The temptation for many runners, when their pocket allows it, is to choose the fastest shoe available, associating it with factors that are often too simple, such as lightness. The reality is somewhat more complicated and in this article, in addition to comparing 2 models for long-distance runningJoma R1000 vs R3000 we will try to explain why the technically slower shoe, in certain circumstances, can be the faster option. It all depends on the speed of the runner and the distance to be covered.
For a better understanding of the comparison, we will divide the analysis into 3 phases:
- Cushioning / Landing: From when some part of the shoe touches the ground, to full support.
- Reactivity / Full Foot: The time with the sole from heel to toe in contact with the ground.
- Propulsion / Take-off: From the time the heel starts to take off, until the foot loses contact with the ground through the toe.
Cushioning
I want to start by pointing out that the design of both Jomarunning shoes in terms of contact stability is much improved over the original Joma R1000, as these were certainly unstable on uneven floors and curves. If we focus strictly on cushioning, one of the manually detectable differences between the two shoes models is the density of the cushioning in the soles. R3000 are denser than R1000 and this is a factor that should not be overlooked.
Joma R3000 durometer test
The harder shoe, having less compression capacity, transfers a greater magnitude of impact to the athlete's lower body than the softer shoe. In the campo tests performed we can observe a reduction of 10 to 15 ms in contact time in favor of the Joma R3000.
Joma R1000 durometer test
The reduction in contact time implies an increase in speed, in this case we could establish this improvement in something less than 1 km/h more in sustained speed, which is a very important improvement. However, it is essential to internalize that what alterations of less than the 5 of contact time, entail increases of more than the 5 in impact forces. Therefore, this gain in speed will have direct effects on the runner's impact resistance capacity.
In my particular case, the Joma R1000 reduce impact forces measured in acceleration Gs by almost 10%, which my legs appreciate in the long run when the speed is submaximal and of long duration.
Put another way: the Joma R3000 tend to reduce the cushioning endurance time of runners not sufficiently adapted to that speed and contact time. One of the challenges in future carbon sole construction will be to match the reactivity of the plate to the cushioning capacity of the plate, depending on the speed (contact time) of the runner.
- Practical application: The Joma R3000 would allow me a good 5 in my case, but above 20k, because of my speed and limited physical condition, they leave my legs prematurely empty.
Best-sellers
Joma running shoes
Reactivity
This ability is directly related to the carbon plate. Prior to the incorporation of carbon, shoes were almost completely non-reactive. It measures how much we can bend/extend the plate when we step on it and how much force it will return in propulsion. It acts like a spring that can be harder or softer depending on the thickness, length and angulation of the plate. This is the main improvement that carbon has brought to running shoes and on which we are studying how to make it more effective by altering the lengths and configurations of the plates to optimize this spring mechanism.
Joma R3000 vs Joma R1000 dynamometer tests
As can be seen the dynamometer hardly finds any difference between the two forces of reaction to the extension of both plates. It could be said that they compare similarly or that they are functionally comparable.
- Practical application: When comparing different plates between brands and models, it is convenient to know the level of reactivity of this (it can be assessed manually by stretching the shoe resting it on the break of the sole and checking which one makes more force and which one less to return to its natural position). Full plates return more energy than half plates, but imply the need for a refined running technique that optimizes the use of these and a physical condition of greater eccentric strength.
Propulsion
Thanks to the rocker design (the prominent upward curve of the sole at the forefoot) the toe-off of both shoes is on par with the best levels of propulsion currently available on the market. There are no significant differences between the two models, neither in the measurements nor in the toe-off time (time from full contact to loss of contact with the ground). The function of these rockers is to facilitate the transit of force from the metatarsals to the phalanges, since it is no longer necessary for the foot and the shoe to bend as much as before.
This design facilitates the work of the distal extensor structures, such as the soleus, calf and plantar fascia, as well as all the muscles that extend the toes. Remember that these structures are often overloaded and injured, so the rocker can be a design system that helps in the prevention and recovery of these types of injuries.
- Practical application: If you have never used rockers, I recommend you try models like the Joma R2000, without carbon plate, to experience this new functionality that has come to stay and that may help you to better manage some overloads of the extensor chain of the foot.
Summary
The Joma R3000 is a shoes for runners close to or under 4 min/km, not overweight, with mid/forefoot running technique. On this premise, depending on the functional capacity of the subject, you should assess the maximum distance in which they can be used.
The Joma R1000 are shoes for runners close to or above 5 min/km, with mid/forefoot technique and in principle would tolerate a little overweight. They will adapt better to the subject the more distance they are required to run.
Upgrade options: The carbon plates have completely changed the way the foot deforms over the shoe on contact and the use of more flexible laces than the standard ones is an interesting upgrade option to find the right tightening pressure while running.
Read more news about: Running News
