Wearing Nike 4% shoes is no different from using EPO

I raced for two year (2012-2013) in the Adidas Adizero Rush racing shoe. What was the special innovation of that shoe: the "Sprint Frame" super plastic stiff insert that was sandwiched between the cushioning and the sole of the shoe. It was a fast shoe, and quite stiff. The main innovation of the 4% is the soft cushioning coupled with the carbon insert. It's just an expensive shoe that works well for a good number of people. I don't use it because I don;t do marathons and don't need a shoe like that, but that's all it is. Kipchoge smashed the WR because he's one of those generational athletes that redefines top performance in their event.

http://runboston365.com/wp-content/uploads/files/2012/06/adidas-adizero-rush-3.jpg

The things you mention are mot that many worlds apart. I believe the rule is that a shoe needs to be "generally available" to all competitors, or something along those lines. Why would the 4% not meet that standard? It is generally available. It's expensive but that's not the same as unavailable. If you're under contract to another shoe company you may be prohibited from using it. But that doesn't mean it's not available. Can those things be issues? ? Sure. But isn't Reebok's Floatride or whatever it's called about as expensive as the 4%? (I'm not really up on Reebok's line but I know they have a real expensive shoe on the market now.) There's no practically identifiable price where a shoe is generally unavailable. some people could pay twice what the 4% sells for and not bat an eye and some would struggle with a $100 price tag or even less.

Personally, I don't like the trend the 4% represents. The simplicity and relative cheapness of running was one of the things that I loved about the sport. But technology changes things. When wheelchair racing came along the people doing it were racing in actual wheelchairs, the same kinds of things you see in hospitals and old folks' homes, the same wheelchairs that the racers used every day to get around. Now no wheelchair racer would have a remote chance of being competitive without some high tech thing that costs more than a lot of the cars I've owned did. And we may be getting to the same point with running shoes no matter how much some of us may dislike it.

In that case any pair of shoes makes you a cheater because your performance in shoes is better than it would be had you not worn shoes.

One is against the rules, therefore is cheating.

One is not against the rules, therefore is not cheating.

This is literally in person. I’ve checked all of the previous cheaterfly posts, this is all down to one individual.

They are either (a) an employee of a rival company, (b) a massive forefoot striker ergo not getting any benefit from the best shoe ever invented or (c ) a paranoid schizophrenic cross dresser. Or, obviously, all 3.

Point being, go away mate, you’re boring us all.

EPO is a innovation too.[/quote]

EPO is meant for cancer patients and the like who have extremely low RBC counts/hemoglobin due to chemotherarpy and radiation. It was not meant for athletes to increase performance. The shoes are meant to increase performance and they do.

They are a jump in shoe technology. By the logic of the OP, every improvement in shoes over the last 100+ years would be "cheating".

If they were considered an unfair or illegal advantage IAAF would have banned them.

Listen kids wrote:

I look down on hobby joggers who wear these cheater shoes. As a pro, I understand. But as hobby jogger, it's just pathetic.

You'd never guess but nobody really gives a f#ck that you are looking down on them.

This thread is a great advertisement for Nike 4%.

Wear our shoes.

You'll run so fast, people will think you're on drugs!

Vaporfly Asterisk wrote:

innovation, my dear. wrote:

It's called innovation, just like when pole vault poles, tennis rackets, football helmets, and golf clubs innovated. Other shoe companies are welcome to innovate too.

^ This guy gets it!

Or like when the teams decided to add mechanical aides on to the bikes and the tour dear France became a motorbike race. Best innovation ever in sport that one. Who needs EPO - vroom vroom!

^this guy doesn't get it!

Actually it seems more like when they introduced carbon fiber race wheels to the tour, but ok...

glegswest wrote:

In that case any pair of shoes makes you a cheater because your performance in shoes is better than it would be had you not worn shoes.

Food for thought right here:

humanoid waste wrote:

EPO is a innovation too

EPO is meant for cancer patients and the like who have extremely low RBC counts/hemoglobin due to chemotherarpy and radiation. It was not meant for athletes to increase performance. The shoes are meant to increase performance and they do.

They are a jump in shoe technology. By the logic of the OP, every improvement in shoes over the last 100+ years would be "cheating".

If they were considered an unfair or illegal advantage IAAF would have banned them.

There's a difference between improving how a shoe fits and feels etc. And wearing a shoe that propels one to a faster time.

The Worst Defence, I don't think you understand how the 4% shoes work...

"The results were somewhat unexpected. The bending of the carbon fiber plate stored and returned energy at a rate of 0.007 watts per kilogram with each stride. In comparison, the squashing and unsquashing of the thick ZoomX foam returned 0.318 W/kg—more than twice as much as either of the other shoes, and about 45 times more than the plate. So the shoe definitely functions like a spring, but in this analysis it’s the foam midsole rather than the stiff plate that makes almost all the difference in the shoe’s contribution to energy savings."

Reference:

The bottom line for me is i have zero doubt Kipchoge would ran the time he did with Zoom X cushioning only and no plate.

I meant "not ran" the time he did. He could prove people wrong. I would love see no plate and Zoom X cushioning only shoes used in multiple races with their elite runners for comparison.

Technology advances over time, and the VF 4% are one of those advancements. Arguing that everyone should just continue to run in slow shoes because that's how it's always been, is ridiculous. This tech will trickle down to other shoes, other vendors, and the field will again be even. It's a running shoe. There are no springs, there's no propulsion, just efficiency.

There is no worse argument than: That's how it's always been.

Do the test with the Pegasus turbo and the vapourfly and the Zoom Fly at the same paces and heart rate. The Pegasus turbo performs very well compared to the other two

Creased wrote:

Technology advances over time, and the VF 4% are one of those advancements. Arguing that everyone should just continue to run in slow shoes because that's how it's always been, is ridiculous. This tech will trickle down to other shoes, other vendors, and the field will again be even. It's a running shoe. There are no springs, there's no propulsion, just efficiency.

There is no worse argument than: That's how it's always been.

Cycling and swimming have both banned "improvements in technology".

Cheater 4% shoes wrote:

In my book someone wearing Nike 4% shoes is no different from someone using EPO/other forms of blood doping. Both are cheating. And if you wear Nike 4% shoes, you are a d-bag. The difference is clear. Marathon world record before EPO got on the scene: 2:06:50. A decade later: 2:06:05. A difference of about 1%. The world record before cheater 4% shoes: 2:02:57. The record afterwards: 2:01:39. A difference of about 2%.

AKA "I've never done EPO and have no clue what I'm talking about." Try both and you'll see there is NO comparison. NONE. It's not even close.

In the three marathons I've done since November, these were my times and which shoes I wore:

3:17.22 - Skechers Razor 2

3:01.38 - Hoka Tracer 2

3:01.30 - Vaporfly 4%

All three races on flat'ish courses with some rolling hills, between 500~600ft of overall elevation gain. Pretty comparable. No crazy downhill courses or anything.

Hard to say. I fell off a lot sooner in the Skechers and my feet were hurting pretty bad. The Razor 2s are not an ideal marathon shoe for me.. bad choice. I attribute the slowest time to the Skechers and how bad my feel & legs hurt. Could have been unrelated... but I doubt it. The Razor 1 was much better and I heard the Razor 3 is the same.

In the other two.. I went out with the same goal and started to fade pretty much at the same spot with the same symptoms. Can't say I felt any better or worse with the Hokas vs. the Vaporflys. My Hokas still look new, whereas the Vaporflys have a solid chunk of foam missing out of the bottom on each side. And the Hokas were half the price. I almost prefer the Hokas.. but have no real complaints about the performance of the Nikes. Again, hard to say. Recovery time was about the same for all three. This whole "I felt great the day after my marathon thanks to the Vaporflys" did not apply in my case. I was thoroughly trashed after all three races.