Amazing: The Vaporfly Controversy Has Come To Cross Country - Vaporfly Wearing Teams Stun Fields at Northeast Regional

They should dump cross country altogether and replace it with a road racing season.

probably has more to do with being better on roads than XC. Personally I have raced the same people on road vs xc and would be over a minute behind on xc course and then beat them on road course.

tgi. wrote:

We would have gladly bought some if they grew on trees. We basically were given a blank check to buy flats Wednesday night. Unfortunately, they were not available to us on a 36 hour notice.

We raced in other shoes and got crushed by some of our peer teams in Vaporflys. And I coach a mid-pack Regional program.

You had all day Thursday to find Vaporfly’s and didn’t? I can think of at least 3 places within walking distance of my house that have them. Don’t tell me an assistant coach couldn’t have driven an hour away to give your athletes a better chance to succeed.

inthepdx wrote:

They should dump cross country altogether and replace it with a road racing season.

I like both: alternate road and xc years. Or at least make the 10000 at spring nationals a road race.

Gone back and forth on whether to share this. Finally decided to.

https://bijanmazaheri.wordpress.com/vaporflys-in-the-womens-di-northeast-regional/

Results are not 100% given the variances, but certainly merit discussion. Does anyone know which mens teams wore VFs? I can do the same analysis. This actually provides a pretty rare opportunity to be able to measure the improvement from the shoe.

Thanks for Modelling. Harvard 3rd and Cornell 5th is an interesting result.

+1

I wish all the ‘men’ who are complaining about it being moved would actually look at the course conditions before calling everyone babies.

Hayduke wrote:

probably has more to do with being better on roads than XC. Personally I have raced the same people on road vs xc and would be over a minute behind on xc course and then beat them on road course.

2 of Cornell’s top 3 women are world class triathletes so they likely have lots of road racing experience. I don’t think they were so high on the team previously.

Dr. Van Nostrand wrote:

FloTrack is an ugly, toxic stain on Collegiate and pro running. A festering cancer that sucks the life out of an already struggling sport. I really, really hope they go away.

just bumping this lovely and transparent comment.

Interesting analysis. I agree that it should be taken further by comparing ladies who actually wore the shoes vs those that did not. Flotrack offered a somewhat choppy finish line cam but I think it is possible to identify the bright green or pink on each finisher.

Okay, I didn't read through this whole thread yet, and I could be wrong, but:

Doesn't the IAAF have a rule about the thickness of soles on jumping shoes--12mm (and maybe 25mm at the heel?) or something like that? The rule was actually imposed decades ago, when Soviet high jumpers had been breaking records while wearing shoes with *very* thick soles for the takeoff foot.

Why not impose a similar rule on shoes for the running events? The "pillow" shoes that people are wearing now are ridiculous and obviously confer a considerable (costly) advantage.

Look, I'm the Big Red Fan. I'm thrilled to death that the Cornell women advanced to the NCAA final, and I'm glad that Mike Henderson, who seems like a decent guy and stepped into a tough situation this fall, is getting some positive recognition. But *come on*--a team that could only finish sixth in its conference meet, qualifies for Nationals two weeks later? It's the shoes!

All of that said: Don't hate the players, hate the game. Cornell and Harvard played within the rules. It's the rules and not the athletes or their coaches/schools that deserve criticism, and need to change. Congrats to the Big Red and Cantabs!

Also, bear in mind that the Cornell women historically have "stepped up" in lousy weather conditions.

This is what I was hoping someone would do. The men’s list is far more extensive, and I might be missing a few but this’ll be a good start.

Harvard, Dartmouth, Cornell, Syracuse, UConn, UMass Lowell’s top 3, Misai from Hofstra, Fordham, Brown, and Marist.

There could very well be more but that’s about the end of the list of where it actually matters.

because you are jumping OVER something so the stack height clearly matters....

extreme example: do you think you could runner faster on stilts? probably not. do you think you could scissor over a high jump in stilts? yes....

One thing that's being overlooked a lot here is the placebo effect. I'm not saying that VFs don't make a difference, but, so far, we've done nothing to separate real difference from expected difference. If we want something near certainty on this question we have to block an experiment to account for the possibility of the placebo effect.

Is there any doubt anymore that the vaporflys help significantly?

We have various scientific studies, the NY Times Strava study, marathon times in general,

athletes comments and now cross country results.

I think they should put some regulations on it pretty quickly. Not only because

of fairness, but it seems to be getting awfully close to changing the nature of

at least the marathon.

My understanding is what changes in the marathon from the half marathon

is 1) at about 20 miles you run out of carbohydrates and 2) the physical pounding

of running 26 miles as fast as you can (your speed is pretty related to how hard

you are hitting the ground, so if you wear more padded shoes it reduce it, not

only are they heavier but you will run slower due to that--apparently not the case

for these shoes).

That 20 miles, with the 'scientific' drinks and the added efficiency of the shoes,

seems to be getting closer and closer to not being there, and for 2) athletes have

come right out and said it is reduced.

So, looking to track season, as my kid's team didn't qualify for nationals.

Despite claims that the shoe only helps for marathon type distances, I think

it is pretty clear they are a help in any distance event. So what

should the shoe strategy be? Do you need to do some training in the vaporflys

to get used to them, as they apparently change your gait a bit, or would just using

them for races work?

Is the curve of an indoor track too tight? How about a banked track?

turtleb wrote:

Is there any doubt anymore that the vaporflys help significantly?

We have various scientific studies, the NY Times Strava study, marathon times in general,

athletes comments and now cross country results.

First question. Yes, there is.

Second paragraph. Various scientific studies. Where? That's a serious question. I could be wrong; there could be real scientific studies out there that establish actual statistical significance, but I'm not aware of any at this point. The NY Times Strava study is just a bunch of people uploading race results. There was no experiment there that would account for a placebo effect and establish statistical significance. Same for marathon times in general. And what we're referring to now aren't cross country results. They're road race results. And they don't move the statistical significance meter one micron forward. Nobody has established anything about what happened yesterday that would rule out the placebo effect.

Everything we have so far can be explained by the placebo effect. And Nike is riding high off the perception that these shoes are worth every penny of the $250 they charge. It's a good position to be in, if you can get there, and people who excitedly affirm that the Vaporflys are everything the rumors say they are, and maybe more, are almost literally dumping money into Nike coffers.

past his prime wrote:

Second paragraph. Various scientific studies. Where?

They got their 4% original name from treadmill studies of oxygen consumption.

Hard to see how a placebo effect is going to make you use less oxygen.

Here is reference to another one (from Hutchinson article in Outsideonline.com):

"The study involved 14 runners training for the 2017 Portland Marathon,

who were divided into two roughly equal groups running in either the Vaporfly 4%

or the conventional Zoom Pegasus 34. Immediately before and after the marathon,

they gave blood samples and completed a soreness survey. Sure enough, the

Vaporfly runners showed lower levels of three blood measures of muscle damage

and inflammation (lactate dehydrogenase, white blood cell count, interleukin-6) after

the race, by between 15 and 43 percent. They also reported significantly less leg soreness."

LInk:

Again, placebo effect might affect the survey, but seems a stretch to say it can affect,

for example, white blood cell count.

NCAA should add the half marry at natties and dump the 10k on the track. Make it a standard. You hit the standard.. you're in. No standard you're out.