As “super shoes” continue to change distance-running landscape, some are embracing the new technology, while others have their reservations about whether it is benefitting the sport.
1) Record book dismantled — this is fair, but like any sport the record book is messy between untested for substances (EPO) and so on. I'd argue on the track, this development is not so bad as some of the records — European at 5K for instance...come on. On the roads, I can see the downsides as there is not as much evidence that many of the marks were set in sustantially more drug-laden eras than today.
2) Differential response to the shoes — this would be really bad if some athletes are made 3% faster and others not at all. That being said, it doesn't seem to be actually a thing and more of a Chicken Little notion with Tucker/Hutchings. Find me an athlete who has NOT seen major improvement with supershoes? Molly Huddle literally the only athlete who I've heard of. OK, Shelby (rolling my eyes) had some sort of bizarre (and short-lived) notion that her basic spikes were better for her. By and large, it seems they work for all the elite athletes and it remains a pretty level playing field now that every brand has a good pair.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
1) Record book dismantled — this is fair, but like any sport the record book is messy between untested for substances (EPO) and so on. I'd argue on the track, this development is not so bad as some of the records — European at 5K for instance...come on. On the roads, I can see the downsides as there is not as much evidence that many of the marks were set in sustantially more drug-laden eras than today.
2) Differential response to the shoes — this would be really bad if some athletes are made 3% faster and others not at all. That being said, it doesn't seem to be actually a thing and more of a Chicken Little notion with Tucker/Hutchings. Find me an athlete who has NOT seen major improvement with supershoes? Molly Huddle literally the only athlete who I've heard of. OK, Shelby (rolling my eyes) had some sort of bizarre (and short-lived) notion that her basic spikes were better for her. By and large, it seems they work for all the elite athletes and it remains a pretty level playing field now that every brand has a good pair.
I'm a non responder to super shoes, but of course I'm not even subelite. I think any athlete who didn't respond to super shoes today would stick to the track as there is nothing but super shoes on the racing shoe market (one saucony shoe designed for 5k is the only other thing). A few athletes probably got out of the sport a few years ago when they realized they didn't respond, but there wasn't any big publicity on it.
There is really nothing to compare the super shoes against though. I think if there were a traditional marathon flat on the market 10% or so of athletes would elect to race in that.
There is really nothing to compare the super shoes against though. I think if there were a traditional marathon flat on the market 10% or so of athletes would elect to race in that.
I really don't believe this is the case. Most brands have some lower-stack supershoes OR regular old flats even. A 30-35mm stack supershoe (used by Sisson/Cairess) is the lowest I've seen any athlete go outside of Huddle. And those still had plates/superfoams. I guess it's plausible but there is no evidence that there are non-responder athletes.
What was once a simple, inexpensive, sport requiring "equipment" that was affordable to almost anyone has become something that you can spend thousands of dollars a year on. It depends on how you define beneficial but I think the shoes are the latest step in ruining the sport. I suppose that people who are really into records and unbelievably fast times disagree.
There is really nothing to compare the super shoes against though. I think if there were a traditional marathon flat on the market 10% or so of athletes would elect to race in that.
I really don't believe this is the case. Most brands have some lower-stack supershoes OR regular old flats even. A 30-35mm stack supershoe (used by Sisson/Cairess) is the lowest I've seen any athlete go outside of Huddle. And those still had plates/superfoams. I guess it's plausible but there is no evidence that there are non-responder athletes.
Who has regular old flats? There is a saucony shoe that barely qualifies as a flat with minimal cushioning designed for like 5k racing. I guess you see 30 mm as low stack, which makes sense if you view upper 30s to 40 as the normal. I can't think of any regular old flat (25 mm stack height or lower) on the western market besides the sinister. Nike doesn't sell a flat, brooks does not, new balance does not (they sell a lower stack plated shoe for 5k type races), adidas does not, asics does not, etc.
What was once a simple, inexpensive, sport requiring "equipment" that was affordable to almost anyone has become something that you can spend thousands of dollars a year on. It depends on how you define beneficial but I think the shoes are the latest step in ruining the sport. I suppose that people who are really into records and unbelievably fast times disagree.
Ya.
$250 (or 500 for the adidas shoes)
500 for a watch (admittedly not an annual purchase)
700 for a plane ticket to a marathon site
600 on a hotel
500 on massage equipment
.
These are just some of the costs most runners consider normal these days. I miss when running shoes were something you swung by the local running store to purchase every couple months instead of something you fretted about and read a dozen articles online to decide on.
Who has regular old flats? There is a saucony shoe that barely qualifies as a flat with minimal cushioning designed for like 5k racing. I guess you see 30 mm as low stack, which makes sense if you view upper 30s to 40 as the normal. I can't think of any regular old flat (25 mm stack height or lower) on the western market besides the sinister. Nike doesn't sell a flat, brooks does not, new balance does not (they sell a lower stack plated shoe for 5k type races), adidas does not, asics does not, etc.
There is little demand for them because they are inferior products. Also the cost of shoes is perhaps being overstated to me. If you’re OK running in the past generation of supershoes they can be had for 100-150. You only need to purchase once every 3 marathons or so.
Who has regular old flats? There is a saucony shoe that barely qualifies as a flat with minimal cushioning designed for like 5k racing. I guess you see 30 mm as low stack, which makes sense if you view upper 30s to 40 as the normal. I can't think of any regular old flat (25 mm stack height or lower) on the western market besides the sinister. Nike doesn't sell a flat, brooks does not, new balance does not (they sell a lower stack plated shoe for 5k type races), adidas does not, asics does not, etc.
There is little demand for them because they are inferior products. Also the cost of shoes is perhaps being overstated to me. If you’re OK running in the past generation of supershoes they can be had for 100-150. You only need to purchase once every 3 marathons or so.
Where does one find previous generations of any shoes expect for the limited window they're on clearance. It seems if you miss that window you're out of luck with that.
This post was edited 33 seconds after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Typo
Who has regular old flats? There is a saucony shoe that barely qualifies as a flat with minimal cushioning designed for like 5k racing. I guess you see 30 mm as low stack, which makes sense if you view upper 30s to 40 as the normal. I can't think of any regular old flat (25 mm stack height or lower) on the western market besides the sinister. Nike doesn't sell a flat, brooks does not, new balance does not (they sell a lower stack plated shoe for 5k type races), adidas does not, asics does not, etc.
There is little demand for them because they are inferior products. Also the cost of shoes is perhaps being overstated to me. If you’re OK running in the past generation of supershoes they can be had for 100-150. You only need to purchase once every 3 marathons or so.
That's actually a lot of money for many people. The conventional shoes are inferior in terms of results achieved in most cases. But this makes running more like cycling. A $250 bike bought at Wal Mart is not going to get a racer the kind of time a bike costing thousands will but it's perfectly fine for what most cyclists will do with it.
The super shoes are good for a specific kind of race but there are plenty of running events where today's super shoes are not helpful and even put the runner at a disadvantage.
Where does one find previous generations of any shoes expect for the limited window they're on clearance. It seems if you miss that window you're out of luck with that.
There’re so many types you can get Nike/Adidas/Asics/On/Under Armour/Puma. If you look at direct and Dicks/runnjng stores there’s a decent window to buy. It’s far from labor-intensive.
The super shoes are good for a specific kind of race but there are plenty of running events where today's super shoes are not helpful and even put the runner at a disadvantage.
Like what? Have they not been shown to be good for most people in road races even down to people who are nowhere near sub elite
The super shoes are good for a specific kind of race but there are plenty of running events where today's super shoes are not helpful and even put the runner at a disadvantage.
Like what? Have they not been shown to be good for most people in road races even down to people who are nowhere near sub elite
Because the Americans PR once in a race, think the shoes will do all the work for them here on our, and instead of working out - take to social media bragging
What was once a simple, inexpensive, sport requiring "equipment" that was affordable to almost anyone has become something that you can spend thousands of dollars a year on. It depends on how you define beneficial but I think the shoes are the latest step in ruining the sport. I suppose that people who are really into records and unbelievably fast times disagree.
Ya.
$250 (or 500 for the adidas shoes)
500 for a watch (admittedly not an annual purchase)
700 for a plane ticket to a marathon site
600 on a hotel
500 on massage equipment
.
These are just some of the costs most runners consider normal these days. I miss when running shoes were something you swung by the local running store to purchase every couple months instead of something you fretted about and read a dozen articles online to decide on.
These are non-essential expenses. Running is only expensive if you make it that way.
500 for a watch (admittedly not an annual purchase)
700 for a plane ticket to a marathon site
600 on a hotel
500 on massage equipment
.
These are just some of the costs most runners consider normal these days. I miss when running shoes were something you swung by the local running store to purchase every couple months instead of something you fretted about and read a dozen articles online to decide on.
These are non-essential expenses. Running is only expensive if you make it that way.
Racing isn't necessary, but it's a ton of fun and something to work for on the days you're feeling lazy. But doing races within driving distance and a hotel cheaper than that should be easily doable for most people.
1) Record book dismantled — this is fair, but like any sport the record book is messy between untested for substances (EPO) and so on. I'd argue on the track, this development is not so bad as some of the records — European at 5K for instance...come on. On the roads, I can see the downsides as there is not as much evidence that many of the marks were set in sustantially more drug-laden eras than today.
2) Differential response to the shoes — this would be really bad if some athletes are made 3% faster and others not at all. That being said, it doesn't seem to be actually a thing and more of a Chicken Little notion with Tucker/Hutchings. Find me an athlete who has NOT seen major improvement with supershoes? Molly Huddle literally the only athlete who I've heard of. OK, Shelby (rolling my eyes) had some sort of bizarre (and short-lived) notion that her basic spikes were better for her. By and large, it seems they work for all the elite athletes and it remains a pretty level playing field now that every brand has a good pair.
Huddle ran 32:50 at the Boston 10k for Women this year - just 1:30 off her all-time road PR, and at age 39 and after having a kid a year or two ago. I'd say the supershoes are helping her, now that Saucony finally has some decent ones.
