Geoff Burns on super spikes "2021 on the track is going to look like 2018 on the roads"

PHd Shoe Expert?

I drew a few hundred pair of innovative running shoes during high school study hall. Can I have that title?

This is what sport looks like in a capitalist society. Innovation is driven by profit motive. Shoes that make runners faster make them win. That means more profits for the shoe maker as everyone will want to buy the winning shoe. The shoe makers that fall behind will have their athletes lose and will lose market share as a result.

If you think that fair sport requires every athlete to have the same high quality equipment, then what about training facilities and coaching? Should we just completely socialize sport and have everyone have access to the same equipment, training facilities, coaching, phyiso, etc.?

If your objection is that the shoes enhance performance too much, change the rules to reign in the shoes. But if the rules allow the shoes and one set of athletes gets them because of their sponsorship contract and another do not, that is just how the cookie crumbles in a capitalist society.

Interesting, but I strongly disagree that the playing field on the track is unfair, at least not to any significant or notable level. The Air Zoom Victory are, by most accounts, and in my humble, non-accredited (but in terms of spikes and shoes well versed and educated) opinion, a lateral move at best and an overengineered marketing piece at worst.

The Dragonfly can be called into question more than the victories as they are a definite improvement over the ever-popular Matumbo line, but I don't believe that they provide any sort of undue or unfair advantage. Unlike the curved plates present in the road shoes, which are a fairly new concept (the older plates were flat and the advantage provided by preventing the flexing of the MTP joints was offset by the extra load they put on the ankle), the Dragonfly only improve upon decades-old technology that has been widely accepted and utilized in the sport since at least the '70s jogging boom. Pebax/plastic plates are also nothing new for track spikes, and have been used for years in the sport without incident.

As for the shoe being "unfair", unlike certain patented technologies like Nike Air, React, Zoom Air etc., nothing is stopping other brands from using Pebax midsoles, and other brands have such as Reebok and Saucony have already done such. At this stage, the "blame" falls to the competing companies for failing to act quickly and release their own versions of the spikes as has already happened with the plated shoes (although I still disagree that the "super" spikes provide any advantage approaching that provided by the latest road shoes). Again, I'm not claiming my opinion or analysis as fact or saying that it trumps anyone else's, I just thought I would share it and see what other people thought about the matter.

I wonder what Coe will be saying when Adidas continues to eat Nike's lunch?

Good points. Also is there a typo on the quote that Wejo wrote that Geoff said? Maybe I'm missing the context but I don't get this: ""I don't think we have a shoe we don't have other spikes that are competitive with Nike" Anyway, just looking at the Physics the track is going to be a different dynamic than pavement. Top runners are really fighting at the margins of speed at 10km and below and improvements in Running Economy (vs sheer Vo2max and anaerobic tolerance) and still very high performance indicators. There are marginal gains to be made though. Whereas on the pavement (especially at the half marathon and longer) you're looking at sheer muscle failure/stress and the efficiency of fat utilization and glycogen sparing (All which come into play more with sub-maximal speeds and Running Economy around 21km and 42km race pace). Finally, as we all know carbon fiber has been in track spikes for decades. No doubt improvements in midsole technologies (lighter, more responsive etc) are going to make "distance track spikes faster", but it will be more marginal compared to longer distance races on pavement IMO. You're also dealing with less stack height (less angle and potential curvature in a plate as well as its angulation) .....as well as less surface area generally and less volume in the shoe design.... Another side note [mostly unrelated]: Geoff and I had some pretty interesting conversations last year over a couple meals together in South Africa before and after Comrades. I was under the impression that he downplayed the possible performance gains of PEDs like EPO in marathons based on our conversations...which I was surprised about given his science credentials. The guy is very smart and a great ultra runner is well though.

If Geoff doesn’t think that EPO helps distance runners, he has zero credibility

Thanks for bringing a more scientific edge to the dialogue, great points. And yeah, I'm guessing that it was a typo, maybe a missed hyphen. Perhaps he said something like "I don't think we have a shoe-we don't have other spikes that are competitive with Nike", like he switched his wording mid sentence?

sdfkjbndsbvksndfklvnskdfvkj;sdfnvdfslvbn wrote:

what do you mean PHd shoe expert? where do his qualifications come from?

He has a PhD in Kinesiology from the University of Michigan, and his research focuses on running mechanics.

briswiss wrote:

If Geoff doesn’t think that EPO helps distance runners, he has zero credibility

End of thread.

These supershoe complainers apparently want socialist 1984-style handicaps for everyone in order to ensure a perfectly level playing field.

If Burns were on a shoe deal with anyone but Altra, I doubt he’d bee complaining. Hoka was the first to the general running population, don’t hear anyone complaining about One One, only Nike.

Don't be silly - track could draw the line somewhere like swimming did with the super buoyant full body suits.

In fact, track already drew a line with the Puma super spike around the 1968 Olympics. Why can't they do that now?

This is Jim Kiler wrote:

I wonder what Coe will be saying when Adidas continues to eat Nike's lunch?

Huh?

In the last 2 years:

5k wr

10k wr

Men’s marathon wr

Men’s 1 hour wr

There should be a hyphen or comma in there but you can hear his comments on the clip.

800 dude wrote:

sdfkjbndsbvksndfklvnskdfvkj;sdfnvdfslvbn wrote:

what do you mean PHd shoe expert? where do his qualifications come from?

He has a PhD in Kinesiology from the University of Michigan, and his research focuses on running mechanics.

thank you. that makes a lot of sense and certainly justifies the PhD.

Yes yes we know that giving prohibited substances to your athletes is good for the company's image.

The reign of Nike is over. The reign of Adidas has just begun ///

So the question is, if the improved times are only down to the spikes, how come there wasn't a massive rise in mega quick times in 2019? I heard rumours of certain athletes having the shoe in 2018, but was definitely very limited if it was there. By early/mid 2019 seems that most Nike athletes had them - e.g. looks like most the women's field in Pre 1500m was in them. So from 2017 through to 2019 was there an explosion in times with all these athletes jacked up on new boing boing shoes? Mmmmm nah. Not really. Is the dragonfly a good spike? Yup, it's probably the comfiest spike I've worn. Is it as fast relative to competition as the 4%/Next% was 2016 through 2018? Doesn't look like it. Anecdotally - I haven't been able to beat my 2017 PR since getting a pair despite similar or better training buildups.

Tbh JoBros, I think if you are looking at the big reasons behind the amazing performances in 2020, you can probably put spikes behind good pacing/lights pacing, no other competitions to peak for so you could peak for time rather than champs, and lack of drug testing (spoke with one athlete in the WA testing pool who was very concerned that they were tested 12+ times in 2019, but 0 times between February and August 2020 and only twice since then).

Men's 1500:

2017:

WL - Elijah Manangoi - 3:28.80

2 athletes sub 3:30

5 athletes sub 3:32

20th fastest - Marcin Lewandowski - 3:34.04

2018:

WL - Tim Cheruiyot - 3:28.4

2 runners sub 3:30

10 athletes sub 3:32.

20th fastest athlete - Ryan Gregson - 3:34.38

2019

WL - Cheruiyot - 3:28.77

1 sub 3:30

14 sub 3:32

20th fastest athlete - Vincent Kibet - 3:33.21

Comparison? WL stayed within half a second of each other across the three years, very similar number under 3:30, 20th fastest athletes just about all within a second, though 2019 with a deeper field under 3:32 thanks to nearly half of those 14 athletes setting SBs in the Doha final when Cheruiyot went beast mode.

Men's 5000m

2017:

WL - Muktar Edris - 12:55.23

0 athletes sub 12:50

3 athletes sub 13

20th fastest athlete - Stephen Kissa - 13:13.00

2018:

WL - Selemon Barega - 12:43.02

3 athletes sub 12:50

9 athletes sub 13

20th fastest athlete - Stephen Kissa - 13:10.93

2019:

WL - Telahun Bekele - 12:52.98

0 athletes sub 12:50

10 athletes sub 13

20th fastest athlete - Stanley Mburu - 13:05.21

Comparison? Again, a marginally deeper field in 2019 but slower at the business end. Certainly not an explosion in times. Kudos to Stephen Kissa for consistency.

Women's 1500m

2017:

WL - Sifan Hassan - 3:56.14

3 athletes sub 3:58

6 athletes sub 4:00

20th best athlete - Caster Semenya - 4:02.84

2018:

WL - Genzebe Dibaba - 3:56.68

4 athletes sub 3:58

9 athletes sub 4

20th fastest athlete - Brenda Martinez - 4:02.65

2019:

WL - Sifan Hassan - 3:51.95

7 athletes sub 3:58

13 sub 4:00

20th fastest athlete - Shannon Osika/Jessica Hull - 4:01.80

This is the first discipline where there is a real spike from 2018 to 2019 at the top end. However a bunch of those sub 3:58 and sub 4 times came from the Hassan going crazy and dragging the field in that wild Doha final. by the time we get to the 20th fastest athlete - we are marginally faster but not massively, just a second between all of 2017, 2018, and 2019. Note that Adidas athletes such as Gudaf Tseguy also saw massive jumps this year (3:54.38) beating many Nike women wearing Dragonflies (Muir, DeBues-Stafford, Chebet).

Women's 5000m

2017

WL - Hellen Obiri - 14:18.37

3 athletes sub 14:30

29 athletes sub 15:00

20th best athlete - Sentayehu Lewetegn - 14:53.44

2018

WL - Hellen Obiri - 14:21.75

6 athletes sub 14:30

12 athletes sub 15:00

20th best athlete - Meskerem Mamo - 15:05.21

2019

WL - Hellen Obiri - 14:20.36

7 athletes sub 14:30

31 athletes sub 15

20th best athlete - Karoline Grovdal - 14:51.66

World leads pretty consistent throughout, steady growth of sub 14:30, but nothing outrageous. 2018 seemed a real off year for sub 15 times but 2019 is similar enough to 2017.

Thanks again for having me on!

@sdfkjbndsbvksndfklvnskdfvkj;sdfnvdfslvbn: I studied biomedical engineering for my bachelor's and master's degrees at the University of Michigan. I also worked in a running shoe store throughout all of high school and most of college. Prior to starting my PhD, I worked as a biomechanical research engineer for the University of Michigan's department of orthopedic surgery, where I did a lot of canonical materials testing (e.g. uniaxial compression, bending, torsional loading, etc) as well as cadaveric dissections and tissue testing. I did my PhD here at Michigan as well (defended last spring the day before the state and the University shut down) in Kinesiology. My dissertation was titled "Runners as Biomechanical Systems: New Approaches with the Spring-Mass Model." My lab has done both independent and contract footwear research, and I stay up to date on the scientific literature (as well as keep tabs on the market and competitive side). We've piloted some of our own work with the new shoes, so hopefully we can get those projects off the ground this year!

@joeschmoe1600: The Dragonfly is a substantial improvement over traditional spikes, and the new Victory likely is for some (albeit that is likely more polarizing mechanically - pure forefoot strikers may benefit more, or at least jive with it more, as it feels like it does not allow you to heel strike). Obviously we don't have laboratory data on them (yet), but the DF follows the same recipe as the VF. The more compliant and resilient foam (i.e. Pebax) is an improvement over traditional spikes. The plate is likely important to realize the benefits of the compliant foam, but the lack of extreme curvature under the MTP joint is probably not going to preclude its benefit over a traditional spike. There was a cool study from UMass presented this summer where they cut the plate under the MTP joint, and it didn't drastically change the effect of the shoe. I suspect it's not a 4 or 5% improvement in running economy over something like the Matumbo, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's something like 2-3% for the elites (could be more for some . Most people benefit from having a certain amount of cushioning (more than what's in traditional spikes), and the new spikes allow that while keeping weight relatively stable (because Pebax is so much less dense than EVA) and provide more of the energy back with the resiliency.

And with regards to fairness, I certainly don't think their advantage is unfair. There are now rules that define what an allowable shoe is, and they fall within them. Any other company can produce something similar, or allow their athletes to race in them in some fashion. And though its not unfair, we do need to be honest and pragmatic with how we judge performances in them. A sub-13 minute 5000m for men or a sub-4:00 1500m for women are not as impressive as they were two years ago. But as for whether the advantage they and the more substantial footwear brings is good or healthy for the sport's ecosystem and in its value proposition (i.e. human performance distilled), that's another debate.

@S. Canaday: The physics of road vs. track are far more similar than they are different, and with respect to the economy benefits afforded by the new footwear (primarily the addition of more substantial near-perfectly elastic elements under the foot at almost the same weight), runners will likely see similar patterns of effect. And yes, less likely less substantial than what we see on the roads (see above), but that's more likely due to less shoe (i.e. less geometric space) in which to optimize architecture. To the point about muscular trauma, yes - I think that potential benefit (scarce data points we have were discussed on the podcast) wouldn't be as extreme as it is on the roads, but that's also not a benefit that we commonly talk about or have robust scientific data on anyways (the 4-5% economy improvement is in immediate, unfatigued observation). But consider this: have you run a 10,000m on the track in spikes? It's definitely not a marathon, but it does a number on your legs. I ran my best 10,000m in racing flats, as I always felt like the fatigue from the spikes was a big performance decrement. Obviously Joshua Cheptegei or Rhonex Kipruto are going to have much more efficient interactions with the ground in spikes than I did, but it still stands that blunting any of the energetic cost of cushioning the body (even if very small in them) can be the difference in accessing the top gears when you need them.

Regarding the PED issues, that's for another discussion, as there's a lot of nuance. Let it suffice to say that my contention with EPO is that it's primary benefit in distance running for men has been as a shortcut (get young guys to their "ceilings" faster), band-aid for training errors (train sub-optimally but get to your "ceiling" anyways), or means to develop aerobically without the trauma of high-volume training ("liquid base phase" - i.e. for 1500m runners to preserve speed without logging big miles). However, I think the most powerful PED for athletes is testosterone (i.e. microdosing for endurance athletes, as it among other things, upregulates endogenous EPO production), and this is likely the most widely abused (and easily, without detection - see USADA report). So, in the 1990s or 2000s, almost anyone at a top level who was on an EPO regime in the was likely on testosterone as well.

@But???: Thanks for compiling all that data! It will be great to see what it looks like at the end of 2021 (assuming we have a decent number of competitions, which is not necessarily a safe assumption). A few points: 1 - The spikes weren't widely available to all Nike athletes through 2019, which confounds it a bit. We saw them on some early in the year, and then they really appeared at Doha (which had some pretty remarkable times for a championship!). That's what I was getting at with 2021 potentially looking like 2018 on the roads. If you remember, 2017 had some big marathon performances, but because of the limited availability (not even public until May), nothing that really seemed systematically off. 2018 did.

The other thing that I didn't get to on the podcast that could be really important when analyzing depth lists for the past few years, and especially for comparing times and inferring shoe "adjustments" is that in late 2018, for the first time, they opened a WADA accredited blood lab in Kenya (and Kenya was forced to start really upping anti-doping efforts, which were almost nonexistent). So, I think it's entirely reasonable to imagine that if we had never had these shoes, marathon and track times would have started to get a lot less deep and potentially slower at the top end at the end of 2018 and beyond. What I'm getting at there is that the shoes likely provided a big boost when we look at overall performance lists of the past few years, but 2019 could have also had a concomitant decrease in performance (that was masked by effect of the shoes) due to much stricter doping controls in the country that dominates those lists in the distance events.

Very nice, Mr. Burns. You have an impressive resume. I wish you luck on your endeavors!