Racing flats versus Regular training shoes

TheRoadRunner · 13-10-2011 11:29AM #1

Quick question that arose from a discussion on shoes in the training logs.

How much (if any) of an advantage do people feel they gain by racing in lightweight flats versus regular training shoes?

For me I think over 5k the difference could be 20 seconds although I have nothing to back this up.

The reason I ask relates to deciding on wearing a lightweight shoe or cushioned shoe for marathon running. If you scale my 20 seconds per 5km upwards this would be close to a 3 minute improvement over the marathon distance (again no evidence for this). However in my case I wouldn't get past 14 miles without cramping issues. I guess you need to train in racing flats to get use to them and build up certain neglected muscles/tendons.

Generally speaking, people seem to get so stressed about small differences in shoe weights (we're talking 50-60 grams) when they would be probably better off loosing a couple of lbs of excess body weight.

ecoli · 13-10-2011 11:39AM

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Quick question that arose from a discussion on shoes in the training logs.

How much (if any) of an advantage do people feel they gain by racing in lightweight flats versus regular training shoes?

For me I think over 5k the difference could be 20 seconds although I have nothing to back this up.

The reason I ask relates to deciding on wearing a lightweight shoe or cushioned shoe for marathon running. If you scale my 20 seconds per 5km upwards this would be close to a 3 minute improvement over the marathon distance (again no evidence for this). However in my case I wouldn't get past 14 miles without cramping issues. I guess you need to train in racing flats to get use to them and build up certain neglected muscles/tendons.

Generally speaking, people seem to get so stressed about small differences in shoe weights (we're talking 50-60 grams) when they would be probably better off loosing a couple of lbs of excess body weight.

Never race out of flats so can't compare in terms of race performances however there have been times when I find that I am comparing times of sessions between flat's and normal trainers for my intervals. What I have found for these is that it is roughly a second per lap or so difference so you would be talking 4 sec/mile roughly. This seems to be a general consensus amongst many club runners I have run with as a rough guide however this is in relation to track surface as opposed to road so I would say your 20 sec on road for 5k would be bang on with my views.

You do need to get used to them though which is why my intervals and some of my shorter tempos are done in flats while the rest of training is done in normal trainers

I think the point you make at the end is the most important part. People spend alot of times being penny wise and pound foolish in terms of trying to save every gram on there feet while ignoring the elephant in the room of the extra lbs on the gut. Flats/ lightweight racers are great benefit but if the weight is up they are going to cause a whole load of injury problems in the long run

Seres · 13-10-2011 12:05PM

I have only one pair of racers that i got before june and have only ever wore them for races except for one or two trial runs at the start when i bought them .I've done 3 races since June and havent had any problems adjusting They are so light and fexible , do you really need to break them in or use them regularly ?

Gringo78 · 13-10-2011 12:09PM

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Generally speaking, people seem to get so stressed about small differences in shoe weights (we're talking 50-60 grams) when they would be probably better off loosing a couple of lbs of excess body weight.

Unneccessary weight on the body is usually carried around the gut, which in a good running style is generally only moving in a horizontal direction. The extra weight in the runner though moves from the ground up to say 80-90cm off the ground repeatedly 80-120 times per minute so 50-60grammes on the feet is as significant as say 1kg on the gut.

But agree, safer to get rid of the 1kg off the gut first before experimenting with flats as the risk of injury with flats is probably proportional to body weight anyway.

Murta · 13-10-2011 12:10PM

Seres wrote: »

I have only one pair of racers that i got before june and have only ever wore them for races except for one or two trial runs at the start when i bought them .I've done 3 races since June and havent had any problems adjusting They are so light and fexible , do you really need to break them in or use them regularly ?

Different for everybody. I for one, need to allow feet type to adjust to specific pair of shoes no matter how flexible. Then again, my foot biomechanics are pretty shoddy.

TheRoadRunner · 13-10-2011 12:15PM

Gringo78 wrote: »

Unneccessary weight on the body is usually carried around the gut, which in a good running style is generally only moving in a horizontal direction. The extra weight in the runner though moves from the ground up to say 80-90cm off the ground repeatedly 80-120 times per minute so 50-60grammes on the feet is as significant as say 1kg on the gut.

what about the extra energy required to carry the gut fat?

Gringo78 · 13-10-2011 12:36PM

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

what about the extra energy required to carry the gut fat?

What I mean is 50g on a running show may seem an insignificant weight but its maybe the equivalent of 1kg on the gut. You have in a marathon a total upward vertical motion of your foot of 20km as well as the horizontal motion of 42km.

I agree though, gut fat bad but 50g on a shoe hugely more significant than 50g on the gut.

By the way, Kayano's are one of the heaviest runners out there - they would feel like conrete blocks on me. In your case, being a fast, efficient and not overweight runner, I would guess your choice of racing flat may have been the issue. A Kayano weighs around 350g I think, the lightest racing flats are <200g but you get flats with varying degrees of cushioning. I use Asics DS Racers (all racing & training) which weigh 219g, but to pick them up and try them you would not think from the cushioning they are flats, cerainly looking at them you would not classify them as flats. I have a pair of Kilkenny XC4 flats (optional spikes) which weigh only 30g less than the DS racers but i would not do a 10 mile race in them.

So I think you could improve greatly on the Kayano's, something halfway between flats & Kayanos.

jeffontour · 13-10-2011 12:44PM

Seres wrote: »

They are so light and fexible , do you really need to break them in or use them regularly ?

I think if you're coming into a flatter style shoe from a large heel to toe differential standard trainer then you do need to take time to build up the miles. Not to break the shoe in but to ease your body into the change in style that flatter shoes tend to encourage.

This transition need not be as long of course if you're already a graceful fore/mid foot runner.

TheRoadRunner · 13-10-2011 12:51PM

Gringo78 wrote: »

So I think you could improve greatly on the Kayano's, something halfway between flats & Kayanos.

Yeah I tried the DS trainers myself earlier this year and still had issues with cramping. I suppose it's something to work on and get the legs use to less cushioning.

menoscemo · 13-10-2011 12:58PM

It comes down to your running style I guess.
I like to wear flat, neutral shoes for everyday running, and can get away with wearing flats in a marathon with no problem. If someone needs cushion and support in their trainers, wearing a racing flat in a marathon would be inadviseable.

Do they make me any faster? I don't know, but they certainly feel lighter and 'faster'. My only point of reference is running a mile race 15 seconds faster in flats than I did in Trainers a few weeks previous (I had turned up with spikes but they wouldn't let me use them on the track). I was a lot more tired for the first race though, so this is also a factor.

Krusty_Clown · 13-10-2011 01:07PM

Are we actually talking about racing flats though, or just lightweight training shoes?

DS Trainers/Mizuno Precisions/etc are not racing flats (in fact the Mizuno WaveRider is a similar weight to the DS Trainer). I have never worn racing flats, because I don't think I have the form, or would reap the benefit, but do all my races in Precisions, which are a very lightweight cushioned shoe (albeit less cushioned than the Wave rider).

Wave Musha, Wave Universe, Wave Revolver would be examples of Mizuno racing flats.

Seres · 13-10-2011 01:08PM

Gringo78 wrote: »

What I mean is 50g on a running show may seem an insignificant weight but its maybe the equivalent of 1kg on the gut. You have in a marathon a total upward vertical motion of your foot of 20km as well as the horizontal motion of 42km.

I agree though, gut fat bad but 50g on a shoe hugely more significant than 50g on the gut.

By the way, Kayano's are one of the heaviest runners out there - they would feel like conrete blocks on me. In your case, being a fast, efficient and not overweight runner, I would guess your choice of racing flat may have been the issue. A Kayano weighs around 350g I think, the lightest racing flats are <200g but you get flats with varying degrees of cushioning. I use Asics DS Racers (all racing & training) which weigh 219g, but to pick them up and try them you would not think from the cushioning they are flats, cerainly looking at them you would not classify them as flats. I have a pair of Kilkenny XC4 flats (optional spikes) which weigh only 30g less than the DS racers but i would not do a 10 mile race in them.

So I think you could improve greatly on the Kayano's, something halfway between flats & Kayanos.

thanks, where did you get this info ? I only got the racers recently because i wasnt too sure of the added benefit . I figured a decrease in weight of 40g from one shoe to the next was gonna have little or no impact on race times going by the improvements gained in time on 1kg body weight reduction ( think 1kg is bout 25sec over 10k , will prob be corrected on this )

christeb · 13-10-2011 02:16PM

Seres wrote: »

thanks, where did you get this info ? I only got the racers recently because i wasnt too sure of the added benefit . I figured a decrease in weight of 40g from one shoe to the next was gonna have little or no impact on race times going by the improvements gained in time on 1kg body weight reduction ( think 1kg is bout 25sec over 10k , will prob be corrected on this )

it's a similar concept to "rotational weight" in cycling. The weight in the running showe is far away from your centre of gravity, and moves a lot more in different directions, as gringo says. You are therefore 'pushing' this weight a lot more than the weight around your gut.

There must be some calculations on the web somewhere. Personally, I find a huge difference even in my training shoes. The Kinvaras I use require a lot less energy than the Lunar Trainers I alternate them with.

TheRoadRunner · 13-10-2011 02:20PM

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Are we actually talking about racing flats though, or just lightweight training shoes?

Both really. Original post was more concerned with racing flats but light weight training shoes can be considered as well

Krusty_Clown · 13-10-2011 04:00PM

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Both really. Original post was more concerned with racing flats but light weight training shoes can be considered as well

I picked up a few pairs (and put them straight back down again!) at the expo last week, and was amazed by the difference between the two. The racing flats were closer to a delicate slipper than a typical running shoe. Does anyone here actually wear proper racing flats?

TheRoadRunner · 13-10-2011 04:03PM

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I picked up a few pairs (and put them straight back down again!) at the expo last week, and was amazed by the difference between the two. The racing flats were closer to a delicate slipper than a typical running shoe. Does anyone here actually wear proper racing flats?

Eh yeah me, I think. I wear asics DS racers up to and including 10 mile races.

menoscemo · 13-10-2011 04:16PM

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Does anyone here actually wear proper racing flats?

RQ wears them for every single run.

I'd wear flats (I have Brooks green silence, Saucony Kinvaras, Mizuno Musha and Nike Lunar racers) for all speedier training runs and all races. I have even started to wear the Kinvaras for some LSR's and recovery runs.

I have Lunar glides for other 'standard' runs.

I used to wear Pegasus for all my runs and would get some ankle and Knee injuries from time to time, since i switched to more 'minimalist' shoes I haven't had any injuroes to speak off.

Flat shoes suit my gait and foot strike, (I'd be more likely to get injured in a bigger clunkier shoe with more cusioning/support) but I believe they are not suitable for everyone.

TheRoadRunner · 13-10-2011 04:24PM

menoscemo wrote: »

Flat shoes suit my gait and foot strike, (I'd be more likely to get injured in a bigger clunkier shoe with more cusioning/support) but I believe they are not suitable for everyone.

menoscemo, are you going to be barefoot soon. It seems you are on that path

BeepBeep67 · 13-10-2011 04:30PM

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Does anyone here actually wear proper racing flats?

Yes - but I wouldn't go more than 5k in them and they're fine for shorter track workouts.
Pro+4+gms.jpg

BobMac104 · 13-10-2011 04:30PM

I have a pair of Asics hyperspeed 4's and a shiny new pair of adidas adizero pro 4's. The adizeros had their first 8 miler this morning and really enjoyed them. very light, very firm forefoot and good grip + very bright orange!!. If I had a few more weeks i may have used them for DCM but i will use the Asics instead as i feel confident in them.
I would prefer if both had no heel toe diff at all but its not too bad. (4/5mm i think)
I do most miles in vibrams so the flats are like marshmallows to me for the first few minutes when i change over.

TFBubendorfer · 13-10-2011 04:33PM

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Does anyone here actually wear proper racing flats?

My beloved Lunaracers only weigh 170g each.

menoscemo · 13-10-2011 04:54PM

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

menoscemo, are you going to be barefoot soon. It seems you are on that path

Nope I'm stopping here. I'm too afraid of stones and Glass.

dev123 · 13-10-2011 04:55PM

What is the definition of a racing flat?

My understanding is that it is independent of weight. Racing flats are light weight due to the fact that they have little or none of the wave, air, gel technology lumped into the sole but are Kinvara's, Green Silence or DS Racers actually considered flats? Or are they more minimalist?

Does it not relate more to the heel-to-toe drop of the shoe rather than the weight?

A Kinvara may feel like a flat to somone who has just stepped out of Kayanos but I don't believe that makes them a racing flat.

Krusty_Clown · 13-10-2011 04:57PM

Well there you go.. I wouldn't have considered running in racing flats unless I was significantly faster, as I would've have thought than any weight advantage would be greatly off-set by the heightened risk of injury given my weight and running form. You live and learn..

menoscemo · 13-10-2011 05:03PM

dev123 wrote: »

What is the definition of a racing flat?

My understanding is that it is independent of weight. Racing flats are light weight due to the fact that they have little or none of the wave, air, gel technology lumped into the sole but are Kinvara's, Green Silence or DS Racers actually considered flats? Or are they more minimalist?

Does it not relate more to the heel-to-toe drop of the shoe rather than the weight?

A Kinvara may feel like a flat to somone who has just stepped out of Kayanos but I don't believe that makes them a racing flat.

Yes, they are flats. Kinvaras have a 4mm drop from heel to toe, which is almost nothing. Less than most 'Racers' (e.g Lunar racers have an 8mm drop).

I guess a racing Flat is a light shoe with litlle drop from hell to toe (maybe less than 10mm?)

BobMac104 · 13-10-2011 05:09PM

menoscemo wrote: »

Nope I'm stopping here. I'm too afraid of stones and Glass.

ever try it? Its actually grand. ive only ever done a couple of miles at the end of a run and on a lovely tarmac path that was used alot so it was clean enough. Its a cool feeling but you do get a few stares though. Ive tried it alot more on grass (around pitches etc) and its great fun. Not an every day practice for me but like i said its a bit of fun every now and again.

I can feel a few :rolleyes:'s coming along.....

TFBubendorfer · 13-10-2011 06:39PM

menoscemo wrote: »

Yes, they are flats. Kinvaras have a 4mm drop from heel to toe, which is almost nothing. Less than most 'Racers' (e.g Lunar racers have an 8mm drop).

I guess a racing Flat is a light shoe with litlle drop from hell to toe (maybe less than 10mm?)

I have a different interpretation. Just because the Kinvaras have little heel-to-toe drop does not make them a racing flat. As light as they are, I count them as lightweight trainers, and the Lunaracers are my preferred racing flats, and it has nothing to do with the amount of heel drop (which, to be perfectly honest, I do not even notice).

About 2 months ago I was wavering which shoe to wear for a race. The Kinvaras felt so good and light in training that I was about to pick them, but did one run in the Lunaracers just to be sure. The difference was amazing, and it was all down to the reduced weight. I wore the Lunaracers.

Seres · 13-10-2011 07:49PM

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I have a different interpretation. .

you think its down to weight only then ?

menoscemo · 13-10-2011 07:56PM

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I have a different interpretation. Just because the Kinvaras have little heel-to-toe drop does not make them a racing flat. As light as they are, I count them as lightweight trainers, and the Lunaracers are my preferred racing flats, and it has nothing to do with the amount of heel drop (which, to be perfectly honest, I do not even notice).

About 2 months ago I was wavering which shoe to wear for a race. The Kinvaras felt so good and light in training that I was about to pick them, but did one run in the Lunaracers just to be sure. The difference was amazing, and it was all down to the reduced weight. I wore the Lunaracers.

I would wear lunarracers for races up to HM and Kinvaras for marathons. Yeah I agree that the lunarracers are lighter (6.5 oz I think?) and a bit faster but the Kinvaras are only about 7.5oz themselves, so it's not like theres that much difference.

I'd consider them both to be racers

T runner · 13-10-2011 07:58PM

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I have a different interpretation. Just because the Kinvaras have little heel-to-toe drop does not make them a racing flat. As light as they are, I count them as lightweight trainers, and the Lunaracers are my preferred racing flats, and it has nothing to do with the amount of heel drop (which, to be perfectly honest, I do not even notice).

About 2 months ago I was wavering which shoe to wear for a race. The Kinvaras felt so good and light in training that I was about to pick them, but did one run in the Lunaracers just to be sure. The difference was amazing, and it was all down to the reduced weight. I wore the Lunaracers.

The lunar-racers are almost perfect for the marathon. You do need cushioning for the marathon but it must be light weight to maintain cadence. Also the very flat shoes with no drop are only suitable for people running close to 5 minute miles in a marathon (at speeds where the calves and ankle have a big range of extension). Otherwise, cramps etc in the calves.
Lunar racer tick all the boxes IMO.

Is there good traction on the triangular lugs on the Kinvavra may i ask?

Gringo78 · 13-10-2011 08:12PM

I do every single run in Asics DS Racers. Have Lunaracers also and as they are lighter again than the racers I wear them in shorter races (up to HM) but only in dry conditions....they're sh*te in the wet. I'm slightly faster in the lunaracers but prefer the DS racers

Racing flats versus Regular training shoes

Comments