_edited.png)
I tested my running economy in the Nike Streakfly, a shoe marketed for 5k and 10k racing.
Testing Methods
I ran in the Nike Streakfly as well as the Nike Alphafly and my typical control shoe (Asics Hyperspeed) for one rep each at 6:15/mile pace while measuring oxygen consumption and energy expenditure. Check out this link to see what running economy is, how it is measured, and how it impacts performance.
Results
My running economy was actually slightly worse in the Nike Streakfly than the control shoe. The Nike Alphafly was 3% better than the control and 4% better than the Streakfly.
Take Home Message
As I have seen with my testing of the Nike Invincible, simply having Zoom X foam like we see here in the Streakfly, doesn't automatically make a shoe more economical. I was not a fan of the Streakfly overall...just seemed like a watered down version of a Nike super shoe. My biggest gripe is in the marketing of the shoe as a 5k/10k racer. In theory, we should race in our most economical shoe, assuming it is enough shoe for the intended distance. When the most cushioned shoe, like the Alphafly here, is also the most economical, it make sense to use it for everything on the roads from the mile up to the marathon and beyond. If your most economical shoe is something really lightweight/minimal, then you have some decisions to make in terms of how high you want to take that shoe up in distance before switching to something more substantial and cushioned. However, I don't think this is the issue for most people. In general, I think we've been misled by shoe marketing and reviewers to think we need multiple racing shoes specific to various distances. I always chuckle when I hear a shoe would be a great marathon racer but maybe not so much for the half marathon, or vice versa...makes no sense.
Comments