Letsrun Maximal Cushioning Article is completely false right from the gun

You come to LRC for facts???

Additionally, why do they incessantly talk about training shoes not being record eligible?

Completely false right from the gun? WRONG! It's not wrong until the SECOND SENTENCE. Checkmate, bucko!

Short people like the high stack shoes because they make them look taller.

That's bc Wejo and rojo suck at journalism

To make this data useful, it needs to further break down the reviewers by the times they are running in races and see if there is a difference in what shoes competitive runners, elite runners , etc prefer. I'd take 3 good reviews of a shoe by guys placing well in local competition over every runner reviewing their favorite shoes. In short, there are a lot of runners who don't really know what they are doing, why they are doing it, and approaching running from a having fun or staying fit primary perspective.

I come for discussions on vaccines and conspiracy theories!

LOL

We come from good quotes of Rojo:

I come here for the occasional good article written by Gault.

What do you expect from two ivy league college graduates ?

now as ever, cushiony shoes only train you to absorb impact with the wrong body parts. And this catches up with you eventually, cushions or not! Most cartilage loss is forever.

I would like to see the data points on the figures with the loess smoothed best fit line.

Not only were the stacks wrong, but they also ignored other higher-stacked shoes like the Prime X (50mm).

Side note, my browser crashed three times before I was halfway through the article.

Anyway, quick TLDR:

-People like higher-stacked shoes.
-Stacked and light is even better

-Stacked and heavy is less ideal

-The more cushion in a shoe, the more cushioned the shoe is.

and worst of all it lead perfectly into a big advertisement. I think that it was made by an intern not the brojos though.

You are correct about the FuelCell. The original revision has a heel stack of 47mm. This link got incorrectly changed in editing (the new version's stack height is lower). This has been reverted with a correction noting the change.

As for the Tempo Next%, different sources disagree about the stack height. Some list 46mm (such as Runners World's review), some list 45mm. Measurement differences across sources in stack heights of 1mm are not uncommon. For example, Runners World will often come in 1mm higher than Running Warehouse.

We classify the Prime X as a carbon-plated supershoe and do not group it with training shoes. As such it was not in this analysis.

One could argue that all illegal shoes (>40mm) should be grouped with trainers since they're not race-legal, but we draw the line at keeping carbon-plated shoes in a separate category.

We collect data on self-reported average training pace, but not PRs. Many people do not report their average training pace, and we suspect there is a good bit of measurement error for those who do report it, and so doing reliable analyses adjusting for training pace is more challenging.

PR data would be interesting but is onerous to collect and we're unlikely to get enough people willing to submit all that data who also review shoes to be able to make meaningful claims.

Nevertheless, the data suggest that fast runners still rate high stack height shoes strongly. For example, if you model cushioning rating (out of 10) as a function of stack height and weight, a 1mm increase in stack height is associated with a .04 increase in rating. If you condition on average training pace as well, the partial correlation actually slightly goes up in size. We do not publish detailed model-based analyses of everything, as that would require a lot of technical detail probably not fit for a general audience. But we did explore these types of considerations and contextualized all our claims in consideration of them. We have no reason to "cheer for" large stack heights to be preferred by runners, but they certainly appear to be.

Capping