Mechanical doping: Vienna Marathon winner DQd as his adidas midsole was too thick. Publicity stunt?

cdtnbk wrote:

midwest guy wrote:

Who cares? How much better did runners get when they decided to stop making spikes out of leather with giant nails on the bottom? Or when they decided to stop making tracks out of dirt and cinder? Technology always advances, that's part of the sport.

More foam also feels better than a "traditional" minimalist racing flat. Why should World Athletics be requiring runners to pound their bones directly on concrete? Seems like the foam would also help prevent injury.

The only reason there could have been an improvement in performance from leather to nylon is weight. Period. This is like saying “Athletes experienced an improvement in performance by switching to nylon running singlet instead of a heavy canvas shirt.” I know they never used canvas running shirt but you get the point. If times improved it was because of a reduction in weight the runner had to carry and not because of some revolutionary tech improvement that enhanced performance. I would even go so far as to say the only real advantage was comfort. I bet times really didn’t improve much initially but I could be wrong.

Ron Clarke raced on both cinder and synthetic. All of his PB were set on cinder. It took several years after the introduction of synthetic for his records to be broke. Jim Ryun raced on both cinder and synthetic and never ran a mile faster than he did on cinder. When synthetic was finally introduced in the late 60s Ryun’s WR was finally broken 6 years later by Bayi. The tracks were so revolutionary (sarcasm alert) that it it brought the record down by .1. It took 6 years and the record only dropped by .1. If there is something to be said of synthetic it’s that they’re easier to maintain and runners will generally run faster because, you know, they’re running on a more even surface and not because it offers some sort of magical performance enhancement. This is like comparing cinder to running on sand. Is cinder some revolutionary surface? Well… no… it’s just not sand.

You can justify the shoes all you want but running has never seen such a revolutionary improvement in technology since the development of anabolic steroids in the 70s or EPO in the 90s. How many WR and Olympic and National records went down this year? I mean you had some HS kid run 3:34 this year! Guess what shoes he was wearing?

midwest guy wrote:

cdtnbk wrote:

The only reason there could have been an improvement in performance from leather to nylon is weight. Period. This is like saying “Athletes experienced an improvement in performance by switching to nylon running singlet instead of a heavy canvas shirt.” I know they never used canvas running shirt but you get the point. If times improved it was because of a reduction in weight the runner had to carry and not because of some revolutionary tech improvement that enhanced performance. I would even go so far as to say the only real advantage was comfort. I bet times really didn’t improve much initially but I could be wrong.

Ron Clarke raced on both cinder and synthetic. All of his PB were set on cinder. It took several years after the introduction of synthetic for his records to be broke. Jim Ryun raced on both cinder and synthetic and never ran a mile faster than he did on cinder. When synthetic was finally introduced in the late 60s Ryun’s WR was finally broken 6 years later by Bayi. The tracks were so revolutionary (sarcasm alert) that it it brought the record down by .1. It took 6 years and the record only dropped by .1. If there is something to be said of synthetic it’s that they’re easier to maintain and runners will generally run faster because, you know, they’re running on a more even surface and not because it offers some sort of magical performance enhancement. This is like comparing cinder to running on sand. Is cinder some revolutionary surface? Well… no… it’s just not sand.

You can justify the shoes all you want but running has never seen such a revolutionary improvement in technology since the development of anabolic steroids in the 70s or EPO in the 90s. How many WR and Olympic and National records went down this year? I mean you had some HS kid run 3:34 this year! Guess what shoes he was wearing?

Maybe runners didn't see an improvement from all weather tracks immediately, but you cannot seriously argue that mondo tracks don't provide significant energy return to the runner over cinder or concrete. Galen Rupp would not run 26:44 on a cinder track.

Foam and carbon plates have existed for decades. The difference now is that shoe companies have figured out how to use these technologies to help runners. Reducing impact is a good thing. It's time to embrace new technologies instead of forcing runners to pound their bones on concrete with uncomfortable rubber slippers.

So what if world records are being broken? That's what they are there for. There will always be some old retired runner bitching about how advancements in shoes/track/nutrition/training would have made them way faster. Sour grapes.

cdtnbk wrote:

midwest guy wrote:

Maybe runners didn't see an improvement from all weather tracks immediately, but you cannot seriously argue that mondo tracks don't provide significant energy return to the runner over cinder or concrete. Galen Rupp would not run 26:44 on a cinder track.

Foam and carbon plates have existed for decades. The difference now is that shoe companies have figured out how to use these technologies to help runners. Reducing impact is a good thing. It's time to embrace new technologies instead of forcing runners to pound their bones on concrete with uncomfortable rubber slippers.

So what if world records are being broken? That's what they are there for. There will always be some old retired runner bitching about how advancements in shoes/track/nutrition/training would have made them way faster. Sour grapes.

Don’t worry. The time will come when runners obliterate current times just by strapping on the latest and greatest. If you think super shoes are the end all be all of technology just wait - it’s only the beginning. 20 years from now it’ll be fun to watch junior high school kids kick out sub 14:00 on practically no effort. “How?” You ask - technology!

Current runners bitching about the old generation bitching about new technology because they know their performance depends on it. Be hilarious to watch some college dope lose his dragonfly’s and have to put on regular spikes knowing he’s already behind the game. How does it feel to know half your effort is dependent on what shoes your wearing?

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Ho Hum wrote:

I think the issue here is that the rule doesn't really make sense, i.e. adding more stack doesn't make this shoe any faster. I mean, weight does matter to a point, and this weighs over 9 oz.

Somebody else alluded to this but this is a fundamental point. These products (from all brands) use super surface-tension, easily compressible, foams. The need to so they can cushion but still enable maximum force transfer from the foot to the ground surface.

So all the hype and panic around stack heights is kind of stupid because there is a point of diminishing returns with respect to this.

1) Weight (as you pointed out) - more material, no matter how light = more weight

2) Geometry based stability (someone else pointed out) - at some point if a midsole made of soft material is so high off the ground it simply will become inherently unstable - even when running on a flat surface in a straight line

3) To my point above, what is happening with the foam during the foot-strike is that it is easily and quickly compressing under the athletes applied force. The ideal scenario is for the foam to be basically packed out as firm as possible right under the athletes foot in the fractions of a second prior to pushing off. If this happens the compression process has provided the cushioning and the resultant compressed foam provides the platform for the maximum amount of energy/force to go into the ground - the number one determining factor in how fast you run (Newtons third law). All of this needs to happen in the 200-300 milliseconds that the foot is in contact with the ground. If it doesn't meet these conditions the shoe isn't as efficient as it should be.

So just pumping up a stack height as high as possible is kind of meaningless. Because at some point there simply isn't enough foot-strike time for the foam in the shoe to be compressed down to it's optimal level. When that happens the effect can be dramatically reversed as the amount of wasted energy/force per step can be significant - especially over a marathon and the 20000+ steps even for elites.

Maybe that is why despite an illegal shoe we only saw 2.09.22 which by todays standards is a very average performance?

littlecube wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Somebody else alluded to this but this is a fundamental point. These products (from all brands) use super surface-tension, easily compressible, foams. The need to so they can cushion but still enable maximum force transfer from the foot to the ground surface.

So all the hype and panic around stack heights is kind of stupid because there is a point of diminishing returns with respect to this.

1) Weight (as you pointed out) - more material, no matter how light = more weight

2) Geometry based stability (someone else pointed out) - at some point if a midsole made of soft material is so high off the ground it simply will become inherently unstable - even when running on a flat surface in a straight line

3) To my point above, what is happening with the foam during the foot-strike is that it is easily and quickly compressing under the athletes applied force. The ideal scenario is for the foam to be basically packed out as firm as possible right under the athletes foot in the fractions of a second prior to pushing off. If this happens the compression process has provided the cushioning and the resultant compressed foam provides the platform for the maximum amount of energy/force to go into the ground - the number one determining factor in how fast you run (Newtons third law). All of this needs to happen in the 200-300 milliseconds that the foot is in contact with the ground. If it doesn't meet these conditions the shoe isn't as efficient as it should be.

So just pumping up a stack height as high as possible is kind of meaningless. Because at some point there simply isn't enough foot-strike time for the foam in the shoe to be compressed down to it's optimal level. When that happens the effect can be dramatically reversed as the amount of wasted energy/force per step can be significant - especially over a marathon and the 20000+ steps even for elites.

Maybe that is why despite an illegal shoe we only saw 2.09.22 which by todays standards is a very average performance?

The achievement of super shoes is that they address these points. Longer carbon fiber or very lightweight plastic shanks address the stability issues. The new foams address compaction. Thinner outer soles address weight.

The signs of the next step can already be see in the carved out portions of these shoes - carve out most of the middle part and only have foam for the forefoot and heel.

Longer legs from genetics or taller shoes means less energy to run at the same speed and more speed at the same cadence. The shorter legged runners benefit more from these taller shoes.

littlecube wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Somebody else alluded to this but this is a fundamental point. These products (from all brands) use super surface-tension, easily compressible, foams. The need to so they can cushion but still enable maximum force transfer from the foot to the ground surface.

So all the hype and panic around stack heights is kind of stupid because there is a point of diminishing returns with respect to this.

1) Weight (as you pointed out) - more material, no matter how light = more weight

2) Geometry based stability (someone else pointed out) - at some point if a midsole made of soft material is so high off the ground it simply will become inherently unstable - even when running on a flat surface in a straight line

3) To my point above, what is happening with the foam during the foot-strike is that it is easily and quickly compressing under the athletes applied force. The ideal scenario is for the foam to be basically packed out as firm as possible right under the athletes foot in the fractions of a second prior to pushing off. If this happens the compression process has provided the cushioning and the resultant compressed foam provides the platform for the maximum amount of energy/force to go into the ground - the number one determining factor in how fast you run (Newtons third law). All of this needs to happen in the 200-300 milliseconds that the foot is in contact with the ground. If it doesn't meet these conditions the shoe isn't as efficient as it should be.

So just pumping up a stack height as high as possible is kind of meaningless. Because at some point there simply isn't enough foot-strike time for the foam in the shoe to be compressed down to it's optimal level. When that happens the effect can be dramatically reversed as the amount of wasted energy/force per step can be significant - especially over a marathon and the 20000+ steps even for elites.

Maybe that is why despite an illegal shoe we only saw 2.09.22 which by todays standards is a very average performance?

The achievement of super shoes is that they address these points. Longer carbon fiber or very lightweight plastic shanks address the stability issues. The new foams address compaction. Thinner outer soles address weight.

The signs of the next step can already be see in the carved out portions of these shoes - carve out most of the middle part and only have foam for the forefoot and heel.

Longer legs from genetics or taller shoes means less energy to run at the same speed and more speed at the same cadence. The shorter legged runners benefit more from these taller shoes.