Which shoe is faster: On Cloud Monster vs. Saucony Endorphin Pro 3
As mentioned before, I'm defining "super shoes" as sneakers with specialty materials such as foam to increase the energy return of your stride, shoes with carbon/nylon plates, or a shoe design with a heel stack of ~4-5 mm.
During each session, I measured the volume of oxygen utilized at a given speed, expressed as milliliters per minute normalized by body weight (ml/min/kg). In addition, I included energy expenditure estimates and metrics like Heart Rate, Perceived Exertion & Run power.
Lastly, I included run mechanics such as stride per minute, vertical oscillation, ground contact time, and thoughts on how each shoe felt.
Today's comparison: On Cloud Monster vs. Saucony Endorphin Pro 3
The On Cloud Monster is the shoe I've been training on for the last few months, as I wanted a cushioned shoe without any plate. Per On's site: "It offers extremely soft landings and maximum rebound, for energy return you won't believe." The softness of this shoe caught me by surprise as just walking on it felt much more rigid than other super shoes that immediately feel soft to walk around. Still, the Cloud Monster, while soft, feels very stable, and you don't have that "springy" sensation of shoes with carbon/nylon plates. The shoe is ~270g and has a 6mm Heel to Toe drop and a stack of ~40 mm.
The Saucony Endorphin Pro 3 is "for fastest tempo training & races, " per Saucony's site." It's designed with a carbon-fiber plate and a thicker stack of PWRRUNPB foam cushioning. The shoe weighs -205mg and comes with a heel drop of 8mm and a heel stack of ~40 mm.
The On Cloud Monster is very comfortable & soft, and the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) for me was around a 3 (on a 1-10 scale). It may fit my running more naturally as I've been using it regularly. The Endorphin Pro 3 didn't feel as soft or comfortable, and though if felt responsive, my RPE was higher, around 4.
You can find the testing protocol details below, but I did two times 6 min steps for each shoe running at 12 kph on a treadmill at 1% grade. I started with the On for run #1, then used the Saucony for runs #2 and #3, and finished with the On for run #4. Hence the order through the runs was A, B, B, and A to normalize for any increase in body core temp. For VO2 and energy expenditure, I took the data for the last minute of each step and averaged it among all efforts.
Before testing, I expected the Endorphin Pro 3 to yield a lower oxygen/energy cost. And for the On to have a higher oxygen/energy cost but provide better comfort. And to my surprise, that wasn't the case. The Ons yielded a lower Oxygen/Energy cost, but that could be within the margin for error for the device and me being used to running on the Ons.
Still, I would have expected for the "super shoe" with a carbon plate to have an advantage which wasn't the case. And this reinforces some of the data found in studies and my personal experience; the foam of a shoe may have a more significant impact on our running economy than a carbon/nylon plate.
Regarding mechanics, I had a slightly higher vertical oscillation with the Monster, which reduced ground contact time. I also feel more "bouncy" and like the shoe responded better to my stride with the Monster. The Endorphin just felt unnatural for my style of running.
Finally, for other markers, there was little difference from one another, which, again, was surprising for me.
In summary, the On Cloud Monster and Saucony resulted in similar oxygen/energy cost for me. The result was unexpected, as I thought the Endorphin Pros would have a clear advantage over the Monsters.
If I were going to use either shoe for a race, I would go with the Monster as they feel more comfortable and responsive for my running style. Or use the Nike Zoom Fly, which has tested the fastest for me so far.