The funny thing is that a lot of the people who deny their effectiveness are the ones who are shelling out $200+ per pair on a regular basis.
If they're so useless, why are you spending all that money on them?
The funny thing is that a lot of the people who deny their effectiveness are the ones who are shelling out $200+ per pair on a regular basis.
If they're so useless, why are you spending all that money on them?
trollism wrote:
The funny thing is that a lot of the people who deny their effectiveness are the ones who are shelling out $200+ per pair on a regular basis.
If they're so useless, why are you spending all that money on them?
Because they're the most comfortable racing shoe out there, and prevent injury. Far fewer calf/achilles injuries with the new shoes. The old flats of the past have always felt terrible compared to trainers, and now you have 'super shoes' that feel as comfortable or more comfortable then trainers, and are way lighter than trainers. Perfect recipe for being worth a lot of money. Nowhere in there did I mention the ability to run faster in them.
I agree, overhype wrote:
prevent injury. Far fewer calf/achilles injuries with the new shoes.
Wouldn't that in itself make them faster than old shoes? Even if they didn't improve race performance (they do), they would in the long run make you faster because you can train harder and longer with them. I have no issue with the new shoes, but you can't deny they have an effect.
2 runners show up at a track , both have PRs of 4:59 run the previous week in the same race. Mr. Nike representative offers them both a pair of the zoom fly next % and gear for a year to the runner that runs the fastest mile. One runner who does not believe in the super shoe effect , turns down the super shoe.
Guess who runs 4:49;and who runs 4:59 ?
umm, nope wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
There is a placebo effect on a lot of people who want to believe in them and are delusional about running mechanics.
A placebo effect can't break world records, and there's nothing out of the ordinary in the progressions, except maybe in half marathon which is easily explained by the explosion in elite participation.
I admire your commitment to finding very single thread on this site and figuring out a contrarian take. It's quite impressive.
You're at least trying to be a smartazz instead of just plain nasty, but... nope.
Everything I wrote is true, and all the haters including you are foolishly seeking revenge for the cognitive dissonance it caused you. You're better off rethinking things and ending up wiser.
Disagree? Let's hear your take on running mechanics, and why you think a bouncy shoe should be an advantage. I think you won't; you sense I know what I'm talking about. You'll just come back with some more snark.
Imagine trying to do that on a cycling forum, a sport where you can't just BS your way through the physics.
Matt Fox/SweatElite harasses one of his clients after they called him out
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Ingebrigtsen brothers release incredibly catchy Olympic music video (listen here + full lyrics)
Per sources, Colorado expected to hire NAU assistant coach Jarred Cornfield as head xc coach