might take you to make that improvement on your own. Would love to see a super shoe shoot-out between On, Saucony, Nike, Asics, etc.
Treat with care mate when someone gets payed by a specific brand and only reports on that. It’s just business 😊might even be all true, we will never know!
@@mattifreshfan9111 I totally agree on the fact that they are looking at a specific shoe from a company that invests in their channel. But compared to a lot of the subjective and "well, no duh" stuff that GTN and GCN seem to put out, it was nice to see some metrics outside of RPE and time used to measure whether something may actually be making a difference. Of course they're restrained by their cash flow/source, but it would be nice to see them use more established testing facilities and methods, like this, and not them just putting on a backpack to see how much an extra 5kg slows you down uphill.
I don't think its about the pace that decides if you want to try or own a carbon plated running shoes, even slower folks will surely enjoy their super shoes if it fits their needs / rotation.
And most of time these "super" shoes will improve their experience vs their typical daily trainers...
It would be interesting to see the results of more mainstream super shoes like the vaporfly/alphafly.
Agreed. Unfortunately GTN is sponsored by On, not Nike…
Here:
ua-cam.com/video/7Yu1JddCWLY/v-deo.html
Every comparison of ON carbon plated shoes with other ones is a disaster for ON.
Was hoping for this as well, but sponsors…
I did lab testing of Alpha fly vs Next% earlier this year with minimal difference (within margins of error). Canadian Olympic Marathon Runner (9th place) Malindi Elmore did it with next% and Saucony endorphin pro before signing with Saucony and also no difference (within margins of error). Big thing with Alpha fly is how heavy it is compared to next %
Thank You for such a scientific comparison! May I ask if your will be trying barefoot running/ vibrant five fingers/ minimal shoes in the future?
I'd love to see a video like this comparing all the "super shoes" options, a variety of running flats and all the carbon plated racing shoes. Including two runners for data variety is great too!
Has you knew what shoes you were using, you can't ignore the psychological boost of knowing you are using a so called fast shoes, shoe or placebo....
As a mere mortal, I found this video very useful.
:)
Much better than the last cheap vs super shoe. Glad you included a midrange shoe! Would now be awesome for you to do a scientific test comparing 5-10 of ALL the top carbon shoes so we can all know which ones are better. Thank you!
Nice video, my advise would be to show the numbers of the test on screen in a table.
So for 11kmh - the difference between mid range and carbon is 216.5 vs 216, which is .. 0.23%. If we convert it to the speed- that's 32 second faster for full marathon - 3:50:09 vs 3:49:37.
You're welcome
Ah, shoes...
Speaking of shoes, I'd love to see (or better yet, have) a shoe that was the ultimate daily driver.
Something which combines
- the durability and comfort of a DeLuth work shoe
- the protection of a steel toe boot
- the combined functionality of the Sketchers Shape-Ups and Airators
- a Vaporfly-style carbon plate
- pedal clips for comfortable cycling
- laces that don't constantly untie themselves
- good off-road traction
- a combination of breathability and waterproofing
- a total weight that's actually sane (light enough to not cause any injuries)
- an outer appearance that isn't ugly-af
- a price tag that doesn't require me to get four jobs and go without food for a month
Can you update the video to print the results on the screen so we can see them side by side?
There are so many shoe brands - I went to a running shop & after several shoe tests came away with Brooks which I now stick with as every time I try a different brand I end up injured 🤷♀️
ON is no way a supershoe! Not even a Running shoe… but nice Sneakers
👍😁👍 -James watching Mark run
Very interesting video. The point you make is that the carbon fibre shoe is more economical than the non carbon/cheaper shoe. The argument is well made and it was great to see you doing it at two speeds
It would be interesting to see you compare the On Cloudboom Echo to one of the Nike Carbon shoes, both in the lab and on road, but that’s a different video.
Thanks!
what is this application on your smartphone and the little sensor thank you❤
You are better off buying a stryd foot pod
@@joneaton3366 🙏❤
Awesome 👏👏👏
Thank you
You choose on shoes which a very very small number of runners use. You need to do the top shoes from NB, Nike and Saucony imo
nobody setting records in those shoes. Be nice to see vaporflys and alphas tested because those are the only shoes proven thus far to have a significant performance gain
Had to thumbs up just for the series of thumbs up from the 10 min mark ;)
It might be interesting to account for anatomy as well. If I don't use 0 drop, I get joint pain. Would I even be able to finish a marathon in the top end shoes if I know I run well in 0 drop flat shoes?
Ditto. In 20 years I'd not been able to get over 10km without my knees flaming up. Last year after just 1.5 years toe running I ran my first 1/2 marathon, and this year I tripled my training volume with quite manageable (over training) symptoms. 3 years gain after 20 years of beating my body against a wall. And yes, my primary set of training shoes are ~$10, essentially beach shoes.
Do any of you guys remember the Sketchers Shape-Ups? What did you think of them when they were still around?
The pure numerical differences appear to me smaller than the accuracy you should expect. Wonder what the results would have been running barefoot.
I agree, think the differences in values were way to small to draw any conclusions. So to say the were definitely better is more sponsored that results driven imo.
I ran my first 5k in a 10 dollar shoe ,but I normally use a 125 dollar new balance shoe.but don't own a car ,so that justifies the cost to me.thanks for video!
Ps the drop distance isn't enough on the cheaper shoe I ran in ,hence the heel strike ineffencency
If you're gonna get a cheap shoe don't compromise by getting something "mid" range---because most of those mid-range shoes are just impersonating higher end shoes with cheaper materials and construction in the same sort of pattern and you end up with a shoe that might be okay for the basketball court or a track workout, but doesn't have the same kind of versatility on the trails. Minimalist and toe shoes can be a lot less expensive without bothering to try being something that they're not.
Isn’t that just a 0,9% difference in efficiency?
A marginal gain for lots of $
@@chrisstrider That's life.
That treadmill looked fairly bouncy compared to tarmac. I know it'd be hard to do the test otherwise but could that make the results closer than on the road?
Can u pls provide a good shoes link too . 🙏🙏👍👍
Would be interesting to see if drop makes a difference with foot placement on landing. Recently I am finding I drag my forefoot on my left leg with higher drop shoes….ie., 8 to 10…..verses lower drop shoes…4 to 5….kind of counter intuitive. Maybe use that foot sensor to see this
Most peoples foot placements will stay the same with different dop heights,
watch doctors of running channel
People moaning about ON sponsorship of GTN, yet all those setting records in other supershoes are doing so because of sponsorship! Kipchoge still would have run a sub 2hr marathon in another branded carbon plated trainer.
I think the gains would be even bigger if you could test running on asphalt.
So much potential with this topic and so little useful information. We know you gotta pay the bills but don’t let sponsorships get in the way of content.
Please bother to put the key numbers on screen in your videos. So much easier for us to consume in than you guys throwing out numbers.
From what I saw in the video mark looks like more of a heel striker whilst James was more of a mid to forefoot. A video on the pros, cons, of the different styles would be interesting.
Nike has lots of data on this like the 4% also proving (in house study Nike……) that they are on avg. 4% faster for all run styles
Should have done the alphafly’s
Yep for a 3-6% efficency increase
Starts off with saying the supershoe was faster showing the ON carbonplated shoe which is NOT a supershoe. Actually I dont think you can find one review on youtube where this shoe gets some positive review. Stop being a commercial please, it’s too often and too obvious. These videos loose all credibility like this. There are pretty much 4 supershoes now, vapourfly, alphafly, adios pro, metaspeed and then you could argue about a few others not including the ON Running shoe though.
I really like the content of your videos and this one was no exception. I have been running for 2 years and my first pair of shoes were the Nike vaporly. Now I use Saucony fast twitch as my daily trainer which is not a carbon plated shoe but it is a lightweight shoe for speed which I like. A month ago I decided to switch up and get a pair of the NB 1080 fresh foam. It was the worse thing, my feet and legs felt very heavy running in them. It was difficult to run in them and I was exhausted afterwards. It also add 30 seconds into my pace time. Never again will I buy a shoe like that again. I will go back to carbon plated shoes for my daily runs.
James had the better socks 🧦 😉 #versus #proudlysa
I wouldn't call the 0.2% improvement of the carbon plated shoe over the mid priced one significant. That is easily within the margin of error.
There was a recent study that compared different carbon plated shoes to racing flats and found that significant differences.
Only the Nike Alphafly, Vaporfly and Aspics Metaspeed sky had a statistically significant advantage over standard racing flats.
ON Cloudboom Echos weren't in that study though. ON claims that an external institute conducted a study but I couldn't find it anywhere, which doesn't inspire confidence.
The big methodological weakness of all these studies as well as the experiment you conducted is the short time.
All these shoes are designed for distances where worsening running form as a result of fatigue is a significant problem.
To sum up this video, if u are slow you are poor and if u wanna get faster u need to spend alot, but since u are poor u cannot, so u continue being slow😂.
Sponsored by On? .....at all?......somewhat?....... a bit?......for the previous 2 to 3 years?......possibly?
Numbers on screen might help. n=2 not enough for a statistical argument. Run length very short. A postgraduate study with more subjects, more shoe options, longer more relevant runs, training long term in super-shoes.
this is a youtube channel
Pity you did not compare it to barefoot running. Only that way would you be able to say much about the effect of the shoes.
Why mention the record shoes and not include them...sponsor or not, good video anyway.
Wondering if running on hard roads would have changed results, same question if the runner is 20 kg heavier
Not not really but person to person everyone will respond differently
Some of those differences were really small!
Buy Mark some new socks.......without holes in them.
Not enough of a difference for me to pay up. But we all know there is more to a shoe than short term efficiency .......
I wonder which one actually had a sports science degree
That would be James haha. My degree might help with the shoe design, but very little else!
Just seeing the comments re sponsorship…and turning off the video. Come on, guys.
Another SA guy that jumped ship
I would've liked to see barefoot running included in this test.
Pointless without testing Nike or Adidas. Not seen any WR broken in this niche shoe
Nike adidas and asics will further improve your economy by an extra couple of %
I’d love to see if replacing the soles of the two non carbon plate md shoes with carbon fiber insoles would eliminate the difference. Can an average runner on a tight budget improve average running shoes with carbon fiber insoles in their budget shoes?
Most of the benefit of supershoes is actually in the midsole foam compund and stack height. Not the carbonplate. So no carbon plate insoles would not be beneficial.
@@stijndevries542 so then what’s the hype about carbon plates in running shoes?
Super shoe what is that, when I was running there was no such thing as a super shoe , I like saying super road bikes
Economy of carbon shoes against their competitors?
It's all down to the super foams,
GTN....you really are going to destroy any credibility you once had with stunts like this. Do you really think ANYONE, including the guys in the video, thinks that ON shoes are demonstrably faster than other shoes? No one thinks this. We want to know Nike versus Asics metaspeed. You can throw the ON shoes into this comparison just to demonstrate how slow they are; this would be useful content for your viewers. This is a waste of time. Where is your integrity?
ON makes worst running shoes. No wonder the results also suck
You haven't proven anything. n=2!!! The difference are pretty small. You need more people to be tested!!!
Very poor shoes selection
No Nike or adidas X
You can see why channel promoted by one type of trainer
They'll have to work with what they're provided with. If OC wanted to support the channel and provide the shoes for these types of videos and Nike or Adidas didn't, then I doubt they have much choice in the matter
@@gregspeakie4635 this video is stupid and misleading, I know OC promote the channel but not one pair shoes from alpha or X or ASIC evan hoka have much better trainer then OC
@@Greenphil111 Right, but you can just extrapolate what they've done in this video and probably assume the gains will be even better with those shoes. Its a 15 minute youtube video dipping into the subject and not a full scientific thesis.