That study is crap. If true, Komen, with the new shoe technology, would have run 7:10, which is equivalent to back to back 3:52s.
Idk, a p-value that low means it’s pretty solid proof of a benefit. I find 4 seconds to a mile to be more accurate, though.
The guys in this particular study averaged about 4s/mi at 8:38 in the 3000m time trial. So if were talking about a 7:20 guy, it's not going to be quite as much gain, on average. Probably closer to 3s/mi.
Have mile times dropped six seconds across the board? Have you seen any established pros who suddenly dropped their mile time six seconds when they switched to super spikes?
Any super shoe study is going to have too many variables with too much uncertainty to tell you anything more than super shoes are faster. A much better method world be to simply average the before-and-after times of mid-career runners who made the switch.
Look at NCAA mile times. Nowadays there are about 100 guys breaking 4:00. Six years ago it was a couple dozen. The spikes are good for about 4 seconds per mile. Sorry this offends you.
Idk, a p-value that low means it’s pretty solid proof of a benefit. I find 4 seconds to a mile to be more accurate, though.
The guys in this particular study averaged about 4s/mi at 8:38 in the 3000m time trial. So if were talking about a 7:20 guy, it's not going to be quite as much gain, on average. Probably closer to 3s/mi.
Agree, at the elite level, that makes a lot of sense.
I think it echoes what other posters have said earlier: the shoes likely have a similar effect to high doses of EPO.
This study confuses me. Can somebody explain the disparity between the numbers between some of these shoes? for instance, the normal peba puma shoe (which is still a super shoe) improved performance by 1.2%, but the peba + carbon improved race time by 2.4%? The added carbon plat accounts for >5 extra seconds? Keep in mind the dragonfly has no carbon plate, is this shoe THAT much faster? Id love to know the splits of all three of these races and if the conductors of the study made sure the pace was all the same. Simultaneously, despite such a big gap of RE, the Peba outperforms the Peba +carbon by 1.1% RE? And on top of all of this, how the hell IS there a 5% RE improvement in the Peba? Remember that one study that showed carbon had a 2% RE difference?
How is the discrepancy of these so big?? Am I interpreting this incorrectly?
This study confuses me. Can somebody explain the disparity between the numbers between some of these shoes? for instance, the normal peba puma shoe (which is still a super shoe) improved performance by 1.2%, but the peba + carbon improved race time by 2.4%? The added carbon plat accounts for >5 extra seconds? Keep in mind the dragonfly has no carbon plate, is this shoe THAT much faster? Id love to know the splits of all three of these races and if the conductors of the study made sure the pace was all the same. Simultaneously, despite such a big gap of RE, the Peba outperforms the Peba +carbon by 1.1% RE? And on top of all of this, how the hell IS there a 5% RE improvement in the Peba? Remember that one study that showed carbon had a 2% RE difference?
How is the discrepancy of these so big?? Am I interpreting this incorrectly?
This study confuses me. Can somebody explain the disparity between the numbers between some of these shoes? for instance, the normal peba puma shoe (which is still a super shoe) improved performance by 1.2%, but the peba + carbon improved race time by 2.4%? The added carbon plat accounts for >5 extra seconds? Keep in mind the dragonfly has no carbon plate, is this shoe THAT much faster? Id love to know the splits of all three of these races and if the conductors of the study made sure the pace was all the same. Simultaneously, despite such a big gap of RE, the Peba outperforms the Peba +carbon by 1.1% RE? And on top of all of this, how the hell IS there a 5% RE improvement in the Peba? Remember that one study that showed carbon had a 2% RE difference?
How is the discrepancy of these so big?? Am I interpreting this incorrectly?
The spikes vs no spikes is what makes the difference in performance between the super shoes and the super spikes on the track. 5% in RE was between the super spikes vs traditional spikes. Not much more than the 4% RE improvement in the original Vaporfly study. Not sure if that was what you were asking about.
This study confuses me. Can somebody explain the disparity between the numbers between some of these shoes? for instance, the normal peba puma shoe (which is still a super shoe) improved performance by 1.2%, but the peba + carbon improved race time by 2.4%? The added carbon plat accounts for >5 extra seconds? Keep in mind the dragonfly has no carbon plate, is this shoe THAT much faster? Id love to know the splits of all three of these races and if the conductors of the study made sure the pace was all the same. Simultaneously, despite such a big gap of RE, the Peba outperforms the Peba +carbon by 1.1% RE? And on top of all of this, how the hell IS there a 5% RE improvement in the Peba? Remember that one study that showed carbon had a 2% RE difference?
How is the discrepancy of these so big?? Am I interpreting this incorrectly?
The spikes vs no spikes is what makes the difference in performance between the super shoes and the super spikes on the track. 5% in RE was between the super spikes vs traditional spikes. Not much more than the 4% RE improvement in the original Vaporfly study. Not sure if that was what you were asking about.
I was referring more to the inconsistency between studies. This study is showing 5% RE benefit to super spikes, yet a couple other studies are showing only 2%? I mean I get individual variation but there’s no way that is accounting for over a 100% difference.
Many posters have been attributing the increased depth in running elite times to the use of new shoe technology. Does the study address that issue? If it only benefits slower runners, someone improving from 32:00 to 31:40 is not that big a deal.
You guys are tiresome, changing hat others say. No one is claiming that it only benefits slower runners. But it benefits slower runners more in terms of absolute time. Let me give you an analogy. What is more impressive? A 2:55 marathon runner improving to 2:48 or a 2:05 one improving to 2:03? One improved by 7 minutes, the other by 2. That doesn't mean the shoes benefit the slower runner more. It's probably as hard for one runner to take 7 minutes off his time as for the other to take 2.
I agree with your example, as I do believe the new road racing shoes are worth about a minute for the HM and 2 for the marathon. I couldn’t care less about the affect on a 2:55 runner.
Does this study support the claim that the increase in the number of people running elite is do to the new shoes? It doesn’t seem to.
That study is crap. If true, Komen, with the new shoe technology, would have run 7:10, which is equivalent to back to back 3:52s.
The study is not crap. These are not world-class runners. Research has shown that faster performers get modestly less % gain in race velocity (there is a study that gives reasonable correlations) at a given gain in running economy, however, they will still get gain in race velocity.
World class runners will always benefit relatively less from improvements in tech. They are already at the cutting edge of human ability and there's not much that can give them more of an edge besides that which works directly on their physiology (i.e., more training; drugs).
Have mile times dropped six seconds across the board? Have you seen any established pros who suddenly dropped their mile time six seconds when they switched to super spikes?
Any super shoe study is going to have too many variables with too much uncertainty to tell you anything more than super shoes are faster. A much better method world be to simply average the before-and-after times of mid-career runners who made the switch.
Uh, yeah, at HS and college level mile times are down around 4 seconds/mile - so not far off.
The spikes vs no spikes is what makes the difference in performance between the super shoes and the super spikes on the track. 5% in RE was between the super spikes vs traditional spikes. Not much more than the 4% RE improvement in the original Vaporfly study. Not sure if that was what you were asking about.
I was referring more to the inconsistency between studies. This study is showing 5% RE benefit to super spikes, yet a couple other studies are showing only 2%? I mean I get individual variation but there’s no way that is accounting for over a 100% difference.
I'm not sure which studies you are talking about. If you provide a link, I'd like to check them out. That being said, a great study by Joubert and Jones in 2022 showed that not all "super shoes" are that super. Only 3 of the 7 "super shoe" racers showed any significant gains in RE at all, on average, among the subjects. Also, a study on elite Kenyan distance runners showed wide variations in runner RE to the exact same super shoes, with some runners having better RE in the traditional racer than the super shoe being compared to, but responding great to another super shoe model.
Have mile times dropped six seconds across the board? Have you seen any established pros who suddenly dropped their mile time six seconds when they switched to super spikes?
Any super shoe study is going to have too many variables with too much uncertainty to tell you anything more than super shoes are faster. A much better method world be to simply average the before-and-after times of mid-career runners who made the switch.
Look at NCAA mile times. Nowadays there are about 100 guys breaking 4:00. Six years ago it was a couple dozen. The spikes are good for about 4 seconds per mile. Sorry this offends you.
It's a real shame that 3:28 man Cheruiyot never popped a 3:24 after getting a pair of the new spikes, he must've gotten slower, all the sub 3:30 guys as well are actually 3:34 guys...
Classic Gen Z: Takes the time to write a post to whine, but doesn't take the time to read the OP (in which names of actual shoes are explicitly stated.
Agreed. Also, it has been documented in research by Kipp et al, in 2019, that running at slower velocities permits greater gains in % velocity at the same given running economy.
This is the best news I've heard in a long time for me and my aging, slower velocity peers.
Look at NCAA mile times. Nowadays there are about 100 guys breaking 4:00. Six years ago it was a couple dozen. The spikes are good for about 4 seconds per mile. Sorry this offends you.
It's a real shame that 3:28 man Cheruiyot never popped a 3:24 after getting a pair of the new spikes, he must've gotten slower, all the sub 3:30 guys as well are actually 3:34 guys...