The shoe is heavy, which, along with the odd look and reported weird clunky sound are what initially put me off. the Vaporfly Next%, but it won't be far off. As far as I can tell I am every bit as quick in the Tempo Next% as in the Vaporfly Flyknit, probably again due to my forefoot strike. My cadence tends to be lower wearing the Tempo Next% than when wearing the Vaporfly (Flyknit, or Vaporfly Next%).
The air pods seem to be the main reason behind this forefoot response. The impression I have from the Tempo Next% is that, in spite of the high heel stack height, it is a running shoe much better suited to mid-to-forefoot strikers than the Vaporfly 4%, the Vaporfly Next% and the tempo training shoe to have preceded it - the Pegasus Turbo. In spite of their age, the Tempo Next% also just a few days ago powered me to a new Half Marathon PB of 1h 28 mins 58 secs. I've continued to train almost exclusively in the Tempo Next% since then. This allowed me to run longer injury-free, and ultimately train for a 39 minute Bristol 10K in September (though I wore the Vaporfly Next% for the event). As a 42 year old whose joints aren't the best and who suffers lower back problems, I felt an immediate benefit from the sheer level of cushioning and shock absorption. Eventually though as the Turbo became more scarce, I bit the bullet and decided to give the Tempo Next% a shot.įor me personally the shoe has been something of a revelation. With Nike discontinuing the Turbo and Turbo 2, we ended up scouring eBay etc. Initially my wife and I (both experienced runners) were very skeptical of the shoe, as avid fans of the Pegasus Turbo. Just wanted to post a quick review of my pair of Nike Air Zoom Tempo Next% after 450 miles.
0 kommentar(er)
