You have had some time to evaluate them. What do you prefer now?
A month or two back I replaced the shoes I had been training in with some Adidas Sambas that I found for a good price online. I liked them pretty much immediately, especially because my somewhat flat / overpronating feet appreciated the strong arch support under the insole.
However, because Rip has frequently stated that pulling in weightlifting shoes can help activate the quads more, I was curious about trying a pair...so when the Powerlift 3.1s went on sale recently, I picked up a pair. I didn't like the lack of arch support so I pulled out the flimsy insole and replaced it with a Superfeet "Blue" I had on hand.
Both are Adidas size 11.
So how much difference is there between them in terms of height from the bottom of the sole to where the midsole meets the body of the shoe?
Heel: Samba - 7/8" Powerlift 3.1 - 1"
Powerlift is 1/8" taller at the heel
Midfoot: Samba - 12/16" Powerlift - 13/16"
Powerlift is 1/16" taller at midfoot
Forefoot: Samba - 5/8" Powerlift - 1/2"
Powerlift is 1/8" shorter
Difference in height from forefoot to heel: Samba - 1/4" Powerlift - 1/2" Net difference 1/4"
Difference in height from midfoot to heel: Samba - 2/16" Powerlift - 3/16" Net difference 1/16"
I haven't yet decided whether I prefer pulling in the Powerlift 3.1's more than I do in the Samba, I think I need some more time with them...but...looking at the numbers I doubt that the slight differences in geometry will make a huge difference in how far I progress regardless of which one I ultimately prefer.
You have had some time to evaluate them. What do you prefer now?
I'm quite content with the Powerlift 3.1's. It took me a few workouts until I got used to the extra bit of quad activation.. They are very stable and fit my average width foot well.
I use them for all my lifts from pulls to presses and I continue to advance my LP.
At this point, the Sambas, (which I also like quite a bit), are used three times a week for short periods of HIIT with kettlebell swings, so they haven't gone to waste.
Hope that is helpful.
Just to be clear, I don't think Rip would refer to "quad activation" in anything but a derogatory manner. But yes, his argument was that one of the benefits of a lowish heel is more recruitment of the quadriceps. You're extending the knee: the quadriceps are activated.
Quite right. I posted too quickly in an effort to respond to the question, and worse yet, before my first cup of coffee.
For my penance I'll recite a couple of "Our Coach, who art in Texas" and endeavor to go and sin no more.
Thanks for the correction. I hope Rip will find it in his heart to forgive.
Satch, I wasn't offended in the least, it's all good. I was just trying to have a little fun at my own expense. I'm actually glad you corrected me as it's a much more precise and accurate way of putting it.
And, as you say, the little bit of heel does help me to extend my back which has been helpful. (Long legs, short torso, medium to long arms.)