No shade: Emily Sisson’s record w/ super shoes vs Deena Kastor’s?

So what are you suggesting? We all run in leather shoes, with floppy socks on cinder tracks.

It's people like you who think we should still be riding around with a horse and buggy. Forget about electric lamps. Candles and kerosene lighting is good enough for me. Inter/web/net and things like that, who needs them. Maybe small pox and polio vaccines should be banned because it gives an unfair advantage to todays populace that wasn't available a few generations ago.

Some people are just dumb, ignorant, mentally disturbed or still can't break 18 minutes with new technology.

The ‘less materials —> less money’ is something a below-average consumer might assume (not calling you that just that it is so rarely the case). Size 7 shoes cost the same as size 13 for a given model yet they have a lot less material. Same for clothing (in all but rare cases and extreme sizes). Yet, the effort to produce a shoe like the Pacer can’t possibly only be 60% of what it takes to make the Elite. It seems New Balance is clearly either a. taking advantage of the pricing model championed by Nike or b. attempting to make back a lot of their development money selling the Elite model. Or a combination of both.

Regardless, the appeal to me of the Pacer far outweighs that of the Elite.

Some posters said in Jenny Simpson to Puma thread that NB fell behind in the super shoe race and basically NB is a has-been. Now people are like did Emily lower the record solely (pun not intended) because of her NEW BALANCE shoes. It is to laugh.

straw man goes home devastated

No, numbskull. Nobody said that.

And nobody asked for your CV, either.

Thank you for the reply. I'l endeavor to try being a better poster since you used a $150 college educated phrase, actually since it's Latin, I'll grant you $1,000 for that phrase. Do you have any other Latin words for me or the way I post?

Fire away. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

I'm not accusing you of being one, but keyboard cowboys crack me up. It's like they think any response to one of my posts is going to make me lose sleep at night. lol.

And, by the bye, I only post on here to have fun and give my 2 cents, or to actually help runners who ask serious questions. Do you reply to runners looking for advice?

I'm also skeptical about claims of better nutrition, at least in American athletes. The single biggest change in American nutrition in recent decades is probably the greater caloric intake coupled with decreased physical activity. I understand that some might say that this doesn't apply to serious distance runners, but I don't believe that's accurate. (There. was, in fact, a study of top American marathoners published in Track and Field News some years ago that showed a marked increase in BMI from one generation to the next. In addition, very low BMI is much more discouraged these days, especially among women, and those changing attitudes have an effect throughout the whole population, including promising long distance runners.)

As for the Sissons vs. Kastor debate, it feels somewhat beside the point to me, because I consider Joan Benoit's victory over Ingrid Kristensen in the 1985 Chicago marathon to be the best marathon performance ever run by an American woman.

Purists often live unhappy lives.

I think a better alternative would be to have different categories of performances for different surfaces and shoe types. So I would definitely reintroduce cinders and grass tracks and hold major meets on them - this would be like tennis which has maintained competitions on different surfaces. In races I would have competition categories for super shoes and normal shoes as well as barefoot and I would probably give the most prize money to the barefoot category. If we followed the barefoot records then we could see the progress in performance independant from the technological improvements in competition footwear.

Lol. You double counted moran. You can't go +2 for one and -2 for the other for the same variable that's worth 2.

You either compare a fake 2:20:29 to Dina's 2:21:36 or you compare 2:18 to 2:19.

You must be a congressman.

Everyone will tell you Kastor would have been faster, but none of them know. The research shows that not everyone responds similarly to super shoes, and some don't improve their efficiency at all; it depends a lot on running style.

So the answer is anywhere from "Kastor would have been faster" to "it wouldn't make a difference, Sisson would still be queen." Sisson is faster.

Because Two Minutes applies a rule that doesn't exist.

It's a really good shoe and probably works very well for Sisson, but it's not a super shoe. It's better than what Kastor wore back in the day for sure, but on the normal curve of technology improvement. Sisson outperformed Kastor.

I see the two minutes mentioned a lot. Does this mean Denis Kimetto is actually better than Eliud Kipchoge?

What a joke. The world marathon record has been beat on average every other year for decades and decades. Dennis Kimetto ran 2:02:57 in 2014. So you're saying he would be 2:00:57 in super shoes and it would be a record that lasts more than 8 years, likely even longer since I doubt anyone including Kipchoge will be running faster than that in the next few years? From when Khalid Khannouchi ran WR of 2:05:38 in 2002 to Dennis Kimetto's 2:02:57 in 2014 the world record got broken 6 times in those 12 years, so every other year on average. And got broken by an average of 27 seconds. Let's say the trend contined every other year since 2014 but the average dropped down to only 20 seconds. We'd expect the world record today to be 1:20 faster, or 2:01:37... Which is what the record was a month ago... The trends lead pretty much exactly to where we are today, and in another 5 years we'll have a record legal sub 2:01, probably around 2:00:40 or so by somebody. Not because of new shoes, but because times have been trending faster forever as more people train hard and take cracks at the old record, pushing the limits of what people can run. Every world record people wonder if that's the fastest a human can run, and yet those records constantly get broken. 2:02:57 8 years ago was not the peak of human marathon running.

The shoes make a difference of at best a minute to these top runners in the world, possibly less, definitely not more. Just like shoes in the 1980's probably weren't as good as shoes in the year 2000.

So, impolite but informative.

A NYT report estimated a 4-5% edge for most marathoners.

That puts Emily in the 2:22-2:23 range. I think that's conservative -- the elite gains are probably smaller than average -- but really we don't know.

Would love to see RCTs where runners get assigned to wear the super shoes or not...

nytimes.com

Nike’s Fastest Shoes May Give Runners an Even Bigger Advantage Than We Thought (Published 2019)

By Kevin Quealy and Josh Katz

Data from more than 1 million races.

Link:www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/13...

Love that you link a thread about NIKE shoes for a runner wearing new balance

You said during your Jog. While running in super shoes I thought the same thing.

And another thing -Keira had the record not Deena. She should be part of this conversation. Also Sara Hall still has energy in the tank and is capable of grabbing the record too yes with the best shoes and training techniques available in 2022.