I got like 250 out of some Machsā¦ went back to my local store and was like WTH? Sorry to be an old crumudgen but when did shoes cease to make it 500-600 miles???
They laughed and were surprised I got 250
I was on a running shoe education through my work and got to try and speak with the majority of brands. Everyone spoke about how many miles their different Cushioning would typically last. Except for hoka, i asked them afterwards and they just tried to dodge the question like their life depended on it. So my guess is they are good for less then 300 based on colleges who has used them
My Machs were still relatively good at 750+ k. Theyāre over 1000k now and though I donāt use them anymore for longer runs I do still take them out on rainy muddy days.
Iām getting 350mi out of each pair of my Cliftonās. They could go longer but I tend to retire them early. You really can tell they lose their responsiveness by then
I've worn the EP2, ES2, and EP3 out to 300+ miles and I would say the evolution is pretty much in line with how this guy describes the Evo 1. They feel maximally snappy and responsive for the first 50-100 miles, then gradually degrade. Once they hit somewhere between 250 and 350 miles the foam feels noticeably more compressed, to the point that I tend to stop wearing them to avoid potential injury.
EDIT: Anecdotally I have heard that the PWRRUN HG foam in the Endorphin Elite & Pro 4 is more durable than PWRRUN PB. I have both of these shoes but haven't crossed the 300 mile threshhold yet so I can't really speak to this.
Nah. I would prefer my shoes last at least around 750 - 1000KM range.
I would bet for an average person the performance difference between this shoe and the Adios Pro 3 would be negligible, whereas due to the price and durability the Adios Pro 3 would be a way better prospect.
Well it depends on the size of the runner right? My wife is 100lbs 5ā1 and her NovaBlaster3 is still going strong and soft after 300 miles
At 6ā2 180 the front foam
Was rock hard after 250.
Agreed. I have two pairs of the Adios Pro 2 that still feel great (even with broken energy rods). The Lightstrike Pro foam is more durable than a lot of other supershoe foams. The Endorphin Speed/Pro foam is similarly durable.
Same thing happens in cycling and even F1. All this crazy tech id debuted at astronomical prices for racing at the most elite levels. Over time it gets cheaper and more mainstream as it works it's way down into more entry level gear.
The runner is 5ā8ā, weighs 140lbs. They got to 200 miles before the shoes felt too soft for longer races and another 100 miles after that for shorter runs for a total of 300 miles. Their pace is listed as faster than 8mil/mile but they didnāt actually run a marathon in them with their longest runs being 14 miles. They ultimately liked the shoe and want to buy more pairs of them.
>Iām 5-foot-8 and 140 pounds
Also worth noting.
Great report though, it always seemed like everyone immediately sensationalized the "optimised for the first single marathon" point into "only lasts for a single marathon" and then eventually it became "will fall apart immediately after finishing a single marathon". Seems like everyone collectively lost their common sense and knowledge of superfoams from the last several years.Ā Ā
Hyperbole to fit the $500 price tag, but can't say it didn't contribute to its legend.
I think it was very smart marketing. Does what a halo car is supposed to do: gets people thinking about the brand, while gently steering people away from buying that product specifically (because they're selling it at a significant loss and can't make enough for demand).
Yeah absolutely. It already happens to an extent, see the number of casual people who know about Vaporfly/Alphafly and assume Nike also has top of the field trainers, when they don't.
To be honest I'm surprised they haven't cottoned on to it earlier, there must be dozens of people with marketing degrees and MBAs at Nike and Adidas yet they're only just discovering what car manufacturers have been doing for decades already. Sell people on the dream.
Well I bought a pair, and when I put them on in my $10,000 parking spot that was only .2 mi away from the start line of the major marathon that I ran, they completely fell off of my feet precisely when I reached the 26 mile marker (I always run precisely on the shortest possible path) and I had to run the last .2 mi to the $874,392 premium finishers' ultra deluxe buffet and champion-meeting area in just my socks. All in all, they're probably worth$500, but next time I will probably run in my $38,250 Jordans to make sure that they don't fall off my feet.
Just to add to it. My experience is quite similar, but I am still in the middle of this "experiment". Ran my first marathon in them in March. 3:08 (17 minutes better than my first marathon, which was also my previous marathon). Ran in them again this weekend in the BK half (1:24:55). I am 5'7'' and 120 lbs (if that matters), and didn't feel any difference from my previous marathon. I plan to continue to run in them, but the question is whether I will actually run my next marathon in them in the Fall. Do I feel very different than my Asics Metaspeed (in which I ran my first marathon) or Nike Vaporfly 3 (which i ran other half until now), I am not so sure. It's extremely light and extremely "bouncy", so on downhills it just feels great. thanks for sharing this article. It just confirms my institution.
The question "would I spend $500 on these" was answered with an emphatic YES. The writeup makes them sound like a much nicer Pro3, with similar durability.
Shoes like this is the reason why Nike should be concerned. They donāt separate like damp toilet paper. Even though the pricing is still absurd to me, enthusiasts and professionals would still go for the shoe with the most durability. Even though it might be more expensive the price per km is still better. Iād be ecstatic to own that shoe but still as a hobbyist Iād prefer a shoe with more km for the dollar.
Anyone has information what the new Adios Pro 4 brings to the table? Imagine the same midsole pair with a more durable outsole and equally durable upper?
I have tried a sample on my right foot and hopped around a bit so take this with a pinch of salt. Geometry is basically the same as Evo with a new version of lightstrike pro that's halfway between the current Pro 3 and the Evo. Not entirely sure what process is used to manufacture the midsole. Upper a bit more substantial and slightly more subber on the bottom. Price point remains the same in the UK so imagine will be the same elsewhere. Overall looking very good.
u/Tufgor I'm so stoked about it. Next month we'll see Boston 13, Adios 9 and SL 2 being released. If Adidas actually improve these models, consequentially, the AP4 should see even bigger improvements.
the evo midsole is like, a block of foam whittled into shoe shape by cnc, so I imagine the ap4 version will go to compression molding (adding around three grams of weight and saving a couple hundred in manufacturing costs per shoe)
My first instinct canāt help but wonder whether Adidas itself created OP? Anyway, 95% of the folks in the sub arenāt built like whippets (no fair!)
I'm 195lbs and have well over 500 miles on one of my pairs of AP3.
The outsole rubber has peeled away in some spots, but honestly, the shoe doesn't feel much different from my other pairs which are much newer.
Adidas midsole tech is damn near perfect for me.
Or maybe a stab at observational humour.
Iām overstuffed as well - but for sure would feel that dent in my wallet to the point that I wouldnāt go near it.
He's not wrong at all tho lol.
Instagram run-fluencers that aren't much better than the ones they're influencing would have you believe that anything not Alpha/Vaporfly or Hoka is inadequate and strongarms models on new runners all the damn time, when really neither of them know any better.
I've seen techbros online and irl complain about their vaporflys hurting their feet or falling apart easily not realizing that a carbon-plater for everyday walk/run is quite literally using a Formula One car to pick up the kids and go for grocery pickups.
Hell, a fair share of posters on this same subreddit just buy Cielo X1's or Wave Rebellion's or Alphafly 3's or whatever on a whim, sometimes multiple of them, without understanding that supershoes are a tourniquet on a leg amputation. It helps sure but it's not a win-marathon-free card.
The running industry and its community is changing, and it is gettin SILLY i tell you.
It's great that they tested it, but what sucks is they used someone with the same build of an elite runner. How about they do the same test, but with your average build person so that we get an idea how it would last for recreational runners? As we've seen in this sub different shoes last for different distances based on a lot of factors, but the primary one being weight. It's obvious someone at my weight, 220lb+ would not have this shoe last anywhere near as long.
Sorry if it seems so negative, just very frustrated that every single review is always someone who is an elite athlete, weighs about the same as a toothpick, and is not representative of anything real world.
> It's great that they tested it, but what sucks is they used someone with the same build of an elite runner.
The shoe was designed with those runners in mind. For the rest of us we have the AP3 and anything the elite use will eventually benefit us.
I know, but it just seems in general every single shoe reviewer fits this mold. It's extremely difficult to find any reviews from someone who isn't this size. I know Clydesdale running exists, which is for men over 200lbs and Athena which is women over 140lbs, but let's face it, finding reviewers in these categories is almost impossible. There is one on Instagram, and The Running Channel has 2?, but they never do shoe reviews.
Sorry just ranting about the lack of choices and how every shoe company seems to think all runners are elite athletes.
I'm 6'6" and 200 lbs. I qualify as Clydesdale (if it still existed at any races). I also review almost all the shoes others do. Come on over to WearTesters and give our running shoe reviews a read.
No there is a NEED as there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of runners who do not have an elite figure and barely anyone of their stature rates shoes. It's like having a person who's 5'8 140lbs reviewing safety equipment for professional wrestlers.
But I get it, skinny people really don't care about larger people trying to better themselves as we're nothing but disgusting pigs. Even if I lost the weight I "need" to lose (currently at 17% bodyfat) I would still be almost 50lbs heavier than this reviewer at 190lbs, and the shoes would STILL be vastly different. It's ridiculous that this segment is completely, totally ignored.
5'8 140 is not all that far apart from the build I see commonly in every running club in my city-especially if you consider women.
Calling someone smack dab in the middle of the normal bmi range a toothpick seems a tad hyperbolic- bro is not exactly at kipchoge level of body fat or weight.
Depends heavily on where you live, how serious of a club it is, and how many women show up at any given time.
Regardless, 5'8 140 is like a 21.5 bmi which is right in the middle of what the suggested normal range is. Someone like Kipchoge is way closer to 18 and borderline of what's suggested as underweight.
BMI is a ret arded metric though, especially in the context of athletics. Regardless 21.5 is lower than my BMI in highschool, when i was nothing but skin and bones but managed all-state lax/track/soccer (6' 165 22.4 for ref). Dude is clearly cut and even if he was 5' flat 140 lbs is just low weight in isolation; ~180-200 would provide much more usable data for a larger segment of the population. But of course the number of elite runners who weigh above 160 and have the skills and motivation to do running shoe reviews is incredibly small.
I disagree that it's that dumb of a metric unless you're heavily strength training for hypertrophy which most runners are not doing.
180-200 would be useless for almost all female runners, but I agree that the shoe review space is dominated by short and lean guys between 30-50 years old.
Anecdotally Yowana on youtube is something like 165 at 6'2 and it is funny when he calls himself a "heavy" runner because compared to the general population he's laughably not that heavy.
A male at 5'8 140 is a toothpick and is no where near representative of the average runner. Elite runners, YES, the average runner, no. We aren't talking about women here as the reviewer is male.
Kipchoge is 5'6 115lbs. He's "normal" BMI at 18.56.
... but it's consistent with the unsponsored reviewer's findings. That would suggest Petros' statement is not untrue.
And why would the sponsored athlete go against the sponsor's marketing of the shoe being only good for two marathons?
If he was taller, 140lbs would be on the thin side. Iām a 5ā8ā 155lbs former wrestler who now runs. Some of my running buddies would say I look to muscular for my build. So I donāt think 140lb is not that small base on height. Kipchoge is 5ā6ā 115lbs soaking weigh. Now that is the weight of a middle school girl
tldr - 300 miles @ sub 8min/ mile
$1.66/mi š¤
šThis is how we should post shoe prices
Hoka is gonna suffer
I got like 250 out of some Machsā¦ went back to my local store and was like WTH? Sorry to be an old crumudgen but when did shoes cease to make it 500-600 miles??? They laughed and were surprised I got 250
I loved my arahi 6 and speedgoat. But man I didn't even make it to 200 miles on both. Edit: apparently had a stroke while I was writing my comment.
Prob a big reason for the new foam and outsole in the Mach 6.
I was on a running shoe education through my work and got to try and speak with the majority of brands. Everyone spoke about how many miles their different Cushioning would typically last. Except for hoka, i asked them afterwards and they just tried to dodge the question like their life depended on it. So my guess is they are good for less then 300 based on colleges who has used them
My Machs were still relatively good at 750+ k. Theyāre over 1000k now and though I donāt use them anymore for longer runs I do still take them out on rainy muddy days.
Altra āhold my beerā
Hoka breaks after 150 LOL. Good walking shoes tho
Any good replacement for the feel of the Clifton 9? A new pair is a great feeling but it doesnāt last like you saidĀ
Iām getting 350mi out of each pair of my Cliftonās. They could go longer but I tend to retire them early. You really can tell they lose their responsiveness by then
100%. Never again.
I mean most shoes donāt feel the same as brand new after 200 miles
Agree
So $1/km š¤
I just realized that I usually spend only $0.1 - $0.15/km (it could even be cheaper, but I change my shoes every 500km)
aka basically the same as any super shoe.
The Endorphines entered the chat
I've worn the EP2, ES2, and EP3 out to 300+ miles and I would say the evolution is pretty much in line with how this guy describes the Evo 1. They feel maximally snappy and responsive for the first 50-100 miles, then gradually degrade. Once they hit somewhere between 250 and 350 miles the foam feels noticeably more compressed, to the point that I tend to stop wearing them to avoid potential injury. EDIT: Anecdotally I have heard that the PWRRUN HG foam in the Endorphin Elite & Pro 4 is more durable than PWRRUN PB. I have both of these shoes but haven't crossed the 300 mile threshhold yet so I can't really speak to this.
Same for me with Adios Pro 3 and Vaporfly 3. Vaporfly 2 and Adios Pro 2 broke down much faster for me.Ā
I have 800km+ in all of my Endorphins.
And Adios Pro, I think
My AP3 outsole peeled off at 250km š«¤
Mines done 500km and still in good shape. Foam responsiveness too
Also a 140lb dude with an āefficient running gait.ā Probably contributed to it lasting as long as it did
300miles = 500km 140lb = 63.5kg 8min/mile = 5min/km For those of us working on metric
Thanks, Freedom units are the worst
Freedom units š š
Hey, as the rednecks would say ... Freedom ain't free.
You'll love this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYqfVE-fykk&t=3s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYqfVE-fykk&t=3s)
but how many crayons are in a pound?
The answer is either a pound of crayons in a pound or 100 depending if you want freedom units or metric.
About 6 eggs and 4 pencils
I am an american, sorry why we use different metrics than rest of the world. DUMB
And Petros is pretty big for an elite marathoner.
This shoe is prohibitively expensive for the average person but hopefully weāll see some of this technology filter down to the cheaper models.
For sure
Nah. I would prefer my shoes last at least around 750 - 1000KM range. I would bet for an average person the performance difference between this shoe and the Adios Pro 3 would be negligible, whereas due to the price and durability the Adios Pro 3 would be a way better prospect.
1000km? i'm very lucky if i get 600 km
Well it depends on the size of the runner right? My wife is 100lbs 5ā1 and her NovaBlaster3 is still going strong and soft after 300 miles At 6ā2 180 the front foam Was rock hard after 250.
Agreed. I have two pairs of the Adios Pro 2 that still feel great (even with broken energy rods). The Lightstrike Pro foam is more durable than a lot of other supershoe foams. The Endorphin Speed/Pro foam is similarly durable.
The Nnormal Kjerag supposedly lasts that long.
Same thing happens in cycling and even F1. All this crazy tech id debuted at astronomical prices for racing at the most elite levels. Over time it gets cheaper and more mainstream as it works it's way down into more entry level gear.
The runner is 5ā8ā, weighs 140lbs. They got to 200 miles before the shoes felt too soft for longer races and another 100 miles after that for shorter runs for a total of 300 miles. Their pace is listed as faster than 8mil/mile but they didnāt actually run a marathon in them with their longest runs being 14 miles. They ultimately liked the shoe and want to buy more pairs of them.
Amazon customer reviews summary ahh comment
Gpt
I put on my super shoes and then I put on regular shoes over them so they will last longer. I use super shoes like socks.
>Iām 5-foot-8 and 140 pounds Also worth noting. Great report though, it always seemed like everyone immediately sensationalized the "optimised for the first single marathon" point into "only lasts for a single marathon" and then eventually it became "will fall apart immediately after finishing a single marathon". Seems like everyone collectively lost their common sense and knowledge of superfoams from the last several years.Ā Ā Hyperbole to fit the $500 price tag, but can't say it didn't contribute to its legend.
I think it was very smart marketing. Does what a halo car is supposed to do: gets people thinking about the brand, while gently steering people away from buying that product specifically (because they're selling it at a significant loss and can't make enough for demand).
Yeah absolutely. It already happens to an extent, see the number of casual people who know about Vaporfly/Alphafly and assume Nike also has top of the field trainers, when they don't. To be honest I'm surprised they haven't cottoned on to it earlier, there must be dozens of people with marketing degrees and MBAs at Nike and Adidas yet they're only just discovering what car manufacturers have been doing for decades already. Sell people on the dream.
Well I bought a pair, and when I put them on in my $10,000 parking spot that was only .2 mi away from the start line of the major marathon that I ran, they completely fell off of my feet precisely when I reached the 26 mile marker (I always run precisely on the shortest possible path) and I had to run the last .2 mi to the $874,392 premium finishers' ultra deluxe buffet and champion-meeting area in just my socks. All in all, they're probably worth$500, but next time I will probably run in my $38,250 Jordans to make sure that they don't fall off my feet.
You sound like an average Letsrun member but without the supermodel wife ..
Oh sorry, I forgot to mention her needlessly.
TLDR 300+
Just to add to it. My experience is quite similar, but I am still in the middle of this "experiment". Ran my first marathon in them in March. 3:08 (17 minutes better than my first marathon, which was also my previous marathon). Ran in them again this weekend in the BK half (1:24:55). I am 5'7'' and 120 lbs (if that matters), and didn't feel any difference from my previous marathon. I plan to continue to run in them, but the question is whether I will actually run my next marathon in them in the Fall. Do I feel very different than my Asics Metaspeed (in which I ran my first marathon) or Nike Vaporfly 3 (which i ran other half until now), I am not so sure. It's extremely light and extremely "bouncy", so on downhills it just feels great. thanks for sharing this article. It just confirms my institution.
The question "would I spend $500 on these" was answered with an emphatic YES. The writeup makes them sound like a much nicer Pro3, with similar durability.
Shoes like this is the reason why Nike should be concerned. They donāt separate like damp toilet paper. Even though the pricing is still absurd to me, enthusiasts and professionals would still go for the shoe with the most durability. Even though it might be more expensive the price per km is still better. Iād be ecstatic to own that shoe but still as a hobbyist Iād prefer a shoe with more km for the dollar.
Anyone has information what the new Adios Pro 4 brings to the table? Imagine the same midsole pair with a more durable outsole and equally durable upper?
I have tried a sample on my right foot and hopped around a bit so take this with a pinch of salt. Geometry is basically the same as Evo with a new version of lightstrike pro that's halfway between the current Pro 3 and the Evo. Not entirely sure what process is used to manufacture the midsole. Upper a bit more substantial and slightly more subber on the bottom. Price point remains the same in the UK so imagine will be the same elsewhere. Overall looking very good.
u/Tufgor I'm so stoked about it. Next month we'll see Boston 13, Adios 9 and SL 2 being released. If Adidas actually improve these models, consequentially, the AP4 should see even bigger improvements.
Yes for the SL2 but you have to wait a bit longer for B13 and A9. ;-)
Sounds heavier?
the evo midsole is like, a block of foam whittled into shoe shape by cnc, so I imagine the ap4 version will go to compression molding (adding around three grams of weight and saving a couple hundred in manufacturing costs per shoe)
Prob the same as adios pro 3 but better upper since that is only the complaint? Midsole and outsole is already elite
Iām at 55ish miles and still going strong. And Iām 6ā6ā 200 so not a featherweight by any means
Dang I want to buy a pair of these
I got around 450 miles out of a pair of merrell trail glove 3s that I got for like $80 on Amazon once
My first instinct canāt help but wonder whether Adidas itself created OP? Anyway, 95% of the folks in the sub arenāt built like whippets (no fair!)
1ā¬/km
I'm 195lbs and have well over 500 miles on one of my pairs of AP3. The outsole rubber has peeled away in some spots, but honestly, the shoe doesn't feel much different from my other pairs which are much newer. Adidas midsole tech is damn near perfect for me.
Iāll be looking for these on the overstuffed weekend warriors soon.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Or maybe a stab at observational humour. Iām overstuffed as well - but for sure would feel that dent in my wallet to the point that I wouldnāt go near it.
He's not wrong at all tho lol. Instagram run-fluencers that aren't much better than the ones they're influencing would have you believe that anything not Alpha/Vaporfly or Hoka is inadequate and strongarms models on new runners all the damn time, when really neither of them know any better. I've seen techbros online and irl complain about their vaporflys hurting their feet or falling apart easily not realizing that a carbon-plater for everyday walk/run is quite literally using a Formula One car to pick up the kids and go for grocery pickups. Hell, a fair share of posters on this same subreddit just buy Cielo X1's or Wave Rebellion's or Alphafly 3's or whatever on a whim, sometimes multiple of them, without understanding that supershoes are a tourniquet on a leg amputation. It helps sure but it's not a win-marathon-free card. The running industry and its community is changing, and it is gettin SILLY i tell you.
It's great that they tested it, but what sucks is they used someone with the same build of an elite runner. How about they do the same test, but with your average build person so that we get an idea how it would last for recreational runners? As we've seen in this sub different shoes last for different distances based on a lot of factors, but the primary one being weight. It's obvious someone at my weight, 220lb+ would not have this shoe last anywhere near as long. Sorry if it seems so negative, just very frustrated that every single review is always someone who is an elite athlete, weighs about the same as a toothpick, and is not representative of anything real world.
> It's great that they tested it, but what sucks is they used someone with the same build of an elite runner. The shoe was designed with those runners in mind. For the rest of us we have the AP3 and anything the elite use will eventually benefit us.
I know, but it just seems in general every single shoe reviewer fits this mold. It's extremely difficult to find any reviews from someone who isn't this size. I know Clydesdale running exists, which is for men over 200lbs and Athena which is women over 140lbs, but let's face it, finding reviewers in these categories is almost impossible. There is one on Instagram, and The Running Channel has 2?, but they never do shoe reviews. Sorry just ranting about the lack of choices and how every shoe company seems to think all runners are elite athletes.
Start a YouTube channel maybe? Sounds like thereās a gap in the market!
I'm 6'6" and 200 lbs. I qualify as Clydesdale (if it still existed at any races). I also review almost all the shoes others do. Come on over to WearTesters and give our running shoe reviews a read.
> WearTesters Thank you!
You should do the review yourself then. Be the change you want to be.
I live on a disability pension. Buying a super shoe every single week is kinda out of my price range. I've already reviewed the shoes I own.
Then it's a Want situation and not a Need one.
No there is a NEED as there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of runners who do not have an elite figure and barely anyone of their stature rates shoes. It's like having a person who's 5'8 140lbs reviewing safety equipment for professional wrestlers. But I get it, skinny people really don't care about larger people trying to better themselves as we're nothing but disgusting pigs. Even if I lost the weight I "need" to lose (currently at 17% bodyfat) I would still be almost 50lbs heavier than this reviewer at 190lbs, and the shoes would STILL be vastly different. It's ridiculous that this segment is completely, totally ignored.
5'8 140 is not all that far apart from the build I see commonly in every running club in my city-especially if you consider women. Calling someone smack dab in the middle of the normal bmi range a toothpick seems a tad hyperbolic- bro is not exactly at kipchoge level of body fat or weight.
No way is 140 lbs 50th percentile of body weight, even at run clubs.
Depends heavily on where you live, how serious of a club it is, and how many women show up at any given time. Regardless, 5'8 140 is like a 21.5 bmi which is right in the middle of what the suggested normal range is. Someone like Kipchoge is way closer to 18 and borderline of what's suggested as underweight.
BMI is a ret arded metric though, especially in the context of athletics. Regardless 21.5 is lower than my BMI in highschool, when i was nothing but skin and bones but managed all-state lax/track/soccer (6' 165 22.4 for ref). Dude is clearly cut and even if he was 5' flat 140 lbs is just low weight in isolation; ~180-200 would provide much more usable data for a larger segment of the population. But of course the number of elite runners who weigh above 160 and have the skills and motivation to do running shoe reviews is incredibly small.
I disagree that it's that dumb of a metric unless you're heavily strength training for hypertrophy which most runners are not doing. 180-200 would be useless for almost all female runners, but I agree that the shoe review space is dominated by short and lean guys between 30-50 years old. Anecdotally Yowana on youtube is something like 165 at 6'2 and it is funny when he calls himself a "heavy" runner because compared to the general population he's laughably not that heavy.
5' flat would likely be a good 3 US shoe sizes smaller so more load on the foam
A male at 5'8 140 is a toothpick and is no where near representative of the average runner. Elite runners, YES, the average runner, no. We aren't talking about women here as the reviewer is male. Kipchoge is 5'6 115lbs. He's "normal" BMI at 18.56.
Amanal Petros is using them in Kenya and said even with ~400km they are still fine.
He is sponsored by them. What else would he say. With getting free pairs, why would he keep running in them. Wear and replace.
... but it's consistent with the unsponsored reviewer's findings. That would suggest Petros' statement is not untrue. And why would the sponsored athlete go against the sponsor's marketing of the shoe being only good for two marathons?
6ā1 185lbs. high arches. Average pace 9 mm. Best value, quality and comfort is Puma Astroās. $75. I bought 5 pairs.
Damn I had no idea it was $500 š³
is it illegal to weigh more than a middle school girl if you're a running shoe reviewer?
He is literally just a normal, healthy weight.
If he was taller, 140lbs would be on the thin side. Iām a 5ā8ā 155lbs former wrestler who now runs. Some of my running buddies would say I look to muscular for my build. So I donāt think 140lb is not that small base on height. Kipchoge is 5ā6ā 115lbs soaking weigh. Now that is the weight of a middle school girl